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

121–130 of 349 posts

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

#121

Post by jcul »

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.…

Kind of the opposite of Chekhov's gun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

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

#122

Post by ethbr0 »

dbingham wrote: post #61
jfengel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expl…

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.

> 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.

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

#123

Post by hacknat »

eric_cc wrote: post #89

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…

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.

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

#124

Post by lucideer »

jrumbut wrote: post #73
lucideer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

#125

Post by SkyMarshal »

ineedasername wrote: post #94

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…

Encyclopedia of Arda has an analysis of that, and concludes he’s not Eru: https://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html

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

#126

Post by a3w »

ineedasername wrote: post #94

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…

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

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

#127

Post by lief79 »

dbingham wrote: post #61
jfengel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expl…

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.

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.

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

#128

Post by nindalf »

mynameisash wrote: post #119
nindalf wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

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.

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

#129

Post by yreg »

Trasmatta wrote: post #60
permo-w wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps G.R.R. Martin?

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

#130

Post by philbarr »

Trasmatta wrote: post #41
lordfoom wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 attr…

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.
Post reply on HN