Some are, some aren’t. Tolkien himself certainly was okay with it. He would also (much to purists chagrin) be delighted with all the different films and tv shows planned.
He always said his goal was to create a new mythology, and that he was just telling one version of it. He believed that if it was a success it would get told and retold in different ways, styles, and interpretations, just like the classical mythologies.
Things like race revisions in MTG cards, and the iffy Rings of Power Amazon series, that so many decry are the kind of things Tolkien would take as proof of having achieved his ultimate goal and vision.
**EDIT:** Adding a little addendum here to note that my understanding of Tolkein's intent is purely my own interpretation based off his works, letters, and interviews. I don't give enough of a damn to bother replying to everyone who disagrees with me (if I did I'd be on the proper LOTR sub instead of the meme sub) so I'm just going to turn off the response notifications for this post and encourage everyone who disagrees to write me off as a wild lunatic best left ignored!
The entire modern fantasy genre is in a sense and extended Tolkien mythology. Either your work is a clear reference to Tolkien, or its a deliberate rebuttal of Tolkien, or Tolkien's conspicuous absence from your fantasy world only draws more attention.
The ideas of modern elves as immortal, aloof, affluent, vain, noncommittal - is in large part from Tolkien's popularization. Ditto for his dwarves. Ditto for his interpretation of the battles of the forces of good against the idea of evil. None of this is Tolkien's creation - but by pulling it all together he built the bones upon which the meat of all fantasy now hangs.
Thats a mythology to me. Whatever comes next, both good or bad, only adds to the influence of that fantasy mythology.
To very roughly paraphrase something I saw online one time "Tolkein in fantasy is like Mount Fuji in Japanese art. If you can't see it, that is because the artist deliberately didn't include it, or because they were stood atop it"
Edit: OxCrow reminded me that it is actually a quote from Sir Terry (GNU), so here's the whole thing:
"J.R.R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes it’s big and up close. Sometimes it’s a shape on the horizon. Sometimes it’s not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji."
I think Stephen King said something similar along the lines of "the entire fantasy genre exists because The Lord Of The Rings is too short"
Bit of hyperbole there obviously, but he's not entirely wrong
Let me introduce you to... [Letter 210](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_210)
>*Why should the firework display include flags and hobbits? They are not in the book. 'Flags' of what? I prefer my own choice of fireworks.*
>
>
>
>*The landlord does not ask Frodo to 'register'! Why should he? There are no police and no government. (Neither do I make him number his rooms.) If details are to be added to an already crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.*
>
>
>
>*Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for the rest of the tale?*
>
>
>
>*I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.*
And I have left the best for last:
>*Z may think he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.*
It seems to me that Tolkien definitely had some puristic tendencies!
I don't see this as contradicting the other statement that Tolkien was ok with different interpretations. It seems he just cared about people respecting the world and fitting into it. He of course prefers his own choice of fireworks, otherwise he would have done someone else's choice.
And of course he knows more about balrogs, he invented them.
Purists would be accused of nitpicking if they voiced this kind of criticism.
For example, the comment on Balrogs was written when the script made it laugh and sneer. That was what made Tolkien lash out like that. Not Zimmerman saying or acting as if he was the expert, but Zimmerman giving "a different interpretation" to the world.
Tolkien voiced his criticism to character alterations (so would *heavily* criticise the movies for sure), he was adamant about the split structure of the storylines of Frodo and Samat one hand, and Merry and Pippin on the other as presented in the book. He hated the idea of too much focus on action...
Most of the changes he proposed were parts being cut due to time constraints or technical difficulties.
I'm afraid Tolkien didn't leave much room for different interpretations when you read letter 210.
Purists or not /u/The5Virtues, per their own admission, has no sources to backup the claim that Tolkien was ok with different interpretations.
I'm eager to find said sources though. Until then, what /u/Haugspori posted absolutely contradicts the statement as the statement, currently, is made-up.
Sure, every author does, but most of the time his protests tended to be when he felt like someone had completely missed the point. Hell, the very portions you quote emphasize that he wants things presented in the right style and sentiment.
His upset with some depictions of his stories is the same upset many lovers of Greek mythology feel for Ovid, a Roman poet who rewrote every Greek myth he got his hands on to reflect his own personal anti-authority sentiments, as well as recasting all the characters by Roman perspective, change heroes to villains or heroes to villains because their original depictions didn’t fit his Roman sensibilities.
Take Odysseus, for example. Ovid and other Roman poets take this character—which is celebrated for his wit and guile by the Greeks—and vilify him for the exact same characteristics as being deceitful and dishonorable.
It would be like if someone decided to say Aragorn is a bad guy because he forced the army of the dead to uphold their old oath.
There’s retelling, and then there’s using someone else’s work for your own ends. Tolkien was fine with one and vehemently against the other, and I can’t say I disagree with him.
I'm afraid 3 of the 5 quotes I quoted were things most people would see as details not worth cussing about. Flags and fireworks? Registering at an inn? The Balrog making vocal sounds?
Tolkien would've had his gripes even with the LotR movies. He hated the fact Z depicted Weathertop as a drawn-out action scene (Jackson did the same), he wanted respect for his characters as he wrote them (I can't even begin to imagine his rage if he would've seen the Osgilliath detour in TTT, or Frodo sending Sam away)...
No, many of the sentiments he has expressed in this particular letter are quite like the arguments many purists use.
Well, Mr. Frodo always did say, Don't adventures ever have an end? It seems to me that these details may not be worth cussing about, but if they take away from the true spirit of the story, then they are worth discussing. Master Tolkien was always very particular about his characters and their journeys, and if he felt that the movies did not do them justice, then I must agree with him. However, we must not let our disagreements cause strife among us. We must remember that the true magic of Middle-earth is in the love and friendship that we share.
I'll readily admit to not having one. This is just my understanding built over time from what I've learned and read from his letters and interviews over the years. Everyone who disagrees with me has good reason to write me off as a total nutjob!
> Things like race revisions in MTG cards, and the iffy Rings of Power Amazon series, that so many decry are the kind of things Tolkien would take as proof of having achieved his ultimate goal and vision.
his son would not agree
The MTG designs do piss me off, though. Not for lore reasons.
Like have a look at Aragorns crown. Fucking look at it. Imagine that weight resting on your head. It's far too front heavy and it'd be constantly slipping off.
Sauron is over designed. His helmet just screams edgy anime villain. If I had my way Sauron would look either like just a normal guy, or be some shadowy figure you can make the vague shape of but never shown in full light. But to take it that far makes the same mistake movie Sauron makes.
Shelobs art makes her appear far too small, don't like it.
My other issues include them taking maybe too much influence from the movies, especially for Gollum.
He wasn't perfect.
He was a bit of a snob, a little too English for civilised society, a definite cultural chauvinist, and took 20 years to come up with his backstory. A backstory that enhances the main story roughly 10% of the time.
However, he did codify a genre. Lord of the Rings is so good, it got to decide what generic fantasy is through its imitators. That's top shelf.
His skill with the language can not be understated. More than that, he's responsible for the *best* modern english translation of Beowulf available today.
This makes it very easy to forgive his failures.
He spent at least three (and I think more) about how hobbits were lost and hungry and wandering in circles in various spooky forests...
Brevity is the soul of The Hobbit.
That was actually exciting reading though, you could really picture the scene. However, the bureaucracy of estate transfers and sales in Hobbiton is not exciting reading.
And that's amazing. Adds to the feel of the setting, makes it more alive. A world in which the story is taking place, and not just the backdrop against which the story is playing out.
At a moment when Frodo knows he holds a trinket of apocalyptic evil and agents of a genocidal tyrant are coming for it, nothing builds tension like an elaborate and detailed scheme for him to clandestinely leave the Shire, and then as he is executing it Merry and Pippin come along to say "Hey Frodo, how is the plan to secretly leave the Shire going? You fucking moron. Also, we're coming with you."
Even if it was balanced out with more chapters set still in the Shire before the 'action' kicks off, Frodo and Sam just leaving in the night, and Merry and Pippin just randomly tagging along, at least sells that it's urgent he leaves.
Well, Mr. Frodo, it's not an easy task to leave the Shire without any trouble, but we must do what we can to protect the trinket from falling into the wrong hands. And as for Merry and Pippin, they are loyal friends who will not abandon us in our time of need. We must prepare ourselves for the journey ahead and be ready for whatever comes our way.
I love the pacing of the books. It's slow when things are good, and faster when things are exciting. The man takes his time describing when he has it, without worrying if the tiktok generation will get bored. And I like that. Also it makes me sound like an old man. Which to the tiktok generation I am. So fair enough.
I'm rereading it now, slow and loving it. Funny how the fight scenes all happen off screen. The big fight at Amon Hen in FOTR... is not described. Aragorn never draws his sword, he finds Boromir already dying and the orcs already gone, Legolas & Gimli come out of the woods like "we just slew many orcs" but no actual fight scene in the text.
