Live data from Hacker News

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

km-515.livejournal.com

201–210 of 349 posts

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

#201

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

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.

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

#202
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some researchers consider Tom to be the 'reader'

Perhaps the author?

He declined that... Tolkien said Tom Bombadil had been 'invented'. He considered his wife Edith: to have been Lúthien, so that would make Tolkien - Beren. "I never called Edith Lúthien – 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.

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

#203

> 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'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.

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

#204
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

#205
post #86
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…

> 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.

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.

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

#206
post #140

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.

> 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).

His boots _are_ yellow, though. Truth is on his side!

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

#207

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

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.

Missed opportunity for deliberate typo, 'gone rouge'.

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

#208
post #140

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.

> 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).

> 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).

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

#209
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.)

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

#210

> 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.

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.
Post reply on HN