Live data from Hacker News

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

km-515.livejournal.com

221–230 of 349 posts

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

#221
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cirdan is certainly the oldest elf in Middle Earth during the period of the LotR. Treebeard and the other ents are probably older.

Gandalf, as a Maia, has got to be older than all left in Middle Earth.

Probably true, though as Gandalf himself refers to Treebeard as old.

In Chapter 5 of The Two Towers, Gandalf calls Treebeard "...the oldest living thing that still walks beneath the Sun upon this Middle-earth." In The Return of the King, Chapter 6, "Many Partings", Celeborn addresses Treebeard as "Eldest."

If Maia are included, then Sauron and Radagast (if still alive) would be just as old.

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

#222

I've always felt that Tom Bombadil was the Jar Jar banks of lord of the rings. Completely pointless character that I love for that exact reason.

But Jar-Jar was highly consequential, and not pointless at all. He was a delegate to the Senate, and he wanted to make a difference. As such, he took it upon himself to speak to the Senate, to grant Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers. You may argue that anyone else could have done that, but I'm not so sure; it seems like one of those things that many may support, more or less in quiet, but nobody wants to take the…

JJ is the secret puppetmaster of the whole epic.

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

#223

> 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…

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.

Now you can speak to one!

Perhaps it was the age when I first read the books (~12 or so years old) – but I loved the contrasts between the cozy world of the hobbits and the more savage, epic nature of the rest of Middle-earth.

For me, Tom Bombadil never fit well into either of these categories. There was a while where I heard about Tom Bombadil potentially being Eru Ilúvatar, but that theory has been found pretty lacking in various aspects, as well as having been debunked by Tolkien himself.

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

#224
The author of this has clearly not read much of Tolkien's legendarium beoynd the LoTR... This is a whole lot of speculation that does not at all fit into Eä, the World that is. Though indeed one might say the same of Bombadil, it is far from clear what role he has to play in Arda, and Tolkien took his cosmology very seriously, so there is every reason to think this mystery of who the hell is Tom Bombadil? is intentional. But the reasonings of this article is exactly those of conspiracy theorists, not those of any serious Tolkien scholar. Seemingly relying on “No hobbit has ever heard of him,” “Elrond, the greatest lore-master of the Third Age, has never heard of Tom Bombadil” as implicitly implying “therefore there must be some great dark secret,” Gandalf's explanations he simply dismisses as not “the true one.” Tolkien was a philologist, familiar with and directly inspired by many different mythologies, for example Väinämöinen, a hero and demigod of songs and poetry from finnish folklore has been pointed out as a possible inspiration for Bombadil. Though from his close connection to nature one would rather expect him to be a sort of demiurge than a hero, neither evil nor good, and indeed as opposed to Väinämöinen whose adventuring is due to his seeking a wife, Tom has a wife and makes a big point out of this, he is content, and has no desire for evil. If I may continue my rant I'll add that the very creation of Arda is by music, taught by Eru Ilúvatar, the One, to the Ainur. There is little doubt that Bombadil is among the Ainur, one of the Maia on par with Gandalf and Sauron. It seems entirely plausible to me, that Bombadil indeed is as he says, the oldest, of special significance to Ilúvatar, prior to Arda and whatever may be happening in it.

I'll also add that I have never heard of any Tolkien enthusiast not liking Bombadil before this. I suspect the author of this article is among the minority who thinks that abruptly breaking into song is lame, mistakenly of course, hehe.

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

#225
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.

How do you feel about the works of David Lynch?

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

#226
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merry's sword was Númenorean, but there was no need of that entire digression to get Merry a Númenorean sword. The movie has Aragorn tell them "here are some weapons, help yourselves", which is just as good.

You can argue that much of the books can be eliminated because they're just not Hollywood, reading is for boomers after all. The origin of the blade is relevant because they nearly died in getting it, and because it came from the tomb of a prince who himself died battling the Witch King, so in a sense he obtained vengeance from beyond the grave. "Wow, this sword just turned out to be magic, what a coincidence" isn't…

Reading is more popular with younger generations than boomers.

Reading had a massive renaissance with gen z and millennials have always read more than boomers.

The idea that the youth consider reading as geeky and boring is itself and outdated idea from the 80’s.

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

#227
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'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.

> If everyone else were ants, he would be an etymologist intrigued by our behavior or something.

Just in case it wasn't a typo, you certainly meant 'entomologist'.

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

#228
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…

Reminds me of the (apocryphal?) anecdote about Diogenes the cynic:

Diogenes was eating bread and lentils, when Aristippus told him that if he would only be subservient to the king, he would not have to live on bread and lentils. Diogenes replied that if you learn to live on bread and lentils, then you never have to be subservient to the king.

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

#229

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.

Actually I have a better theory: R2 actually hates all humans for having enslaved robots, and through mailicious compliance ensures all those he is in direct contact with get the worst possible outcomes.

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

#230
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.

Notably: plot isn't the only factor at play in a novel (or film, et c.). At least in the good ones.
Post reply on HN