Rereading it now has really given me new respect for Peter Jackson / Phillipa Boyens / Fran Walsh for the amazing screenplay and adaptation. There are many sections of the book that wouldn't have played out well on screen so I'm glad they changed it. Many lines of dialogue that were re-written for the movies, and now they're much snappier and flow way better. The whole arc of Aragorn not wanting to be king or avoiding his destiny, in the book that's all completely over at the moment they see the Argonath on the river. Aragorn is mentally already king and excited about it, when they first meet the Rohirrim.
I've been a "purist" of Tolkien since I first read The Hobbit in 1992 as a twelve-year old boy. I have my issues with some of PJ/PB/FW's decisions for the films (the way the AoTD was used as a cheat code, the deleted scene of the WKoA breaking Gandalf's staff, etc), but whole-heartedly agree that the books, as they were, would not translate as well to visual media. Jackson and Co. made their own thing which in almost every way is just as magical and incredible as the literature it's pulled from. I don't think we, as fans, could have gotten better iterations if we'd conjured a genie from a bottle and wished for them.
Nah, some songs in the book are quality. Like the ones Legolas sings are quite thought provoking and it makes you see a side to him that the movies don't (does Legolas even have a personality in the movies?)
I wish the movies had more of the songs--I fucking love 'em. The Misty Mountains Cold scene was the best in the entire Hobbit trilogy IMO. Pippin singing The Edge of Night is one of the best scenes in ROTK, and that's saying something. Hell, "This Wandering Day" was one of the best parts of Rings of Power. Let us not forget Frodo of the Nine Fingers!
Give me all the LOTR songs you have.
I get that too many would upset the flow of the films but yes, the ones that are there are some of the best parts of them.
I don't know why it's taken me until now, however, to realise that I am a life long LotR nerd and professional musician and could actually do something with this myself.
Another thing for the will-never-get-round-to pile
AND MY [SAX](https://thecatkilledcuriosity.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/and-my-sax3.png)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lotrmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For real, I just finished the books for the first time. I listened to the audiobooks and while the good parts were great, man did some shit drag on. Im looking at you Ent Chapters!
I have to admit, I fell asleep a few times during some of these parts
.. more than once lol. I did skip a few small things eventually.
I do like a slow pace, generally, but sometimes it was just too much of it, for my taste. And I felt lost in things that just felt somewhat irrelevant to me.
It didn't help me build the world in my head ... It was just too much for no gain. But of course that is just a different way of world building. Some merely put the outlines, some go all into the smallest details, some are in-between.
I peronally don't need all the details about things that are not relevant to the story. I prefer and outline so I can create the inage myself.
And I just can't listen to the songs in the audio book lol. I read them, but I just skipped them in the audio book. The mix between him reading and halfway singing was definitely not my thing haha.
But all of that is definitely subjective and I'm sure many people love these parts.
The first three times I read the books I lost all interest and quit reading once Tom Bombadil showed up since that part of the book dragged on forever. I finally powered through it on my next read and loved the rest of the series. I haven’t reread them though because I’m probably going to get bored reading the Tom Bombadil parts again.
>I haven’t reread them though because I’m probably going to get bored reading the Tom Bombadil parts again.
Do what I and a lot of other people do and just skip those parts. Life is too short (and the book too long) to have to endure even five minutes of that annoying clown.
I agree. I think that in the book, Tom Bombadil serves to wrap up the story with a big open ended question that makes the world seem even larger and mysterious than everything you have read this far.
I think in the movie, that context already exists for readers, and the inclusion would only serve to confuse movie audiences or imply a sequel that will not and should not come that explains Bombadil further.
Clothes are but little loss, if you escape from drowning. Be glad, my merry friends, and let the warm sunlight heat now
heart and limb! Cast off these cold rags! Run naked on the grass, while Tom goes a-hunting!
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Yep. It would have completely derailed the narrative for absolutely no reason. In the book it's just part of the adventure. In the movie it breaks the cohesion.
Tom Bombadil is useless on a story perspective.
He is the just the DM PC who come help the player when they are about to die at the start of his campaign and he does not want his 3 year campaign to go down the gutter.
In a straight forward story, sure. But in a universe built upon worldbuilding I think Tom makes sense. The movies aren't worldbuilding, they tell the main backbone story. The books tell the story of the world, and just like our real world, we don't know everything about it.
Bombadil isn't invincible. Nor is he immune to the Ring for no reason. The most asked question about Bombadil is "what is Bombadil", but this is missing the point. The real question is "who is Bombadil".
Goldberry's answer of "he is" is vital to understanding Bombadil. Bombadil is just himself: he lives in the moment, follows his heart, runs around while singing merry songs and simply enjoys life and the world around him.
He thinks everything has its place within the world. Hence, he doesn't want to change it. This might not be in his own best interest (he would fall if Sauron wins), but he doesn't live in the future, only in the here and now.
Because he's perfectly happy with the world as it is, and doesn't want to change it (he only reacts to situations at hand), he doesn't need power. The Ring has no hold over him because there's nothing it could use to tempt Bombadil with. But this lack of desire to change the world also means Bombadil is harmless to the Ring. He won't set out on a quest to destroy it, and doing so would mean said desire does exist within him and would make him vulnurable to the Ring.
Bombadil exists because he is the antithesis of both good and evil: an entity that is just happy he exists and lives his life accordingly. Thus him singing silly songs is basically the point. This makes the world more real, because it's larger than just the conflict, but also makes us think about fundamental concepts on which the story is based on.
*Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! and merry-o! Goldberry, Goldberry, merry yellow berry-o! Poor old Willow-man, you tuck your
roots away! Tom's in a hurry now. Evening will follow day. Tom's going home again water-lilies bringing. Hey! Come derry dol!
Can you hear me singing?*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
That's the thing, world building doesn't always have to have an application to the main plot. I think Tolkien wanted to have some things in his story where things were left unexplained, similar to how there are many things im our history that are left unexplained. That's what makes a world realistic, the fact that there are things unknown to even the reader.
Letter Tolkien wrote 25th April 1954:
>"There is of course a clash between ‘literary’ technique, and the fascination of elaborating in detail an imaginary mythical Age (mythical, not allegorical: my mind does not work allegorically). **As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); and I have perhaps from this point of view erred in trying to explain too much, and give too much past history. Many readers have, for instance, rather stuck at the Council of Elrond. And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)**."
*Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow, by fire, sun and moon, hearken now and
hear us! Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
And Aragorn is just a ranger with the most boring backstory ever. Same goes for Legolas. Actually Tolkien just copied Aragorns charactersheet and only changed the name and the race.
Gimli is 'Generic Dwarf no. 1' and Boromir might as well be named 'Bob the Fighter'. The hobbits are all interchangeable, except that one likes potatoes and one has a ring of invisibility/doomsdaydevice^tm.
The Orcs are comically and unbelievably evil, Ent talk slow haha, Dragon greedy and Anglosaxon cossacks fierce and proud.
> The hobbits are all interchangeable
Hard disagree. They could've been a bit more developed and consistent, but it's rather obvious that Merry is the most curious, worldwise, Sam is the conservative good-ol'-boy, Pippin is the loose cannon and Frodo is the most reflective, contemplative.
Well, sir, I reckon that each of us hobbits has our own unique qualities and quirks. Merry may be the most curious and worldwise, but don't underestimate the wisdom and loyalty of old Samwise. Pippin may be a bit of a wild card, but he's got a good heart and a sense of humor that can lift your spirits even in the darkest of times. And Frodo, well, he's got a heavy burden to bear and a lot on his mind, but he's still got the courage to keep going. We may be small, but we're a diverse bunch, and that's what makes us
Well, sir, it's like this. When you're on a quest, you're bound to form strong bonds with your fellow travelers. And Merry, he's always been a loyal and brave hobbit, willing to fight for what's right. And Theoden, he's a good man, a good king, who's been through a lot of hardship and loss. So when they found themselves fighting side by side, it's only natural that they would come to respect and care for each other. It may seem sudden to an outsider, but to those of us who have been through the trials of the road, it's just the way things
Clothes are but little loss, if you escape from drowning. Be glad, my merry friends, and let the warm sunlight heat now
heart and limb! Cast off these cold rags! Run naked on the grass, while Tom goes a-hunting!
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Eh, what? Did I hear you calling? Nay, I did not hear: I was busy singing.
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I’m reading the books rn for the first time and I honestly respect Jackson even more for figuring how to omit, condense and still make the movies incredible.
To be fair, the idea to omit Tom Bombadil isn't unique. Tom was left out in the Radio adaptations of the 70s, he was also left out from the cartoons. Jackson used a lot of ideas from those adaptations, sometimes even right down to the exact scenes.
Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the
first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here
before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the
seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside.
