PDA

View Full Version : the narrative relevance of the oft-hated Tom Bombadil



Fitz10019
2009-07-09, 06:12 AM
I am trying to move a derail of the 'rules that don't make sense' thread to this new threat.


... explain, at length, the narrative reason for the existance of Tom Bombadil. There isn't any. He's only there so that Tolkein could rhyme "fellow" with "yellow."


Why does there have to be a "good narrative" reason for him to exist? He's a mystery that adds to the lore of Middle Earth. Why does The Ring have no affect on him? No one knows. Bombadil could likely end the threat on Middle Earth all on his own yet he simply doesn't bother himself with such things and continues on his regular activities. He's just an extra character that adds more life and mystery to the world. It's no fun if you fully understand absolutely everything.

Also, Tom Bombadil saves the Hobbits from both Old Man Willow and the wights in the Barrow Downs. Without him being in the forest to intervene there would have been no convincing way to get the Hobbits out of those encounters alive, and thus less chance to flesh out his world and reinforce the gravity of the situation they're in (defenseless Hobbits out to save the world).



... but Tom Bombadil actually does serve a purpose. In fact, you could argue that he's the entire point of the series. That purpose is this:

Remember how much people feared the One Ring? How people as powerful as Gandalf and Galadriel wouldn't so much as touch it, because it would corrupt them?

Tom Bombadil touched the One Ring.

He didn't fear it, he didn't desire it, and so it didn't corrupt him.

Also note, that the Barrow Downs are where the hobbits got their swords. In D&D terms, they could not have survived the 'encounter' with the Barrow Wights, so Bombadil was necessary to defeat the Wight. The hobbits got the loot. This is the only reason that Merry had a blade powerful enough to affect the Nazgul King in the Battle in the Pelennor Fields, foiling the Nazgul's attack on Eowyn, who then destroyed him.


So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

This is meant to defend Bombadil's narrative purpose, not the rhyming.

rakkoon
2009-07-09, 06:19 AM
Bombadil is oft-hated?
How weird, the first I and many of my friends said that the omission of said character was a serious flaw in the film.

Attilargh
2009-07-09, 07:21 AM
Also note, that the Barrow Downs are where the hobbits got their swords. In D&D terms, they could not have survived the 'encounter' with the Barrow Wights, so Bombadil was necessary to defeat the Wight. The hobbits got the loot. This is the only reason that Merry had a blade powerful enough to affect the Nazgul King in the Battle in the Pelennor Fields, foiling the Nazgul's attack on Eowyn, who then destroyed him.
How I read the above: The players' decision to try and take a shortcut prompted the DM to give them two random encounters, both of which turned out too strong to be overcome without the aid of an omnipotent DMPC. The player characters then get some swords for loot. Probably because the DM felt sorry for their inability to do anything in combat. Many, many sessions later it is time for the final showdown with the BBEG and his right-hand man, and Merry is about to die, again. So, in a fit of desperation, the DM quickly comes up with a plan, and reveals Merry's weapon as a +1 Dagger of Witch King Distraction.

Now, I am aware that I'm being rather unfair here, but really, this all sounds like a bad D&D campaign. Everything related to Bombadil is a giant Deus Ex Machina, and I don't like that in novels (or, for that matter, my campaign settings). The hobbits Merry doesn't succeed in distracting the Lich King because he's the only one brave enough to go and shank him, he succeeds because the sword he was given three books ago just happened to be the Lich-Kryptonite. Merry is not the hero here, Tom Bombadil is.

Anteros
2009-07-09, 07:28 AM
Everything related to Bombadil is a giant Deus Ex Machina,

This. If Tolkein wants to introduce random, pointless beings with godlike power in order to deepen his setting? That's fine.

When you use them to resolve plot points because you wrote yourself into a corner? That's terrible.

kamikasei
2009-07-09, 07:30 AM
(This should probably be in Media Discussions.)

Bombadil was not totally superfluous to the plot, in that if you cut him out there would be loose ends. That doesn't mean he couldn't, and shouldn't, easily have been edited out. His bizarre nature and power make him a wart on the cosmology of Arda. He comes off, essentially, as a silly idea Tolkien was too fond of to cut as he should.

There was no need for the hobbits to encounter Old Man Willow in the first place, never mind to be rescued by a gaudily-dressed madman. The Barrow-downs could have been reworked too. Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd escaped from that threat by themselves? Even the assistance of, say, Elves would have been preferable to the strange intrusion of Bombadil into the story.

\/ ...Well, damn it. Now I kind of wish we'd gotten to see that.

Thanks for confirming what I suspected was probably the case, though, that Bombadil was carried over from some other work of Tolkien's and included essentially as filler. Kids, this is why editing is important! You are allowed to go back and revise earlier parts of the book before you publish! This does not mean simply spellchecking the quenya!

bosssmiley
2009-07-09, 07:40 AM
Tom Bombadil? Based on one of Chris Tolkien's cuddly toys IIRC; so essentially an expy of Winnie the Pooh (Goldberry? she's probably Piglet...).* Added to the story when - by his own admission - Tolkien had only the vaguest idea where exactly the plot was going.

Bombadil's narrative purpose: to show that life goes on aside from the adventure.
Bombadil's ulterior purpose: to singlehandedly kill folk music in the UK. :smalltongue:

Bombadil's absence from the films? His role as powerful-but-vague 'old man of the woods' was played by Treebeard anyway; but I do regret the missed opportunity for what could have been the single greatest BRIANBLESSED! role since Vultan the Hawkman. :smallcool:


sneak preview from the 25th Anniversary Edition of Fellowship: Tom Bombadil Fanwank Extended Edition

"HEY NONNY-NONNY-NO TOM BOMBADILLO! HE HAS NO SENSE OF COLOUR COORDINATION!"
"Oh Master Frodo, what is that terrible noise?"
"I don't know Sam. But then I am an ineffectual fop..."
"HELLOOOO! I'M TOM BOMBADIL!"
"Agh! Moi ears!"

Now that I'd watch. :smallamused:

-----

* Can you imagine just how great "The House at Pooh Corner" would have been if Tolkien had ghost-written it for A.A.Milne?

Chapter Five: In Which Piglet son of Porkchop, last scion of the House of Oink, Meets an Oliphaunt within the Forest Hundrid Ackar

ZeroNumerous
2009-07-09, 07:58 AM
A bunch of stuff about D&D

Tolkien wasn't playing D&D. He was writing a story. Tom's purpose is rather simple, actually. He existed to prove that the Ring is not infallible. That it is not undefeatable and thus can be destroyed like any other object. He proves that it is not an all consuming thing which cannot be denied. To Tom, it's merely a shiny loop of metal. The fact that he's filler from something else entirely is beside the point since his purpose is served either way.

Jayabalard
2009-07-09, 08:05 AM
Tolkien wasn't playing D&D. He was writing a story. Personally I think it's more accurate to say he was writing a mythology/fictional history. The story was almost incidental.


(Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd escaped from that threat by themselves? No, I don't think so; it's best that they were basically helpless and had to be rescued.


Thanks for confirming what I suspected was probably the case, though, that Bombadil was carried over from some other work of Tolkien's and included essentially as filler.pretty much all of lord of the rings is carried over from some other work; I'm convinced that if he had not focused on creating such a full and complete mythology noone would have payed his stories any attention.... that's one of the things that makes it stand out above other fantasy.

kamikasei
2009-07-09, 08:07 AM
Tom's purpose is rather simple, actually. He existed to prove that the Ring is not infallible. That it is not undefeatable and thus can be destroyed like any other object. He proves that it is not an all consuming thing which cannot be denied. To Tom, it's merely a shiny loop of metal. The fact that he's filler from something else entirely is beside the point since his purpose is served either way.

Tom proves only that some unexplained "spirit of the land" entity is immune to the Ring's lure. That doesn't really add much either way to the drama of the Ainur and Children of Illuvatar who the story is otherwise about, and for whom the temptation of the Ring pretty much is all-consuming. Where's the narrative purpose in "hey look, this weird guy who's totally unique and unexplained isn't affected by the Ring! ...The rest of us are still screwed though. And we can't actually make any use of him in our plans."?


pretty much all of lord of the rings is carried over from some other work; I'm convinced that if he had not focused on creating such a full and complete mythology noone would have payed his stories any attention.... that's one of the things that makes it stand out above other fantasy.

Bombadil is sort of the opposite of a "full and complete mythology", though. He's something that had no real place in the framework of the story, and his inclusion weakens the structure overall.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-09, 08:13 AM
I still don't get the "oft-hated" part. This is, in fact, the first place I have ever seen anyone say they hated Tom Bombadil.

Jayabalard
2009-07-09, 08:18 AM
Bombadil is sort of the opposite of a "full and complete mythology", though.I can't agree with that at all. Mythologies are full of things that aren't consistent, and enigmas, things that can't be explained.


Where's the narrative purpose in "hey look, this weird guy who's totally unique and unexplained isn't affected by the Ring! ...The rest of us are still screwed though. And we can't actually make any use of him in our plans."?Among other things, these scenes show the corrupting power of the ring, as in how it works (or in this case, doesn't work); specifically illustrating that someone who would not be interested in wielding it at all is immune to it's influence. This is significant, because even the wise are tempted.

JMM
2009-07-09, 08:41 AM
He's something that had no real place in the framework of the story, and his inclusion weakens the structure overall.

Are you referring above to LotR's narrative structure, that of Arda's cosmology or both?

snoopy13a
2009-07-09, 08:41 AM
I still don't get the "oft-hated" part. This is, in fact, the first place I have ever seen anyone say they hated Tom Bombadil.

Me too.

Although, the first couple of chapters of Fellowship are my favorite part of The Lord of the Rings. I think Bombadil was a great character.

Telonius
2009-07-09, 08:42 AM
One theme in Tolkien's work is the need of a deus ex machina. Time after time in his works, people screw things up so badly that divine intervention is needed to fix things. Gandalf always shows up at the last minute to get people working together. The hosts of Valinor are needed to finally defeat Morgoth. Though even that intervention would go for nothing, if the minor players hadn't done their part. I don't mind a little deus ex machina in those situations - "grace" is one of the points of the book. (Whether you agree with the author is another question).

Magicus
2009-07-09, 08:45 AM
Now, I am aware that I'm being rather unfair here, but really, this all sounds like a bad D&D campaign.
I'm going to have to disagree on this issue... I've always felt that some of the best things about a D&D campaign are those mysterious, unexplored bits of trivia that make the world feel like a real place. That's why I'm a fan of Tom Bombadil - as a character, he has little effect on the story as a whole, but he's still there, and events that take place around him do impact the greater narrative. It's these little touches that give Tolkien's world a sense of grandeur, of being larger than merely the story of the Lord of the Rings (majestic though it is).
Plus, Tom's absolutely adorable, and he rhymes. You can't beat that.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-09, 08:47 AM
I'm going to have to disagree on this issue... I've always felt that some of the best things about a D&D campaign are those mysterious, unexplored bits of trivia that make the world feel like a real place. That's why I'm a fan of Tom Bombadil - as a character, he has little effect on the story as a whole, but he's still there, and events that take place around him do impact the greater narrative. It's these little touches that give Tolkien's world a sense of grandeur, of being larger than merely the story of the Lord of the Rings (majestic though it is).
Plus, Tom's absolutely adorable, and he rhymes. You can't beat that.

Completely second this.

Adeptus
2009-07-09, 08:49 AM
I still don't get the "oft-hated" part. This is, in fact, the first place I have ever seen anyone say they hated Tom Bombadil.

Bombadil adds to the sense-of-wonder. If you start to deconstruct a literary work, and especially look at it through the lense of a D&D game (urgh!) then you may develop objections.

