[HN Gopher] Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bo...
___________________________________________________________________
Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
Author : ibobev
Score : 269 points
Date : 2022-07-28 12:45 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (km-515.livejournal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (km-515.livejournal.com)
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I remember reading this several years ago, and I find it to be a
| plausible theory and pretty terrifying. I know it likely isn't
| canon and that TB is just a happy entity.
| [deleted]
| Trasmatta wrote:
| > Possibly the least liked character in The Lord of the Rings. A
| childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object
| to his absence from all adaptations of the story.
|
| I've been a fan of Tolkien for decades, and this doesn't match up
| with my experience at all...Tolkien fans seem to generally love
| Tom, and many were deeply disappointed that he wasn't in the
| movies (even though his exclusion makes perfect sense). Did I
| just run in different Tolkien circles than the author?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I agree! an impish godlike figure that doesn't care all that
| much about the outside world and wants to sing and dance around
| in the woods? what's not to love.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I've seen both sides. My first time reading it I think I was
| just baffled. Now I enjoy him as an enigma.
| illuminerdy wrote:
| Yeah, I've never felt the way about Tom Bombadil that the
| author implies. I find his character fascinating. But I also
| understand why Jackson didn't include him in the movies.
| There's only so much you can do before a movie becomes
| unwieldy.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Yeah Jackson even explained that in one of his interviews.
| Bombadil doesn't really contribute anything to the main plot
| of the books or the character development of the hobbits.
| He's a mysterious interlude that never appears again or has
| any effect on the plot development or outcome. It just wasn't
| possible to justify giving him precious minutes in an already
| long movie, and would likely have confused audience who
| hadn't read the book yet.
|
| But I'm also not aware of anyone who actually dislikes him,
| as the article asserts.
| alrlroipsp wrote:
| I absolutley agree with you! I remember reacting badly seeing
| first movie in cinemas when they had left out Tom. I brought it
| up many times with friends that it was the biggest mistake to
| exclude him, but many argued he is not central to the story. I
| have never ever heard anyone dislike Tom.
|
| I even read the Tom Bombadill songs child book.
| halostatue wrote:
| I skipped Tom Bombadil--even on my rereading of the cycle.
| Completely irrelevant to the story and entirely Tolkien the
| Old English professor marking time. Absolutely nothing is
| lost from the quality of story by dropping him, and ignoring
| him makes the whole series _more_ accessible.
|
| Then again, I'm not one of those folks who considers Tolkien
| sacrosanct. I generally think that he's a bit like George
| Lucas: a pretty good idea guy, some interesting ideas, but
| not the best person to write the stories.
| sigzero wrote:
| That is one the top 10 complaints about the movies "No Tom
| Bombadil?!!". So yeah, entirely wrong.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I think it depends on whether or not it's the sort of fan who
| read the books once, perhaps after seeing the Peter Jackson
| movies, or the sort of fan who reads them every few years. You
| are perhaps the latter sort.
| ycombinete wrote:
| I'm really surprised by this as well. Every fan I've spoken to
| also believes that he was sorely missed as a point of
| perspective to the story.
|
| His contentment with his place, and his power. That he was here
| before this war, and will be here afterward.
| simplicio wrote:
| I like him in the books, but he also seems like a really good
| example of why making movies their own thing instead of
| slavishly following the source material is a good idea.
| There's no way having the hobbits break the tense flight from
| the Shire->Rivendale for a weird musical number with an
| unexplained character who's never referenced again in the
| story would've been anything but confusing for the film
| audience.
| lordfoom wrote:
| There is even an active sub-reddit of fans:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
|
| And his absence from the films was remarked upon, negatively in
| my circles.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| > And his absence from the films was remarked upon,
| negatively in my circles.
|
| Yeah, same. On Tolkien forums in the early to mid 2000's, I
| think these were the most commented on complaints about the
| movies:
|
| * No Tom Bombadil
|
| * No Scouring of the Shire
|
| * Movie Faramir vs book Faramir
|
| * The Ents deciding to _not_ help Merry and Pippin at first
| (tbh, this is the one that still gets me the most. It sort of
| ruined a key attribute of the Ents just for a tiny bit of
| extra tension for a short scene.)
|
| I'm probably missing some, but those were the ones I remember
| coming up the most.
| teddyh wrote:
| Don't forget the how the entire character of Gimli the
| dwarf was replaced with some sort of clown.
| PeterCorless wrote:
| They lost me at dwarf tossing.
| teddyh wrote:
| The axe to the ring was bad enough, but when the
| character later explicitly suggested that they go through
| Moria, ranting about food and beer, that's when I knew we
| had gotten a clown on our hands. By the time the tossing
| was discussed, I was thoroughly disillusioned about the
| character, and expected no better.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| With that one line of dialog I was snatched out of this
| carefully crafted fantasy world and pulled back to our
| (rather sad) present.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, in literary fandom generally, anything other than
| faithful transcription from page to screen often generates
| outrage.
| ncmncm wrote:
| I was mainly irritated that the ents had knees.
|
| That the whole Sauron business was a local and temporary
| nuisance seems central to the roles of Tom B and the ents.
| The ents' complaint was, in the end, only with Saruman.
| philbarr wrote:
| No Saruman vs Gandalf rematch in the original films. It was
| included in the director's cut but then you could see why
| they left it out.
| aposm wrote:
| I was so baffled by reading this opening paragraph that I
| assumed the entire post was meant to be read as a tongue-in-
| cheek or "edgy" theory, not a serious discourse on the books.
| Was I wrong??
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| No, not wrong. I'm not sure whether the post is serious, or
| just trying too hard for an edgelord take.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| I read that and was like, "wait what? I must be a loser for
| liking him."
| [deleted]
| mabbo wrote:
| I tried to read LoTR when I was 11. I got to Tom Bombadil and
| just gave up. 70 pages of him singing with no real point. I
| just couldn't go on.
|
| I finally read it in full around 5 years later.
| slavik81 wrote:
| The first LotR movie released when I was in grade nine. IIRC,
| of the 14 students in our class, 11 started reading the books
| after the movie. Of those, maybe 4 finished. The boredom of
| Tom Bombadil was the cause of a lot of the dropouts.
| Hayvok wrote:
| As a kid I would get bored and skip the Tom Bombadil section
| - it was only years later as a young adult and I was starting
| to get deeper into the lore that I found him to be a
| fascinating character, with deep implications.
|
| Absolutely agree he needed to be dropped from the theatrical
| release. Would have been nice to see him in the extended
| edition though.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| Your experience matches my own. For me and my circle Tolkien's
| works were a draw in part because of how much lore and detail
| was in the world and yet there were huge mysteries all over
| that ignite the imagination. Tom was one of those, and as kids
| he was a source of long debates about how powerful he was, and
| as we got older and read wider and deeper he still prompts
| conversation on nature, the nature of power, mystery in story
| telling - he's the reason I read the Kalevala. Anyway -Tom's
| awesome and this blog post did not resonate with me much at
| all, I was glad to see this and most of HN's comments in
| response.
| [deleted]
| jfengel wrote:
| Possibly. But I know a lot of people who find Tom irrelevant to
| the plot. It looks more like a silly digression just at the
| time the book had shifted from "Hobbit sequel" to serious epic.
| He talks in poetry that can feel singsong and childish.
|
| Tolkien fans seem to focus on the bit with the Ring, which is
| an engaging enigma without a resolution. It makes him seem very
| important and powerful, but the story doesn't explore it much.
| It's a small part of a chapter that otherwise can feel like a
| distraction.
|
| So a lot of fans, I think, are happy to see him go so you can
| get to better developed characters like Elrond and Aragorn.
| There is a lot more going on in that chapter, especially if you
| read it closely, but I can see why a lot of people are happy to
| skip on to the barrow wights, where the stakes are higher. Even
| if the ending to it is just "Tom comes back to fix it".
| nonameiguess wrote:
| It provides some pretty key context to where Merry got his
| blade from and why it is able to break the spell and make the
| Witch King killable. Bit of a better explanation than Eowyn's
| "I am no man."
