the narrative relevance of the oft-hated Tom Bombadil

[Fitz10019]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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.

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.

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.

-----

* 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'd participate in this discussion, but Goldberry is waiting...

[Blackfang108]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Korivan]

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]

Unnecessary in the theater version, yes. Needed in the 4 hour extended cut, absolutely.

[Doc Roc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.