When I read the book for the first time at the tender age of 12 or so, I really liked the strange mood in the forest. Bombadil is a part of the faerie forest where magical things lurk. Some are terrifying and hostile (the trees) some are downright evil (the wights) and some are larger than life, strange and wonderful (Tom and Goldberry).

kamikasei
2009-07-09, 08:49 AM
Are you referring above to LotR's narrative structure, that of Arda's cosmology or both?

Both. I think he muddies the cosmology, which in turn detracts from the significance of the events in the book. I also think he's just a pointless digression that should have been edited out once Tolkien figured out where he was going with the story.


One theme in Tolkien's work is the need of a deus ex machina... I don't mind a little deus ex machina in those situations - "grace" is one of the points of the book. (Whether you agree with the author is another question).

This is actually something I quite like about Tolkien, but I feel Bombadil is a poor example of it. He is simply an unexplained entity with exactly the unexplained powers needed at the point he shows up. "Grace" as seen elsewhere in the story is much better handled as an in-world justification for literary contrivance (do good by not slaying Gollum, and ultimately his presence will work out for the best; ride out to the Black Gate, and Frodo will gain time to complete the quest; in general, trust that things will ultimately come to the good so long as you trust in Providence and do the right thing here and now).

kjones
2009-07-09, 09:05 AM
I'd participate in this discussion, but Goldberry is waiting...

Blackfang108
2009-07-09, 09:11 AM
I am trying to move a derail of the 'rules that don't make sense' thread to this new threat.

That's nice, but this is the wrong board.

Indon
2009-07-09, 10:12 AM
I still don't get the "oft-hated" part. This is, in fact, the first place I have ever seen anyone say they hated Tom Bombadil.

Playing the MMO seems a good place to ingrain a hatred for the character.

Jayabalard
2009-07-09, 11:31 AM
I still don't get the "oft-hated" part. This is, in fact, the first place I have ever seen anyone say they hated Tom Bombadil.People who dislike Tolkien's writing style tend to fixate on Bombadil; I'm guessing you probably don't know a whole lot of those people.

There are certainly people who like Tolkien but don't like the character but I'd guess they are far outnumbered by the people who dislike Tolkien in general.

This discussion is a branch off of another where someone decided to rant about Tolkien not being good fantasy.

Zanaril
2009-07-09, 11:37 AM
Did anyone else imagine Bombadil as looking like a giant colourswitched generic leprechaun?

I read some crazy theory somewhere that Tom is actually the Witch King in disguise. Unfortunately I can't find the site again. :smallannoyed:

Korivan
2009-07-09, 11:41 AM
Im sorry, I can't agree. Bombadil was entirly unnessary or needed. He simply wasn't strong enough in character development. Nothing about him leaped out at was exciting. I thank Peter that he left him out. He would have confused the audience and been a drag on an already long but good movie.

Gnaeus
2009-07-09, 11:46 AM
Unnecessary in the theater version, yes. Needed in the 4 hour extended cut, absolutely.

Doc Roc
2009-07-09, 11:49 AM
Bombadil's got four on the floor!


DJ Bombadil on the mic!
Ain't no need for relevance!
Ya'll can't stop my trivial elegance
Cause I'm a creature of a lost age!
Don't want your narrative cage!
Don't need your nerd rage!

wadledo
2009-07-09, 11:50 AM
In my opinion, Bombadil is there to introduce the cosmology of middle earth.
Before that, we have only half heard stories of creation myths and deities. Bombadil means that we now have someone to compare to other 'deities' (I.e. only having power within their boundaries, ability to ignore other powerful creatures magic, and general oddness all together.) and compare to the other immortal beings.
Would the elves have been half as interesting if we hadn't seen what they could have been right after we saw them?

Blackjackg
2009-07-09, 11:51 AM
Did anyone else imagine Bombadil as looking like a giant colourswitched generic leprechaun?

Pretty much.

I'll chime in on the "hate" side. Even as a child, I was struck by his incongruity with the story and tone. Tiny, frightened hobbits are out in the big world being chased by hateful creatures darker than darkness, and suddenly Fruit-Pie the Sorcerer shows up and saves them with his rhyming couplets and leprechaun magic? No, thanks. Leaving him out of the movies was the second best creative decision they made (after casting Ian McKellan).

And I'm surprised that the discussions of Tolkein's habit of pulling a deus ex a machina have neglected his number one go to device: eagles. Whether they're treed by goblins or imprisoned by evil wizards, they need not fear. Because suddenly: Eagles!

magellan
2009-07-09, 11:55 AM
Been a while since i read it but: He's there to get them to bree alive. Like aragorn is there to get the hobbits to rivendell alive. Like the companions are there to get them to that whatever its name was waterfall alive. (notice that the effort to keep them alive declines untill 2 of them grab a boat and rely on gollum to keep them alive)

The hobbits aren't heroes (in the beginning) they think stealing food from a farmer with mean dogs is a dangerous adventure! (being Tucs and all)

But the MMO comment is interesting: Never played any LOTR game, but yes: In a game he would suck, no doubt. But so would Sam: HP 1, Skills: cooking, carrying, leading ponys, Merry & Perry wouldnt be much more interesting either: Skills: Smoking, running from dogs. And Frodo can't even cook.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-09, 11:59 AM
Now, I am aware that I'm being rather unfair here, but really, this all sounds like a bad D&D campaign.
Not at all. LotR is a great story but a bad D&D campaign. It's so bad that as a D&D campaign, it's funny. See DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14).

This just shows that a D&D campaign does not lend itself to telling all fantasy stories. Conversely, though often D&D campaigns make good stories, not every fun and well played D&D campaign translates well into a story.

Random832
2009-07-09, 12:04 PM
But so would Sam: HP 1, Skills: cooking, carrying, leading ponys, Merry & Perry wouldnt be much more interesting either: Skills: Smoking, running from dogs. And Frodo can't even cook.

ok, ok, hold on, let's at LEAST give them a level in commoner, so 1d4+Con

SimperingToad
2009-07-09, 12:08 PM
Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Old Man Willow, and the Barrow-wight had already existed for some time, appearing in print in the pages of The Oxford Magazine (Vol. LII, no. 13, 15 February 1934). In a letter of 1954 my father said:

'I don't think Tom need philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine) and wanted an 'adventure' on the way.

Tom, Goldberry, Old Man Willow, and the Barrow-wight are making cameo appearances in a short adventure 'module' for the hobbits, a small part of the greater 'campaign'.

jamroar
2009-07-09, 12:08 PM
Did anyone else imagine Bombadil as looking like a giant colourswitched generic leprechaun?

I read some crazy theory somewhere that Tom is actually the Witch King in disguise. Unfortunately I can't find the site again. :smallannoyed:

I've heard this crackpot theory he's an "lobotomized" incarnation of Melkor after his evil spirit was banished from the world. :smalleek: That's why he claims to be First (among the Valar, and first denizen of Middle-Earth), and Master (of the fates of Arda). And the reason the elves are leery of entrusting the ring to him is fear of a relapse bringing about the return of Morgoth and the end of the world.

Xenogears
2009-07-09, 12:18 PM
Pretty much.

I'll chime in on the "hate" side. Even as a child, I was struck by his incongruity with the story and tone. Tiny, frightened hobbits are out in the big world being chased by hateful creatures darker than darkness, and suddenly Fruit-Pie the Sorcerer shows up and saves them with his rhyming couplets and leprechaun magic? No, thanks. Leaving him out of the movies was the second best creative decision they made (after casting Ian McKellan).

Yeah I think the point of it was to show that these tiny little hobbits CANT defeat the forces of evil. As in if they rescued themselves it would have ruined the point. If they hadn't been in danger it would've ruined the mood. The mood being that the hobbits are basically doomed and if they do succeed it will be because of a massive mix of luck and help.

I suppose you could argue that the elves could have saved them but do we really need the elves doing anything MORE? I mean really. Also the fact that he is so weird and unknown was one of my favorite parts about him.


And I'm surprised that the discussions of Tolkein's habit of pulling a deus ex a machina have neglected his number one go to device: eagles. Whether they're treed by goblins or imprisoned by evil wizards, they need not fear. Because suddenly: Eagles!

No they don't just show up out of nowhere. When Gandalf is imprisoned in the tower the eagles show up because Gandalf told That other wizard (something the borwn) to send messages to him. Thats what the Eagle was doing. So sorry if messangers showing up after being told to go find the person is too much of a Deus Ex for you.

snoopy13a
2009-07-09, 12:23 PM
No they don't just show up out of nowhere. When Gandalf is imprisoned in the tower the eagles show up because Gandalf told That other wizard (something the borwn) to send messages to him. Thats what the Eagle was doing. So sorry if messangers showing up after being told to go find the person is too much of a Deus Ex for you.

In The Hobbit:

1) Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves are stuck in trees that goblins and wargs have set on fire. Just before Gandalf is going to jump down for a last stand, they are saved by eagles.

2) In the Battle of the Five Armies, the last minute alliance of the men, dwarves, and elves is about to lose to the goblin and warg army. Just when it seems all is lost, eagles come and turn the tide of the battle.

In The Lord of the Rings:

1) Gandalf's rescue from Isengard

2) After Gandalf is returned to Middle Earth, an eagle takes him to Lorien

3) Eagles reinforce Aragorn's army that is being swarmed in front of the gates of Mordor

4) Eagles rescue Frodo and Sam from Mordor after the ring is destroyed

Umael
2009-07-09, 12:27 PM
I'll chime in on the "hate" side. Even as a child, I was struck by his incongruity with the story and tone. Tiny, frightened hobbits are out in the big world being chased by hateful creatures darker than darkness, and suddenly Fruit-Pie the Sorcerer shows up and saves them with his rhyming couplets and leprechaun magic? No, thanks. Leaving him out of the movies was the second best creative decision they made (after casting Ian McKellan).

One of my co-workers, who is a big Tolkien fan, came across an article that basically said that Tom Bomdadil is actualy one of the Valar (sp?), as is her wife (apparently all of the Valar are married, while all of the Maiar (sp?), such as Gandalf, are not), and that he doesn't get involved because this isn't his fight.

Regardless of whether or not I like Tom Bombadil (I don't), the general impression of the article is one with which I have to agree - Tolkien knew what he was doing. He was writing a mythological history, not a fantasy story as we know it. As the grandfather of modern fantasy, Tolkien re-introduced a lot of fantasy elements to the general public and greatly increased their popularity. But he was not writing a story as we invision a story now, but as how they would write back in his day. Tom Bombadil was part of a much larger cosmology than the Lord of the Rings covers, and in fact, the entire story of the Lord of the Rings is summarized in something like 15 pages of the Simarillon.



And I'm surprised that the discussions of Tolkein's habit of pulling a deus ex a machina have neglected his number one go to device: eagles. Whether they're treed by goblins or imprisoned by evil wizards, they need not fear. Because suddenly: Eagles!

Two things.

First of all, Tolkien was strongly Christian, just like his contemporary, C.S. Lewis. Whereas C.S. Lewis's morals come across a bit heavy-handed, Tolkien was more subtle. Hence, Tolkien does not so much pull a deus ex machina as he does make it an underlaying theme of his narrative.

Second - the eagles are hardly deus ex machina. They are a developed part of the mythology, where one of the things about them that makes them so useful to the forces of good is that they are constantly aware of what is going on around them. If you read the Hobbit, the rescue from the goblins is not deus ex machina in the context of the story because the goblins and the eagles are enemies, so the eagles were already alert to the goblins being up to mischief BEFORE Thorin & Company got treed. The movie does a bit better job of explaining the eagle saving Gandalf, as Gandalf sends word to them via a moth - something that Jackson implied from the story, but with a sudden increase in orcish activity around Isengaard, the eagles might have good reason to keep an eye on it.

pita
2009-07-09, 12:30 PM
I loved Tom Bombadil. My favorite chapter was his chapter.
People like things to be too dark. I'll take my Watchmen with some Silver Age Superman, thank you very much.