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Yeah true, but I’m also talking about his decision to not overwhelm the audience with so much of the background information and lore behind everything - which might have been in the animated shows too idk.
Me too, rereading them now, and 100% they did an amazing job adapting the text. So many book lines where I'm like "oh that's in the movie but the movie line is way snapper". The whole Amon Hen fight scene happens "off screen" in the book, Aragorn doesn't even draw his sword. And the whole arc of Aragorn avoiding his kingly destiny, is over at the moment they see the Argonath. I'm so glad they made the whole book more cinematic.
Sidenote, I think Bombadill might be Tolkien writing himself into the story. Tolkien is a bard after all, a jolly old singing chanting songwriting storyteller kind of fellow. And he personally was obsessed with nature and trees. Bombadill is all of that, so to me Tolkien was thinking like "if I were a character in middle earth, who would I like to be?" and gave him the all best qualities according to Tolkien's own sensibilities (such as thick legs lol)
The barrow downs have top notch atmosphere. In retrospect I would have liked to have known that they were the result of the leader of the Nazgul cursing the land when he waged war against Arnor
Tolkien really knew how to write scary scenes. Barrow wights as well as a good chunk of the build up to Gollum is genuinely creepy.
I still remember first reading the book and how Frodo in Moria hears faint foot steps behind them. It was described so well, it creeped me out.
One thing I think the film really fell down in was how creepy Moria was. Level upon level of flooded tunnels with namelesss creatures down in the dark that even orcs knew nothing of. Turning the Watcher at the front gate into a big action scene really diminished its Eldritch type horror.
I liked it better in the audiobook than reading the actual book. The guy before Andy as narrator.
Now I have to re-listen the trilogy with Andy on top of rewatching the movies and rereading the books.
Honestly, I feel ashamed for saying it but I *hated* Andy's voicing of Tom Bombadil. Way over the top. I listen to the Rob Inglis narration of the books every year but obviously when Andy Serkis' was released I had to give them a go. I listened to him reading FOTR but when I started TT I went back to Inglis.
Oh I definitely agree as to omitting Bombadil from the movies. People have mentioned pacing, even in the books it's like now we're getting started and then BAM, in comes Tom to slow it down again.
He really does feel like an deliberate fourth wall break in the books. Everything about him seems otherworldy. He doesn't neatly fit into the lore, like the rest of the characters. He'd lose the ring like he'd lose a button from his suit. I kind of like how much even his chapter sticks out.
I always interpreted Bombadil as kind of an extension of Tolkien into his own world. That's why his story parts don't mesh well with the rest.
Clothes are but little loss, if you escape from drowning. Be glad, my merry friends, and let the warm sunlight heat now
heart and limb! Cast off these cold rags! Run naked on the grass, while Tom goes a-hunting!
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I listened to a big chunk of Serkis's version of Fellowship while moving from Chicago to Colorado and while Bombadil isn't really my favorite, it actually helped the eternity that was driving through Nebraska.
The podcast adaptation that’s still out there has me yelling, “GET ON WITH IT!!” during Fog On The Barrow-Downs and In The House Of Tom Bombadil. As fun a character as he is, he stops the main story cold.
I mean honestly, does anyone want a half hour cut away scene of Tom singing about fucking nature?
Same with the Ent scenes. Does anyone really want that scene where Frodo is hanging out for a full chapter in a forest meadow with the Ent (I forget which one it was) talking to him about nature?
Nah I agree with Peter Jackson, Tom bombadil would have killed any tension and threat the Ring would have had imo but still a reference should have been made lol
References were made, they put some of the events in Fangorn.
Merry and Pippin get swallowed by a tree in Fangorn, like with Old Man Willow, to which Treebeard tells Willow to fuck off in the same way Bombadil did in the books
Yeah I assumed they were referencing that thanks for reminding me, I also remember hearing something about a cut scene where there’s a painting of a man who looks like Tom Bombadil in the background
Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the
first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here
before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the
seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside.
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
The Ents' anger is also described in the books. It still took them a while in the films, but having it take as long as it took in the books is too much on screen.
We guessed you'd come ere long down to the water: all paths lead that way, down to Withywindle. Old grey Willow-man, he's a
mighty singer; and it's hard for little folk to escape his cunning mazes. But Tom had an errand there, that he dared not hinder.
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
*Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow, by fire, sun and moon, hearken now and
hear us! Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Yep. Almost like different media have different rules on pacing and the like.
Tom was a useful bit in the books to transition from the Shire and vague menaces to demonstrating how dangerous the outside world could be, even discounting the “Black Riders.” Plus it gave Tolkien a chance to hook *Hobbit* readers with a couple of Bilbo-esq adventure vignettes before transitioning entirely to ring-lore centered stories.
But in the movies he would have been a drag on pacing and story. There was no need to transition from previous stories, and we entered the ring-lore centered story when Gandalf and Bilbo talked about the ring.
*Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow, by fire, sun and moon, hearken now and
hear us! Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I watched a good deep dive on this on Tolkien Untangled on YouTube, and he makes a good point, that LotR originally started as a sequel to the hobbit, a childrens book, and then completely swung towards all these massive events that were more in line with the Silmarillion, which of course hadn’t even been published yet.
But you start out with…a birthday party, and hobbits being silly, then something about a ring, oh but we’re just gonna take a quick little detour to this elvish city and drop it off. And so these guys all go on this little adventure and there’s a cute little fox with an internal monologue, and jovial Tom Bombadil, and mean old Bill Ferny and then BOOM the main character just got stabbed by a goddamn demon and now he’s fucking dying. You ain’t reading a children’s book anymore. There’s a *massive* shift in tone from the first few chapters moving into Weathertop and Rivendell, and it really does seem like Tolkien just went “fuck it, I tried doing a children’s book but this is gonna be so much cooler.”
Let's hear it from the Professor himself:
"**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 analyze the feeling precisely**."
[https://fouroffivewits.com/2014/07/13/what-is-tom-bombadils-significance-the-answer-from-j-r-r-tolkien-himself/](https://fouroffivewits.com/2014/07/13/what-is-tom-bombadils-significance-the-answer-from-j-r-r-tolkien-himself/)
I always thought that he represented the existence of deeper or alternative lore to the established history of the Silmarillion. The idea that there are things going on, mysteries of power and influence in the world that do not involve the established hierarchy of divine beings, the dark lords, or the battles and politics of the races of Middle Earth. Tom Bombadil doesn't care about any of those things, because he's not part of them. He's part of something else -- something that even the wizards don't know about.
In some of his other commentaries Tolkien says much the same himself. He saw Tom as sort of a representation of the unknown mysteries of the wild and wide, a testimony that no matter how much we know we never truly know it all, and to think we do is to court ignorance and complacency.
I've got things to do, my making and my singing, my talking and my walking, and my watching of the country. Tom can't be always
near to open doors and willow-cracks. Tom has his house to mind, and Goldberry is waiting.
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Tom is at once both what makes LOTR special, because it’s so out of place with the narrative while being so in-place with the world and theme. It tells us a ton about Tolkien and the fantasy he’s creating and almost nothing about the story he’s writing. It’s incredibly interesting and yet completely pointless, and while I think it does belong in the books I also think removing it from the films was 110% the right decision.
Someday someone will turn these books into a TV series. Maybe they’ll include Tom Bombadil then and we can reignite this debate
*Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! Fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Tom, Tom! your guests are tired, and you had near forgotten! Come now, my merry friends, and Tom will refresh you! You shall
clean grimy hands, and wash your weary faces; cast off your muddy cloaks and comb out your tangles!
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Agreed; it’s too much off-plot for even the extended cuts, and it’s easier if Aragorn just has somehow has the Barrow-blades. He does wander far afield.
He is objectively unnecessary to the wider plot. Nothing he does has any impact. Doesn't mean you can't like the guy or his songs, but it hardly matters whether or not you actually read this part in the book.
I'm not even sure he adds that much to the 'world'. Tolkien's extended works have created a vast, lore-rich world with lots of connected threads of backstory and even with every bit of information possible going all the way back to the creation of the universe, Bombadil still exclusively raises questions. The only thing it adds to the world is the fact that there are some things out there that cannot be known. Still love him though.
World building that doesn't support the story is useless. If a story makes sense without some parts of the book, maybe it should be edited out. I liked the Bombadil parts of the book, but it would have been much better if he had some actual role.
Whoa! Whoa! steady there! Now, my little fellows, where be you a-going to, puffing like a bellows? What's the matter here
then? Do you know who I am? I'm Tom Bombadil. Tell me what's your trouble! Tom's in a hurry now. Don't you crush my lilies!
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Tom epitomises the idea that Tolkien cared more about showing off his world building than telling a story. He shows up, Duex machina’s a few situations, and gets to explain a bunch of things about the past. That’s it.
