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

51–60 of 349 posts

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

#51

Post by Forgeties79 »

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…

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).

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

#52

Post by simonh »

boringg wrote: post #26

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.

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.

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

#53

Post by aposm »

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 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??

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

#54

Post by greenie_beans »

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 read that and was like, "wait what? I must be a loser for liking him."

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

#55

Post by Trasmatta »

boringg wrote: post #26

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.

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.

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

#56

Post by mrzool »

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…

My thoughts exactly. I loved Tom Bombadil when reading the book as a child!

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

#57

Post by rst »

fritztastic wrote: post #35

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 e…

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.

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

#58

Post by ysavir »

boringg wrote: post #12

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

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.

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

#60

Post by Trasmatta »

permo-w wrote: post #40
jiggywiggy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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.
Post reply on HN