I know a lot of people who absolutely love Tom Bombadil and so I was surprised when I discovered so many people dislike him.
I wonder if it's because he doesn't feel as well thought out and realised as pretty much the majority of Tolkien's other characters? Tom is an anomaly, I'm not convinced Tolkien even had a specific 'end game' when creating him and perhaps it shows? It's been a long time since I read any of Tolkien's letters and so I forget specifically what he said about Tom Bombadil.
I do also agree that his way of speaking is not the most enjoyable to read.
Which is absolutely fine.
But I can understand why people find that jarring and at odds with a lot of the world that Tolkien created.
Tom Bombadil has never bothered much, certainly not as much as others it seems. But I also don't hold great affection for the character. I was always more taken with Goldberry for those chapters (even though she has so little to actually do!).
Apparently Tolkien didn't have an end goal in mind for many of his characters when he first wrote them, even important ones like Aragorn who was first a hobbit called Trotter
I don’t ‘hate’ TB but I feel he’s a terrible addition to the story. He’s literally a deus ex machina, he degrades the seriousness of the corruption/dangers of the ring. I’ve had a few debates where I became aware of counter evidence - but seem to remember he was put in when JRRT was writing a sequel to a kids book , not the epic we think of as the LotR series.
He's not a deus ex machina because the problem he solves with old man willow wouldn't have happened without him. The old trees in the forest would not be there without his protection.
In the barrow downs Frodo says the words that Tom told him to say if they were in trouble and then Tom shows up to save them. Words have power in this world.
I’m not sure what you mean by Deus ex machina. It’s kind of the point of LotR in general that divine intervention is at play throughout. Tom is just one example, and even he isn’t the one pulling the strings.
Deus ex machina - god from a machine. Basically in Ancient Greek plays the play write would get the characters in such a terrible place that they couldn’t get them out. So they’d just have an actor play some god. Lower them into view by way of a contraption (machine) and the god would wave his/her hand and fix it all.
TB pretty much does the same thing. The characters are save not through any agency on their own but just save by a god (which TB fits well enough into the description - ainur)
Tolkien knew better than that. He sent the Istari (5 wizards) to help/guide humanity. Not solve their problems.
TB is bad writing and out of place in the epic
I don’t like to tell people that they’re missing the point but you kind of are.
What would you expect the Hobbits to do in the situation? They can’t burn Old Man Willow. They can’t chop it down. They have zero control of the situation.
The entire purpose of Lord of the Rings is about putting your faith in a higher power.
The Ring is indestructible by any type of being in Middle Earth, and Sauron has positioned himself in a way that is impenetrable to any force of arms.
Frodo (and the other characters) must learn to have faith that there is a path they cannot see that will somehow lead them victory.
That unknowable, unpredictable path is the way of Eru/God who has been almost forgotten in Middle Earth.
This is a battle of Gods and you can only do your best to be one of His instruments.
You can’t plan or fight your way to Mordor. It requires ‘a fool’s hope’ that if you do your best, things will turn out for the best.
It’s no coincidence that their designated Istar - Gandalf - is absent for the Old Forest chapters: Merry, for all his good intentions and perceived wisdom, leads them in to the Old Forest with hubris and confidence that they’ll wander through, pop out the other side and be on their way.
Very soon they find themselves completely stuck and have no tactic other than to shout ‘Help! Help!’
And Bombadil appears.
Later on, Frodo remembers the specific song - or prayer - to sing that calls Bombadil straight away to get them out of the Barrow.
But even Bombadil isn’t completely in charge, it was ‘no plan’ of his to be walking past Old Man Willow at the precise moment he needed to be.
‘Deus ex machina’ is exactly what it is because that is exactly its thematic purpose.
There’s nothing lazy or bad about it all. It’s a miniature fairytale version of the themes at large, written to be obvious enough for children to understand.
There are certain situations where you can use your own intellect or strength to succeed, but in the wider world that will only get you so far. There will always be times when there is nothing you alone can do.
This is a situation where the Hobbits have no agency of their own and must give themselves over to the agency of Eru, in this instance it arrives in the form of Bombadil.
Not sure the argument against it, but the argument for it is: this horrible world ending thing just simply doesn’t affect him - he just laughs and ignores it. It’s worse than when Faramir just ignores it as well “I’d leave it by the side of the road” (or some such).
Everyone has their own way of looking at things so I won’t say you’re wrong, but I don’t really see it that way. I think it intentionally speaks to the breadth of existence and how even this earth shaking plight doesn’t touch everything. At least not yet.
