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

291–300 of 349 posts

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

#291

Post by lucideer »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #234
lucideer wrote: post #50

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.

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…

Jackson would've had to make an interpretation about his presentation, not about his nature. I see no reason a similar approach to his literary description couldn't be achieved cinematically.

Fwiw I would've cast Tom Waits. And had musical scenes.

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

#292

Post by tigerlily »

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 for one was more relieved than disappointed. I never bothered with the Hobbit films, and don’t plan to see the forthcoming Amazon production.

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

#293

Post by mistrial9 »

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...

with much study over time, I have come to see one of the resiliant aspects of Christianity is an eagerness to consume all myth and lore and recast it as some story from the desert lands. There is no Adam and no Old Testament g*d in Tolkien, despite thousands of hours of Sunday school and preachers and AA meetings encouraging us to look more superficially at old stories and just resign ourselves to "yes, actually this is told in the Bible"

Tom Bombadil does not need your story of the Garden of Eden and you are invited to take it elsewhere, today.

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

#294

Post by rendall »

> A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story.

No way! I love the character, and would love to see him adapted. In a way, that he is so low priority kind of underscores what is so great about him.

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

#295

Post by p_l »

gumby wrote: post #290
thehappypm wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IIRC Gandalf knew who old Tom was. That being said, I thought that his appearance in the book was just a contrivance to introduce the sense that this was all middle earth, successor to an older earth older than the "old" things of Middle Earth, perhaps a purer and less subtle place. We have such a brief time with him in the books but he's one of my favorite characters because of his hints of depth in the narrative an…

Gandalf, being older than Arda itself, has certain advantages even Galadriel does not in terms of "knowing about things" - his vows might limit him in terms of what he can do or say, but sometimes the rules can be bent.

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

#296

Post by thehappypm »

vmilner wrote: post #269
thehappypm wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"He appeared already to know much about them and all their families, and indeed to know much of all the history and doings of the Shire down from days hardly remembered among the hobbits themselves. It no longer surprised them; but he made no secret that he owed his recent knowledge largely to Farmer Maggot, whom he seemed to regard as a person of more importance than they had imagined. ‘There’s earth under his old f…

Tom maybe knew Farmer Maggot and Gildor, but is there any evidence that Maggot or Gildor knew Tom?

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

#297

Post by CobrastanJorji »

fmajid wrote: post #229
ruffrey wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That would imply a whole lot of foresight, though.

Related: one of the coolest monsters I've seen in recent fantasy is Cthaeh from the Kingkiller Chronicles. He's an evil, omniscient being with near-perfect foresight, but he's stuck in a tree. Speaking with him is terribly dangerous because whatever he says to you is guided by a.) his perfect knowledge of all possible futures, and b.) his desire to maximize harm.

The elves did what was probably the most sensible thing they could: wall off the area around the tree and kill anybody who interacts with it in order to minimize its ability to affect the world.

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

#298

Post by SyzygistSix »

klyrs wrote: post #246
jiggywiggy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds indeed more in line with what Tolkien said, although everyone can create their own version of the story of course. Tolkien: "But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and…

It's funny, this is somewhat consistent with TFA. Humans consider nature to be evil and scary. Tolkien has no fear of his creation; it is what it is, but TFA's author is terrified at the notion that nature could overgrow the creations of man- and elf-kind if the simple powers of good and evil are removed from the world. If you keep salmon jerky in your tent, that's a great appetizer and you're a convenient meal. Does…

TFA?

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

#299

Post by Terr_ »

adolph wrote: post #267
throwaway_4ever wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stories of Diogenes are always entertaining. 'He destroyed the single wooden bowl he possessed on seeing a peasant boy drink from the hollow of his hands. He then exclaimed: "Fool that I am, to have been carrying superfluous baggage all this time!"' 'while Diogenes was relaxing in the morning sunlight, Alexander the Great, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Dio…

Interestingly similar to Lao-Zhe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi

A later poet Bai Juyi [1], criticizing Lao-Zhe for inconsistency:

> Those who speak do not know, those who know are silent,

> I heard this saying from the old gentleman.

> If the old gentleman was one who knew the way,

> Why did he feel able to write five thousand words?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Juyi

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

#300

Post by djokkataja »

mistrial9 wrote: post #293
mrex wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

with much study over time, I have come to see one of the resiliant aspects of Christianity is an eagerness to consume all myth and lore and recast it as some story from the desert lands. There is no Adam and no Old Testament g*d in Tolkien, despite thousands of hours of Sunday school and preachers and AA meetings encouraging us to look more superficially at old stories and just resign ourselves to "yes, actually this…

Tolkien's words on Lord of the Rings:

> The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Middle-earth

Post reply on HN