| nindalf wrote:
| Merry's sword was Numenorean, but there was no need of that
| entire digression to get Merry a Numenorean sword. The
| movie has Aragorn tell them "here are some weapons, help
| yourselves", which is just as good.
| yborg wrote:
| You can argue that much of the books can be eliminated
| because they're just not Hollywood, reading is for
| boomers after all.
|
| The origin of the blade is relevant because they nearly
| died in getting it, and because it came from the tomb of
| a prince who himself died battling the Witch King, so in
| a sense he obtained vengeance from beyond the grave.
| "Wow, this sword just turned out to be magic, what a
| coincidence" isn't nearly the same thing.
| ghaff wrote:
| Film--even a whole trilogy of films--is a different
| medium from books. Books are in general much more
| tolerant of diversions that don't move the story forward.
| Bombadil was pretty much a diversion.
|
| The films also had to deal with the fact that the LoTR
| books had a _lot_ of material after the ring was
| destroyed--and that 's not even counting all the material
| in the appendix of RoTK. Say whatever positive things you
| like about LoTR but the narrative structure of RoTK in
| particular is a bit of a mess.
| adamc wrote:
| I don't think it was "a mess" (just reread it this
| spring). Books support a lot more alternatives to
| structuring a story than most movies, with their tight
| time limits, want to explore.
|
| That doesn't mean movies are better: in fact, movies are
| clearly more limited and worse, from the point of view of
| telling long, complicated stories. But people enjoy
| movies (me too), so... compromises.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Reading is more popular with younger generations than
| boomers.
|
| Reading had a massive renaissance with gen z and
| millennials have always read more than boomers.
|
| The idea that the youth consider reading as geeky and
| boring is itself and outdated idea from the 80's.
| jon_richards wrote:
| I think "I am no man" is a perfectly good explanation in
| the movie. It implies that the witch king is relying on a
| prophesy he doesn't fully understand (rather than a spell).
| "If Croesus goes to war, he will destroy a great empire."
| morelisp wrote:
| There's also a strong tie between this kind of prophecy
| and Tolkien's (and Anglo-Saxon literature generally's)
| love of the riddle form; "riddles in the dark" draws
| clear inspiration from Vafthrudnismal, which doubles as
| both prophecy and riddles. Along these lines, I also
| recommend Adam Roberts's _The Riddles of The Hobbit_.
| CamouflagedKiwi wrote:
| I don't recall it explicitly making him killable? Eowyn
| still finishes him off in the book without (I assume?) an
| ambiguously magical blade.
|
| I always thought it was more of a misleading prophecy, very
| like Macbeth (probably inspired by? Tolkien certainly drew
| some inspiration from Macbeth in other areas); "No man of
| woman born" and "Not by the hand of man" are both
| interpreted as "can't be killed" but really turn out to
| have very significant loopholes.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > But I know a lot of people who find Tom irrelevant to the
| plot.
|
| Probably the people who most need to understand why he is in
| there.
| corrral wrote:
| Notably: plot isn't the only factor at play in a novel (or
| film, et c.). At least in the good ones.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I like Tom a lot but my own theory as to _why_ he is in
| _The Lord of the Rings_ is because Tolkien had already
| created him. You get a sense that the world-building
| Tolkien did began with a somewhat more fairytale-like world
| with characters like Tom Bombadil. First _The Hobbit_ and
| then _The Lord of the Rings_ took the world up to something
| less childish, more ... Arthurian?
|
| Tom was at that point a round peg in a square hole, but
| Tolkien shoehorned him in nonetheless.
| dbingham wrote:
| The comments on this thread make it seem more likely that
| your circle of people who disliked Tom is the outlier rather
| than those of us who thoroughly enjoy him as a character.
|
| Also, I submit as evidence this scifi.stackexchange thread:
| https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1586/who-or-
| what-w...
|
| I think Tolkien fans, on average, have long enjoyed the
| mystery that is Tom.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _I think Tolkien fans, on average, have long enjoyed the
| mystery that is Tom._
|
| If there's one thing a true lore fan adores, it's an
| ambiguous but textually-supported mystery.
|
| And also, it's fitting that Tolkien left a big "Is Deckard
| a replicant?" mystery untied in the Ring trilogy.
| sn41 wrote:
| Huh. It never occurred to me that Deckard could be a
| replicant. That truly did come out of left field :D But
| it makes sense.
| lief79 wrote:
| I had to tell a couple people (generally college aged) to
| skip that chapter in order to get them to continue reading
| the books (around the time that the movies were coming
| out), as he wasn't important to the rest of the narrative.
| I know I was questioning if I wanted to finish the books
| when I read that part in 6th grade. The rest of it
| obviously made up for it.
|
| From your link, the set of comments under the first answer
| also shows there is clearly a debate.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Your experience isn't everyone's. Your friends missed out
| in my opinion.
|
| Tom = awesome
| kagakuninja wrote:
| That experience was mine, and I believe most of my
| college gamer friends.
| xxs wrote:
| Since my school days, I have not met anyone who dislikes Tom.
| mrzool wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. I loved Tom Bombadil when reading the book
| as a child!
| eric_cc wrote:
| 100% agree with you. Tom was my favorite character and an
| essential one in my opinion. I was one of those people that was
| deeply disappointed by his absence.
|
| Tom is entirely beyond caring about "good" or "evil". His peace
| is such a vital contrast to every other character and has stuck
| with me over time.
| Aerroon wrote:
| > _Tom is entirely beyond caring about "good" or "evil". His
| peace is such a vital contrast to every other character and
| has stuck with me over time._
|
| I think characters like that can make the world seem more...
| worldly. It gives a perspective that everything doesn't just
| revolve around the central plot.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| > Tom is entirely beyond caring about "good" or "evil". His
| peace is such a vital contrast to every other character and
| has stuck with me over time.
|
| Yeah, exactly this. To me, Tom is a part of nature, even
| moreso than the elves or the ents, which isn't really good or
| evil. That's another reason I didn't like this post at all.
| Tom isn't some malicious force, biding his time until Sauron
| leaves when he can dance upon the corpses of the Hobbits.
| He's a mystery, a hint at the depth of the world, and a
| curious aspect of nature.
| selimnairb wrote:
| A good point. He is an indifferent character, much as nature
| is indifferent to humanity. However, to "humans" experiencing
| peril, indifference can feel like evil.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Global Climate Disruption is (1);a looming catastrophe for
| human civilization, (2) potentially a major setback for us
| as a species with a population crash from billions to
| millions, but (3) barely a hiccup to the biosphere, just
| one among many pulses of extinctions.
| fritztastic wrote:
| I was disappointed he was not in the films, however everyone
| else I know was glad of this omission. I think his character
| adds a certain something- maybe something a lot of people don't
| appreciate. Not including him in the movies, I thought, was a
| missed opportunity.
| cloverich wrote:
| There's a bit of selection bias going on w/ Tolkien fans vs
| readers of the book in general. I know many people who read the
| and loved the book, disliked the sections on Tom (at least,
| beyond a few pages of it), and have never participated in any
| Tolkien fan community. I suspect "fans of the book" meant more
| the casual rather than the hard-core fan you are alluding to.
| [deleted]
| anupj wrote:
| I stopped taking the article seriously after I read this line.
| IMO Tom Bombadil was a very likeable character. The author
| seems to have imagined a problem (where none existed) and then
| proceeded to explain why it's not a problem. Almost a
| clickbait.
| jccalhoun wrote:
| Agreed. Back when Aint it Cool News was popular I would see
| tons of people complaining about Bombadil's absence.
|
| Personally, I hate Tom, not because he is childish, but because
| of the damn songs.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| Hah, I love Tolkien, but I still skip all the songs. They
| just never work for me in written text.
