Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011) • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by chasil » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

fritztastic wrote: post #42

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…

I was disappointed he was not in the films, however everyone else I know was glad of this omission. I think his character adds a certain something- maybe something a lot of people don't appreciate. Not including him in the movies, I thought, was a missed opportunity.

I think that I really would have enjoyed the characterization discussed in the linked article, of Bombadil as the dark hand of Mirkwood, provider of the blade that would slay the witchking.

A lot of people likely would have despised such a characterization.

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

#252

Post by lisper » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

epicide wrote: post #233

lisper wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 de…

It's not that I'm taking Chekhov's Gun as an axiom. The rest of LOTR hangs together quite well on this criterion. I'm judging Tom by that standard. Gollum, for example, makes sense. In fact, Gollum is probably one of the best examples of a dramatically coherent character in all of literature. He is introduced as a bit player and ends up being a pivotal and very complex character, almost a protagonist in his own right. But that only happened (and let me apologize in advance for venting some frustration here) because he didn't just fucking vanish after being introduced!

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

#253

Post by hcrisp » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

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…

I was amused to read in his review of Fellowship that one of C.S. Lewis' favorite characters was Tom Bombadil:

But there is more in the book still. Every now and then, risen from sources we can only conjecture and almost alien (one would think) to the author’s habitual imagination, figures meet us so brimming with life (not human life) that they make our sort of anguish and our sort of exaltation seem unimportant. Such is Tom Bombadil, such the unforgettable Ents. This is surely the utmost reach of invention, when an author produces what seems to be not even his own, much less anyone else’s. Is mythopoeia, after all, not the most, but the least, subjective of activities?

https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/c-s-lewis-rev...

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

#254

Post by qrush » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

If you haven't discovered it yet: Andy Serkis narrated audiobooks for the Hobbit and the entire LoTR trilogy, and it's a joy. His voice and singing for Tom Bombadil is stuck in my head forever now!

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

#255

Post by jonnycomputer » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

What a load of crap.

>And yet no hobbit has ever heard of him.

Farmer Maggot knows him.

> 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.

Nonsense. On all counts.

I won't even go on from here. Ugh.

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

#256

Post by Trasmatta » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

Rzor wrote: post #180

yreg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps G.R.R. Martin?

Yes, to a vastly larger scope, imo.

GRRM really nails the politics, but Tolkien still has a hand up on the overall world building.

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

#257

Post by epicide » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #252

epicide wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

It's not that I'm taking Chekhov's Gun as an axiom. The rest of LOTR hangs together quite well on this criterion. I'm judging Tom by that standard. Gollum, for example, makes sense. In fact, Gollum is probably one of the best examples of a dramatically coherent character in all of literature. He is introduced as a bit player and ends up being a pivotal and very complex character, almost a protagonist in his own right…

How would one demonstrate a character who is so powerful that they can "just fucking vanish" without having them do just that?

You could go on to explain that fact or similar, but I think driving home that point any more than Tolkien did just muddies it and makes it more clumsy.

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

#258

Post by usrusr » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

inopinatus wrote: post #25

xxs wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some researchers consider Tom to be the 'reader'

I have long considered him to break the fourth wall, but I lean toward Tom being an oblique author self-insertion, irrespective of Tolkien’s claim to not be embodied within his works.

My default assumption when I read any of the many "middle-earth x is not real world y" statements Tolkien has been provoked to make is that it's either a lie or an honest mistake. I believe that he was perfectly capable of writing about the war he served in while firmly believing that he was not.

The primary function/role I'd ascribe to Bombadil is almost the same same as that of the hobbits: the common man who'd like nothing more than not being bothered with The Great Game. Just with the twist that unlike the hobbits, he actually has the means to make that a reality. Everything else, the age, the powers, the mystery, it's first of all a requirement to make that role possible in Tolkien's world. That it adds depth, mystery, hn frontpage posts, that's all just a nice side effect.

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

#259

Post by thehappypm » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

mrex wrote: post #152

hacknat wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Tom Bombadil is quite clearly what Tolkein referred to as a "subcreation echo" of biblical Adam. Oldest, fatherless, unaffected by original sin and thus not tempted or influenced in the least by the ring, literally living his life as uncontested master of a lush garden. He is Adam, if Adam had contented himself with a Gold Berry instead of that apple...

That doesn’t explain why nobody has heard of him for thousands and thousands of years, and yet the Hobbits stray right into his path Willy-nilly

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

#260

Post by ergonaught » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

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…

I’ve hated Tom since the first time I read the series, which must be over 40 years ago now. I’ve hated him on every reread. Leaving him out of the films was one of my happiest moments.

Sooooo we exist…?