Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

km-515.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 349 posts

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#31

Post by ycombinete »

Trasmatta wrote: post #29

> 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 se…

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.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#32

Post by lordfoom »

Trasmatta wrote: post #29

> 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 se…

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.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#34

Post by 1234letshaveatw »

boringg wrote: post #12

Is this popping up because of Elden Ring coming out in the fall?

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

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#35

Post by fritztastic »

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.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#36

Post by michaericalribo »

jyriand wrote: post #8
ramesh31 wrote: post #7

Who the hell is Tom Bombadil?

Fuck livejournal for hijacking my back button on mobile. Edit: obviously, I replied under wrong comment.

Press and hold back on iOS to choose the page to return to

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#38

Post by Aeolun »

stevekemp wrote: post #4
tevon wrote: post #3

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 Ents probably being the chief example. The Ents were made by Yavanna, in the same way that Aulë 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.

I pity the poor elf that taught the Ents speech... even for an elf that sounds like the work of a lifetime.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#39

Post by jfengel »

Trasmatta wrote: post #29

> 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 se…

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".

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#40

Post by permo-w »

jiggywiggy wrote: post #20
tevon wrote: post #3

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…

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…

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...

Post reply on HN