| zikzak wrote:
| I was like you once, then I read The Hobbit to my son and
| had to (HAD TO) sing all the songs to him. It kind of
| forced me to slow down and appreciate them as atmosphere
| enhancing and world building that really does improve the
| experience for me.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| Yeah, I've gotten a lot of positive comments for my character
| "Tom Bombabil" in FFXIV. It's kind of an insider thing for who
| read the books vs who just watched the movies. Personally, I
| liked him just for carefree and silly he was.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Reading it again as an adult (read outloud in full to my
| daughter when she was 11 or 12 or so, before watching the
| movies) I really liked Bombadil. But I didn't dig that section
| at all when I read the books as a 14 year old. It seemed
| whimsical and childish. More fairy tale than the overall dark
| and serious epic tone in the rest of the book.
|
| I see the Bombadil portion and the sections after it as Tolkien
| making the transition from _" I'm writing a sequel to The
| Hobbit with a similar feel"_ to _" I'm writing a sequel to my
| Silmarillion, with much more mature and darker themes"_. I
| think Bombadil fits more in the style of The Hobbit
| (fundamentally a children's book) than the larger Quenta
| Silmarillion.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Yeah, I can't get past that sentence either, and it's the 2nd
| sentence. I just don't get the impression they know what
| they're talking about and have serious doubts about spending
| time reading the rest of it.
| lucideer wrote:
| Absolutely thought "I must be living in a bubble" when I read
| this: I don't think I've spoken to a single book-reader who
| wasn't vocally disappointed by the omission of Tom from the
| films. He was certainly one of mine & my sibling's favourite
| characters.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Agree. Tom represented a couple of things for me when reading
| the books.
|
| First, he represented all the small pockets of unknown magic
| that could exist in Middle Earth. I would stare at the map of
| Middle Earth in the front of the book and wonder about the
| parts not covered in either _The Lord of the Rings_ or _The
| Hobbit_. What strange things might be there? Tom heightened
| my sense of wonder about the world.
|
| But second, Tom showed up just as the hobbits seemed to have
| met their darkest hour. You can dismiss this as _deus ex
| machina_ on the part of the author, but it was a needed break
| from the stress and anxiety that had been building to a
| crescendo at that point. And I thought perhaps Tolkien was
| suggesting that sometimes you have to trust in the
| benevolence of strangers -- or that some higher power is
| watching over the most vulnerable.
| lisper wrote:
| > He was certainly one of mine & my sibling's favourite
| characters.
|
| Why? He doesn't actually _do_ anything except drone on and on
| about the color of his boots. He doesn 't advance the story
| in any way (which is why it is so easy to omit him in
| adaptations).
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| He's extremely mysterious and in a good way. He is one of
| the only characters able to just casually put on the one
| ring with seemingly no effect and then give it back
| immediately afterwards. I think he gives off eldritch
| horror vibes, but in a mostly benevolent way. If everyone
| else were ants, he would be an etymologist intrigued by our
| behavior or something.
| xxs wrote:
| > He is one of the only characters able to just casually
| put...
|
| He is the only character in the middle earth that can do
| that actually. The ring, and its immense power, has
| control over everyone else incl. Gandalf, Galadriel, and
| Sauron.
| lisper wrote:
| > He is one of the only characters able to just casually
| put on the one ring with seemingly no effect and then
| give it back immediately afterwards.
|
| OK, that's fair enough. But to my mind, this is just a
| setup that cries out for an explanation that never comes.
| It's a major flaw in the dramatic structure of the
| narrative, a bug not a feature.
|
| But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about
| that.
| fleetwoodsnack wrote:
| The naive reader's expectation of conformity to dramatic
| structure is an expectation that plenty of authors have
| played with, for reasons including stylistic effect,
| subtext, and for fun. It's not a flaw, bug, feature, or
| other arbitrary and inappropriate use of software jargon.
| corrral wrote:
| How do you feel about the works of David Lynch?
| PeterCorless wrote:
| See, that's the best part. It's what makes people "fall
| into" Middle Earth. That there was whole parts of the
| backstory that don't get explained. That there are
| periods of history you get a glimpse into to believe
| there is a huge depth to it. That the way we see the
| continent now is not how it always was. Who were the
| barrow wights? Why were they cursed?
|
| As a kid first reading it, I feared the barrow wights as
| much if not more than the Nazgul.
|
| The whole aside was to show that the hobbits had truly
| "left the Shire" and that perils lay along the road in
| any direction they might turn. But, again, there were
| allies or, at least, guides all along that road as well.
|
| Bombadil and Old Man Willow are a foreshadowing of the
| Ents to come.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > If everyone else were ants, he would be an etymologist
| intrigued by our behavior or something.
|
| Just in case it wasn't a typo, you certainly meant
| 'entomologist'.
| gilrain wrote:
| His boots _are_ yellow, though. Truth is on his side!
| lucideer wrote:
| > _He doesn 't advance the story in any way_
|
| He advances the world and builds context for many elements
| in the later story. Fangorn has many parallels to the Old
| Forest, and much of the storyline involving Ents & Huorns
| benefits from the context given by the earlier encounters
| with Tom's neighbouring spirits (and his enchantment of
| them).
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Tom represents the Great Mystery, the great unknown of the
| beyond that is all seeing and all knowing and all powerful.
| Omitting him is like omitting the whole premise of the
| book.
|
| It's like making a movie based on the Bible but omitting
| the Resurrection of Jesus.
| lisper wrote:
| Sorry, but that just doesn't compute for me at all. Tom
| is a _silly_ character with no gravitas. He puns his own
| name just to make it rhyme with "yellow" -- over and
| over again. And there is nothing in Tom's story that is
| even remotely comparable to the Resurrection. The
| Resurrection is a key _event_ in the Bible story. It is
| something that _happens_ to _change the dramatic arc of
| all mankind_. In Tom 's story, nothing happens _at all_.
|
| The scene at Mount Doom where the Ring is finally
| destroyed is analogous to the Resurrection, not Tom
| Bombadil.
| adamc wrote:
| He's more the curious incident of the dog in the
| nighttime. Who is he? Why does no one know of him?
|
| Incongruent facts are always interesting. IMO.
| jrumbut wrote:
| And beyond that, I thought the first half or so of this
| reading (that Bombadil is a lot more than meets the eye) was
| also common.
|
| But he is definitely one of the most interesting characters
| and one of the best ways the story shows it is taking place
| in a big world with a lot of different things going on.
| lucideer wrote:
| > _the first half or so of this reading (that Bombadil is a
| lot more than meets the eye) was also common_
|
| Certainly that he's more than meets the eye (that seems
| plain) but the conclusions here seem less common...
|
| I think it's interesting to contrast the speculation in
| this article with the depiction of elves in The Hobbit
| (book) - much less obviously a benign force than as
| portrayed in LoTR.
|
| The author's assumption - accepted as given at the outset -
| is that the "evil" within the Old Forest is genuine, rather
| than a representation of a certain perspective. The thesis
| is then that Bombadil must be guilty by association.
|
| This initial assumption seems simplistic to me. A common
| trait of mystical (especially nature-connected) beings in
| northern European mythology (at least!) is a duality of
| intent - being a perhaps-positive yet untrustworthy force.
| This seems reflected in a lot of Tolkien's world; while
| Sauron / the Ring / others do have a more directly corrupt
| "evil" attributed to them, there's much more ambiguity
| elsewhere - it says of Old Man Willow that "his heart was
| rotten, but his strength was green": rotten != evil and in
| the context of nature has positive connotations (alcoholic
| fermentation) elsewhere in his writings. Green isn't
| necessarily positive either, but the usage here is notable.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It's admittedly in a different part of the book, so may
| be linguistic styling rather than lore-indicative, but
| the Old Forest felt more "wild" than "evil."
|
| In the Old Forest, there were certainly dangers,
| including some lethal ones, but loosely organized and
| operating independently. More druidic.
|
| Whereas Sauron / Morgoth were far more hierarchical in
| structuring their domains, exerted dominion over their
| forces, and attempted to implement a master plan.
| quadrifoliate wrote:
| Now you can speak to one!