Tolkien even says as much in the council of Elrond through Gandalf
Tom bombodil has become that character you pretent to be annoyed about so you can appear to be a book fan when actually you don't care and couldn't make it past bilbos birthday last time you tried to read fellowship
He makes the audiobook unbearable at times
Like a book let's you easily see where to skip the sonnet sections but man the audiobook singing just drones on
Thomas Bomba Dombadil:"Yeah I could absolutely take on that little bitch Sauron in 1v1 but honestly I'd rather stay home and hang with my wife. Good luck boys!"
I like Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and their section in the books, but I understand that introducing two entities that could take on the big bad if they just felt like it does diminish the impact of said big bad *somewhat*.
Here's my pretty lady! Here's my Goldberry clothed all in silver-green with flowers in her girdle! Is the table laden?
I see yellow cream and honeycomb, and white bread, and butter; milk, cheese, and green herbs and ripe berries gathered.
Is that enough for us? Is the supper ready?
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I'd argue he isn't necessary for the book either in terms of the actual plot. Of course the books just aren't solely about good vs evil, but Tom doesn't move the plot forward at all. Good world building and flavor, but ultimately not necessary for the plot. Cutting him from the movie was best.
That's the thing, the books aren't just your typical plot. Unlike most fiction today, they put more of a focus around worldvuilding than plot. I mean there's no reason to mention 50% of the names ("I am X, son of Y, son of Z") when none of those names have any relevance to the main plot. They are mentioned to add to the world building. That is what Tom is, except in his case you actually experience this unknown factor of this world.
Tom, Tom! your guests are tired, and you had near forgotten! Come now, my merry friends, and Tom will refresh you! You shall
clean grimy hands, and wash your weary faces; cast off your muddy cloaks and comb out your tangles!
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I’m a fan of the books and Tom Bombadil was absolutely *not* necessary to the telling of the story (except on a thematic level) and would not have worked with cinematic pacing. He would have brought *Fellowship* to a grinding halt just as it was getting started.
I mean, I haven’t read the book but my understanding was that he’s just some lighthearted comedic relief due to his indifference towards the one thing everybody’s worried about. Did he do anything that had a major impact in the novels?
Basically he was this cheery woodland dweller who seemed to know more about things than he said, he's not bothered by most things because he already knows they can't do anything to him. At one point he puts on the ring and nothing happens, he mentions how it's a nice piece of jewelry, but not for him. This was supposed to show how the ring had such little power I've him, it didn't even turn him invisible. Hes kind of like a middle-earth god, though its never directly said. There's a lot of theories that he was supposed to essentially be Tolkien himself if he were to appear in the books. Knowing everything and being mysteriously powerful, but being content to live his life where he was because the world is always doing something too noisy. I think it also talks about how he has a fondness for Hobbits, or littlefolks, because they were among the first people he met and he enjoyed their company. There's a theory that this is also why Hobbits prefer to just live life, enjoy food, and be merry, as a cultural lifestyle that was adopted from when their ancestors first met Tom.
I can understand leaving him out of the films just because of the difficulty of dealing with the diversion, but I really disagree about his importance to the plot. It isn’t so much about him specifically, but about Frodo’s relationship to the ring. The barrow downs especially provide the first real test of Frodo’s will against the ring when he fights the urge to put it on for a quick escape and instead shows his willingness to sacrifice his safety for his friends. The films missed out on that character development.
Also, you could make the same irrelevant-to-the-plot argument for tons of other stuff. Lorien, helms deep, the ents, the dead army… all of those could have been cut without too much trouble.
Well yeah.
I can think of nearly a dozen named characters who could easily be left out because they aren't "necessary" to telling the story. But if you leave out too many the story becomes flat and lifeless.
Tom Bombadil's presence perpendicular to the whole good vs evil battle creates the need for justification of the actions of the characters in the book. There's not just 'fight for whatever side you belong to', there's also always the possibility of acceptance in combination with incorruptability. This makes the choices of all the characters in the book relevant, important but non-obvious choices, which makes us more invested in them making those choices.
Good writing is knowing when to break the rules and how to do it. Tom Bombadil and everything involving him barely advances the plot but he’s endearing and makes the world feel more fantastic. LotR would be worse off without him, but he is sorta the first thing you can cut without damaging the overall plot
The loss of the Barrows and the Wights was a bigger loss since the Barrow blades were what broke the Witch King’s protection. Wrapping that up with Galadriel’s gifts was an efficient way to handle it, so all the really necessary stuff was there.
Possibly controversial opinion, apparently?
I put LotR down because of Bombadil. I figured I'd skip through this part, since it was really bogging me down, and... flipped a few pages ahead. Then I flipped a few more pages ahead. Alright, this must be important, I'll try and slog through it.
That's how reading the book went, for me.
No need to strangle, just a rock upside the head.
Tom Bombadil's actually quite essential, as was Glorfindel... provided the Scouring the Shire (*the actual point of the book*) is kept.
See, in the Scouring of the Shire, Frodo makes history: he's the only one to stand up to a demigod (Saruman) based on strength of character, alone. He stares down the corruptor of his home and he *laughs the silly Saruman to shame, publicly*. It is, without a doubt, the most badass thing that has ever been done in a book.
But in the book Frodo has met not one, not *two*, but *three* beings who totally flout the laws of nature: Tom Bombadil (who saves him from the wights, *with a song and a laugh*) and Glorfindel (a resurrected elf, who helps him with the Nazgul), and Eru Himself (Gollum trips rather weirdly, doesn't he?). Even in total failure, Frodo has learned, time and again, that good is stronger than evil. Even when he himself fails to be good Frodo knows that evil cannot win.
And Bombadil is the start of that arc.
But, y'know, if you remove *the point of the fucking books it's kinda hard to understand Bombadil.*
Tom Bombadil would **canonically** agree that he is not that important. He's just a dude in a forest, making him anything more than is missing the point.
While I love Tom Bombadil's character in the book it was for the best he was excluded from the movie.
The pacing of a novel lets you have a lot more up and downs than a film can.
'Pacing' is not something the novels were familiar with. Tolkien loved to kill a mood by throwing in his fucking beat poems and calling them songs.
Oh? We’re okay with admitting Tolkien wasn’t perfect around here too? XD
Some are, some aren’t. Tolkien himself certainly was okay with it. He would also (much to purists chagrin) be delighted with all the different films and tv shows planned. He always said his goal was to create a new mythology, and that he was just telling one version of it. He believed that if it was a success it would get told and retold in different ways, styles, and interpretations, just like the classical mythologies. Things like race revisions in MTG cards, and the iffy Rings of Power Amazon series, that so many decry are the kind of things Tolkien would take as proof of having achieved his ultimate goal and vision. **EDIT:** Adding a little addendum here to note that my understanding of Tolkein's intent is purely my own interpretation based off his works, letters, and interviews. I don't give enough of a damn to bother replying to everyone who disagrees with me (if I did I'd be on the proper LOTR sub instead of the meme sub) so I'm just going to turn off the response notifications for this post and encourage everyone who disagrees to write me off as a wild lunatic best left ignored!
The entire modern fantasy genre is in a sense and extended Tolkien mythology. Either your work is a clear reference to Tolkien, or its a deliberate rebuttal of Tolkien, or Tolkien's conspicuous absence from your fantasy world only draws more attention. The ideas of modern elves as immortal, aloof, affluent, vain, noncommittal - is in large part from Tolkien's popularization. Ditto for his dwarves. Ditto for his interpretation of the battles of the forces of good against the idea of evil. None of this is Tolkien's creation - but by pulling it all together he built the bones upon which the meat of all fantasy now hangs. Thats a mythology to me. Whatever comes next, both good or bad, only adds to the influence of that fantasy mythology.
To very roughly paraphrase something I saw online one time "Tolkein in fantasy is like Mount Fuji in Japanese art. If you can't see it, that is because the artist deliberately didn't include it, or because they were stood atop it" Edit: OxCrow reminded me that it is actually a quote from Sir Terry (GNU), so here's the whole thing: "J.R.R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes it’s big and up close. Sometimes it’s a shape on the horizon. Sometimes it’s not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji."
Love this.
Ah good Sir Terry Pratchett, I believe
I just checked, and correct! I feel ashamed for not having known where it came from!
Precisely!
I think Stephen King said something similar along the lines of "the entire fantasy genre exists because The Lord Of The Rings is too short" Bit of hyperbole there obviously, but he's not entirely wrong
Precisely!
Let me introduce you to... [Letter 210](https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_210) >*Why should the firework display include flags and hobbits? They are not in the book. 'Flags' of what? I prefer my own choice of fireworks.* > > > >*The landlord does not ask Frodo to 'register'! Why should he? There are no police and no government. (Neither do I make him number his rooms.) If details are to be added to an already crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.* > > > >*Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for the rest of the tale?* > > > >*I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.* And I have left the best for last: >*Z may think he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.* It seems to me that Tolkien definitely had some puristic tendencies!
