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

141–150 of 349 posts

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

#141

Post by kagakuninja »

imwillofficial wrote: post #131
lief79 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to tell a couple people (generally college aged) to skip that chapter in order to get them to continue reading the books (around the time that the movies were coming out), as he wasn't important to the rest of the narrative. I know I was questioning if I wanted to finish the books when I read that part in 6th grade. The rest of it obviously made up for it. From your link, the set of comments under the first ans…

Your experience isn’t everyone’s. Your friends missed out in my opinion. Tom = awesome

That experience was mine, and I believe most of my college gamer friends.

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

#142

Post by martythemaniak »

I like this analysis much better: https://twitter.com/BeijingPalmer/status/1552467596817174529...

Tldr: "So that's what I think Tom is. He's Tolkien's version of what a pagan survival would have looked like in Middle Earth. He doesn't quite fit because he's from the bit of Middle Earth that is England, or a version of England, and from a different set of stories. "

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

#143

Post by dorchadas »

nindalf wrote: post #128
mynameisash wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He contributed exactly nothing to the story. Couldn't the same thing be said of Tolkien's colorful description of the countryside that can go on for pages at a time?

When I was reading the story I could understand that the descriptions of the country side were just for setting the scene. Whereas this guy takes up pages and pages, to ultimately have no effect on the story at all? Felt like a bait and switch to ten year old me.

Maybe it comes down to a difference of how people approach books? Do you think that everything in a book should ultimately have an effect on the story? Do you think Hugo's descriptions in Les Misérables contribute to the story, or that it should only ever be read in an abridged version?

Personally, I think those things (and Tom!) do contribute a lot to the story, so maybe that's why I liked Tom. There's more to writing than simply telling a story and making everything pertinent to that, and thus there's more to reading. Of course, I also like worldbuilding and would read D&D manuals simply for that, without ever playing sometimes, so another reason why I liked Tom, but I can't help but wonder if it's split into two camps because of how people approach reading and literature.

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

#144

Post by ethbr0 »

lucideer wrote: post #124
jrumbut wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And beyond that, I thought the first half or so of this reading (that Bombadil is a lot more than meets the eye) was also common. But he is definitely one of the most interesting characters and one of the best ways the story shows it is taking place in a big world with a lot of different things going on.

> 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 attempted to implement a master plan.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by sbf501 »

bell-cot wrote: post #112
AndrewDucker wrote: post #59

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

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.

> Next up: Little Red Riding Hood was actually a time-traveling deep cover Mossad agent gone rogue.

Tell me you wouldn't pay to see this.

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

#147

Post by mrex »

nindalf wrote: post #105
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…

> Did I just run in different Tolkien circles than the author? Almost certainly. Tolkien fans aren't a monolith, there's plenty of diversity of opinion. I remember seeing these screenshots of a Tolkien forum from 2000 and 2001 of people berating Peter Jackson in the most scathing terms. They were talking about how he's completely ruined Tolkien's legacy. That said, if you're looking for a Tolkien fan who dislikes Tom…

>He contributed exactly nothing to the story.

Or, did you just not understand what he contributed?

Why was Tom Bombadil invulnerable to the ring's power? Why was he not tempted by it? If you can't cogently answer that, I feel like you've probably just not yet understood what Tolkein was trying to represent.

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

#148

Post by Hayvok »

mabbo wrote: post #114
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 tried to read LoTR when I was 11. I got to Tom Bombadil and just gave up. 70 pages of him singing with no real point. I just couldn't go on. I finally read it in full around 5 years later.

As a kid I would get bored and skip the Tom Bombadil section - it was only years later as a young adult and I was starting to get deeper into the lore that I found him to be a fascinating character, with deep implications.

Absolutely agree he needed to be dropped from the theatrical release. Would have been nice to see him in the extended edition though.

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

#149

Post by anupj »

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 stopped taking the article seriously after I read this line. IMO Tom Bombadil was a very likeable character. The author seems to have imagined a problem (where none existed) and then proceeded to explain why it's not a problem. Almost a clickbait.

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

#150

Post by slaymaker1907 »

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…

Yeah, I've gotten a lot of positive comments for my character "Tom Bombabil" in FFXIV. It's kind of an insider thing for who read the books vs who just watched the movies. Personally, I liked him just for carefree and silly he was.
Post reply on HN