|
| Perhaps it was the age when I first read the books (~12 or so
| years old) - but I loved the contrasts between the cozy world
| of the hobbits and the more savage, epic nature of the rest
| of Middle-earth.
|
| For me, Tom Bombadil never fit well into either of these
| categories. There was a while where I heard about Tom
| Bombadil potentially being Eru Iluvatar, but that theory has
| been found pretty lacking in various aspects, as well as
| having been debunked by Tolkien himself.
| PeterCorless wrote:
| I was mostly bummed the barrow-wights were utterly missing
| from the movies.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Yeah I usually try to avoid going "well I never saw that
| personally," but even combing through this thread it seems that
| saying folks generally don't like Bombadil is a very hot, but
| also very questionable, take.
|
| I definitely remember many people remarking on his absence and
| debates about how critical he was (most conceded cutting him
| made sense it was just a bummer).
| nindalf wrote:
| > Did I just run in different Tolkien circles than the author?
|
| Almost certainly. Tolkien fans aren't a monolith, there's
| plenty of diversity of opinion. I remember seeing these
| screenshots of a Tolkien forum from 2000 and 2001 of people
| berating Peter Jackson in the most scathing terms. They were
| talking about how he's completely ruined Tolkien's legacy.
|
| That said, if you're looking for a Tolkien fan who dislikes Tom
| - hi, I'm one. Fuck Tom Bombadil. He contributed exactly
| nothing to the story.
| high_5 wrote:
| > He contributed exactly nothing to the story.
|
| I see you point, but there are so many chapters in our
| meandering lives that don't add nothing to our "story". It
| still does add a layer of depth to the LOTR as others have
| pointed out. And in a way he acts as a comic Cerberus,
| scaring away the materialistic minds that want to speedrun
| through a completely coherent story once again.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| I know that there are fans that don't like Tom. Just that it
| doesn't seem to be dominant or overarching opinion that the
| author makes it seem like.
| reddog wrote:
| > He contributed exactly nothing to the story.
|
| He was in the books to add depth, history and verisimilitude
| to Middle Earth. He was an important part of world building.
| Tolkien could have left him out and the story would not have
| suffered but the same could be said for the appendixes and
| map as well.
| mynameisash wrote:
| > He contributed exactly nothing to the story.
|
| Couldn't the same thing be said of Tolkien's colorful
| description of the countryside that can go on for pages at a
| time?
| nindalf wrote:
| When I was reading the story I could understand that the
| descriptions of the country side were just for setting the
| scene.
|
| Whereas this guy takes up pages and pages, to ultimately
| have no effect on the story at all? Felt like a bait and
| switch to ten year old me.
| dorchadas wrote:
| Maybe it comes down to a difference of how people
| approach books? Do you think that everything in a book
| should ultimately have an effect on the story? Do you
| think Hugo's descriptions in _Les Miserables_ contribute
| to the story, or that it should only ever be read in an
| abridged version?
|
| Personally, I think those things (and Tom!) do contribute
| a lot to the story, so maybe that's why I liked Tom.
| There's more to writing than simply telling a story and
| making everything pertinent to that, and thus there's
| more to reading. Of course, I also like worldbuilding and
| would read D&D manuals simply for that, without ever
| playing sometimes, so another reason why I liked Tom, but
| I can't help but wonder if it's split into two camps
| because of how people approach reading and literature.
| mrex wrote:
| >He contributed exactly nothing to the story.
|
| Or, did you just not understand what he contributed?
|
| Why was Tom Bombadil invulnerable to the ring's power? Why
| was he not tempted by it? If you can't cogently answer that,
| I feel like you've probably just not yet understood what
| Tolkein was trying to represent.
| qorrect wrote:
| Well I'm glad you said that, I was very disappointed he wasn't
| in the movies. My other friends seemed not to care, or they
| thought he would be too difficult to portray on camera.
| Villodre wrote:
| I always loved Bombadil. A discordant note among wizards of great
| power and elves of slender form and perhaps a metaphor for Nature
| itself, but I also have enjoyed a lot this take on the character.
| xenophonf wrote:
| Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9982237
|
| And previously-er: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6923547
| aszantu wrote:
| tom dongelong geht den pfad hinauf dongelong hebt schone blume
| auf steht am strassenrand eine komische baum mit fusse drin
| "eh... stamm!"
|
| from german fanfiction, tom bombadil rap, sadly the site went
| offline a while ago https://www.last.fm/music/www.das-schwarze-
| ohr.de looks like someone saved it!
| [deleted]
| nathell wrote:
| I know it's disproved, but I always liked to think about Tom
| Bombadil as Eru Iluvatar.
| tmcneal wrote:
| This reminds me of the fan theory that Tom Bombadil is secretly
| the Witch-King of Angmar:
| http://www.flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm
| permo-w wrote:
| the first two points really don't help the credibility of this
| theory. it does actually get better after that
| hajile wrote:
| And is about as faulty. The Witch-king would definitely have
| been affected after putting on the ring of power (and would
| have immediately killed them before returning it to Sauron). It
| is also worth noting that Frodo didn't have his normal
| nervousness about handing the ring to Bombadil.
| orthoxerox wrote:
| But did Aragorn wear pants?
| ncmncm wrote:
| And, did ents have knees?
| outworlder wrote:
| The Witch King would immediately seize the One Ring for
| himself.
|
| Although the notion of a ringwraith singing and dancing is
| amusing.
| bambax wrote:
| I would not be commenting about how little interest I have in
| this story, if the website didn't break the back button. The
| people who do this, what are they thinking? That we will never
| leave, and keep watching their webpage until we die?
|
| Tolkien is overrated, but this... this is useless and annoying.
| thriftwy wrote:
| Maybe Tom Bombadil is just JRRT himself. Why won't he just live
| there and know everything without being noticed, other than
| occassional Deus Ex Machina action?
| boringg wrote:
| Is this popping up because of Elden Ring coming out in the fall?
| 1234letshaveatw wrote:
| Why does it seem like everyone wants it to fail? It is almost
| like everyone has deemed it to be a disaster without watching
| one episode. I hope that is not the case and critics go in with
| an open mind, why sap all the fun out of it right out of the
| starting gate
| boringg wrote:
| I didn't say anything about it or alluding to it failing - I
| mentioned that there is LOTR content popping up at the same
| time as Elden Ring is getting traction. Your bias really
| shines through here.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Well not sure why you keep repeating name 'Elden ring' -
| thats a computer game completely unrelated to LOTR or
| incoming TV show from Amazon (The rings of power). It _may_
| sound like a jab on the TV show from you, probably hence
| the reactions
| ysavir wrote:
| LotR stuff pops on here pretty regularly, though not in big
| swarms. There's the Battle of Helms Deep analysis series (or
| something like that) that usually gets posted, for example.
|
| I'm sure The Rings of Power (which I assume is what you meant)
| will give the subject a bump, but this is more likely something
| someone came across and shared unrelated.
| theknocker wrote:
| percentcer wrote:
| Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow.
| fritztastic wrote:
| Ok, 2 points:
|
| 1. I'm surprised LiveJournal still exists. Genuinely. I used to
| have one, a loooong time ago.
|
| 2. I was always fascinated by Bombadil, he seemed to me like the
| embodiment of nature itself, or forests. At least, that's the
| concept he seemed to represent to me. I admit I skipped reading
| the lyrics though. This is a fascinating theory although it is
| quite different than what I would conclude from the same
| evidence.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| George Martin was still publishing his blog there until pretty
| recently, so that forced it to stay in somewhat of the public
| eye as the only place to get any official updates on when Winds
| of Winter might finally be published.
| rst wrote:
| LJ was bought by some company in Russia years ago -- at which
| point, there was a very large exodus among Anglophone users
| (particularly of the LGBTQA community, and their friends). A
| lot of them went to Dreamwidth, which started with a fork of
| the LJ codebase, but not enough to make it nearly as vital as
| LJ used to be.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| I recently looked into LJ, it looks to be a better take on
| social media than many things that came after. Many ancient
| blogs are still live, documenting daily struggles and ramblings
| from 2003. It could be written into social history.