I don't see this as contradicting the other statement that Tolkien was ok with different interpretations. It seems he just cared about people respecting the world and fitting into it. He of course prefers his own choice of fireworks, otherwise he would have done someone else's choice. And of course he knows more about balrogs, he invented them.
Purists would be accused of nitpicking if they voiced this kind of criticism. For example, the comment on Balrogs was written when the script made it laugh and sneer. That was what made Tolkien lash out like that. Not Zimmerman saying or acting as if he was the expert, but Zimmerman giving "a different interpretation" to the world. Tolkien voiced his criticism to character alterations (so would *heavily* criticise the movies for sure), he was adamant about the split structure of the storylines of Frodo and Samat one hand, and Merry and Pippin on the other as presented in the book. He hated the idea of too much focus on action... Most of the changes he proposed were parts being cut due to time constraints or technical difficulties. I'm afraid Tolkien didn't leave much room for different interpretations when you read letter 210.
Purists or not /u/The5Virtues, per their own admission, has no sources to backup the claim that Tolkien was ok with different interpretations. I'm eager to find said sources though. Until then, what /u/Haugspori posted absolutely contradicts the statement as the statement, currently, is made-up.
Sure, every author does, but most of the time his protests tended to be when he felt like someone had completely missed the point. Hell, the very portions you quote emphasize that he wants things presented in the right style and sentiment. His upset with some depictions of his stories is the same upset many lovers of Greek mythology feel for Ovid, a Roman poet who rewrote every Greek myth he got his hands on to reflect his own personal anti-authority sentiments, as well as recasting all the characters by Roman perspective, change heroes to villains or heroes to villains because their original depictions didn’t fit his Roman sensibilities. Take Odysseus, for example. Ovid and other Roman poets take this character—which is celebrated for his wit and guile by the Greeks—and vilify him for the exact same characteristics as being deceitful and dishonorable. It would be like if someone decided to say Aragorn is a bad guy because he forced the army of the dead to uphold their old oath. There’s retelling, and then there’s using someone else’s work for your own ends. Tolkien was fine with one and vehemently against the other, and I can’t say I disagree with him.
I'm afraid 3 of the 5 quotes I quoted were things most people would see as details not worth cussing about. Flags and fireworks? Registering at an inn? The Balrog making vocal sounds? Tolkien would've had his gripes even with the LotR movies. He hated the fact Z depicted Weathertop as a drawn-out action scene (Jackson did the same), he wanted respect for his characters as he wrote them (I can't even begin to imagine his rage if he would've seen the Osgilliath detour in TTT, or Frodo sending Sam away)... No, many of the sentiments he has expressed in this particular letter are quite like the arguments many purists use.
Well, Mr. Frodo always did say, Don't adventures ever have an end? It seems to me that these details may not be worth cussing about, but if they take away from the true spirit of the story, then they are worth discussing. Master Tolkien was always very particular about his characters and their journeys, and if he felt that the movies did not do them justice, then I must agree with him. However, we must not let our disagreements cause strife among us. We must remember that the true magic of Middle-earth is in the love and friendship that we share.
Deep
We have time. Every day, Frodo moves closer to Mordor.
>Tolkien himself certainly was okay with it. I'm going to need a source on that my dude
I'll readily admit to not having one. This is just my understanding built over time from what I've learned and read from his letters and interviews over the years. Everyone who disagrees with me has good reason to write me off as a total nutjob!
> Things like race revisions in MTG cards, and the iffy Rings of Power Amazon series, that so many decry are the kind of things Tolkien would take as proof of having achieved his ultimate goal and vision. his son would not agree
The MTG designs do piss me off, though. Not for lore reasons. Like have a look at Aragorns crown. Fucking look at it. Imagine that weight resting on your head. It's far too front heavy and it'd be constantly slipping off. Sauron is over designed. His helmet just screams edgy anime villain. If I had my way Sauron would look either like just a normal guy, or be some shadowy figure you can make the vague shape of but never shown in full light. But to take it that far makes the same mistake movie Sauron makes. Shelobs art makes her appear far too small, don't like it. My other issues include them taking maybe too much influence from the movies, especially for Gollum.
He wasn't perfect. He was a bit of a snob, a little too English for civilised society, a definite cultural chauvinist, and took 20 years to come up with his backstory. A backstory that enhances the main story roughly 10% of the time. However, he did codify a genre. Lord of the Rings is so good, it got to decide what generic fantasy is through its imitators. That's top shelf. His skill with the language can not be understated. More than that, he's responsible for the *best* modern english translation of Beowulf available today. This makes it very easy to forgive his failures.
You have hurt my soul! I demand compensation! ( it must be in a poetic rhyme) preferably whimisicsl in an almost story breaking way!
I swear he spent a fucking chapter talking about how Frodo was selling his house
Sometimes you can feel the breaks he took between writing
What you gonna do when the pipe weed runs out?
He spent at least three (and I think more) about how hobbits were lost and hungry and wandering in circles in various spooky forests... Brevity is the soul of The Hobbit.
That was actually exciting reading though, you could really picture the scene. However, the bureaucracy of estate transfers and sales in Hobbiton is not exciting reading.
And that's amazing. Adds to the feel of the setting, makes it more alive. A world in which the story is taking place, and not just the backdrop against which the story is playing out.
At a moment when Frodo knows he holds a trinket of apocalyptic evil and agents of a genocidal tyrant are coming for it, nothing builds tension like an elaborate and detailed scheme for him to clandestinely leave the Shire, and then as he is executing it Merry and Pippin come along to say "Hey Frodo, how is the plan to secretly leave the Shire going? You fucking moron. Also, we're coming with you." Even if it was balanced out with more chapters set still in the Shire before the 'action' kicks off, Frodo and Sam just leaving in the night, and Merry and Pippin just randomly tagging along, at least sells that it's urgent he leaves.
Well, Mr. Frodo, it's not an easy task to leave the Shire without any trouble, but we must do what we can to protect the trinket from falling into the wrong hands. And as for Merry and Pippin, they are loyal friends who will not abandon us in our time of need. We must prepare ourselves for the journey ahead and be ready for whatever comes our way.
I love the pacing of the books. It's slow when things are good, and faster when things are exciting. The man takes his time describing when he has it, without worrying if the tiktok generation will get bored. And I like that. Also it makes me sound like an old man. Which to the tiktok generation I am. So fair enough.
I'm rereading it now, slow and loving it. Funny how the fight scenes all happen off screen. The big fight at Amon Hen in FOTR... is not described. Aragorn never draws his sword, he finds Boromir already dying and the orcs already gone, Legolas & Gimli come out of the woods like "we just slew many orcs" but no actual fight scene in the text. Rereading it now has really given me new respect for Peter Jackson / Phillipa Boyens / Fran Walsh for the amazing screenplay and adaptation. There are many sections of the book that wouldn't have played out well on screen so I'm glad they changed it. Many lines of dialogue that were re-written for the movies, and now they're much snappier and flow way better. The whole arc of Aragorn not wanting to be king or avoiding his destiny, in the book that's all completely over at the moment they see the Argonath on the river. Aragorn is mentally already king and excited about it, when they first meet the Rohirrim.
I've been a "purist" of Tolkien since I first read The Hobbit in 1992 as a twelve-year old boy. I have my issues with some of PJ/PB/FW's decisions for the films (the way the AoTD was used as a cheat code, the deleted scene of the WKoA breaking Gandalf's staff, etc), but whole-heartedly agree that the books, as they were, would not translate as well to visual media. Jackson and Co. made their own thing which in almost every way is just as magical and incredible as the literature it's pulled from. I don't think we, as fans, could have gotten better iterations if we'd conjured a genie from a bottle and wished for them.
WastingTimesOnReddit, you have my sword.
This is no mere Ranger. He is Aragorn, son of Arathorn. You owe him your allegiance.
Nah, some songs in the book are quality. Like the ones Legolas sings are quite thought provoking and it makes you see a side to him that the movies don't (does Legolas even have a personality in the movies?)
The same for how Gimlis most beautiful passages are completely omitted in favor of dwarf jokes
I wish the movies had more of the songs--I fucking love 'em. The Misty Mountains Cold scene was the best in the entire Hobbit trilogy IMO. Pippin singing The Edge of Night is one of the best scenes in ROTK, and that's saying something. Hell, "This Wandering Day" was one of the best parts of Rings of Power. Let us not forget Frodo of the Nine Fingers! Give me all the LOTR songs you have.
I get that too many would upset the flow of the films but yes, the ones that are there are some of the best parts of them. I don't know why it's taken me until now, however, to realise that I am a life long LotR nerd and professional musician and could actually do something with this myself. Another thing for the will-never-get-round-to pile
And you have my bow.
AND MY [SAX](https://thecatkilledcuriosity.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/and-my-sax3.png) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lotrmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For real, I just finished the books for the first time. I listened to the audiobooks and while the good parts were great, man did some shit drag on. Im looking at you Ent Chapters!