FoE
2009-07-09, 12:46 PM
I hate Tom Bombadil. I wish I could form my seething hatred into fictional claws that I would wrap around Tom Bombadil's neck and squeeze the merry little life out of that cheeful idiot. I want to strangle him in the bright light of the inferno consuming his house and revel in the screams of his wife. I hope he dies smiling.

Doc Roc
2009-07-09, 12:48 PM
Good luck with that. He's a level 25 druid.

Greenfaun
2009-07-09, 12:49 PM
I read some crazy theory somewhere that Tom is actually the Witch King in disguise. Unfortunately I can't find the site again. :smallannoyed:

Nah, everybody knows Tom Bombadil is really Sethra Lavode in disguise. :)

To seriously answer the thread topic, though, I love me some Tom Bombadil. He's just fun and magical, sometimes escapist fantasy is about spectacle and wonder, not optimized plot and literary merit.

Also, having him rescue the hobbits doesn't necessarily make the story better, but it does make the barrow-downs scarier. They have no hope of escape from the monsters, it's like a nightmare, but then the morning comes and Tom tells them they're all right, and ooh, swords! Shiny! It ties into how the hobbits are basically children until they have their coming of age moments -- at the end of Fellowship for Sam and frodo and in the Two Towers for Pippin and Merry.

Xenogears
2009-07-09, 01:05 PM
In The Hobbit:

1) Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves are stuck in trees that goblins and wargs have set on fire. Just before Gandalf is going to jump down for a last stand, they are saved by eagles.

2) In the Battle of the Five Armies, the last minute alliance of the men, dwarves, and elves is about to lose to the goblin and warg army. Just when it seems all is lost, eagles come and turn the tide of the battle.

In The Lord of the Rings:

1) Gandalf's rescue from Isengard

2) After Gandalf is returned to Middle Earth, an eagle takes him to Lorien

3) Eagles reinforce Aragorn's army that is being swarmed in front of the gates of Mordor

4) Eagles rescue Frodo and Sam from Mordor after the ring is destroyed

So because Gandalf is fairly close to Robliar the Brown (I think thats his name) who can basically send the eagles anywhere he wants it doesn't make sense for them to show up conveniently? Do they actually have to say "Robilar sent them" every time?

woodenbandman
2009-07-09, 01:10 PM
I hate the fact that Eagles solve all of the problems except the ones that really matter. Case in point: Eagles solve the orc horde, but they don't just take them past the deadly mirkwood and to the town they need to go to. Eagles rescue all of the characters from certain death, but they don't just drop them off in mordor where they could throw the ring into the fire. Eagles exist when its convenient for them to resolve a deadly situation, but if they were actually smart, and gave a rat's ass about anything going on in middle earth, they'd have been at rivendell during the discussion about the ring, flown frodo and gandalf over mount doom, chucked it in, and been home in time for tea.

Blackjackg
2009-07-09, 01:12 PM
So because Gandalf is fairly close to Robliar the Brown (I think thats his name) who can basically send the eagles anywhere he wants it doesn't make sense for them to show up conveniently? Do they actually have to say "Robilar sent them" every time?

Radigast. Robilar was a classic D&D PC.

Xenogears
2009-07-09, 01:14 PM
I hate the fact that Eagles solve all of the problems except the ones that really matter. Case in point: Eagles solve the orc horde, but they don't just take them past the deadly mirkwood and to the town they need to go to. Eagles rescue all of the characters from certain death, but they don't just drop them off in mordor where they could throw the ring into the fire. Eagles exist when its convenient for them to resolve a deadly situation, but if they were actually smart, and gave a rat's ass about anything going on in middle earth, they'd have been at rivendell during the discussion about the ring, flown frodo and gandalf over mount doom, chucked it in, and been home in time for tea.

Yes because Sauron totally wouldn't notice an eagle carrying a Wizard and his Ring flying into mordor and sent all his forces to royally wipe them off the face of existence. The only reason that they got in to rescue Frodo and Sam is because A) Sauron was distracted by fighting Aragorn and B) He was actually dead by that point.

Mirkwood was home to lots of evil things so maybe they didn't want to fly over it? Besides who says the Eagles don't have their own lives? The Eagles helped take out the Orcs cuz.... they hate orcs. Simple. They helped Gandalf while it was safe but refused to risk their lives until it was against a hated foe. Whats weird about that.

Edit: Ah yes Radigast. Knew it seemed wrong.

kamikasei
2009-07-09, 01:15 PM
Radagast. And Xenogears, it's not implied anywhere I can recall that he was involved in the eagles' showing up anywhere except at Orthanc to rescue Gandalf. The eagles are a power in their own right (direct emissaries of Manwe in Middle-earth) and take actions as they see fit, not at the direction of any Wizard.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-09, 01:19 PM
People who dislike Tolkien's writing style tend to fixate on Bombadil; I'm guessing you probably don't know a whole lot of those people.

There are certainly people who like Tolkien but don't like the character but I'd guess they are far outnumbered by the people who dislike Tolkien in general.

This discussion is a branch off of another where someone decided to rant about Tolkien not being good fantasy.

...Yeah, but then most people who don't like his writing style don't get that he is constructing a mythology, not just "writing a story".
But yes, I seem to recall that; people who loathe his way of writing tend to hold up Tom as issue #1, and "the lack for strong female characters" as #2.

Xenogears
2009-07-09, 01:20 PM
It's not directly implied but just as Gandalf focused on hobbits, Sarumen focused on the rings of power, so Radagast was focused on the animals. So he was in contact with all sorts of animals all the time so it does in fact make sense that at the least he asked them to help out.

Ehra
2009-07-09, 01:25 PM
I really don't understand these claims of Bombadil being pure Deus ex machina, I think people throw this term around so much they forget what it actually means. The Hobbits didn't HAVE to run into Old Man Willow or wander into the Barrow Downs. It's not like Tokien accidentally trapped the Hobbits into an inescapable scenario that he couldn't just erase without ruining the plot and went "o snap, I better conjure up this random guy to save them." He knew exactly what he was doing and everything happened for a reason. There's not much tension in the moment if the Hobbits make it to Bree without a trouble and there isn't a sense of hopelessness for them if they get themselves out of any troubles they get into.

And would the Elves have been so much better? What excuse would Elves have to be in the area and not attempt to help the Hobbits sooner? Surely Gandalf would have known of Elves being nearby and gotten them to come with when he went to warn Frodo? If there were Elves in the area then what excuse would they have to keep Saruman from taking over later on, they all just happened to not be there anymore? It at least makes sense for Tom, he doesn't really care either way about what's going on in the area.

If people want to hate on Tom because he's annoying then go ahead. I can completely understand that, just like I understand people who don't like Tolkien's writing, even if I don't share the same opinions. To claim Tolkien added him just because he "wrote himself into a hole" or that he has absolutely no purpose is just laughable, though.

Xenogears
2009-07-09, 01:32 PM
And would the Elves have been so much better? What excuse would Elves have to be in the area and not attempt to help the Hobbits sooner? Surely Gandalf would have known of Elves being nearby and gotten them to come with when he went to warn Frodo? If there were Elves in the area then what happened to them when Saruman took over, they all just happened to not be there anymore? It at least makes sense for Tom, he doesn't really care either way about what's going on in the area.

Actually they met some elves like two chapters before Tom showed up who advised them a little. Granted two chapters ago was on the other side of the river. It said that elves occasionally travel near or through the Shire so it wouldn't have been a stretch to have elves show up. The reason I think it's better that it wasn't elves is because Elves do everything already. I think elves get the chance to shine enough times in the books that throwing them in again would be annoying.

MissK
2009-07-09, 01:41 PM
Bombadil's got four on the floor!


DJ Bombadil on the mic!
Ain't no need for relevance!
Ya'll can't stop my trivial elegance
Cause I'm a creature of a lost age!
Don't want your narrative cage!
Don't need your nerd rage!

:smallbiggrin: So awesome!

But seriously, people -- all references to the movie, D&D and the MMO are pretty much irrelevant. Movies, books, and games (video or RPG) are different genres with different narrative structures. Movies and games tend to be more plot-directed -- a novel, especially a large one, can be more episodic, with more tangental events. Anyone who's read some of the character-directed classics of the past -- Don Quixote, Les Miserables, Pride and Prejudice -- can back me up here. The plot doesn't NEED to be as spare and driven as an action movie, because the plot is not actually the main point of the novel. The point is character development and world creation. One thing Tolkien's work is famous for is it richness of detail -- Bombadil and Golberry are far from the only 'unrelated' elements that point to the wider world of Middle Earth.

So, basically, if you want a spare, plot-driven "Lord of the Rings," go watch the movies. That's what they're for. If you have the patience to wander around in Tolkien's Middle Earth and be mystified by many of its elements, read the books.

(English teacher rant complete.)

Voshkod
2009-07-09, 01:42 PM
Tom is Eru Ilúvatar, a.k.a. God Almighty, slumming it on his creation for his own entertainment. That's one crazy theory I've heard. It does fit in with a) not affected by the ring, b) being "the first" and c) all that damn singing. Remember, songs create the world.

RS14
2009-07-09, 01:44 PM
I read some crazy theory somewhere that Tom is actually the Witch King in disguise. Unfortunately I can't find the site again. :smallannoyed:

Here you go (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm).

kamikasei
2009-07-09, 01:45 PM
And would the Elves have been so much better?

Elves have a place in the cosmology of Arda. For an Elf to show up would have been better than having this bizarre dropped note in the Song show up, if you had to have anyone show up at all. The objections you raise against Elves apply equally to Bombadil, but are handwaved away by simply making him a hermit who has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. Couldn't there have been a hermit Elf, cut off from the greater affairs of the Age? Hell, what about some talking animal working for Radagast, who could have provided the knowledge required to let the hobbits get away, without it being entirely their own doing, and yet have been relatively powerless enough and with little enough influence not to disrupt the story?


To claim Tolkien added him just because he "wrote himself into a hole" or that he has absolutely no purpose is just laughable, though.

How do you respond to bosssmiley's and SimperingToad's earlier posts, then, wherein Tolkien himself said that he was added simply because he already had the concept from an unrelated work, wasn't sure where he was going, and wanted to throw in a side adventure?

Bombadil doesn't belong in the mythology of Middle-earth. The hobbits didn't need those adventures on their way to Bree. They were fleeing mysterious wraiths, hurrying to the safety of their much more powerful friend, only to arrive and find him mysteriously gone. That's pretty tense in itself. What does getting eaten by a tree or snatched by ghosts add to it except distraction? What would be so bad about facing threats (like Old Man Willow) that they barely have the wit to escape, but managing to do so themselves nonetheless, while knowing all the while that they're being pursued by unknown but unquestionably vastly more dangerous foes?

Bombadil was an artifact of piecemeal storytelling. Tolkien hadn't written himself in to a hole, but he was stalling for time. He should have been taken out and that whole section of the book tightened up considerably when it came time to actually collect and publish the work.


One thing Tolkien's work is famous for is it richness of detail -- Bombadil and Golberry are far from the only 'unrelated' elements that point to the wider world of Middle Earth.