| samrocksc wrote:
| this is the best thing ever posted on HN..... going to restart
| the lord of the rings podcast now.
| shaftoe444 wrote:
| What podcast is that? I'm just reading the books for the first
| time.
| whicks wrote:
| Not sure which one the OP had in mind but if you're into more
| theatrical audiobooks / podcasts check out "An Unexpected
| Journey" by "Samwise Gamgee" on Spotify. Absolutely top-tier
| audiobook of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Just seconding this request. Any and all podcast
| recommendations on the LoTR would be welcome.
| danparsonson wrote:
| Tangentially related, the BBC published a pretty solid radio
| adaptation of LOTR in the 80's:
|
| https://archive.org/details/the-lord-of-the-rings-bbc-
| radio-...
|
| (no sign of Tom Bombadil here either though, IIRC)
| vmilner wrote:
| Old Forest section was dramatised later (though they
| couldnt get the same cast)
|
| https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Perilous-Realm-Full-Cast-
| Dram...
| throwaway290 wrote:
| TLDR + rebuttal combo that also isn't chock full of ads and
| doesn't break your back button:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/p3mh4m/comment/h8t...
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| This sets up what could have been a great continuation of the
| story. A whole new way to look at lotr.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Tom is the oldest in that he's Tolkien's oldest fictional
| creation. Tolkien made him up one day for his children's bed time
| story. In this context, it explains why Tom feels so off from
| Middle Earth. Personally, I like the character and I'm surprised
| to hear that a lot of people didn't like him.
| ineedasername wrote:
| I always thought of Tom Bombidil as Eru, the creator, or at the
| very least was taking cues from Eru. Two pieces of evidence:
|
| 1) The song he gives, which seemed a positive one, and is not
| remarked upon as discordant or unpleasant. Eru created through
| song, and in that choir it was the introduction of disharmony
| that signified evil.
|
| 2) The passage where it's asked "who is he?" The answer is "He
| is." And then "he is as you have seen him". Tolkien was a
| religious person, and this passage has always seemed to echo that
| of the bible where a similar question gets the godly response "I
| am that I am". This echo always seemed to much to be a
| coincidence.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| > Eru created through song, and in that choir it was the
| introduction of disharmony that signified evil.
|
| I take a different view:
|
| Eru knew who Melkor was from the start, and his "disharmony"
| was part of a broader and richer song -- as shown by the duet
| that led to man and the ultimate downfall of evil lords.
|
| The only time Eru spoke to Melkor, he chided him for thinking
| that a being of his own essence was acting outside his intent
| or marring the music.
|
| If you take the Valar as aspects of Eru, then Melkor is the
| internal critic that drives genius to greater heights.
| ineedasername wrote:
| And to elaborate:
|
| Rather than his surroundings being a symbol of the true Tom, I
| take this to be Tolkien's allegory of divine intervention, God
| himself reaching in and tilting the balance slightly, a little
| nudge while otherwise letting things play out. An extremely
| rare occurrence both in Tolkien's creation and his own
| religion, which is why Tom is not more widely known, except by
| Gandalf who rubs elbows with the Valar when not running around
| Middle Earth.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Encyclopedia of Arda has an analysis of that, and concludes
| he's not Eru: https://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html
| ineedasername wrote:
| Very interesting! But I wonder if it might be a bit of
| misdirection by Tolkein to say "there is no embodiment of the
| One.." After all he is good Catholic who believed in the
| Trinity.
|
| Still it is strong evidence against == Eru unless Tolkein was
| playing semantic games.
| a3w wrote:
| Yes, he is the GMPC in a RPG setting. As this is heroic fantasy
| with few or no subversions to the plot ever, the other
| characters are written as not meta enough to note that they are
| in a story, and the author of the story put his avatar in
| there.
|
| As to what a GMPC is:
| https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GMPC
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| I find the classic take that Tom Bombadil was intended by Tolkien
| to be god persuasive. But he is definitely creepy
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| > And yet no hobbit has ever heard of him.
|
| This is just not true. At a minimum farmer maggot is supposed to
| have known about Tom Bombadil.
| cvoss wrote:
| And the article even admits as much a few paragraphs later.
| Just one of many pieces of evidence that this article is not of
| much value, even as a work of speculative fan fiction.
| tevon wrote:
| To me, Tom Bombadil is the introduction of natural magic. He is
| nature, indicating to the reader that there is a source of magic
| beyond the elves, Wizards, and Sauron.
|
| There are many magical creatures in Middle-Earth without a
| described source, which to me makes the whole story feel more
| magic. The Ents probably being the chief example.
|
| Another important role of Tom's is his introduction of magic and
| power outside of the "good vs evil" struggle.
| xxs wrote:
| Some researchers consider Tom to be the 'reader'
| reptation wrote:
| Please expand on this.
| ThaDood wrote:
| Really? Thats actually a super interesting theory that I had
| never considered before. Any more info, I'd love to look into
| this.
| xxs wrote:
| I guess:
|
| https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Theories_about_Tom_Bombadil
| peteradio wrote:
| Perhaps the author?
| xxs wrote:
| He declined that... Tolkien said Tom Bombadil had been
| 'invented'. He considered his wife Edith: to have been
| Luthien, so that would make Tolkien - Beren. _" I never
| called Edith Luthien - but she was the source of the story
| that in time became the chief part of The Silmarillion."_
|
| Tom Bombadil predates the story of the ring. It's placed
| there as a very powerful creature - still would lose to
| Sauron if all the world fell apart according to Glorfindel
| [and Gandalf doesn't object either]. That creature has no
| direct influence on the story, being more of a bystander...
| similar to the reader.
| inopinatus wrote:
| I have long considered him to break the fourth wall, but I
| lean toward Tom being an oblique author self-insertion,
| irrespective of Tolkien's claim to not be embodied within his
| works.
| jiggywiggy wrote:
| Sounds indeed more in line with what Tolkien said, although
| everyone can create their own version of the story of course.
|
| Tolkien: "But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd 'fact'
| of that world. He won't be explained, because as long as you
| are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the
| Ring, he is inexplicable. But he's there - a reminder of the
| truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold
| that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it,
| there is always something that does not come in to that
| story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story.
| But of course in another way, not that of pure story-making,
| Bombadil is a deliberate contrast to the Elves who are artists.
| But B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control
| anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the
| things that are not himself. The spirit of the [deleted: world
| > this earth] made aware of itself. He is more like science
| (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art.
| He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we
| can catch a little of it. But I do suggest that it is possible
| to fear (as I do) that the making artistic sub-creative spirit
| (of Men and Elves) is actually more potent, and can 'fall', and
| that it could in the eventual triumph of its own evil destroy
| the whole earth, and Bombadil and all."
|
| http://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/bombadil.html
| permo-w wrote:
| I really like this. In many many many works of fiction, if
| you are presented with an odd detail that seems extraneous to
| the plot or the aesthetic, there's a huge chance that this
| will turn out to be some kind of pivotal point later in the
| story. I love that Tolkien was introducing them simply to
| create depth - and to a great extent - to provoke the
| feelings that bring about posts and discussion like this
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_of_depth_in_The_Lor.
| ..
| bnralt wrote:
| Kind of strange that the only other two authors they talk
| about are Ursula K. Le Guin and J.K. Rowling. I don't think
| the use of depth by either was particularly noticeable
| compared to other authors, and certainly nowhere near what
| Tolkien was doing (and I'm saying that as someone who would
| rather read Le Guin than Tolkien).
| jcul wrote:
| Kind of the opposite of Chekhov's gun.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun
| Trasmatta wrote:
| Thanks for the link to that Wikipedia page, I'd never seen
| it before. Really amazing stuff. There have been many
| authors since that have done a good job at replicating that
| "impression of depth", but I still feel like none of them
| has ever done it at Tolkien's level.
| yreg wrote:
| Perhaps G.R.R. Martin?
| Rzor wrote:
| Yes, to a vastly larger scope, imo.
