If that's what squire meant, then yes, I don't see that as cynical. But
somehow that's not how it came across to me in his original post.
Although Tolkien does call Bombadil a representative of the pacifist point of
view, I accept that there are also significant differences between Bombadil and
Frodo. I have often made the point in the past that comparison must go
with contrast, and vice versa. But the fact that there are contrasts does
not mean there are no comparisons to be made. They are both pacifists,
and they are the only pacifists in the books. They both renounced
control, even if they did so for different reasons, and in different moods.
Ok, perhaps I can concede this much: there is no direct evidence that
Frodo learned about renouncing control and taking a "vow of poverty," so to
speak, from Bombadil. And the indirect evidence is inconclusive. My
theory about that will have to remain Utterly Unproveable. But because
they are the only two examples of pacifism in the book, can we at least agree
that it is worthwhile to compare and contrast Bombadil at the beginning
of the book and Frodo at the end? And I would hope that when Frodo gets
to Valinor and gets his healing, he may indeed resemble Bombadil in all ways,
including his
joy.
“I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)” (From Tolkien Letter # 131.)
Tips for posting in the Reading Room.