I should clarify that I would object far less to Bombadil if I thought he actually represented "rich detail" or a pointer to the wider world. There are all kinds of references to the Silmarillion and aspects of the mythology beyond that dealing immediately with Sauron which I quite enjoy. What annoys me (beyond Bombadil himself - I'm sorry, but he looks ridiculous and his songs are doggerel) is that he feels like he has nothing to do with Middle-earth at all, not just with the Quest of the Ring.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-09, 01:47 PM
Tom is Eru Ilúvatar, a.k.a. God Almighty, slumming it on his creation for his own entertainment. That's one crazy theory I've heard. It does fit in with a) not affected by the ring, b) being "the first" and c) all that damn singing. Remember, songs create the world.

This or that he is "Gaia" are the two most plausible explanations. Of course Tolkien never intended to explain him.

Voshkod
2009-07-09, 01:52 PM
This or that he is "Gaia" are the two most plausible explanations. Of course Tolkien never intended to explain him.

You sure of that? Give Chris Tolkien another couple of years to rummage around dear dead old Dad's discarded pub receipts and he'll publish fifteen volumes on what JRR really meant with Tom.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-09, 01:53 PM
Bombadil doesn't belong in the mythology of Middle-earth. The hobbits didn't need those adventures on their way to Bree. They were fleeing mysterious wraiths, hurrying to the safety of their much more powerful friend, only to arrive and find him mysteriously gone. That's pretty tense in itself. What does getting eaten by a tree or snatched by ghosts add to it except distraction? What would be so bad about facing threats (like Old Man Willow) that they barely have the wit to escape, but managing to do so themselves nonetheless, while knowing all the while that they're being pursued by unknown but unquestionably vastly more dangerous foes?

Bombadil was an artifact of piecemeal storytelling. Tolkien hadn't written himself in to a hole, but he was stalling for time. He should have been taken out and that whole section of the book tightened up considerably when it came time to actually collect and publish the work.

So what you are saying is that you would not have written the story this way. You find the side-adventure "annoying". Fine. It's your opinion.

And no, there is nothing "wrong" with writing it as you would, but that is not how it is written, and there is nothing "wrong" with that way either.

And again, if you compare to actual myths and legends, these things pop up all the time. This is not, nor is it meant to be, a tightly-written adventure filled with suspense. It's a made-up legend.

only1doug
2009-07-09, 01:54 PM
Bombadil is oft-hated?
How weird, the first I and many of my friends said that the omission of said character was a serious flaw in the film.

Absolutely, I and many of my friends absolutely hated Tom Bombadil, when we watched the film and realised he had been missed out we actually did sing and dance about it after the film. Honestly, we really did.

I thought the most serious flaw in the films was the omission of the return to the shire and the unaided overthrow of the tyrant (whatever nickname saruman had been given).


I still don't get the "oft-hated" part. This is, in fact, the first place I have ever seen anyone say they hated Tom Bombadil.

heh, now you know.


People who dislike Tolkien's writing style tend to fixate on Bombadil; I'm guessing you probably don't know a whole lot of those people.

There are certainly people who like Tolkien but don't like the character but I'd guess they are far outnumbered by the people who dislike Tolkien in general.

This discussion is a branch off of another where someone decided to rant about Tolkien not being good fantasy.

There are plenty of people who enjoyed reading LotR who hated TB, he was very irritating.

I haven't previously encountered anyone willing to defend TB, I guess we all learn something new occasionally. (not that I'm swayed into believing that he was necessary or desirable).

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-09, 01:55 PM
You sure of that? Give Chris Tolkien another couple of years to rummage around dear dead old Dad's discarded pub receipts and he'll publish fifteen volumes on what JRR really meant with Tom.

Of course, but we are talking about two different things:
One is the picture Tolkien had in his head, his vision. The other is what he intended to be shown to the reader.

Thespianus
2009-07-09, 01:59 PM
Im sorry, I can't agree. Bombadil was entirly unnessary or needed.
Yeah, and fictional writers should only put necessary things into their books:

"Hobbit finds ring, gets corrupted. Hobbit wins ring from other hobbit and pass out on battlefield. Hobbit throws party and disappears. Third hobbit goes adventuring with three friends and get in lots of trouble. Evil appears and is defeated. The king returns. The End."

Makes for a great 12 hour movie trilogy, indeed.

kamikasei
2009-07-09, 02:05 PM
So what you are saying is that you would not have written the story this way. You find the side-adventure "annoying". Fine. It's your opinion.

And no, there is nothing "wrong" with writing it as you would, but that is not how it is written, and there is nothing "wrong" with that way either.

This seems to me a rather pointless statement. If all we have here are opinions, and nothing anyone says can be wrong, then either we shouldn't be talking at all, or we're discussing the work in spite of that fact and so pointing it out is irrelevant.

I would in fact say that there is something wrong with how it was written. I think it would have been better written differently. That is, of course, my opinion. What else could it be?

The thread was started to defend Bombadil against accusations that he served no narrative purpose (or served whatever purpose he did badly). If how the books were in fact written cannot possibly be "wrong", then why is any defense necessary besides pointing that fact out?

Thespianus
2009-07-09, 02:05 PM
Nah, everybody knows Tom Bombadil is really Sethra Lavode in disguise. :)
Tom Bombadil is Tukko's more exuberant side.

Sethra Lavode must be Goldberry! :-D

Umael
2009-07-09, 02:10 PM
...Yeah, but then most people who don't like his writing style don't get that he is constructing a mythology, not just "writing a story".
But yes, I seem to recall that; people who loathe his way of writing tend to hold up Tom as issue #1, and "the lack for strong female characters" as #2.

I won't defend Tom Bombadil, but "lack for strong female characters" is a little ridiculous. He wrote the Lord of the Rings in the 1940s. Can you name a story (in particular, a myth, legend, or fairy tale) with a strong female character that was written in the 1940s (or earlier)?

If you can, would you care to take a look at all the other stories* that lack strong female characters?

Tolkien was not a social revolutionary; he did not write for our modern audience, and it is unfair to hold someone to standards which are noticable different in this day and age.

* - Robin Hood had Maid Marian... who stood around, waiting to be rescued. The Illiad had Helen... who started a war because she was unfaithful. King Arthur had Geneviere, who was a complete "lady" including being unable to defend herself, and Morgan la Faye, who traditionally was a villainess. Narnia had Susan and Lucy, sure, but even then, they were discouraged from getting involved in war because war was ugly enough without women getting involved.

About the only way you could be a strong woman in the old stories was to either be a goddess or to be a villainess, and neither of those were seen as fit choices for women. The popularization of strong female roles is a definite modern concerns that post-dates Tolkien, who was writing something that was supposed to be mythological.

Ehra
2009-07-09, 02:11 PM
Elves have a place in the cosmology of Arda.[quote]

Just because he's not explained doesn't mean he can't have his own unexplained place.

[quote]For an Elf to show up would have been better than having this bizarre dropped note in the Song show up, if you had to have anyone show up at all. The objections you raise against Elves apply equally to Bombadil, but are handwaved away by simply making him a hermit who has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. Couldn't there have been a hermit Elf, cut off from the greater affairs of the Age? Hell, what about some talking animal working for Radagast, who could have provided the knowledge required to let the hobbits get away, without it being entirely their own doing, and yet have been relatively powerless enough and with little enough influence not to disrupt the story?

Sure, those explanations would work just as well but how would they be any less "Deus ex machina" for the people who love to throw that term around? Of course you could easily write any number of other people/things into Tom's place and have it "work" but then you need to make excuses for them as to why they never show up later to help things like when Saruman barges in? Why wouldn't an agent for Radagast get help?

Yes, the hermit Elf would make perfect sense but then I also feel Tom does as well. It's not a "handwave" to say he's a hermit and wouldn't interfere otherwise, that IS who he is. It's like saying Gandalf's inability to use his magic more often is just a "handwave." Sure it's convenient for the plot and drama but it's still consistent with itself and is explained in the story.



How do you respond to bosssmiley's and SimperingToad's earlier posts, then, wherein Tolkien himself said that he was added simply because he already had the concept from an unrelated work, wasn't sure where he was going, and wanted to throw in a side adventure?

Hm? I agree that the whole thing with Tom was just a side adventure. Just because it's not a huge, major plot point doesn't mean it still can't help reinforce the themes already being presented at the time.


Bombadil doesn't belong in the mythology of Middle-earth.

Not belonging and not being explained are two distinct things.


The hobbits didn't need those adventures on their way to Bree.

There are lots of things that happen in the Trilogy that aren't "needed" but still to serve to make the story more rich.


They were fleeing mysterious wraiths, hurrying to the safety of their much more powerful friend, only to arrive and find him mysteriously gone. That's pretty tense in itself. What does getting eaten by a tree or snatched by ghosts add to it except distraction?

Those are two separate points of the book. The flee itself wouldn't be tense if it were just a mad dash to Bree without anything happening on the way.


What would be so bad about facing threats (like Old Man Willow) that they barely have the wit to escape, but managing to do so themselves nonetheless, while knowing all the while that they're being pursued by unknown but unquestionably vastly more dangerous foes?

Because no matter how you look at it, the Hobbits not being able to save themselves makes the situation seem more hopeless than the Hobbits being able to escape on their own merits. It takes away from the significance of when the Hobbits finally begin to take care of themselves.


Bombadil was an artifact of piecemeal storytelling. Tolkien hadn't written himself in to a hole, but he was stalling for time. He should have been taken out and that whole section of the book tightened up considerably when it came time to actually collect and publish the work.

I fully agree that he isn't "needed" but I also can not agree that he doesn't provide something to the story that a random elf or agent of Radagast could also provide.


I should clarify that I would object far less to Bombadil if I thought he actually represented "rich detail" or a pointer to the wider world. There are all kinds of references to the Silmarillion and aspects of the mythology beyond that dealing immediately with Sauron which I quite enjoy. What annoys me (beyond Bombadil himself - I'm sorry, but he looks ridiculous and his songs are doggerel) is that he feels like he has nothing to do with Middle-earth at all, not just with the Quest of the Ring.

And this is exactly what I love about him. What you call "unbelonging" or say he has "nothing to do with Middle-Earth" I see as an unexplained mystery that adds more wonder to the world. So many other things have been fully explained in great detail, while Bombadil has no history or explained origins. It's the stark contrast that, imo, makes him work so well. Honestly, I don't think I'd like him as much if it were explained in The Sillmarilion or in notes the has was actually the physical manifestation of Eru or Gaia or some such thing.


He doesn't add anything, really, to Tokien's mythology but I feel he adds more than enough to the Trilogy's story. Sure I can understand someone being annoyed that he doesn't "fit" (or as I'd rather say, "explained") but that's definitely not what most people who seem to hate him complain about.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-09, 02:13 PM
This seems to me a rather pointless statement. If all we have here are opinions, and nothing anyone says can be wrong, then either we shouldn't be talking at all, or we're discussing the work in spite of that fact and so pointing it out is irrelevant.

I would in fact say that there is something wrong with how it was written. I think it would have been better written differently. That is, of course, my opinion. What else could it be?

You expressed opinions. I think those opinions are wrong, and moreso, I think the idea that state as a "fact" that "Tolkien wrote it wrong" is a little odd, the way you did put it.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-09, 02:15 PM
I won't defend Tom Bombadil, but "lack for strong female characters" is a little ridiculous. He wrote the Lord of the Rings in the 1940s. Can you name a story (in particular, a myth, legend, or fairy tale) with a strong female character that was written in the 1940s (or earlier)?

Yeah, and that opinion is almost as highly ranked on my "stupid things to complain about in LOTR" as the "It's racist because the Orcs are blackskinned" thing.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-07-09, 02:15 PM
I thought the most serious flaw in the films was the omission of the return to the shire and the unaided overthrow of the tyrant (whatever nickname saruman had been given).