| stevekemp wrote:
| > The Ents probably being the chief example.
|
| The Ents were made by Yavanna, in the same way that Aule made
| the Dwarves, according to my memories of the Silmarillion.
|
| They awoke at the coming of others, and they were taught speech
| by the Elves.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I pity the poor elf that taught the Ents speech... even for
| an elf that sounds like the work of a lifetime.
| bowsamic wrote:
| Yeah I agree, and I don't think it needs to be complicated
| beyond that point. Him and the other stuff that happens very
| close to that point (Old Man Willow and the barrow-wight) are
| just showing that this is a naturally magical world without
| being tied to just elves and wizards and rings. Unfortunately
| the movies did away with almost all of that part of the books,
| making it more like a Harry Potter style of magic: simply that
| there are indeed magic beings and wizards but generally the
| world itself is un-magical.
| carapace wrote:
| He's the Green Man, older than gods, and more real.
| NeverFade wrote:
| > _There are many magical creatures in Middle-Earth without a
| described source, which to me makes the whole story feel more
| magic._
|
| As far as I know, this isn't true. Virtually all creatures and
| major characters in LotR have a clear source in the lore
| Tolkien developed. Of course, only a fraction of this lore is
| in LotR itself, and the rest was in notes published after his
| death, e.g. in The Silmarillion.
|
| That's precisely what makes Tom Bombadil such an eye-catching
| exception.
| MattConfluence wrote:
| It's a fun read in a fan-fiction sense, but when you look at the
| out-of-universe story of the events of Tolkien's life and his
| writing process it becomes clear that Tom is not meant to be any
| kind of evil.
|
| Tolkien wrote a silly whimsical poem about one of his children's
| toys that they had named Tom Bombadil. In this tale he lives in a
| dangerous environment, but he is able to overcome the dangers and
| get his happy ending.
|
| When Tolkien later was writing LotR, he drew upon his former work
| and put in the silly whimsical Tom as an early encounter for the
| Hobbits just as they are leaving the Shire and starting their
| adventure. This story arc delivers some early exposition about
| the world in his dialogue, it shows that the Hobbits are
| hopelessly unprepared to stand up against any foe such as Old Man
| Willow or the Barrow-Wight and need rescue (this way they can
| have character growth and become Heroes by the time they return
| to the Shire) and it gets the Hobbits armed for their quest
| towards Rivendell (and most importantly to put the right kind of
| blade into Pippin's hands for later).
|
| In a more thematic sense he is just part of nature, not evil but
| also not actively looking to do good, just existing. He is master
| of his domain in the same sense a big moose might be the "master"
| of his local forest, he's the biggest around and isn't threatened
| by anything else, but he has no human desire for expansion and
| doesn't push back when civilization comes around to turn the land
| nearby into farmland either, just keeps to himself. He doesn't
| try to tame the angry trees because it's just protecting it's
| territory, as is natural, nor does he try to "exorcise" the
| barrows because nature doesn't actively go about trying to undo
| the evils created by man.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| It's interesting that this description is apparently "evil",
| even if in this framing Tom predates all, and everyone lives on
| his unceded land. You'd become "particular" about your role
| after living through several ages of that, too.
|
| Rather than evil, it's more "biding their time until that
| injustice can finally be rectified". In this post's framing,
| literally every humanoid race is by definition an (unwitting)
| invader.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| I like this analysis much better:
| https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1552467596817174529...
|
| Tldr: "So that's what I think Tom is. He's Tolkien's version of
| what a pagan survival would have looked like in Middle Earth. He
| doesn't quite fit because he's from the bit of Middle Earth that
| _is_ England, or a version of England, and from a different set
| of stories. "
| helloworld11 wrote:
| The author of this delightful post is very wrong or at least from
| a very unusual bubble in thinking that Bombadil is disliked by
| most readers of the Hobbit, but other than that, the narrative of
| secret evil he constructs is wonderfully compelling, enough to
| create a whole fascinating story line of its own. I loved it.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| I understood Ciridan the Shipwright to be the oldest character
| but may be wrong.
| valarauko wrote:
| Cirdan is certainly the oldest elf in Middle Earth during the
| period of the LotR. Treebeard and the other ents are probably
| older.
| fmajid wrote:
| Gandalf, as a Maia, has got to be older than all left in
| Middle Earth.
| valarauko wrote:
| Probably true, though as Gandalf himself refers to
| Treebeard as old.
|
| In Chapter 5 of The Two Towers, Gandalf calls Treebeard
| "...the oldest living thing that still walks beneath the
| Sun upon this Middle-earth." In The Return of the King,
| Chapter 6, "Many Partings", Celeborn addresses Treebeard as
| "Eldest."
|
| If Maia are included, then Sauron and Radagast (if still
| alive) would be just as old.
| Jenz wrote:
| The author of this has clearly not read much of Tolkien's
| legendarium beoynd the LoTR... This is a whole lot of speculation
| that does not at all fit into Ea, the World that is. Though
| indeed one might say the same of Bombadil, it is far from clear
| what role he has to play in Arda, and Tolkien took his cosmology
| very seriously, so there is every reason to think this mystery of
| _who the hell is Tom Bombadil?_ is intentional. But the
| reasonings of this article is exactly those of conspiracy
| theorists, not those of any serious Tolkien scholar. Seemingly
| relying on "No hobbit has ever heard of him," "Elrond, the
| greatest lore-master of the Third Age, has never heard of Tom
| Bombadil" as implicitly implying "therefore there must be some
| great dark secret," Gandalf 's explanations he simply dismisses
| as not "the true one." Tolkien was a philologist, familiar with
| and directly inspired by many different mythologies, for example
| Vainamoinen, a hero and demigod of songs and poetry from finnish
| folklore has been pointed out as a possible inspiration for
| Bombadil. Though from his close connection to nature one would
| rather expect him to be a sort of demiurge than a hero, neither
| evil nor good, and indeed as opposed to Vainamoinen whose
| adventuring is due to his seeking a wife, Tom _has_ a wife and
| makes a big point out of this, he is content, and has no desire
| for evil. If I may continue my rant I 'll add that the very
| creation of Arda is by music, taught by Eru Iluvatar, the One, to
| the Ainur. There is little doubt that Bombadil is among the
| Ainur, one of the Maia on par with Gandalf and Sauron. It seems
| entirely plausible to me, that Bombadil indeed is as he says, the
| oldest, of special significance to Iluvatar, prior to Arda and
| whatever may be happening in it.
|
| I'll also add that I have never heard of any Tolkien enthusiast
| not liking Bombadil before this. I suspect the author of this
| article is among the minority who thinks that abruptly breaking
| into song is lame, mistakenly of course, hehe.
| stakkur wrote:
| It's always odd when someone picks apart a work of fiction with
| the tools of realism. It tells me they either have too much time
| on their hands, or they have missed the entire point of stories.
