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.
Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
171–180 of 349 posts
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#172> 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…
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.
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#173> 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 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.
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.
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#174> 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 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.
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#175This is a wonderful spin; the author says that they don't believe Tolkien intended this. But it's a fun thing to think about.
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#176A 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 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.
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#177About 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…
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.
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#178This reminds me of the fan theory that Tom Bombadil is secretly the Witch-King of Angmar: http://www.flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm
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.
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#179> 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…
That is one the top 10 complaints about the movies "No Tom Bombadil?!!". So yeah, entirely wrong.
Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Yes, to a vastly larger scope, imo.