On this, we can agree. It underpinned and showed just how far the hobbits had grown. In the very beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring, an angry man with some mean dogs were a serious threat. By the end of Return of the King... Saruman and a group of orcs were not a significant challenge.

Sure, they could have replaced Saruman with Wormtongue (who was simply banished rather than killed, as opposed to Saruman who was actually killed rather than banished) and done it no problem. At least for the extended home version, anyway.

As far as Tom Bombadill, he was necessary to underpin the fact that the Hobbits were... helpless. Absolutely helpless. They can't even go through the woods near their own home without needing to be rescued. From these humble beginnings... heroes were forged.

kamikasei
2009-07-09, 02:22 PM
On helplessness: I would say the hobbits would seem more helpless and desperate if they were barely able to escape or avoid the sinister but fairly low-key dangers of the forest, all the while knowing they were in much greater danger, than if they repeatedly get into trouble and have a singing, colourblind Morris dancer prance along to rescue them with cheerfulness. Well, not more helpless, but in more dire straits.

Picture this: a horror movie: a handful of heroes fleeing the monster through a dark wood: the pack of slavering, cunning brutes invisible in the darkness behind them, but surely gaining. As they travel, the heroes run in to many hazards: pitfalls, snare traps, quicksand, whatever. They are barely able to free themselves each time, losing gear and time, becoming more and more frantic. Eventually they escape the woods knowing that the creatures are right behind them.

Now replay that scene, but each time they get in to trouble, have them flounder ineffectually until a park ranger in a tutu, seemingly oblivious to the atmosphere of dread and impending doom, shows up, saves them, gives them a lollipop each and ruffles their hair, and drives off with a wave and a "good luck with the monsters!".


You expressed opinions. I think those opinions are wrong, and moreso, I think the idea that state as a "fact" that "Tolkien wrote it wrong" is a little odd, the way you did put it.

So I can hold the opinion that the book could have been better written, but if I express that opinion, and you identify it as my opinion, I'm nonetheless in error for stating it as fact? ...Somehow?

Do editors and critics serve no purpose in your world? Is an author who revises his draft just wasting his time?

I recognize that the fact Bombadil's character annoys me is a matter of my own personal taste. The fact that I think he is, independent of his character, a poor addition to the story and it would be a better-crafted work without him is indeed my opinion, but not a matter of my taste. It is my opinion about a fact (whether or not the book would be a superior work if done this way or that), albeit a fact that cannot be objectively determined, only argued back and forth. But it is something that can be argued, not simply a matter of taste.

In any case, that objection is one I view as a low water mark for a discussion, so I'll bow out now.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-09, 02:38 PM
So I can hold the opinion that the book could have been better written, but if I express that opinion, and you identify it as my opinion, I'm nonetheless in error for stating it as fact? ...Somehow?

Do editors and critics serve no purpose in your world? Is an author who revises his draft just wasting his time?

I recognize that the fact Bombadil's character annoys me is a matter of my own personal taste. The fact that I think he is, independent of his character, a poor addition to the story and it would be a better-crafted work without him is indeed my opinion, but not a matter of my taste. It is my opinion about a fact (whether or not the book would be a superior work if done this way or that), albeit a fact that cannot be objectively determined, only argued back and forth. But it is something that can be argued, not simply a matter of taste.

In any case, that objection is one I view as a low water mark for a discussion, so I'll bow out now.

All I am saying is that I find the statement that Tolkien "wrote it wrong" irksome. I can't really put my finger on it, and others in this thread have answered you better, but it seems very harsh. I think it is because you basically say "Epic fail" on a large chunk of the first book, and giving reasons that doesn't really make sense to me. You are more than welcome to state your oppinions, but you can't expect us all to accept the "facts".

Thespianus
2009-07-09, 02:39 PM
On helplessness: I would say the hobbits would seem more helpless and desperate if they were barely able to escape or avoid the sinister but fairly low-key dangers of the forest, all the while knowing they were in much greater danger, than if they repeatedly get into trouble and have a singing, colourblind Morris dancer prance along to rescue them with cheerfulness. Well, not more helpless, but in more dire straits.

Picture this: a horror movie: a handful of heroes fleeing the monster through a dark wood: the pack of slavering, cunning brutes invisible in the darkness behind them, but surely gaining. As they travel, the heroes run in to many hazards: pitfalls, snare traps, quicksand, whatever. They are barely able to free themselves each time, losing gear and time, becoming more and more frantic. Eventually they escape the woods knowing that the creatures are right behind them.

Now replay that scene, but each time they get in to trouble, have them flounder ineffectually until a park ranger in a tutu, seemingly oblivious to the atmosphere of dread and impending doom, shows up, saves them, gives them a lollipop each and ruffles their hair, and drives off with a wave and a "good luck with the monsters!".

Well, the analogy doesn't really hold water, IMHO. Tom Bombadil drives away the monsters, the Ranger in the Tutu fights with the monsters, etc. He does more than give them a lollipop.

And what would epic fantasy be without the "Dragon Reborn"-Rand, Elric, Conan or "Sword of Truth"-Thomas (or Harry Potter, for that matter) getting out of trouble with powers he didn't know he (or his magic sword) had?

I'm a Bombadil fanboi, I love him not really caring about all those mundane things that happen around him. "Evil returning? Sauron, who? A ring, you say? What a nice trinket!". He just shows himself to be the strongest creature in the book, but not being very flamboyant about it.

magellan
2009-07-09, 03:39 PM
On helplessness: I would say the hobbits would seem more helpless and desperate if they were barely able to escape or avoid the sinister but fairly low-key dangers of the forest, all the while knowing they were in much greater danger, than if they repeatedly get into trouble and have a singing, colourblind Morris dancer prance along to rescue them with cheerfulness. Well, not more helpless, but in more dire straits.

Gotta dissagree with you there.
If they get out of the danger by their own strength (and be it only the strength of their legs) they are a lot more capable then if they need tom bombadil. The hobbits are way in over their heads, and bombadil is a part of showing that. The "sideadventure" on the way to bree is not about the threat, its about showing how they (fail) to handle it.

Also the elves were on their way to the ships IIRC, so they were headed in the other direction. Bombadil works better there. And an elf hermit? I have a hard time imagining tolkiens elves doing that.

Optimystik
2009-07-09, 03:43 PM
This. If Tolkein wants to introduce random, pointless beings with godlike power in order to deepen his setting? That's fine.

When you use them to resolve plot points because you wrote yourself into a corner? That's terrible.

This.


Tolkien wasn't playing D&D. He was writing a story. Tom's purpose is rather simple, actually. He existed to prove that the Ring is not infallible. That it is not undefeatable and thus can be destroyed like any other object. He proves that it is not an all consuming thing which cannot be denied. To Tom, it's merely a shiny loop of metal. The fact that he's filler from something else entirely is beside the point since his purpose is served either way.

That's what Mount Doom is for, actually.

Woot Spitum
2009-07-09, 03:52 PM
Let's not forget that the hobbits needed rescuing due to making some poor decisions. First, they stop in the middle of a haunted forest to take a nap of all things. They get saved by Bombadil, the guardian of said forest. Next, Bombadil tells them everything they need to know to get through the barrow downs on their own. Simply stay on the path, and do not stop for any reason. The hobbits stop for lunch, then get off the path. Bombadil saves them again.

To me the whole point of the Bombadil episode is not simply to emphasize the hobbits helplessness, but to show the hobbits learning how dangerous their quest really is, in that relaxing for a single moment could very well doom them all.

Maybe Bombadil lacks a certain black cloak and brooding antihero vibe, but personally, I prefer him the way he is.

Gnaeus
2009-07-09, 04:05 PM
Do editors and critics serve no purpose in your world? Is an author who revises his draft just wasting his time?

I find it difficult to understand how modern readers can complain about Tolkein being poorly edited. It seems like the most popular writers in the field today have difficulty with the idea that a novel can be less than 800-1000 pages and that they can tell their story in 7-15 of these "novels". Wheel of time had an entire book that could have been cut with no loss to the central story.

As far as I am concerned, writing an unnecessary chapter of a book is a very forgiveable lapse. Writing an entire 750 page book that doesn't have enough room to deal with central characters in the story arc (which both Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin have done in the last decade) indicates a need for editors, critics, and draft revision.

Voshkod
2009-07-09, 04:11 PM
I find it difficult to understand how modern readers can complain about Tolkein being poorly edited. It seems like the most popular writers in the field today have difficulty with the idea that a novel can be less than 800-1000 pages and that they can tell their story in 7-15 of these "novels". Wheel of time had an entire book that could have been cut with no loss to the central story.

As far as I am concerned, writing an unnecessary chapter of a book is a very forgiveable lapse. Writing an entire 750 page book that doesn't have enough room to deal with central characters in the story arc (which both Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin have done in the last decade) indicates a need for editors, critics, and draft revision.

Hear, hear. Word processing technology and a decline in the stock of editors has cursed the world with many a bloated novel. See anything recent by Neal Stephenson, for example. At least William Gibson has realized that bigger is not always better.

Shosuro Ishii
2009-07-09, 04:38 PM
But honestly, it's there some credence to the theory that bloated fantasy exists today because of Tolkein.

Like the man's writing style or not, he is clearly creating a world first and a narrative second, and he reads as if he were being paid by the word.

So, when modern fantasy writers look to inpiration, they miss the point of Tolkein's bloated stlye, and just create bloated fantasy.

Woot Spitum
2009-07-09, 04:54 PM
But honestly, it's there some credence to the theory that bloated fantasy exists today because of Tolkein.

Like the man's writing style or not, he is clearly creating a world first and a narrative second, and he reads as if he were being paid by the word.

So, when modern fantasy writers look to inpiration, they miss the point of Tolkein's bloated stlye, and just create bloated fantasy.What modern works of fantasy would you consider bloated? I understand how some would consider The Wheel of Time bloated, but I can't think of any other series off the top of my head.

comicshorse
2009-07-09, 05:07 PM
I thought the last of Martin's " A Song of Fire and Ice" was bloated and could easily have been cut by a third.

Swordguy
2009-07-09, 05:12 PM
...
So, basically, if you want a spare, plot-driven "Lord of the Rings," go watch the movies. That's what they're for. If you have the patience to wander around in Tolkien's Middle Earth and be mystified by many of its elements, read the books.

(English teacher rant complete.)

You're a good teacher. They're getting rarer nowadays, and not often seen, but by no means extinct.


On the thread: there's a whole LOT of lack of appreciation for an older (arguably obsolete) writing style that IS extremely verbose, because it's trying to paint as complete a picture as possible in your willfully blind minds-eye.


On Tom Bombadil: later works make it clear that at the time he writing this part of LotR, he was still under the impression he was writing another "The Hobbit" - a children's tale aimed primarily at his own kid. With that in mind, including one of the kid's favorite characters, Tom Bombadil, in essentially a cameo role makes complete sense. Don't get me wrong, the character kind of annoys me (although the theory that TB is really a "lobotomized Morgoth" amuses me greatly), and under modern storywriting guidelines, he'd have been edited out early on. But it's NOT written under modern guidelines, and to judge it by that standard without regard for facts can only be construed as willful ignorance and/or crass stupidity (even if that analysis style is currently what's largely being taught by American schools nowadays - it's intellectual laziness to the extreme). Go read LotR and compare it to contemporary works, and even then remember that Tolkien was deliberately writing in an archaic style even for that time. Compare his verbosity and "pointless" side arcs to Gulliver's Travels, Moby ****, Great Expectations, or even Chaucer's The Fairy Queene. Don't judge it against RA Salvadore or Terry Brooks.

