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

321–330 of 349 posts

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

#321

Post by WJW »

sfjailbird wrote: post #319
ergonaught wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…?

You and me both. He seems like a copy/paste from some children's book Tolkien had lying around, which he then threw in as filler for LOTR. Of course, hardcore fans come up with more or less tortured explanations for the glaring inconsistencies. I say that as someone who has held up LOTR as some of my favorite books my whole life. I started re-reading them recently after 20 years and had to quit after Tom Bombadil.

Honestly why would you quit after the Tom Bombadil part if you love everything but his part. He literally doesn't appear at all after the few chapters he takes up.

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

#322

Post by ldmdldma »

WJW wrote: post #307
thehappypm wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I like to think so, after all: > there's wisdom in his bones, and both his eyes are open No proof whatsoever, of course, but just the existence of Tom Bombadil reminds us that there are people in the world (perhaps even the majority) who actually care very little about this whole "Ring" business and just go about living their lives.

What a strange way to look at it, when most of the inhabitants of Middle Earth had no choice in the matter of whether they were involved in the business of the Ring, as catastrophe came to them regardless as to their interest, as evidenced by the return to the Shire at the end of the trilogy, the ending left out of the movies. Frodo even laments his own role at one point, and says he wishes that he did not live in a time with these events, and Gandalf assures him that is how all who live through historic events feel.

It was only because of the selfless sacrifice of Frodo and Sam that any may have been able to live a life untouched by the turmoil of the reawakening of Sauron. If they had failed, nobody would have had a choice whether or not to "care" about the Ring -- they'd simply be oppressed by it.

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

#323

Post by mudita »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #297
fmajid wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I find it interesting how much Cthaeh, the Simurgh from the web serial “Worm” and Prometheus - the god of foresight - from Scott Alexander’s short story “A Modern Myth” (https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/27/a-modern-myth/) are basically incarnations of the same concept.

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

#324

Post by whatgoodisaroad »

WillAdams wrote: post #274
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The thing is, he didn't need to be in the movies _per se_ --- they just needed to have the Hobbits swallowed up by Old Man Willow, then fade to black, then they awaken on the Barrow w/ a couple of swords, and the ponies tied up nearby, and a figure riding away on a pony humming/singing a tune. Folks who had read the books would know what had happened, folks who hadn't would just have to accept it as a magical inciden…

IIRC, there is a scene in the extended cut of the RotK that alludes to this part of the story.

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

#325

Post by sfink »

zikzak wrote: post #82
Trasmatta wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah, I love Tolkien, but I still skip all the songs. They just never work for me in written text.

I was like you once, then I read The Hobbit to my son and had to (HAD TO) sing all the songs to him. It kind of forced me to slow down and appreciate them as atmosphere enhancing and world building that really does improve the experience for me.

Ha! I could say exactly the same thing. The songs ended up being some of the most fun parts to read/sing. Even when some of them made us laugh about how repetitive or strange they were.

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

#326

Post by r2_pilot »

jtbayly wrote: post #276
JadeNB wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'.

Someone who studies ents?

https://xkcd.com/1012/

https://xkcd.com/1010/

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

#327

Post by JohnBooty »

mistrial9 wrote: post #302
djokkataja wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.wikipe…

maybe argument maps will improve the debate score on this topic?

Maybe accepting definitive statements from primary sources will improve your knowledge on this topic?

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

#328

Post by JohnBooty »

Rzor wrote: post #180
yreg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps G.R.R. Martin?

Yes, to a vastly larger scope, imo.

For my tastes, it's not a matter of the biggest scope or the most obsessively detailed world history.

What I appreciate about Tolkien's world is the sense of wonder I felt when reading LOTR. He explained soo many details of that world but just as crucially he was very artful about what he chose not to explain. Adding to that, Tolkien and the characters themselves seemed to share this sense of wonder. Gandalf, who knew more about the world than even the Elves, never lost his sense of wonder and reverence for things.

GRRM's fantasy world is, well... more realistic, that's for sure. Characters are mostly just trying to be king, or to fuck, or get money, or simply survive. I like those books too. And GRRM has said of course that he was explicitly trying to create something like an anti-LOTR that showed the lives of people who weren't necessarily heroes or even good people.

I like the GRRM novels but I still prefer LOTR's sense of wonder. But, nobody's wrong if they have the opposite opinion. Or if they hate both. :)

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

#329

Post by JohnBooty »

xxs wrote: post #314
WJW wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it would come down to if you think the Ring could influence the reader of the story, if it were possible for the reader to actually acquire the Ring. Tbh, it seems obvious to me that any ordinary human would probably fall to its pernicious influence. I certainly would, and its powers are such that I just can't imagine any human could resist its charms. Yet, Bombadil is completely untouched by it. Tom Bombad…

Much like Tom, the reader is out of that world, so the ring power doesn't extend... the reader can see the unseen (Frodo/Bilbo having the ring on) and so on.

This is one of those theories that can't really be disproven (like the many eyeroll-inducing theories about the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction) but it also makes little to no sense and is clearly not what the author intended.

Consider:

Perhaps Tom Bombadil represents Santa Claus? After all, Santa Claus has magical powers that utterly transcend what mortal humans can even comprehend. And yet the remains detached from worldly events, never taking a side in wars, never helping human beings during crises that could clearly benefit from his powers, etc.

The truth is that, characters like Tom (and Santa Claus -- if they are indeed not the same person) are fairly common throughout fiction and mythology.

After all, if you invent a character with absolutely transcendental superpowers, you need to explain why the character has chosen not to use those powers to i.e. cure world hunger, or end war, or whatever.

You can see this in... well, any major world religion. Notice how God never directly intervenes in the New Testament, even though he clearly could? Yeah, it's explained.

Broadly speaking Tom Bombadil is like that.

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

#330

Post by NeverFade »

pozdnyshev wrote: post #281
NeverFade wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many magical creatures in Middle-Earth without a described source, which to me makes the whole story feel more magic. As far as I know, this isn't true. Virtually all creatures and major characters in LotR have a clear source in the lore Tolkien developed. Of course, only a fraction of this lore is in LotR itself, and the rest was in notes published after his death, e.g. in The Silmarillion. That's precis…

I disagree. Tolkien leaves plenty to the imagination and often alludes to histories or events which he doesn't bother explaining elsewhere. >'We cannot go further tonight,' said Boromir. `Let those call it the wind who will; there are fell voices on the air; and these stones are aimed at us.' `I do call it the wind,' said Aragorn. `But that does not make what you say untrue. There are many evil and unfriendly things…

> Aragorn explains that there are evils older than Sauron

Caradhras contained Durin's Bane, a Balrog, which sufficiently explains this comment. There are certainly many evils predating Sauron, notably Morgoth.

Post reply on HN