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

231–240 of 349 posts

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

#231

Post by sn41 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #122
dbingham wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Huh. It never occurred to me that Deckard could be a replicant. That truly did come out of left field :D But it makes sense.

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

#232

Post by bell-cot »

mealkh wrote: post #207
bell-cot wrote: post #112

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.

Missed opportunity for deliberate typo, 'gone rouge'.

+1...but actually she acquired her taste for red outfits in the 9th century, while impersonating a Cardinal representing Antipope Anastasius Bibliothecarius ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasius_Bibliothecarius ) in Constantinople.

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

#233

Post by epicide »

lisper wrote: post #169
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #159

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.

Chekhov's Gun is but one playwright's opinion on what makes for "correct" dramatic structure.

As others have also stated, Tom is one of my favorite characters purely because he is left so unexplained. Tolkien sought to create a world. In order to create a world [0], it doesn't make sense for the whole of that world to be defined by a singular story or set of events. Least of all a world created by an author who so dearly loved folklore and mythology.

[0] an interesting one, anyway.

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

#234

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

lucideer wrote: post #50
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…

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.

I read the books as a kid, twice. I was glad they left Tom out of the movies. I mean, what he means to the story and the mythology is STILL being debated, 40 years after I read the books, and that was decades after they had been written. If Jackson had included him in the movies, he would have had to make an interpretation about his nature, one way or the other, or face endless waves of criticism from people (casuals) who don't understand that the character was left vague in the writing. I'm glad he didn't try to nail it down in the medium of film.

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

#236

Post by ncphil »

philbarr wrote: post #130
Trasmatta wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Witch King vs Gandalf in the movie distorted a key point about the wizards: they were tasked to assist humans and elves against evil, but not to use their power to defeat the enemy on their own, or to rule over Middle Earth. Saruman tried do do both, and lost eternity for it. Peter Jackson understood that, but chose for theatrical reasons to sweep it aside, just as he did the enigma of the Old Forest and the (in Tolkien's own words) "most important chapter in the book" on the Scouring of the Shire (the author compared it to "the situation in [Britain] after the war").

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

#238

Post by snowwrestler »

ethbr0 wrote: post #144
lucideer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 -…

It's admittedly in a different part of the book, so may be linguistic styling rather than lore-indicative, but the Old Forest felt more "wild" than "evil." In the Old Forest, there were certainly dangers, including some lethal ones, but loosely organized and operating independently. More druidic. Whereas Sauron / Morgoth were far more hierarchical in structuring their domains, exerted dominion over their forces, and…

The forests are selfish and harsh to outsiders but wish merely to sit and be left alone. The evil of Sauron and Saruman is their wish to spread and dominate (which puts Saruman in direct conflict with the forest, to his loss).

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

#239

Post by tsegratis »

ethbr0 wrote: post #144
lucideer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 -…

It's admittedly in a different part of the book, so may be linguistic styling rather than lore-indicative, but the Old Forest felt more "wild" than "evil." In the Old Forest, there were certainly dangers, including some lethal ones, but loosely organized and operating independently. More druidic. Whereas Sauron / Morgoth were far more hierarchical in structuring their domains, exerted dominion over their forces, and…

The old forest to me was always the Ent wives gone wild

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

#240

Post by numeromancer »

lisper wrote: post #169
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #159

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.

David Lynch directing The Lord of the Rings would be a fascinating experiment. Lynch would make the experience of the Ring-bearer, in particular, sublime.
Post reply on HN