EDIT: Dammit - I'll eventually remember that Moby Di.ck is censored on these boards. :smallannoyed:

Zeful
2009-07-09, 05:21 PM
The word is certainly censored when used to refer to the male reproductive system. But when referring to the book Moby ****. You are allowed to circumvent the board filter.

Swordguy
2009-07-09, 05:28 PM
The word is certainly censored when used to refer to the male reproductive system. But when referring to the book Moby ****. You are allowed to circumvent the board filter.

I've got a mind to just start calling it "Moby Dong". :smallwink:

Fitz10019
2009-07-09, 05:40 PM
On Tom Bombadil: later works make it clear that at the time he writing this part of LotR, he was still under the impression he was writing another "The Hobbit" - a children's tale aimed primarily at his own kid. With that in mind, including one of the kid's favorite characters, Tom Bombadil, in essentially a cameo role makes complete sense.

This comes close to something I want to point out.

The hospitality at Bombadil's house reminds me strongly of the hospitality at Beorn's house in The Hobbit. At Bombadil's point in the LotR story, Tolkien is transitioning from The Hobbit's tone to the tone of the rest of the trilogy. I think that's while any edit at a later point would maintain Bombadil's involvement.

A friend of mine trips over the Fellowship being formed and not including Gorfindel. At least Bombadil is established as disinterested in the world's events. What kept Gorfindel so busy he could drop everything to save the world? :smallsmile:

snoopy13a
2009-07-09, 06:30 PM
A friend of mine trips over the Fellowship being formed and not including Gorfindel. At least Bombadil is established as disinterested in the world's events. What kept Gorfindel so busy he could drop everything to save the world? :smallsmile:

He gets cut in favor of Merry and Pippin (seriously):


'There remain two more to be found,' said Elrond. 'These I will consider. Of my household I may find some that it seems good to me to send

Pippin asks to go:


'But that would leave no place for us (Pippin and Merry)! cried Pippin in dismay. 'We don't want to be left behind. We want to go with Frodo.'

Gandalf agrees with Pippin:


I think, Elrond, that in this matter it would be well to trust rather to their friendship than to great wisdom. Even if you choose for us an elf-lord, such as Glorfindel, he could not storm the Dark Tower, nor open the road to the Fire by the power that is in him.'

Gandalf believes that Glorfindel's added strength wouldn't make that much of a difference and that it is better for Frodo's cousins to join him than it would be for two powerful elves to fill out the rest of the Fellowship.

Draz74
2009-07-09, 07:02 PM
How do you respond to bosssmiley's and SimperingToad's earlier posts, then, wherein Tolkien himself said that he was added simply because he already had the concept from an unrelated work, wasn't sure where he was going, and wanted to throw in a side adventure?

Tolkien said that's how Bombadil started out. If Tolkien hadn't liked how Tom fit into the story once he was sure where the story was going, he would have edited him out.

Or are you trying to say Tolkien was a sloppy self-editor, who didn't really care whether he was meticulous in the quality of his storytelling? Because that's frankly laughable, considering he spend something like thirty years on the LotR trilogy and invented several languages in the process.

Heh, it's funny to see people using newer literature to make LotR's level of "editing" look bad. So many mistakes fly under the radar and are simply forgiven in modern literature, due to publishers' expectations like "a new novel every year" out of a "successful" novelist. Tolkien lived back when media wasn't so cheap and publishers let authors enforce their own quality.

Anteros
2009-07-09, 07:06 PM
Yes because Sauron totally wouldn't notice an eagle carrying a Wizard and his Ring flying into mordor and sent all his forces to royally wipe them off the face of existence. The only reason that they got in to rescue Frodo and Sam is because A) Sauron was distracted by fighting Aragorn and B) He was actually dead by that point.

Mirkwood was home to lots of evil things so maybe they didn't want to fly over it? Besides who says the Eagles don't have their own lives? The Eagles helped take out the Orcs cuz.... they hate orcs. Simple. They helped Gandalf while it was safe but refused to risk their lives until it was against a hated foe. Whats weird about that.

Edit: Ah yes Radigast. Knew it seemed wrong.


People always say that. How is it any more likely at all that Sauron would notice an eagle flying thousands of feet up in the air, than that he would notice two people walking?

If anything, the eagle would have the better chance, because it's in his territory much less time, and would also have a chance to outrun any pursuit.

Here's the problem with Tolkein.
Tolkein was an incredibly good world builder...but he was a bad writer. We remember him for his mythologies, and his attention to detail, not his writing itself.


I find it difficult to understand how modern readers can complain about Tolkein being poorly edited. It seems like the most popular writers in the field today have difficulty with the idea that a novel can be less than 800-1000 pages and that they can tell their story in 7-15 of these "novels". Wheel of time had an entire book that could have been cut with no loss to the central story.

As far as I am concerned, writing an unnecessary chapter of a book is a very forgiveable lapse. Writing an entire 750 page book that doesn't have enough room to deal with central characters in the story arc (which both Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin have done in the last decade) indicates a need for editors, critics, and draft revision.

I'm sorry, but is someone forcing you to read these books? People enjoy Jordan for the same reason they enjoy Tolkein. He built an incredibly in-depth world, and often chooses to focus on bringing it to life rather than telling the story. You won't see me defending authors like this as paragons of literature or anything, but it doesn't mean their work needs to be edited out either. Some people enjoy reading such things...but if you don't, no one is forcing you to read it.

Xenogears
2009-07-09, 08:16 PM
People always say that. How is it any more likely at all that Sauron would notice an eagle flying thousands of feet up in the air, than that he would notice two people walking?

If anything, the eagle would have the better chance, because it's in his territory much less time, and would also have a chance to outrun any pursuit.

Here's the problem with Tolkein.
Tolkein was an incredibly good world builder...but he was a bad writer. We remember him for his mythologies, and his attention to detail, not his writing itself.

Well if I remember correctly then they specifically had Aragorn attack with all his forces to distract Sauron to give Sam and Frodo a slight increase in chance of success. So that implies that were it not for that they would have been noticed. So an Eagle straight out in the open would have been noticed likely as well. Also they took secret paths to Mordor thanks to Gollum.


I'm sorry, but is someone forcing you to read these books? People enjoy Jordan for the same reason they enjoy Tolkein. He built an incredibly in-depth world, and often chooses to focus on bringing it to life rather than telling the story. You won't see me defending authors like this as paragons of literature or anything, but it doesn't mean their work needs to be edited out either. Some people enjoy reading such things...but if you don't, no one is forcing you to read it.

The Wheel of Time series is in fact my favorite series so maybe I am just especially found of world-building series....

RS14
2009-07-09, 08:23 PM
People always say that. How is it any more likely at all that Sauron would notice an eagle flying thousands of feet up in the air, than that he would notice two people walking?

Hobbits are small and can take advantage of cover. The eagles in question are significantly larger and would be silhouetted against the sky. Furthermore, many more creatures would have line of sight. Every orc in Mordor would potentially spot them, while Sam and Frodo were potentially visible only to those in a relatively small radius.

HamHam
2009-07-09, 08:28 PM
Tom Bombadil is in there because the hobbits needed an adventure before getting to Bree and none of the stock baddies used later (orcs, trolls, Nazgul) would have worked.

So, instead Tom Bombadil happens.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-09, 08:34 PM
The main problem with Tolkien's Eagles is why Manwe always decides to intervene always but only at the last possible moment. It's like the ever watching overlord of the Valar is reluctant to participate but equally he does not want to have very bad things happen in ME. And specifically, he does not want very bad things to happen to the heroes in the stories. Sure, rescuing Frodo is a freeby for Manwe but why rescue Frodo after the job is done? I mean not why Frodo should be rescued for us, as readers, but what makes Manwe, the far removed and aloof supernatural power, commands an act which, in the larger picture, is not really necessary? Tolkien doesn't spell that out which means that it is a deus ex machina and that will not sit well with all readers. On the other hand, it's not like it kills the story. Like a true deus ex machina, it's an afterthought to the drama. You are almost resigned to the death of Frodo when he is rescued.

As for Bombadil, it's part of Tolkien's long and slow moving plot. The movies were an excellent adaption his the pacing in a movie has to be much faster. That's why Bombadil is cut from the movies. Tolkien's writing is a bit slow too some times. You either like it or you don't.

Gamgee
2009-07-09, 08:38 PM
Isn't Tom a living manifestation of Middle Earth? I heard that somewhere. Also it's always neat when something isn't explainable. I get a big grin when it bothers people with fear of the unknown. Face it his purpose is nothing more than to be there. :)

Not to mention if your a living manifestation of life itself your not too bothered when some little tick like Sauron shows up. Sort of like an older brother who doesn't want to play with his younger brothers.

Point is I enjoy Tom because he bugs so many people. HAHAHA!

snoopy13a
2009-07-09, 09:16 PM
Isn't Tom a living manifestation of Middle Earth? I heard that somewhere. Also it's always neat when something isn't explainable. I get a big grin when it bothers people with fear of the unknown. Face it his purpose is nothing more than to be there. :)



That's a common theory. Other common ones are:

1) Tom is a Vala or Maia often specifically the Vala Aule (with Goldberry being Yavanna)
2) Tom is Eru

Also remember that Sauron is a very powerful Maia. He was Melkor's lieuetant and thus the most powerful of the Maiar who rebelled. Other Maiar in The Lord of the Rings are Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, and the Balrog. The eagles may be Maiar as well (I'll have to double check The Silmarillion for that).

ashmanonar
2009-07-09, 09:41 PM
How do you respond to bosssmiley's and SimperingToad's earlier posts, then, wherein Tolkien himself said that he was added simply because he already had the concept from an unrelated work, wasn't sure where he was going, and wanted to throw in a side adventure?

Bombadil doesn't belong in the mythology of Middle-earth. The hobbits didn't need those adventures on their way to Bree. They were fleeing mysterious wraiths, hurrying to the safety of their much more powerful friend, only to arrive and find him mysteriously gone. That's pretty tense in itself. What does getting eaten by a tree or snatched by ghosts add to it except distraction? What would be so bad about facing threats (like Old Man Willow) that they barely have the wit to escape, but managing to do so themselves nonetheless, while knowing all the while that they're being pursued by unknown but unquestionably vastly more dangerous foes?


I vote for random encounters.

DM: "As you walk along a path in the woods, you feel a tugging sleep approaching. Roll a will save.

*rolls*

...What do you mean all of you failed the will saves?"

Frodo: "You made us roll level 1 commoners, you idiot. Of course we're not going to pass a DC 21 will save!"

DM: "...Uh, a boisterous fellow wearing outlandish clothing happens along the trail, and releases you from the Willow!"


--

DM: "Okay, so that survival check failed. You get lost and walk into a barrow. A wight attacks."

PCs: "...How in the hell are we going to hurt it? None of us has a magic weapon!"

Yakk
2009-07-09, 10:15 PM
Meh: while Sauron is alive, I would think that sending in Eagles to Mount Doom would run into serious difficulties. I would think that the movements of the Wise and other Powers are 'loud' in a certain sense -- it is Frodo's very insignificance that makes it possible to slip into Mordor.

Once the ring is destroyed, the situation changes fundamentally. Thus the Eagles can fly into a newly unruled Mordor and grab the hobbits.

This isn't even much of a stretch.

Or you could even say that the Eagles where afraid to carry the ring-bearer while he had the ring -- it would be very much like holding the ring to an Eagle.

HamHam
2009-07-09, 10:27 PM
The Eagles aren't even supernatural or anything, afaik. They're just giant eagles who live in the Misty Mountains.

Skorj
2009-07-09, 10:54 PM
The Eagles aren't even supernatural or anything, afaik. They're just giant eagles who live in the Misty Mountains.