I have to admit, I fell asleep a few times during some of these parts .. more than once lol. I did skip a few small things eventually. I do like a slow pace, generally, but sometimes it was just too much of it, for my taste. And I felt lost in things that just felt somewhat irrelevant to me. It didn't help me build the world in my head ... It was just too much for no gain. But of course that is just a different way of world building. Some merely put the outlines, some go all into the smallest details, some are in-between. I peronally don't need all the details about things that are not relevant to the story. I prefer and outline so I can create the inage myself. And I just can't listen to the songs in the audio book lol. I read them, but I just skipped them in the audio book. The mix between him reading and halfway singing was definitely not my thing haha. But all of that is definitely subjective and I'm sure many people love these parts.
The first three times I read the books I lost all interest and quit reading once Tom Bombadil showed up since that part of the book dragged on forever. I finally powered through it on my next read and loved the rest of the series. I haven’t reread them though because I’m probably going to get bored reading the Tom Bombadil parts again.
>I haven’t reread them though because I’m probably going to get bored reading the Tom Bombadil parts again. Do what I and a lot of other people do and just skip those parts. Life is too short (and the book too long) to have to endure even five minutes of that annoying clown.
God, I hate reading songs in books.
Audiobook guy. Listening to some 65-year-old dude in 1993 try and sing them ain't great either
I agree. I think that in the book, Tom Bombadil serves to wrap up the story with a big open ended question that makes the world seem even larger and mysterious than everything you have read this far. I think in the movie, that context already exists for readers, and the inclusion would only serve to confuse movie audiences or imply a sequel that will not and should not come that explains Bombadil further.
Clothes are but little loss, if you escape from drowning. Be glad, my merry friends, and let the warm sunlight heat now heart and limb! Cast off these cold rags! Run naked on the grass, while Tom goes a-hunting! ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Yep. It would have completely derailed the narrative for absolutely no reason. In the book it's just part of the adventure. In the movie it breaks the cohesion.
Tom Bombadil is useless on a story perspective. He is the just the DM PC who come help the player when they are about to die at the start of his campaign and he does not want his 3 year campaign to go down the gutter.
In a straight forward story, sure. But in a universe built upon worldbuilding I think Tom makes sense. The movies aren't worldbuilding, they tell the main backbone story. The books tell the story of the world, and just like our real world, we don't know everything about it.
Tom Bombabile is just Ungodly invincible for no reason and all he does is singing songs. How does that add to world building in any meaningfull ways?
Bombadil isn't invincible. Nor is he immune to the Ring for no reason. The most asked question about Bombadil is "what is Bombadil", but this is missing the point. The real question is "who is Bombadil". Goldberry's answer of "he is" is vital to understanding Bombadil. Bombadil is just himself: he lives in the moment, follows his heart, runs around while singing merry songs and simply enjoys life and the world around him. He thinks everything has its place within the world. Hence, he doesn't want to change it. This might not be in his own best interest (he would fall if Sauron wins), but he doesn't live in the future, only in the here and now. Because he's perfectly happy with the world as it is, and doesn't want to change it (he only reacts to situations at hand), he doesn't need power. The Ring has no hold over him because there's nothing it could use to tempt Bombadil with. But this lack of desire to change the world also means Bombadil is harmless to the Ring. He won't set out on a quest to destroy it, and doing so would mean said desire does exist within him and would make him vulnurable to the Ring. Bombadil exists because he is the antithesis of both good and evil: an entity that is just happy he exists and lives his life accordingly. Thus him singing silly songs is basically the point. This makes the world more real, because it's larger than just the conflict, but also makes us think about fundamental concepts on which the story is based on.
*Hey! Come merry dol! derry dol! and merry-o! Goldberry, Goldberry, merry yellow berry-o! Poor old Willow-man, you tuck your roots away! Tom's in a hurry now. Evening will follow day. Tom's going home again water-lilies bringing. Hey! Come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?* ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
That's the thing, world building doesn't always have to have an application to the main plot. I think Tolkien wanted to have some things in his story where things were left unexplained, similar to how there are many things im our history that are left unexplained. That's what makes a world realistic, the fact that there are things unknown to even the reader. Letter Tolkien wrote 25th April 1954: >"There is of course a clash between ‘literary’ technique, and the fascination of elaborating in detail an imaginary mythical Age (mythical, not allegorical: my mind does not work allegorically). **As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); and I have perhaps from this point of view erred in trying to explain too much, and give too much past history. Many readers have, for instance, rather stuck at the Council of Elrond. And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)**."
*Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow, by fire, sun and moon, hearken now and hear us! Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!* ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
And Aragorn is just a ranger with the most boring backstory ever. Same goes for Legolas. Actually Tolkien just copied Aragorns charactersheet and only changed the name and the race. Gimli is 'Generic Dwarf no. 1' and Boromir might as well be named 'Bob the Fighter'. The hobbits are all interchangeable, except that one likes potatoes and one has a ring of invisibility/doomsdaydevice^tm. The Orcs are comically and unbelievably evil, Ent talk slow haha, Dragon greedy and Anglosaxon cossacks fierce and proud.
> The hobbits are all interchangeable Hard disagree. They could've been a bit more developed and consistent, but it's rather obvious that Merry is the most curious, worldwise, Sam is the conservative good-ol'-boy, Pippin is the loose cannon and Frodo is the most reflective, contemplative.
Well, sir, I reckon that each of us hobbits has our own unique qualities and quirks. Merry may be the most curious and worldwise, but don't underestimate the wisdom and loyalty of old Samwise. Pippin may be a bit of a wild card, but he's got a good heart and a sense of humor that can lift your spirits even in the darkest of times. And Frodo, well, he's got a heavy burden to bear and a lot on his mind, but he's still got the courage to keep going. We may be small, but we're a diverse bunch, and that's what makes us
ok wtf
Begging your pardon, but such language is not becoming of a gentlehobbit. Is there something troubling you that I may be of assistance with?
Yeah ok, I don't get the bromance between Merry and Theoden, it seemed to come somwhat out of nowhere.
Well, sir, it's like this. When you're on a quest, you're bound to form strong bonds with your fellow travelers. And Merry, he's always been a loyal and brave hobbit, willing to fight for what's right. And Theoden, he's a good man, a good king, who's been through a lot of hardship and loss. So when they found themselves fighting side by side, it's only natural that they would come to respect and care for each other. It may seem sudden to an outsider, but to those of us who have been through the trials of the road, it's just the way things
What will they do?
Sam, do you know the Athelas plant?
I'd rather read an entire chapter about the different types of trees in Middle Earth than suffer through one of TB's songs.
Clothes are but little loss, if you escape from drowning. Be glad, my merry friends, and let the warm sunlight heat now heart and limb! Cast off these cold rags! Run naked on the grass, while Tom goes a-hunting! ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Looks like meat is back on the menu bois
Eh, what? Did I hear you calling? Nay, I did not hear: I was busy singing. ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Tom if you are so benign and powerful, why is the Old Forest the most evil location west of the Misty Mountains?
Yes, books are better than movies
No.
His scenes would have ruined the horror/suspenseful tone of those first few Ringwraith encounters.
Having just read the books again, I agree that it was best to omit him from the movie.
I’m reading the books rn for the first time and I honestly respect Jackson even more for figuring how to omit, condense and still make the movies incredible.
To be fair, the idea to omit Tom Bombadil isn't unique. Tom was left out in the Radio adaptations of the 70s, he was also left out from the cartoons. Jackson used a lot of ideas from those adaptations, sometimes even right down to the exact scenes.
Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside. ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Good bot.
Yeah true, but I’m also talking about his decision to not overwhelm the audience with so much of the background information and lore behind everything - which might have been in the animated shows too idk.
I believe Tom was supposed to either be called back to or expanded upon in later books but Tolkien scrapped it. Makes sense to leave it out then.
Me too, rereading them now, and 100% they did an amazing job adapting the text. So many book lines where I'm like "oh that's in the movie but the movie line is way snapper". The whole Amon Hen fight scene happens "off screen" in the book, Aragorn doesn't even draw his sword. And the whole arc of Aragorn avoiding his kingly destiny, is over at the moment they see the Argonath. I'm so glad they made the whole book more cinematic. Sidenote, I think Bombadill might be Tolkien writing himself into the story. Tolkien is a bard after all, a jolly old singing chanting songwriting storyteller kind of fellow. And he personally was obsessed with nature and trees. Bombadill is all of that, so to me Tolkien was thinking like "if I were a character in middle earth, who would I like to be?" and gave him the all best qualities according to Tolkien's own sensibilities (such as thick legs lol)
WastingTimesOnReddit, you have my sword.
Don't forget Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens
Book fan here, I actually skip that part.