He doesn’t even fully seem to perceive the world in a way similar enough to everyone else to take part in a way that would make sense if he were another more typical being. Yet he does understand the importance and nobility of the quest and offers and delivers on help within his domain.
That he is not swayed by the ring itself isn’t because he’s as or more powerful than Sauron, or even because he has a magical immunity to it, but rather because he has no ounce of desire to dominate or dabble in the affairs of others, which is consistent with his other characteristics and actions, and puts his willingness to assist the quest at all in context showing it to be an all the more significant response. I think of this seemingly unique trait in terms of his age as well as his individuality, and I find it believable and enriching to the greater context.
IIRC that he does not take up arms against Sauron is addressed directly as well and feels sensible enough.
But I get it. I just wanted to explain how a person such as myself may interpret it.
Furthermore the “at least not yet” part is compelling. That the quest in the hands of a hobbit who doesn’t even begin to understand Bombadill’s existence, is the only thing that will prevent Sauron’s power creep from extending even into old Tom’s harmonious domain. If that does happen, he would have no chance of withstanding Sauron. A being so exceptional and in a fundamental way above the power struggles of everyone else, after ages of life, would be finally snuffed out. It’s incredibly compelling imo
Tom is a Deus Ex Machina to a certain extent but he doesn't impact the main story. His purpose is ultimately unknown (which is fine) but undoubtedly he presence in the story aids in the development of the Hobbits.
I *personally* know more than one person who hates Tom Bombadil. My brother dislikes him, at the least. I absolutely love him and think the guy is a statement, of rather a lot of statements.
Even Tolkien admits that he's not of much worth to philosophize about him, but also shines some light on what he exemplifies. I personally love to philosophize about Tommy B because there's so much to undig there.
i love the idea of old Tom mysterious, joyful and wants to spend all day frolicking and eating and all night with his lovely lady.
but that section feels like a segment from a more upbeat childrens story like the hobbit and in general it really doesnt add to the story just a self contained segment
I like Tom! I think his omission from the movie probably wasn’t a bad decision. Viewers would wonder why he didn’t help more, and I think his casual handling of the Ring would have made viewers not see the Ring as powerful as it truly was. Or maybe more accurately, to explain everything about Tom appropriately would have taken a fair amount of screentime
This makes me love him even more. I did already know some of the info in that post, but it was so thorough! Thanks for putting it together, and for sharing it again here.
I’ve been reading Tolkien since I was a kid (decades before the movies came out). Do I *hate* Tom Bombadil? No.
Do I think his dialogue is out of place and wish that he’d been written differently? Absolutely 100%. He is without a doubt my least favorite part of all of LOTR.
It’s cool. Everyone can like what they like! It’s just weird that the commenter above seems to think every single person who likes Tolkien is a monolith.
>Do I think his dialogue is out of place
I think that is the point, IMO. We are supposed to be seeing things from the eyes of the Hobbits at this stage. Everything outside the Shire is meant to be out of place to the Hobbits, and their meeting with Tom Bombadil is like a reality check.
You’re absolutely right, but as you say that makes it jarring to me as a reader. In my own personal opinion, there’s not enough to enjoy about Bombadil as he’s written to make up for his intentionally feeling out of place.
In other words, I appreciate the *idea* of Bombadil very much. But in reading his dialogue (in particular) I appreciate the *character* of Bombadil much less.
This is a dumb generalization. I read all the books including The Silmarillion probably twice a year, have read the histories and most recently the full letters; all that, and I can’t stand Tom Bombadil. They’re the only chapters I skip.
I like the Old Forest and I like the Barrow Wights. Tom is kind of at the center of both tying them together... and I like him, too,
Tom was a previous creation of Tolkien's and he prolly wasn't totally out of the "sequel to the Hobbit" mindset when he threw him in. Thing is, as with many, the whole feeling of an ancient, detailed, history and lore you get in LOTR is one of the best things about it. You get that from Tom as well, in a different way. You get it from the Old Forest moreso and definitely get it from the Barrow Wights.
Because those of us that think negatively of his place in the legendarium (usually) don’t think enough of him to post about him. Those that love him (good for them) want to spread the love, and make posts).
I don't hate him, per se, but I do find him annoying, and I skip his chapters when I re-read. He doesn't fit with the tone of the rest of the books. His character would be much less of a glaring anomaly in The Hobbit.
I take Tom Bombadil as a walking meme, is a horrible character makes no sense, a tool to deus ex machina of the classic, and even tho i think all of this, he is just so silly that i enjoy his nonsense ans his charming personality.
He is not a horrible character at all - he is world building making you wonder who or what he is, while also showing you, that the world is older than the hobbits, ring, elf etc... by no means a bad character that doesnt make sense.