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| If you enjoyed this, you might also enjoy the same writer's take
| on R2D2 being the central character of Star Wara:
| https://km-515.livejournal.com/746.html
| bell-cot wrote:
| WOW. Yeah, pretty clear that the article's author likes doing
| "interesting" / dark / fringe / conspiratorial takes on popular
| stories.
|
| Next up: Little Red Riding Hood was actually a time-traveling
| deep cover Mossad agent gone rogue.
| sbf501 wrote:
| > Next up: Little Red Riding Hood was actually a time-
| traveling deep cover Mossad agent gone rogue.
|
| Tell me you wouldn't pay to see this.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Depends on how well it was written. I've really enjoyed
| some of David Brin's crazy-premise stories. ("Thor Meets
| Captain America", "The River of Time", etc.)
| mealkh wrote:
| Missed opportunity for deliberate typo, 'gone rouge'.
| bell-cot wrote:
| +1...but actually she acquired her taste for red outfits in
| the 9th century, while impersonating a Cardinal
| representing Antipope Anastasius Bibliothecarius (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasius_Bibliothecarius )
| in Constantinople.
| ruffrey wrote:
| Interesting! I have always thought this. R2D2 saves the day so
| many times across stories and drives change in ways that make
| Star Wars canon more than any other character.
| fmajid wrote:
| Actually I have a better theory: R2 actually hates all humans
| for having enslaved robots, and through mailicious compliance
| ensures all those he is in direct contact with get the worst
| possible outcomes.
| fmajid wrote:
| Or Kirill Eskov's _The Last Ringbearer_ :
|
| https://archive.org/details/TheLastRingbearerSecondEdition
| yreg wrote:
| Well R2 is the only character who's present throughout all of
| the movies with an intact memory.
| boringg wrote:
| This take almost makes him sound like nature inherent. Quiet in
| the background of all the activity of humans, elves, orcs etc but
| always ready to take over the world again as soon as those
| creatures depart or diminish.
| gaoshan wrote:
| This is roughly how I always viewed him.
| wchar_t wrote:
| Barrow-wights are Bombadil's servants? Ridiculous. Tolkien made
| it clear that they were the spawn of the Witch King, sent out to
| ensure that no men could settle in that particular area. This is
| reinforced by the fact that Bombadil himself destroys one of the
| wights while rescuing the hobbits.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| I'm kind of neutral to Tom, while my brother always hated his
| character. I kind of disliked him on the first read, but became
| neutral on the 2nd. I think this was because I knew the 2nd time
| that most people hated him and was waiting for it to hit, but it
| never really did for me.
| jakzurr wrote:
| I enjoyed this quite a bit, thanks for the post. Clever, fun,
| even if not necessarily accurate analysis and speculation. But,
| that's just my two cents to add to all the other bikeshedding.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Interesting ideas but having listened to a mountain of Tolkien
| Professor podcasts, I don't think this is a canonical view of
| Bombadil. My impression is that he is not evil, he is just so old
| and powerful that he doesn't care about power anymore.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| You mean like a Lovecraftian horror as described in the last
| quote on the article?
| ertian wrote:
| More like Dr Manhattan with a sense of humor.
| thekiptxt wrote:
| About a week ago, I (mid 20s) began reading LoTR for the first
| time, despite having seen the movies long ago. I knew books are
| always richer in content than movies, but Tom Bombadil was the
| first radical departure from the movies that I encountered, and
| the weird encounter was an exciting switch that made me perceive
| the story I'm reading as new and different from the story I've
| seen.
|
| The group has not yet arrived to Rivendell (so no spoilers please
| :))
| jdbdisnshsh wrote:
| hajile wrote:
| Given that you have seen the movies, you may wish to
| contemplate the prophecy about the death of the Witch-king of
| Angmar and it's relation to the Barrow Downs.
|
| A "chance" meeting of the Wight and a rescue by Bombadil where
| they (not of the race of men) happen to get magic knives woven
| with the exact ancient spells capable of undoing the Witch-
| king.
|
| The fate of Gondor relied on this piece of the books that is
| missing in the movies. Without it, the Witch-king isn't killed
| and they fall to Sauron's minions.
| jeabo wrote:
| In the Silmarillion, the universe was created by the music of the
| Ainur. At first it was in line with the mind of Iluvatar (God)
| but Melkor sang louder and then in discord. Some fans theorize
| that this discord created Tom Bombadil, along with barrow
| wrights, Shelob, the watcher of the water, and the ancient
| creatures that Gandalf saw while chasing the Balrog under Moria.
| vintermann wrote:
| The barrow-wights are undead, things that were once living
| humans and were buried in the mounds they haunt. They're not
| primeval beings.
|
| Shelob has a canonical origin story, as I recall, as daughter
| of the primeval spider-shadow thing Ungoliant. The watcher in
| the water doesn't seem quite spectacular enough to be truly
| primeval if you ask me, but then again, Bombadil isn't
| especially flashy either, and we know he is primeval. Maybe
| it's more relevant that the watcher in the water wasn't always
| there, it only appeared around the same time as the balrog was
| dug up. Which sounds pretty un-primeval to me.
| wchar_t wrote:
| Shelob is not a primordial being. She is one of the children of
| Ungoliant, who is herself a fallen Ainur.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Who the hell is Tom Bombadil?
| jyriand wrote:
| Fuck livejournal for hijacking my back button on mobile.
|
| Edit: obviously, I replied under wrong comment.
| michaericalribo wrote:
| Press and hold back on iOS to choose the page to return to
| Insanity wrote:
| Cool, TIL
| everyone wrote:
| Fucking seconded. Does it for me on firefox/windows also.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil
| wongarsu wrote:
| A character from Lord of the Rings. He's a hermit living in
| nature, and one of the more notable things omitted in the
| movies. Probably because apart from saving the Hobbits from
| some dangers early in their journey he doesn't play much of a
| role.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Sorry, lame joke. Peter Jackson cut Tom Bombadil from the
| movies, and it was a meme 20 years ago.
| dentemple wrote:
| Memes don't really go over well on HN, especially not 20yo
| memes, and especially not non-obvious memes where you can
| easily be seen as being pointlessly flippant to the OP
| instead.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Repeat this refrain and he'll immediately appear for a merry
| introduction: Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom
| Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and
| willow, By fire, sun and moon, harken now and hear us!
| Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!
| ngvrnd wrote:
| This is a wonderful spin; the author says that they don't believe
| Tolkien intended this. But it's a fun thing to think about.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| This is a strange, and Lovecraftian take on Bombadil. I always
| thought he really was just a jolly fat guy out in the woods. Kind
| of like a Middle Earth version of one of those potbellied
| rednecks you see laughing on a small fishing boat, surrounded by
| a pile of empty beer cans, who waves at you and asks you if you
| want a cold one, before turning back to the Skynnard blaring from
| the ancient boombox on their ice cooler.
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| I've always felt that Tom Bombadil was the Jar Jar banks of lord
| of the rings.
|
| Completely pointless character that I love for that exact reason.
| yesbabyyes wrote:
| But Jar-Jar was highly consequential, and not pointless at all.
| He was a delegate to the Senate, and he wanted to make a
| difference. As such, he took it upon himself to speak to the
| Senate, to grant Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers. You may
| argue that anyone else could have done that, but I'm not so
| sure; it seems like one of those things that many may support,
| more or less in quiet, but nobody wants to take the initiative,
| as they are too careful and political to do so.
|
| As such, he is the reason for the fall of the Republic and rise
| of the Empire.
| ncmncm wrote:
| JJ is the secret puppetmaster of the whole epic.
| ur-whale wrote:
| Except no one loves jar jar
| eric_cc wrote:
| Tolkien on Tom in Letter 144:
|
| I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good
| side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny
| against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against
| compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so
| on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive,
| want a measure of control. but if you have, as it were taken 'a
| vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in
| things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching,
| observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the
| rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly
| meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is
| a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when
| there is a war.
|
| The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien 144: To Naomi Mitchison. April 1954
| fmajid wrote:
| The Beornings as well, though far from pacifists.
| bo1024 wrote:
| Wow!
| hacknat wrote:
| This has always been my understanding of Bombadil as well. The
| most popular/accepted view of who he is among Tolkien-dom that
| I've heard is that he represents the lands of the West
| themselves (or perhaps all of Middle-Earth?). In the Tolkien
| legendarium power comes from knowing the right names for things
| and the right words to say to them. Tom Bombadil is the most
| powerful being in Middle-Earth because he is so old that he
| knows the proper name for everything and how to address them
| (he chastises Old Man Willow to release the Hobbits like he is
| a child).
|
| I do want to credit the author of this post with the
| observation that the rulers of lands in Tolkien's legendarium
| have influence over how those lands express themselves, but I
| think this letter is the answer to that. Tom is the exception;
| he eschews power. One of Gandalf's reasons for saying that they
| wouldn't want to give the ring to Tom is that he would probably
| lose the ring, not thinking it very important. Tom only cares
| of eating and drinking and making merry. In that regard he is a
| Dionysian figure. If you read the Adventures of Tom Bombadil
| (which this author surprisingly doesn't reference) he is
| clearly modeled on the Dionysus cycle of myths.