Not so, but with just the information from LoTR it's hard to understand why the Eagles didn't just drop the Hobbits off at mount doom, yet were willing to pick them up.

In the broader mythology of the Silmarillion, it's established that Manwe is a bit concerned about the effects that Man will have on the environment. It's the nature of Elves to live in some harmony with nature, so that wasn't really an issue, but that's not Man's nature. So Manwe creates the Ents to protect the flora from the ravages of Man, and the Eagles to protect the Fauna from the ravages of Man. At some point (I think later than the Ents and Eagles), he creates the Wizards to protect Man from the ravages of Man (more or less).

All three: Ents, Eagles, and Wizards, have a job that they were created to do in Middle Earth. They are peers, and largely friends. Would you be willing to give your friend a ride to work? Sure. Would you be willing to do his work for him? Even if you were, that's not likely to make the Boss happy. It's Gandalf's job to fix the kind of problems central to LoTR (and when he's recreated Gandalf the White, it's a specific task given to him by his boss).

Rescuing Gandalf from Orthanc was "hey buddy, I'm calling from jail, can you come bail me out" - more personal than political. Rescuing the hobbits after they stopped mattering to world events was just a favor.

What totally doesn't make sense to me was the arrival of the Eagles in the Battle of Five Armies, but hey that was a kid's book.

Tiki Snakes
2009-07-09, 11:18 PM
Tom Bombadil has no meaning, origin, or depth. He feels, in the way of childrens stories, almost more mary-sue than deus ex.

Really, I'd hesitate to say he adds to anything, mythology or otherwise, because he's so lacking in background, character, or actions taken. He makes no ripples on the face of the world of note, and so might as well not be there in the first place.

(And no in my personal opinion, old man willow and the barrow wight don't count, because they only exist to introduce Tom and make him seem suitably Godlike.)

[edit] I must say, I'm much easier on the eagles issue. However, they do rather seem like they could be rather the classic Deus Ex Machina mechanism. Given that they do usually turn up with no foreshadowing, to pull the characters out of an otherwise inescapable position.
Really though, if you're going to worry about enormous plot holes and rampant cheatery like that, you're just not going to enjoy it, so you might as well just ignore it. I mean, if you take things too far... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU)

SimperingToad
2009-07-09, 11:31 PM
Checked my books. I can find no evidence to suppoert any theory that Tom is ANY of the Valar. His origins are very vague, but I ran across one passage (which was later struck out from the final book) where Gandalf refers to Tom as one of an 'older generation' than he. That leaves him as one of the Maiar (in theory :smallwink:). A very old one, there from at least the beginning of the first age. He's called the First for a reason (first to live on the world created in the Great Music).

The final book reveals he seemingly knew Farmer Maggot, and perhaps Butterbur as well (or just knew OF him). The early manuscripts apparently had him knowing enough about Butterbur to actually visit Bree to check on the hobbits. There was even one mention of a possible meeting between he and Gandalf. Also, there was a confrontation with Black Riders where Tom kinda made a 'turning' similar to what happened with the Barrow-wight, which Frodo would later try at the Ford (and fail).

So, the older versions left him in a bigger role to play. A far cry from merely being a 'random encounter' added at the last minute. Tolkien evidently liked the character and the others, and wanted them to make a guest appearance, so they got woven into the tale. The world around the hobbits suddenly gets older than the Shire, we learn of Westernesse, we get a foreshadowing of the 'unlife' of the Black Riders through their similarity to the Barrow-wights, and the Ring's power is revealed to be not absolute. Not a wasted effort.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 12:44 AM
Tom Bombadil has no meaning, origin, or depth. He feels, in the way of childrens stories, almost more mary-sue than deus ex.

Well that can be explained with another plausibility: Tolkien put a lot of himself in Tom, and a lot of his wife in Goldberry.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 12:47 AM
(snipping a lot of interesting stuff)

So, the older versions left him in a bigger role to play. A far cry from merely being a 'random encounter' added at the last minute. Tolkien evidently liked the character and the others, and wanted them to make a guest appearance, so they got woven into the tale. The world around the hobbits suddenly gets older than the Shire, we learn of Westernesse, we get a foreshadowing of the 'unlife' of the Black Riders through their similarity to the Barrow-wights, and the Ring's power is revealed to be not absolute. Not a wasted effort.

So basically, Tolkien did edit out parts, not because they were bad, but because of space.

snoopy13a
2009-07-10, 01:13 AM
Checked my books. I can find no evidence to suppoert any theory that Tom is ANY of the Valar. His origins are very vague, but I ran across one passage (which was later struck out from the final book) where Gandalf refers to Tom as one of an 'older generation' than he. That leaves him as one of the Maiar (in theory :smallwink:). A very old one, there from at least the beginning of the first age. He's called the First for a reason (first to live on the world created in the Great Music).



I really think that Tolkien intended for Tom to simply be a mystery. He may not have even decided what Tom was.

In reality, Tom was a toy that Tolkien's children played with. I believe that he ended up going down the toilet :smalltongue:

Skorj
2009-07-10, 01:39 AM
Because of this thread, I've been sitting here reading Tolkien's Tom Bombadil poety for an hour. "The Stone Troll" is still my favorite of all his poems, for it's simplicity I guess, plus I just like trolls.
And Tom loses in this one.

Thanks thread!

Optimystik
2009-07-10, 01:47 AM
Gandalf believes that Glorfindel's added strength wouldn't make that much of a difference and that it is better for Frodo's cousins to join him than it would be for two powerful elves to fill out the rest of the Fellowship.

But Thou Must!


Well that can be explained with another plausibility: Tolkien put a lot of himself in Tom, and a lot of his wife in Goldberry.

The most plausible theory yet.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 02:13 AM
But Thou Must!

The most plausible theory yet.

Tolkien was actually a hell of a romantic guy. The whole Poem of Beren and Luthien was basically a celebration of the love he felt for his wife. Remember that on their respective headstones, the names Beren and Luthien are written...

Someone said there are two couples, two loves that Tolkien identified with in his writings: Beren / Luthien, which is the Romantic Love, and Tom / Goldberry, which is the down to earth, homey, aspect of it.

Zen Master
2009-07-10, 04:19 AM
No, I don't think so; it's best that they were basically helpless and had to be rescued.


I think this is by far the most important point of the discussion thus far: The hobbits are not heroes in any traditional sense, in any way what so ever. They are basically cute but useless small 'special people' surrounded by real heroes. It was Tom Bombadil that saved them from the barrow downs, but they are saved - over and over and over again - by people more powerful than they.

The only meaningful thing the hobbits contribute is courage and resistance to corruption that their more powerful companions lack.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-10, 04:58 AM
The only meaningful thing the hobbits contribute is courage and resistance to corruption that their more powerful companions lack.

So.. this does not make them heroes?

See, in my point of view, the real hero, the real winner of the whole book is Sam.


" Come on, Mr. Frodo. I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you! "

Fishy
2009-07-10, 04:59 AM
But Thou Must!


One thinks irresistibly of Gandalf's famous words to Frodo when explaining the logic of The Lord of the Plot Devices: "I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker." Frodo, unfortunately, fails to respond with the obvious question, to which the answer is "by the author (http://news.ansible.co.uk/plotdev.html)".

In a word, this is my problem with Tolkein, and anyone else who wants to use These Things Happen For A Reason as the guiding theme of their work. Because of course they do, it's a book.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 05:01 AM
So.. this does not make them heroes?

See, in my point of view, the real hero, the real winner of the whole book is Sam.
" Come on, Mr. Frodo. I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you! "

Of course. But they do not start out that way. If you really look at it, it's almost only the secondary characters that have any real character growth: Sam, Merry, Pippin, Eowyn. Boromir too, I guess although for him Redemption Equals Death.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 05:05 AM
In a word, this is my problem with Tolkein, and anyone else who wants to use These Things Happen For A Reason as the guiding theme of their work. Because of course they do, it's a book.

Of course, one could also look at it and say that the people who respond to the unasked question with either "It's a book" or "the author" have not let themselves be swallowed by the story. For those of us who truly appreciate the Trilogy, the answer is "Nobody knows".

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-10, 05:07 AM
Of course. But they do not start out that way. If you really look at it, it's almost only the secondary characters that have any real character growth: Sam, Merry, Pippin, Eowyn. Boromir too, I guess although for him Redemption Equals Death.

/headdesk

So an hero MUST start as an hero? Cannot BECOME an hero? What's this, 4th edition?

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 05:20 AM
/headdesk

So an hero MUST start as an hero? Cannot BECOME an hero? What's this, 4th edition?

/Headdesk (backatya)

What? Either my English suddenly sucks or you just inverted the meaning of my entire post?

Read it again. "Of course. But they do not start out that way."

Fishy
2009-07-10, 05:24 AM
Of course, one could also look at it and say that the people who respond to the unasked question with either "It's a book" or "the author" have not let themselves be swallowed by the story. For those of us who truly appreciate the Trilogy, the answer is "Nobody knows".

Exactly. So, what is it that keeps readers like me from getting swallowed and 'truly appreciating' the story?

I think it might be the constant reminders that I'm reading a book.

Zen Master
2009-07-10, 05:29 AM
So.. this does not make them heroes?

See, in my point of view, the real hero, the real winner of the whole book is Sam.


" Come on, Mr. Frodo. I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you! "

Well - he isn't the only hero, several of the others perform admirably as well. But Sam is the only hobbit who, eventually, turns out to be a hero.

And still, Sams heroic trait is loyalty and friendship unto death. Likeable, true - but not the stuff superheroes are usually forged from.

It is however unquestionable that Sam is instrumental in the destruction of the ring. Maybe more so than any other.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 05:29 AM
Exactly. So, what is it that keeps readers like me from getting swallowed and 'truly appreciating' the story?

I think it might be the constant reminders that I'm reading a book.

The question is then, why is that?

A) You always have this problem, with all books, movies etc. OR
B) You find Tolkien's writing style not appealing enough for you to get immersed

(You don't have to answer, I'm just saying these two are the two most likely reasons. Tolkien is an acquired taste).

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-10, 05:30 AM
/Headdesk (backatya)

What? Either my English suddenly sucks or you just inverted the meaning of my entire post?

Read it again. "Of course. But they do not start out that way."

My apologies, I misinterpreted your words.

This is dued to the "but", I badly understood it, as if you said "they are less heroes because they does not start as heroes". Sorry for harsh.

And I wouldn't consider that Frodo or Sam does not grow. Sam becomes a true hero, and Frodo changes so much and so badly that must go away from middlearth.




And still, Sams heroic trait is loyalty and friendship unto death. Likeable, true - but not the stuff superheroes are usually forged from.


Well, if you see the "power level" of the setting, there are not true supeheroes. Even supervillains powers are not so terrible.

Anyway, I can't understand this. Other heroes fight very well, and Sam has a "very high not fail with 1 will save". THAT'S his "superpower" (:smallsigh:) and in the setting is really OP.

Please, nerf Samwise Gamgee. My Aragorn is completely outshined. Yes, he's good with swords, but cannot approach the ring. And he should be the King of Gondor! This is absolutely unfair.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 05:49 AM
My apologies, I misinterpreted your words.

This is dued to the "but", I badly understood it, as if you said "they are less heroes because they does not start as heroes". Sorry for harsh.

And I wouldn't consider that Frodo or Sam does not grow. Sam becomes a true hero, and Frodo changes so much and so badly that must go away from middlehearth.


No worries.

Sam is in the list I made above. Frodo did grow too, but to me, he grew less.

Aris Katsaris
2009-07-10, 05:58 AM
Tom Bombadil has no meaning, origin, or depth. He feels, in the way of childrens stories, almost more mary-sue than deus ex.