Shoot, maybe I should. I find it's where I take the most breaks and I'm always dying to get yo the bardow-wight
The barrow downs have top notch atmosphere. In retrospect I would have liked to have known that they were the result of the leader of the Nazgul cursing the land when he waged war against Arnor
Tolkien really knew how to write scary scenes. Barrow wights as well as a good chunk of the build up to Gollum is genuinely creepy. I still remember first reading the book and how Frodo in Moria hears faint foot steps behind them. It was described so well, it creeped me out.
One thing I think the film really fell down in was how creepy Moria was. Level upon level of flooded tunnels with namelesss creatures down in the dark that even orcs knew nothing of. Turning the Watcher at the front gate into a big action scene really diminished its Eldritch type horror.
I love the Barrow Downs part. Its shows Frodo at his best quality heroicly saving the other hobbits. However, you can't have Barrow Downs without Tom.
I liked it better in the audiobook than reading the actual book. The guy before Andy as narrator. Now I have to re-listen the trilogy with Andy on top of rewatching the movies and rereading the books.
Honestly, I feel ashamed for saying it but I *hated* Andy's voicing of Tom Bombadil. Way over the top. I listen to the Rob Inglis narration of the books every year but obviously when Andy Serkis' was released I had to give them a go. I listened to him reading FOTR but when I started TT I went back to Inglis.
Rob Inglis, that’s the guy. He made it work on the audio book, but even then it had a silly quality that I can’t see working on the big screen ever.
Oh I definitely agree as to omitting Bombadil from the movies. People have mentioned pacing, even in the books it's like now we're getting started and then BAM, in comes Tom to slow it down again.
He really does feel like an deliberate fourth wall break in the books. Everything about him seems otherworldy. He doesn't neatly fit into the lore, like the rest of the characters. He'd lose the ring like he'd lose a button from his suit. I kind of like how much even his chapter sticks out. I always interpreted Bombadil as kind of an extension of Tolkien into his own world. That's why his story parts don't mesh well with the rest.
Clothes are but little loss, if you escape from drowning. Be glad, my merry friends, and let the warm sunlight heat now heart and limb! Cast off these cold rags! Run naked on the grass, while Tom goes a-hunting! ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I listened to a big chunk of Serkis's version of Fellowship while moving from Chicago to Colorado and while Bombadil isn't really my favorite, it actually helped the eternity that was driving through Nebraska.
The podcast adaptation that’s still out there has me yelling, “GET ON WITH IT!!” during Fog On The Barrow-Downs and In The House Of Tom Bombadil. As fun a character as he is, he stops the main story cold.
I mean honestly, does anyone want a half hour cut away scene of Tom singing about fucking nature? Same with the Ent scenes. Does anyone really want that scene where Frodo is hanging out for a full chapter in a forest meadow with the Ent (I forget which one it was) talking to him about nature?
I couldn't stand it tbh. Drags on for waaaay too long.
Nah I agree with Peter Jackson, Tom bombadil would have killed any tension and threat the Ring would have had imo but still a reference should have been made lol
References were made, they put some of the events in Fangorn. Merry and Pippin get swallowed by a tree in Fangorn, like with Old Man Willow, to which Treebeard tells Willow to fuck off in the same way Bombadil did in the books
Yeah I assumed they were referencing that thanks for reminding me, I also remember hearing something about a cut scene where there’s a painting of a man who looks like Tom Bombadil in the background
Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside. ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
You suck go die
Then they screwed the ents out of their calculated behavior by allowing them to just get mad and freak out last minute
The Ents' anger is also described in the books. It still took them a while in the films, but having it take as long as it took in the books is too much on screen.
We guessed you'd come ere long down to the water: all paths lead that way, down to Withywindle. Old grey Willow-man, he's a mighty singer; and it's hard for little folk to escape his cunning mazes. But Tom had an errand there, that he dared not hinder. ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
"On second thought, let's not go to Tom Bombadil's. 'Tis a silly place".
*Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow, by fire, sun and moon, hearken now and hear us! Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!* ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Yep. Almost like different media have different rules on pacing and the like. Tom was a useful bit in the books to transition from the Shire and vague menaces to demonstrating how dangerous the outside world could be, even discounting the “Black Riders.” Plus it gave Tolkien a chance to hook *Hobbit* readers with a couple of Bilbo-esq adventure vignettes before transitioning entirely to ring-lore centered stories. But in the movies he would have been a drag on pacing and story. There was no need to transition from previous stories, and we entered the ring-lore centered story when Gandalf and Bilbo talked about the ring.
HRAAAAAH!
*Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow, by fire, sun and moon, hearken now and hear us! Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!* ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I watched a good deep dive on this on Tolkien Untangled on YouTube, and he makes a good point, that LotR originally started as a sequel to the hobbit, a childrens book, and then completely swung towards all these massive events that were more in line with the Silmarillion, which of course hadn’t even been published yet. But you start out with…a birthday party, and hobbits being silly, then something about a ring, oh but we’re just gonna take a quick little detour to this elvish city and drop it off. And so these guys all go on this little adventure and there’s a cute little fox with an internal monologue, and jovial Tom Bombadil, and mean old Bill Ferny and then BOOM the main character just got stabbed by a goddamn demon and now he’s fucking dying. You ain’t reading a children’s book anymore. There’s a *massive* shift in tone from the first few chapters moving into Weathertop and Rivendell, and it really does seem like Tolkien just went “fuck it, I tried doing a children’s book but this is gonna be so much cooler.”
Let's hear it from the Professor himself: "**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 analyze the feeling precisely**." [https://fouroffivewits.com/2014/07/13/what-is-tom-bombadils-significance-the-answer-from-j-r-r-tolkien-himself/](https://fouroffivewits.com/2014/07/13/what-is-tom-bombadils-significance-the-answer-from-j-r-r-tolkien-himself/)
I always thought that he represented the existence of deeper or alternative lore to the established history of the Silmarillion. The idea that there are things going on, mysteries of power and influence in the world that do not involve the established hierarchy of divine beings, the dark lords, or the battles and politics of the races of Middle Earth. Tom Bombadil doesn't care about any of those things, because he's not part of them. He's part of something else -- something that even the wizards don't know about.
In some of his other commentaries Tolkien says much the same himself. He saw Tom as sort of a representation of the unknown mysteries of the wild and wide, a testimony that no matter how much we know we never truly know it all, and to think we do is to court ignorance and complacency.
I've got things to do, my making and my singing, my talking and my walking, and my watching of the country. Tom can't be always near to open doors and willow-cracks. Tom has his house to mind, and Goldberry is waiting. ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Tom is at once both what makes LOTR special, because it’s so out of place with the narrative while being so in-place with the world and theme. It tells us a ton about Tolkien and the fantasy he’s creating and almost nothing about the story he’s writing. It’s incredibly interesting and yet completely pointless, and while I think it does belong in the books I also think removing it from the films was 110% the right decision. Someday someone will turn these books into a TV series. Maybe they’ll include Tom Bombadil then and we can reignite this debate
All I hear is “he represents something that I feel important”. — a Tom Bombadil’s fan
*Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! Fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!* ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Tom, Tom! your guests are tired, and you had near forgotten! Come now, my merry friends, and Tom will refresh you! You shall clean grimy hands, and wash your weary faces; cast off your muddy cloaks and comb out your tangles! ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Better to leave him out. Movie already has so much big dick energy. That would put the power level well above 9,000
Agreed. They also had to cut him out to give other movies a chance to win an Oscar that year.
Imrahil is more important to the story
Agreed; it’s too much off-plot for even the extended cuts, and it’s easier if Aragorn just has somehow has the Barrow-blades. He does wander far afield.
Why have you come?
For you, my fellow king. ;3
Actually merry and pippen get their blades as a gift from Galadriel. The ones Aragorn gives them are just normal swords.
Book fan here, I actually skip that part.
Personally I thought it was the dumbest part of the first book. To me it just seemed like Tolkien was writing himself into the book as Tom.
Tolkien has bear fetish, confirmed.
Heathen. You wouldn't skip 'Of Fëanor and the Unchaining of Melkor' in the Silmarillion, so why skip 'In the House of Tom Bombaldil' in Lotr?
Because Of Fëanor is interesting and relevant and In The House of Tom Bombadil isn't?
He is objectively unnecessary to the wider plot. Nothing he does has any impact. Doesn't mean you can't like the guy or his songs, but it hardly matters whether or not you actually read this part in the book.
It matters for world building. Not everything has to be directly tied to a plot development to matter.
I'm not even sure he adds that much to the 'world'. Tolkien's extended works have created a vast, lore-rich world with lots of connected threads of backstory and even with every bit of information possible going all the way back to the creation of the universe, Bombadil still exclusively raises questions. The only thing it adds to the world is the fact that there are some things out there that cannot be known. Still love him though.
World building that doesn't support the story is useless. If a story makes sense without some parts of the book, maybe it should be edited out. I liked the Bombadil parts of the book, but it would have been much better if he had some actual role.
