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

271–280 of 349 posts

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

#271

Post by corrral »

lisper wrote: post #245
corrral wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Does that answer your question?

Ha! Yeah. At least you're consistent :-)

Lynch fills his works with characters and scenes that are—at best—plot-adjacent, whimsical/incongruous/uncanny, and full of often-unexplained and apparently-metaphysical mystery or magic. He's as likely to let mood or theme drive the content of and editorial-decision-to-include a scene or a shot or an entire character(!), as plot. It makes sense you'd dislike his stuff if you don't like the Bombadil section of LOTR.

(this is not intended as some kind of judgement, to be clear, I was just curious if works with similar qualities had the same effect for you, or it was something specific to that kind of element being in LOTR in particular, maybe because of the context or something)

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

#272

Post by jrumbut »

ethbr0 wrote: post #144
lucideer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's possible to have a disorganized evil! Maybe I just like a secret villain.

I always assumed a component of the forest was a way to keep Hobbits at home and home with the Hobbits.

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

#273

Post by corrral »

lmkg wrote: post #268
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.

Not to pile on, but... One of Tolkien's goals was to create something which resembled history rather than literature . Or if not history, then mythology that plausibly belongs to a real place, rather than a neatly-constructed story. So, some of the things that he does are "janky" from a purely dramatic perspective, but fulfill that purpose. A common example from Lord of the Rings is having many related characters wit…

In part, I think it's one of the ways he mimics the form of books like Beowulf or Gilgamesh or other works of that sort—that kind of thing tends to be full of digressions and whole scenes that simply seem like mistakes—dragging down the "momentum", not "advancing the plot"—if you're going by modern very-focused standards of what constitutes acceptable plotting, which of course is the kind of thing most people are used to reading/watching.

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

#274

Post by WillAdams »

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…

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 incident/rescue w/o explanation.

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

#275

Post by kbelder »

intrasight wrote: post #88
Trasmatta wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue it's the one piece of fiction from the last 100 years with the highest likelihood of staying power for the next 1000 years. If any piece of fiction from this period of time is still important in human culture in 1000 years (taking for granted that humans still exist), I think it would be Tolkien's work.

I will venture further out on the speculative limb, and predict that in 1000 years when virtual reality subsumes reality, that Middle Earth (and the larger Tolkien world) will become the dominant reality - as it doesn't and may never have any competition for that role.

You may be right, although a part of my heart wishes for Burrough's Barsoom.

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

#276

Post by jtbayly »

JadeNB wrote: post #227
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's extremely mysterious and in a good way. 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. I think he gives off eldritch horror vibes, but in a mostly benevolent way. If everyone else were ants, he would be an etymologist intrigued by our behavior or something.

> 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?

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

#277

Post by [deleted] »

Trasmatta wrote: post #41
lordfoom wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is even an active sub-reddit of fans: https://old.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/ And his absence from the films was remarked upon, negatively in my circles.

> And his absence from the films was remarked upon, negatively in my circles. Yeah, same. On Tolkien forums in the early to mid 2000's, I think these were the most commented on complaints about the movies: * No Tom Bombadil * No Scouring of the Shire * Movie Faramir vs book Faramir * The Ents deciding to not help Merry and Pippin at first (tbh, this is the one that still gets me the most. It sort of ruined a key attr…

[deleted]

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

#278

Post by ColanR »

throwaway_4ever wrote: post #249
sn41 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Dio…

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

“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” It's funny, but if you visit some of the vagabond subreddits you can read some very Diogenes-esque philosophies. I don't think they're all crazy - there's a subset who chose that life, and I think some of them have chosen well. Diogenes wasn't mad; he could just hear the music we can't.

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

#279

Post by kbelder »

tablespoon wrote: post #237

This particular article may be old, but by now I'm kind of tired of the "forced reinterpretation of X as sinister and evil" trope.

And its cousin, the "forced reinterpretation of villain Y as misunderstood and justified".

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

#280

Post by justin66 »

Jenz wrote: post #224

The author of this has clearly not read much of Tolkien's legendarium beoynd the LoTR... This is a whole lot of speculation that does not at all fit into Eä, the World that is. Though indeed one might say the same of Bombadil, it is far from clear what role he has to play in Arda, and Tolkien took his cosmology very seriously, so there is every reason to think this mystery of who the hell is Tom Bombadil? is intentio…

> There is little doubt that Bombadil is among the Ainur, one of the Maia on par with Gandalf and Sauron.

Tom Bombadil is the slacker version of Melian the Maia. Instead of marrying Elvish royalty and running an enchanted kingdom, he shacked up with an orphan and runs a nature park full of angry, semi-sentient trees.

He could do a lot more if he really applied himself.

Post reply on HN