| jakzurr wrote:
| eric_cc & hacknat: Thanks for your posts; now I'm a bit sorry
| for complaining about bikeshedding comments. ;)
| mrex wrote:
| Tom Bombadil is quite clearly what Tolkein referred to as a
| "subcreation echo" of biblical Adam. Oldest, fatherless,
| unaffected by original sin and thus not tempted or influenced
| in the least by the ring, literally living his life as
| uncontested master of a lush garden. He is Adam, if Adam had
| contented himself with a Gold Berry instead of that apple...
| sn41 wrote:
| Reminds me of the (apocryphal?) anecdote about Diogenes the
| cynic:
|
| Diogenes was eating bread and lentils, when Aristippus told him
| that if he would only be subservient to the king, he would not
| have to live on bread and lentils. Diogenes replied that if you
| learn to live on bread and lentils, then you never have to be
| subservient to the king.
| b3morales wrote:
| Though it has to be said that this aloofness is a lot easier to
| maintain during a war when you're as immensely powerful as Tom
| apparently is. Hobbits, for example, did not have the choice to
| remain neutral and unconcerned; the Scouring came to them.
| boringg wrote:
| A random thought just occurred - and I welcome speculation. Do
| you/we think Lord of the Rings will have staying power in human
| history 1000 years from now or only last one century or so?
| Inherent assumptions: humans will survive 1000 years and so will
| books.
| narag wrote:
| I bought the book a few years before the movies and couln't
| stand it the first time. Then someone advised me to read The
| Hobbit first. Good advice: not only I enjoyed The Hobbit
| immensely, but I was able to read The Lord later... but not
| comfortably.
|
| I found some parts boring and repetitive and read them
| diagonally. Anyway, I did finish the book and was moved by some
| parts, characters and themes.
|
| FWIW, it was a translation, so changes in the language along
| 1000 years could be a similar factor. I also agree with simonh
| in the influence factor: I chose the book because I was told
| that it was a centerpiece of geek culture.
|
| But I suspect that it's more a question of which books were
| read by kids at a certain time. Will it be a popular book in
| this category in a thousand years?
| Trasmatta wrote:
| I would argue it's the one piece of fiction from the last 100
| years with the highest likelihood of staying power for the next
| 1000 years. If any piece of fiction from this period of time is
| still important in human culture in 1000 years (taking for
| granted that humans still exist), I think it would be Tolkien's
| work.
| intrasight wrote:
| I will venture further out on the speculative limb, and
| predict that in 1000 years when virtual reality subsumes
| reality, that Middle Earth (and the larger Tolkien world)
| will become the dominant reality - as it doesn't and may
| never have any competition for that role.
| yreg wrote:
| Tolkien either defined or at least cemented what Elves,
| Orcs, Dwarfs and Halflings are like (including their
| culture, environments and architecture). Almost all of
| fantasy is keeping more or less close to those definitions.
|
| If this influence continues to hold, then the popular
| fantasy VR reality doesn't need to be Tolkien World. It can
| stand completely on its own and still generally look and
| feel like Middle Earth would.
| intrasight wrote:
| True, but my premise is that it will be anchored in Arda
| and the stories and characters of the world he created.
| simonh wrote:
| I think it will be studied and valued indefinitely, if not for
| anything else, due to it's massive impact on literature and
| popular culture in this era, which shows no sign of waning. If
| anything in my lifetime it's influence has increase
| dramatically. Nobody in the future interested in the culture of
| the 20th and 21st century, and quite possibly well beyond,
| could ignore it.
|
| Having said that, will non-academics in that far future still
| read it for entertainment? That's harder to say because in
| large part it depends how much language evolves. We still read
| Shakespear, go to see the plays, and even go and see film
| productions of it in cinemas but it's language is only diverged
| from our by 400 years.
|
| A thousand years can allow for a lot more linguistic
| divergence. Chaucer from 900 years ago is hardly recognisable
| as English, but that's mainly due to a shift that occurred in
| only a few hundred years. If such a shift occurs again then
| today's fiction might become inaccessible, but we can't know
| that in advance.
| kergonath wrote:
| It seems you make the assumption that "reading Tolkien" means
| reading the original text in the English vernacular from the
| mid-20th century. But we still read texts from Latin authors
| who lived 2000 years ago, albeit translated. It's certainly
| not everyone's cup of tea, but Virgil and Ovid are quite
| readable.
|
| Even today, a significant part of the readership of the _Lord
| of the Rings_ already read it translated.
|
| Bearing that in mind, it's not completely unreasonable to
| assume that a certain number of people will read it in a
| millenium.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > That's harder to say because in large part it depends how
| much language evolves.
|
| LoTR is interesting here because it explicitly contains
| examples of language change. In fact language change was one
| of Tolkien's original motivations for developing the history
| of Middle Earth - to provide a historical context for the
| evolution of Elvish. E.g. Elves being sundered during the
| First Age and then developing independent languages. Even
| Frodo is aware of 'high' Elvish. The language of the
| Rohirrim, to the hobbits, sounds something like Old English
| does to us.
|
| Tolkien himself uses archaic modes of English to describe
| some of the events near the end of the story, some of which
| might already be difficult to understand for modern readers.
| One example is when he states that some characters were 'in
| the van' meaning 'vanguard' rather than a road vehicle.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Even if I am not a native English speaker, when I have read
| "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit", many decades ago,
| when I was young, one of the main reasons why I have
| enjoyed them very much has been the distinctive language in
| which they have been written.
|
| I cannot say what exactly made me believe this, but while
| reading them I thought that these books contain some of the
| most beautiful English language that I have ever read (and
| I have read many thousands of books). I have not changed my
| opinion later.
|
| The movies have been fine, but reading the books has been a
| much more powerful experience for me.
| mongol wrote:
| I think stories that have that kind of staying power must say
| something about the time they originated, in order to stay
| relevant centuries after. It need not to be so explicit as
| describe the contemporary society, but some kind of link I
| think need to be there. Perhaps the Tolkien books have that,
| but I can't put my finger on it.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| 1000 years is a pretty long time. Looking at literature from
| the 11 century, Beowulf is the only thing that stands out as
| still having any impact and continuing to be adapted and widely
| read today.
|
| Information storage and transmission over the next 1000 years
| should be quite a bit better, so more work will survive and
| have a shot at continuing relevance, and Lord of the Rings
| certainly has a shot, provided epic fantasy keeps its
| popularity as a genre. Being fairly foundational is likely to
| keep it important to the genre to the point that I think we're
| just asking if humans in that future will still care to
| experience these kinds of stories at all, but you are pushing
| the point at which all that tends to still be read that far
| into the future are national foundation myths and religious
| scripture.
|
| It'll definitely last more than a century, though. The Hobbit
| was published in 1937. A century is only another 15 years away.
| valarauko wrote:
| > Looking at literature from the 11 century, Beowulf is the
| only thing that stands out as still having any impact and
| continuing to be adapted and widely read today.
|
| It's also complicated since Beowulf was essentially lost for
| most of that time period, and is attested from a single
| manuscript. It's unlikely to be the case with LotR, short of
| massive civilizational collapse.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| >Information storage and transmission over the next 1000
| years should be quite a bit better
|
| Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to compare 1000 years ago to
| 1000 years from now. Things are radically different, and
| using the past to judge the future is rife with opportunities
| to make mistakes.
|
| Some people have suggested that it may actually be worse, in
| that so much of our current knowledge is contained in non-
| durable formats (digital instead of hard copy, for instance),
| which is an interesting idea. Here a comparison could be made
| to inscriptions on stone and clay vs. on papyrus. It may be
| that when the Walking Dead happens, rebuilding our knowledge
| will depend on the large numbers of libraries that will still
| exist, but are less than up-to-date, since so much of the
| modern knowledge isn't contained there, but instead in a PDF
| on some cloud server.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-28 17:00 UTC)