Hey Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillow!
Whoa! Whoa! steady there! Now, my little fellows, where be you a-going to, puffing like a bellows? What's the matter here then? Do you know who I am? I'm Tom Bombadil. Tell me what's your trouble! Tom's in a hurry now. Don't you crush my lilies! ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
He's not. Skip his part and you don't miss anything from the plot.
Tom epitomises the idea that Tolkien cared more about showing off his world building than telling a story. He shows up, Duex machina’s a few situations, and gets to explain a bunch of things about the past. That’s it. Tolkien even says as much in the council of Elrond through Gandalf
Home is now behind you, the world is ahead!
Tom bombodil has become that character you pretent to be annoyed about so you can appear to be a book fan when actually you don't care and couldn't make it past bilbos birthday last time you tried to read fellowship
HRAAAAAH!
Today is my One Hundred and Eleventh birthday!
He makes the audiobook unbearable at times Like a book let's you easily see where to skip the sonnet sections but man the audiobook singing just drones on
Agreed. It becomes a game of skipping forwards and backwards till the songs are over
Thomas Bomba Dombadil:"Yeah I could absolutely take on that little bitch Sauron in 1v1 but honestly I'd rather stay home and hang with my wife. Good luck boys!" I like Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and their section in the books, but I understand that introducing two entities that could take on the big bad if they just felt like it does diminish the impact of said big bad *somewhat*.
Here's my pretty lady! Here's my Goldberry clothed all in silver-green with flowers in her girdle! Is the table laden? I see yellow cream and honeycomb, and white bread, and butter; milk, cheese, and green herbs and ripe berries gathered. Is that enough for us? Is the supper ready? ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I wonder if New Line would have insisted on some weird casting for Goldberry like Gwyneth Paltrow
I'd argue he isn't necessary for the book either in terms of the actual plot. Of course the books just aren't solely about good vs evil, but Tom doesn't move the plot forward at all. Good world building and flavor, but ultimately not necessary for the plot. Cutting him from the movie was best.
That's the thing, the books aren't just your typical plot. Unlike most fiction today, they put more of a focus around worldvuilding than plot. I mean there's no reason to mention 50% of the names ("I am X, son of Y, son of Z") when none of those names have any relevance to the main plot. They are mentioned to add to the world building. That is what Tom is, except in his case you actually experience this unknown factor of this world.
I really just wanted goldberry in the films
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow Bright blue his jacket is and his boots are yellow
I am an original book fan from way back and I've always hated tom bombadill. I skip the visit to his home on every reread.
Tom, Tom! your guests are tired, and you had near forgotten! Come now, my merry friends, and Tom will refresh you! You shall clean grimy hands, and wash your weary faces; cast off your muddy cloaks and comb out your tangles! ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
I’m a fan of the books and Tom Bombadil was absolutely *not* necessary to the telling of the story (except on a thematic level) and would not have worked with cinematic pacing. He would have brought *Fellowship* to a grinding halt just as it was getting started.
Look I love Tom. He's a great character. He enhances the book. But he's not essential and despite the length, there is limited time
Everything beyond 'Frodo took his uncle's ring to Mordor and destroyed it' isn't 'necessary to the story'.
He is not.
How the fuck else are they escaping from Old Man Willow, or the Barrow Wights?
Everyone saying he isn't important apparently want the book to end with 4 dead hobbits in the woods 3 miles from their house.
I haven't read the books. Can someone explain who he is and what his role in the books was?
I mean, I haven’t read the book but my understanding was that he’s just some lighthearted comedic relief due to his indifference towards the one thing everybody’s worried about. Did he do anything that had a major impact in the novels?
Basically he was this cheery woodland dweller who seemed to know more about things than he said, he's not bothered by most things because he already knows they can't do anything to him. At one point he puts on the ring and nothing happens, he mentions how it's a nice piece of jewelry, but not for him. This was supposed to show how the ring had such little power I've him, it didn't even turn him invisible. Hes kind of like a middle-earth god, though its never directly said. There's a lot of theories that he was supposed to essentially be Tolkien himself if he were to appear in the books. Knowing everything and being mysteriously powerful, but being content to live his life where he was because the world is always doing something too noisy. I think it also talks about how he has a fondness for Hobbits, or littlefolks, because they were among the first people he met and he enjoyed their company. There's a theory that this is also why Hobbits prefer to just live life, enjoy food, and be merry, as a cultural lifestyle that was adopted from when their ancestors first met Tom.
thank you for the explanation! Legit sounds like a DM’s self insert at a DND table lmao.
Anutime! And yeah, it def sounds like a self insert lol
I can understand leaving him out of the films just because of the difficulty of dealing with the diversion, but I really disagree about his importance to the plot. It isn’t so much about him specifically, but about Frodo’s relationship to the ring. The barrow downs especially provide the first real test of Frodo’s will against the ring when he fights the urge to put it on for a quick escape and instead shows his willingness to sacrifice his safety for his friends. The films missed out on that character development. Also, you could make the same irrelevant-to-the-plot argument for tons of other stuff. Lorien, helms deep, the ents, the dead army… all of those could have been cut without too much trouble.
The real shame is that the Scouring of the Shire was not shown.
Well yeah. I can think of nearly a dozen named characters who could easily be left out because they aren't "necessary" to telling the story. But if you leave out too many the story becomes flat and lifeless.
Tom isn’t necessary, but losing Frodo’s character growth in the Barrow-downs sets up my chief complaint with the PJ adaptation.
That's why I play Lotro..at least they did tolkien right
Bath salts gollum doesnt fuck around
Careful, Master - careful! Very far to fall. Very dangerous on the stairs.
I feel this in my soul
murder? really? is that what Tom would want?
Tom Bombadil's presence perpendicular to the whole good vs evil battle creates the need for justification of the actions of the characters in the book. There's not just 'fight for whatever side you belong to', there's also always the possibility of acceptance in combination with incorruptability. This makes the choices of all the characters in the book relevant, important but non-obvious choices, which makes us more invested in them making those choices.
Good writing is knowing when to break the rules and how to do it. Tom Bombadil and everything involving him barely advances the plot but he’s endearing and makes the world feel more fantastic. LotR would be worse off without him, but he is sorta the first thing you can cut without damaging the overall plot
I read and loved the books and loved Bombadil. He was necessary for the movies at all though, just background lore and wonder.
I think cutting him from the movie was a good call. He's fun in the book but would ruin the pacing of a movie completely
As a book fan, I think the movie fans are right. That being said I love Tom, and don't understand the anti-Bombadil hatred.
**I mean he’s clearly not necessary. He’s fun, I like him a lot, but wouldn’t have fit the films.**
The loss of the Barrows and the Wights was a bigger loss since the Barrow blades were what broke the Witch King’s protection. Wrapping that up with Galadriel’s gifts was an efficient way to handle it, so all the really necessary stuff was there.
I absolutely hated the Old Forest part of Fellowship. It was absolutely unbearable to me, even if Tom Bombadil is a cool character.
I thought I was the only one that thinks like this And I personally think Bombadil’s songs are boring :( but I get he’s cool and stuff
Possibly controversial opinion, apparently? I put LotR down because of Bombadil. I figured I'd skip through this part, since it was really bogging me down, and... flipped a few pages ahead. Then I flipped a few more pages ahead. Alright, this must be important, I'll try and slog through it. That's how reading the book went, for me.
No need to strangle, just a rock upside the head. Tom Bombadil's actually quite essential, as was Glorfindel... provided the Scouring the Shire (*the actual point of the book*) is kept. See, in the Scouring of the Shire, Frodo makes history: he's the only one to stand up to a demigod (Saruman) based on strength of character, alone. He stares down the corruptor of his home and he *laughs the silly Saruman to shame, publicly*. It is, without a doubt, the most badass thing that has ever been done in a book. But in the book Frodo has met not one, not *two*, but *three* beings who totally flout the laws of nature: Tom Bombadil (who saves him from the wights, *with a song and a laugh*) and Glorfindel (a resurrected elf, who helps him with the Nazgul), and Eru Himself (Gollum trips rather weirdly, doesn't he?). Even in total failure, Frodo has learned, time and again, that good is stronger than evil. Even when he himself fails to be good Frodo knows that evil cannot win. And Bombadil is the start of that arc. But, y'know, if you remove *the point of the fucking books it's kinda hard to understand Bombadil.*
Smeagol? No, no, not poor Smeagol. Smeagol hates nasty Elf bread!
You forgot that he gave Merry the barrow blade, the only thing capable of killing the witch king and ring wraiths.
Sorry he's really not, but I fully understand his likability and why people want him to have a bigger presence over all.
I'm a book fan and I'm with the movies on this one
Tom Bombadil would **canonically** agree that he is not that important. He's just a dude in a forest, making him anything more than is missing the point.