Really, I'd hesitate to say he adds to anything, mythology or otherwise, because he's so lacking in background, character, or actions taken. He makes no ripples on the face of the world of note, and so might as well not be there in the first place.

Have you not considered that this is exactly the meaning and depth of Tom Bombadil?

For all the discussions on this character, why does none of you ever consider Tolkien's own point of view regarding him?

Here's what he himself said: That Tom Bombadil plays an important role in not what he does but in what he IS -- the pacifist, oath-of-poverty, NON-acting side of Good. He's in this this an opposite to the Council of Rivendell or Gandalf. But though he's powerful by this in his own self, and the corruption of Ring leaves him untouched, he's also incapable of enacting much positive change to the world.

And you say that all of this has no meaning or depth or point? What nonsense.

As for the Barrow-wights, again thematically, the enchantment of hopelessness placed there is an early indication of what we see later in Denethor's madness of despair or the rotten faces seen by Frodo in the murky waters of Mordor: The evil idea that "since it's all gonna end up foul and rotten, we may just as well rest here and DIE."

To this Frodo rebels in the Barrow-wight, in a way that he's incapable of rebelling at the very end after the ring's torture has weakened his spirit (when even after having destroyed the ring, he says to Sam that hopes fail, etc, etc, and we'll just die now)

(Cf. contrast this to Beren's ultimate declaration of love towards the whole universe -- who says that the whole universe is blest and well-justified in its existence EVEN if it ends up badly, just because of the beauty it contained even momentarily:
"Though all to ruin fell the world
and were dissolved and backwards hurled
Unmade into the old abyss
yet were its making good for this,
the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the Sea,
that Luthien for a time should be!"
)

Again, pointless? From a plot-perspective, sure. From a thematic perspective the Bombadil & Barrow-wight encounters VASTLY enrich the word via presenting counterpoints. The NON-acting Good. The NON-conquering evil.

In a world were the main things presented are the *heroically active* Good, and the conquering/murdering Evil, it's very important to also present a Good that tells you: "why fuss, have a song and a good dinner instead!" and an Evil that tells you: "why fuss, lie still and die already."


At some point (I think later than the Ents and Eagles), he creates the Wizards to protect Man from the ravages of Man (more or less).

No, the wizards are mere emissaries, they weren't "created" by Manwe. And their task was to coordinate the free races against Sauron, not against other men. Gandalf at the end of Lord of the Rings explicitly says about himself "I was the Enemy of Sauron" (and that's why his task is done, and he needs depart back to the West)

Thespianus
2009-07-10, 07:04 AM
See, in my point of view, the real hero, the real winner of the whole book is Sam.

" Come on, Mr. Frodo. I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you! "
+1

Also, he gets to nail the babe. :smallsmile:

JMM
2009-07-10, 08:15 AM
Perhaps pure literary criticism is too narrow a lens from which to evaluate the 'necessity' of Bombadil, in that Tolkien's prose is informed tremendously by his Roman Catholicism. If one considers the theology that underpins many of the author's constructs, and even his philosophy as relates to the secondary world, the character's relevance in my opinion becomes apparent.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 08:26 AM
Perhaps pure literary criticism is too narrow a lens from which to evaluate the 'necessity' of Bombadil, in that Tolkien's prose is informed tremendously by his Roman Catholicism. If one considers the theology that underpins many of the author's constructs, and even his philosophy as relates to the secondary world, the character's relevance in my opinion becomes apparent.

You're not trying to start an "It's an allegory" thing, are you?

JMM
2009-07-10, 08:29 AM
You're not trying to start an "It's an allegory" thing, are you?

Succinctly ... no.

Tolkien himself said it wasn't. I respect his assertion.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 08:32 AM
Succinctly ... no.

Tolkien himself said it wasn't. I respect his assertion.

*Phew.*

And respect to anyone respecting his assertion.

Indon
2009-07-10, 08:39 AM
I imagine if Bombadil was mentioned in the Silmarillion, nobody would have a problem with him. He'd just be another inbuilt universe deus ex machina.

It's not like people dislike characters swooping in to save the day, since the series is packed full of that - Gandalf swoops in to save the day constantly, making the only difference between him and Bombadil (aside from the fact that Gandalf is saving the characters the entire series) is that Gandalf is explained in the background material. If you like LOTR, I don't see how you can mind deus ex machina characters swooping in to save the day.

In fact, the last major event in the book, the event taking up the place where the climax would be in any other book, is not the destruction of the ring, but the one thing the hobbits accomplish fully under their own power in the series.


As far as I am concerned, writing an unnecessary chapter of a book is a very forgiveable lapse. Writing an entire 750 page book that doesn't have enough room to deal with central characters in the story arc (which both Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin have done in the last decade) indicates a need for editors, critics, and draft revision.

Jordan just loves his massive, anime-style ensemble cast. (Dunno about Martin)

Person_Man
2009-07-10, 09:19 AM
When I was younger, I loved LOTR and books filled with magic and high fantasy. "The evil boss was defeated by magic? Cool! I wish I had magic!"

Now that I'm an old man (31), I find that I dislike most books that include magic. "The evil boss was defeated by magic? Hurmph! Lazy author couldn't think of something interesting or intelligent for her characters to do, so he just solved it with fairy dust and bastardized Latin. Again!"

Of course when I was young my whole life was controlled by fate. My parents, my older siblings, my teachers, my religion, the routine of daily life - all forces beyond my control. I lived in a world I didn't understand governed by rules that seemed arbitrary and capricious. And so reading plot lines resolved by deus ex machina seemed normal and believable, because that's the only way that almost everything in my life was resolved. I believe the Greeks who came up with the term, living in a young and unexplained world, felt the same way.

Now that I ostensibly control what I do with my days and a reasonable handle on human behavior and science, deus ex machina is offensive to me. I don't like reading about people who have no control over their own lives, because it undercuts the illusion that I have no control over my own life.

Of course knowing that I can read and enjoy stories driven by fate on their own level. I just have to think it through and rationalize the work to myself instead of just intuitively taking pleasure in it.

WalkingTarget
2009-07-10, 09:27 AM
From Tolkien's letters:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in The Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

"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', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless..."

"It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war… the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron."

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

The second quote there is my personal take on his importance in the books. He's not there for narrative reasons to move the story along. He's there to show that the Ring, something that's entire purpose is to exert control over others, is itself powerless over one who finds no value in control. This is similar, I think, in why hobbits were the best stewards of the Ring in the quest. They are, for the most part, content with the simple things in life. They're not up there in the renounce-all-things territory, but they're closer to it than men or elves or dwarves (which is, frankly, why I think it's important for Bombadil's nature to be a mystery).

The nature of his characterization (all the hopping around and singing and whatnot) is a stylistic thing that was carried over from his earlier appearances and I understand that this in itself is grating for some people.

Typewriter
2009-07-10, 03:03 PM
I think an important thing that some people aren't thinking about is that it is possible to like a character while disliking the use of said character. TB was mystery and amazement, but he also took the limelight away from the characters, with a stuart-like(MAD) command of powers beyond anything that anyone else in the series was capable of

"You guys may be useless, but look what I can do"

And it didn't strengthen the characters, or at least - didn't seem to me like he did.

Conceptually - I liked him. I can think of ways that would have been better for him(they get helped by 'mysterious forces' throughout the journey in the places where he would have saved them, but gets revealed later, and he explains that he hadn't revealed himself earlier so as to make them think that they had saved themselves, yada yada).

You have an amazing concept in this unexplainable man-force of nature who does nothing but detract from the main characters. I liked him up until I realized they were done with him and had no intention of explaining him.

Tom Bombadil = Good Concept
Usage of TB = Bad

All in my opinion of course :)

The New Bruceski
2009-07-10, 03:15 PM
When I was younger, I loved LOTR and books filled with magic and high fantasy. "The evil boss was defeated by magic? Cool! I wish I had magic!"

Now that I'm an old man (31), I find that I dislike most books that include magic. "The evil boss was defeated by magic? Hurmph! Lazy author couldn't think of something interesting or intelligent for her characters to do, so he just solved it with fairy dust and bastardized Latin. Again!"

Sanderson's First Law: "The more you define your magic system, the more you can use it to solve problems."

Brandon Sanderson does a good job with limited magic systems, with solid rules (though the characters might not know all of them). They end up shaping the story and the world they're in, but since the rules are present from the beginning it doesn't feel like a cop-out. He puts effort into explaining what the magic can't do.

Avilan the Grey
2009-07-10, 04:55 PM
When I was younger, I loved LOTR and books filled with magic and high fantasy. "The evil boss was defeated by magic? Cool! I wish I had magic!"

Now that I'm an old man (31), I find that I dislike most books that include magic. "The evil boss was defeated by magic? Hurmph! Lazy author couldn't think of something interesting or intelligent for her characters to do, so he just solved it with fairy dust and bastardized Latin. Again!"

Of course there are books like that, but I don't get that feeling at all when I read anything by Tolkien. Besides, what exactly constitutes "interesting or intelligent"? Just because it is done with "magic" does not mean it's an asspull. Or not thought through.

Matthew
2009-07-13, 11:13 AM
Tom Bombadil? Based on one of Chris Tolkien's cuddly toys IIRC; so essentially an expy of Winnie the Pooh (Goldberry? she's probably Piglet...).* Added to the story when - by his own admission - Tolkien had only the vaguest idea where exactly the plot was going.

Bombadil's narrative purpose: to show that life goes on aside from the adventure.
Bombadil's ulterior purpose: to singlehandedly kill folk music in the UK. :smalltongue:

Bombadil's absence from the films? His role as powerful-but-vague 'old man of the woods' was played by Treebeard anyway; but I do regret the missed opportunity for what could have been the single greatest BRIANBLESSED! role since Vultan the Hawkman. :smallcool:

sneak preview from the 25th Anniversary Edition of Fellowship: Tom Bombadil Fanwank Extended Edition



"HEY NONNY-NONNY-NO TOM BOMBADILLO! HE HAS NO SENSE OF COLOUR COORDINATION!"
"Oh Master Frodo, what is that terrible noise?"
"I don't know Sam. But then I am an ineffectual fop..."
"HELLOOOO! I'M TOM BOMBADIL!"
"Agh! Moi ears!"


Now that I'd watch. :smallamused:

-----

* Can you imagine just how great "The House at Pooh Corner" would have been if Tolkien had ghost-written it for A.A.Milne?

Chapter Five: In Which Piglet son of Porkchop, last scion of the House of Oink, Meets an Oliphaunt within the Forest Hundrid Ackar

All kinds of awesome! :smallbiggrin:

SimperingToad
2009-07-13, 12:18 PM
Brian Blessed would work if you are doing a Mel Brooks version of LoTR. For a serious version, my choice would have been John Inman. :smallsmile:

BlckDv
2009-07-13, 02:04 PM
From Tolkien's letters:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in The Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

"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', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless..."

"It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war… the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron."

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
...


Thanks for posting these, I had a dim memory of the third paragraph. While I do not subscribe to the view that LoTR was intended as a WWI/II analogue, I do think that we must recall that Tolkien was of the generation in Europe defined by those conflicts, and that much of LoTR was written during WWII, and so in content we must expect some amount of impact.

Tom Bombadil has always struck me as a symbol for feeling that had to grip the European caught up in the war trying to grasp the mindset of people who simply got on with life and seemed not to feel that the war was of great import to them, even though which side wins will in the end impact everyone.

Tom to me stands in part for that alien and baffling world that the British saw, especially from pre-Pearl Harbor America. But I don't think he is a direct symbol, more a symbol of the feeling, the surreal nature of stumbling across someone who simply is unmoved by what to you is the most important thing in the world.