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

241–250 of 349 posts

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

#241

Post by [deleted] »

permo-w wrote: post #40
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…

I really like this. In many many many works of fiction, if you are presented with an odd detail that seems extraneous to the plot or the aesthetic, there’s a huge chance that this will turn out to be some kind of pivotal point later in the story. I love that Tolkien was introducing them simply to create depth - and to a great extent - to provoke the feelings that bring about posts and discussion like this https://en.…

[deleted]

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

#242

Post by StrictDabbler »

nonameiguess wrote: post #69
jfengel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. But I know a lot of people who find Tom irrelevant to the plot. It looks more like a silly digression just at the time the book had shifted from "Hobbit sequel" to serious epic. He talks in poetry that can feel singsong and childish. Tolkien fans seem to focus on the bit with the Ring, which is an engaging enigma without a resolution. It makes him seem very important and powerful, but the story doesn't expl…

It provides some pretty key context to where Merry got his blade from and why it is able to break the spell and make the Witch King killable. Bit of a better explanation than Eowyn's "I am no man."

That "I am no man" thing is annoying because it's a loose thread on the tapestry of Middle-Earth. It's obviously a Macbeth reference:

"Fear not, Macbeth; no man that's born of woman. Shall e'er have power upon thee."

In Macbeth that turns out to be a man who was a Caesarean birth but Tolkein thought that was a cheap solution to the problem. A hobbit and a woman, now we're talking.

And if you think about that you realize the ents and huorn were a reference too:

"[he] shall never vanquished be until the Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come against him"

It turns out that Tolkein confirmed that the huorn and the ents came from his disappointment as a child that the trees in Macbeth were just guys wearing branches.

Once you know that it's hard to look at the books in the same way. You have to compare Denethor's role as unfaithful steward with the stewards in Macbeth and pretty soon you're just running a comparative literature class in your head.

Who's Wormtongue supposed to be? Is he a reference to King Lear's daughters? Is the scene where he tries to marry Eowyn a reference to Richard III?

Aragorn's speech is awfully Henry V, and the return of the Army of the Dead is awfully like the WWI short-story of the Angels of Mons where Henry's army returned to the aid of the British line.

Searching for tropes is a normal part of reading literature but normally you're just looking for parallels. I wish he hadn't included an actual reference to Macbeth to force the issue.

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

#243

Post by jxf »

jcul wrote: post #121
permo-w wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like this. In many many many works of fiction, if you are presented with an odd detail that seems extraneous to the plot or the aesthetic, there’s a huge chance that this will turn out to be some kind of pivotal point later in the story. I love that Tolkien was introducing them simply to create depth - and to a great extent - to provoke the feelings that bring about posts and discussion like this https://en.…

Kind of the opposite of Chekhov's gun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

That seems like an example of Chekhov's gun rather than the opposite of it. The seemingly unnecessary thing is actually quite vital, adhering to Chekhov's idea that you should only introduce vital things, just with a bit of subterfuge.

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

#244

Post by dbingham »

lief79 wrote: post #127
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 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…

I'm not arguing that there aren't some people who don't enjoy Tom, only that it's not a clear and overwhelming majority. The comment arguing that Tom is extraneous has 5 votes, on an answer with over 400. Though, to be fair, that's a self-selected sample, because Tolkien fans who aren't that interested in Tom probably wouldn't click on the question. But still, I think more evidence has been provided in this thread and that one for Tolkien fans enjoying Tom as a whole than for fans not enjoying him.

It's pedantic to argue about really, but hey, it's the internet! And what better way to take a break from beating one's head against one's cloud provider than to have a gently pedantic argument about something that matters not one bit on the internet ;)

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

#245

Post by lisper »

corrral wrote: post #225
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.

How do you feel about the works of David Lynch?

I have a system that I use to rate movies: "Must see", "Worthwhile", "Wait for the video" and "Don't waste your time." After watching Mulholland Drive I had to invent a fifth rating: "I want those two hours of my life back."

Does that answer your question?

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

#246

Post by klyrs »

jiggywiggy wrote: post #20
tevon wrote: post #3

To me, Tom Bombadil is the introduction of natural magic. He is nature, indicating to the reader that there is a source of magic beyond the elves, Wizards, and Sauron. There are many magical creatures in Middle-Earth without a described source, which to me makes the whole story feel more magic. The Ents probably being the chief example. Another important role of Tom’s is his introduction of magic and power outside of…

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. Doesn't make the bear evil though.

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

#247

Post by KineticLensman »

adrian_b wrote: post #96
KineticLensman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's harder to say because in large part it depends how much language evolves. LoTR is interesting here because it explicitly contains examples of language change. In fact language change was one of Tolkien's original motivations for developing the history of Middle Earth - to provide a historical context for the evolution of Elvish. E.g. Elves being sundered during the First Age and then developing independent l…

Even if I am not a native English speaker, when I have read "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit", many decades ago, when I was young, one of the main reasons why I have enjoyed them very much has been the distinctive language in which they have been written. I cannot say what exactly made me believe this, but while reading them I thought that these books contain some of the most beautiful English language that I…

Totally agree. There are a couple of places where the writing and language are lyrical and some of the best writing I've encountered.

Examples are the battle of the Pelennor Fields, and in fact (coming back to the subject of the article), the description of the stories that Tom tells to the hobbits - e.g.: Suddenly Tom's talk left the woods and went leaping up the young stream, over bubbling waterfalls, over pebbles and worn rocks and among small flowers in close grass and wet crannies, wandering at last up to the Downs. They heard of the Great Barrows, and the green mounds, and the stone-rings upon the hills and in the hollows among the hills. Sheep were bleating in flocks. Green walls and white walls rose. There were fortresses on the heights. Kings of little kingdoms fought together, and the young Sun shone like fire on the red metal of their new and greedy swords...

I first read TLoTR in 1973 (50 years ago, next year) and it has had a special place in my heart ever since.

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

#248

Post by lisper »

PeterCorless wrote: post #191
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.

See, that's the best part. It's what makes people "fall into" Middle Earth. That there was whole parts of the backstory that don't get explained. That there are periods of history you get a glimpse into to believe there is a huge depth to it. That the way we see the continent now is not how it always was. Who were the barrow wights? Why were they cursed? As a kid first reading it, I feared the barrow wights as much i…

> The whole aside was to show that the hobbits had truly "left the Shire" and that perils lay along the road in any direction they might turn.

OK, but Tom doesn't strike me as particularly perilous. He just seems weird.

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

#249

Post by throwaway_4ever »

sn41 wrote: post #228
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…

Reminds me of the (apocryphal?) anecdote about Diogenes the cynic: Diogenes was eating bread and lentils, when Aristippus told him that if he would only be subservient to the king, he would not have to live on bread and lentils. Diogenes replied that if you learn to live on bread and lentils, then you never have to be subservient to the king.

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. Diogenes replied, "Yes, stand out of my sunlight." Alexander then declared, "If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes." "If I were not Diogenes, I would still wish to be Diogenes," Diogenes replied.'

'Some one took him into a magnificent house and warned him not to spit, whereupon having cleared his throat he discharged the phlegm into the man's face, being unable, he said, to find a meaner receptacle.'

The dude was a modern lunatic homeless man venerated into legend status for thousands of years.

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

#250

Post by lisper »

numeromancer wrote: post #240
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.

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.

You would probably like Richard Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" then.
Post reply on HN