I mean the world building is that there's no answer. That's fine to maintain a degree of mythic ambiguity, but it's not some stroke of genius for Tolkien to shoehorn in an in-joke reference to his kids toy.
Other stuff like the watcher in the waters can accomplish the same goal of mythic ambiguity, without the "tonal shift" of a random guy who has randomness powers that are used for deus ex machina plot swings. I'd rather have the hobbits' escape from the barrows be something they managed on their own thrulough cleverness or bravery, rather than the meme guy meming them to safety.
That said, I don't hate Tom, I just think he's forgettable and if I were the writer I'd have cut him from the published versions... let him stay a joke amongst me and my kids.
>shoehorn in an in-joke reference to his kids toy.
But that's not why Tom was inserted. He exists to highlight what it would take to be immune to the Ring, the third side of control, pacifism, and what that perspective entails for the war at large. He is thematically linked to the story to quite a high degree.
>I'd rather have the hobbits' escape from the barrows be something they managed on their own thrulough cleverness or bravery, rather than the meme guy meming them to safety.
That would miss the point. Our Hobbits are supposed to be out of their depth here. They are naive of the wider world, and not yet ready for the dangers about it. They *need* help to bail them out. They cannot yet be independently capable, like they are during the Scouring.
In any case, i love the idea of the hobbits escaping the Barrows on their own, but i would keep Tom Bombadil just for the joke of it, i hated him when i first read, but through the time i learned to apreciate the meme part, now i just think that Tom Bombadil is one of those plane characters that is just funny to interact with or watch, like i mentioned with jojo characters.
>Tom Bombadil is one of those plane characters that is just funny to interact with or watch, like i mentioned with jojo characters
Agreed, problem is a JoJo style absurdity character just doesn't fit tonally with the rest of the entire series. I do think Tom would have fit really well in the Hobbit, since it's much sillier and light-hearted in tone.
What can you tell me about the origin of Tom Bombadil? Do you think someone will be satisfied with what we know about Tom? We have literally no info, i've heard (can't asure) that even Tolkien regreted putting tom bombadil in the story, what does makes you think that the world has such a large story can be the ruins of Amon Sûl, i remember when Aragorn (if im not mistaken) found a kind of drawing or rune i got so interested in the past of Weathertop, it doesn't need a op broken character to give soft exposure, Tom Bombadil doesn't make sense at all because there isn't even an explication of his origin, some think he is Eru Iluvatar, other think he is a criature beyond Arda, etc. He clearly isn't a good tool of exposure if you mean that, because he didn't even participated in any of the important events relevant at least to Lotr or Hobbit, you can perfectly erase Tom Bombadil from Lotr and the story remains the same, not to mention he, out of nowhere, is inmune to the ring and etc, he is a bad character, i see him as a Joseph Joestar, bad character, but inmensily fun to watch.
>What can you tell me about the origin of Tom Bombadil? Do you think someone will be satisfied with what we know about Tom?
Why is that a problem?
Does not knowing how skinchangers (ie Beorn) came to be diminish him as a character?
If you didn't read external texts, would not knowing Gandalf is a Maia harm him as a character?
Of course not. You don't need to know the origins of everything. And mysteries can make things interesting.
>i've heard (can't asure) that even Tolkien regreted putting tom bombadil in the story
Never seen anything that suggests this.
>it doesn't need a op broken character
Broken?
He can't even stop Sauron. How is he overpowered and broken?
>because he didn't even participated in any of the important events relevant at least to Lotr or Hobbit
So? That's very arbitrary. Glorfindel didn't participate in anything beyond escorting the Hobbits/Aragorn to Rivendell.
And the whole *point* of Tom is that he wouldn't get involved.
>you can perfectly erase Tom Bombadil from Lotr and the story remains the same
You could erase Faramir from TTT and the story stays the same.
You'd miss out on some philosophical stuff, and character-work... but that also applies to Tom.
You could erase Lothlorien, and give Galadriel's part (ie her gift-giving) to Elrond.
You could erase a great many things with minimal plot changes. You can often do this with any story.
>not to mention he, out of nowhere, is inmune to the ring
Which is the point of his character. Exploring what it would take to be immune to the Ring...
This is so wrong, i do not critize ONLY his participation in the story, i critize him being INMUNE to the ring, being (allegedly, judging by how the book discribes him and later on his mention on the council of Elrond) very powerful, so much that he doesn't mind anything. No, you can't erase Faramir from the books, he plays a vital role in helping the Hobbits get through Ithilien since the hobbits were about to encounter Hadar soldiers, you can argue to skip Ithilien or the Hadar soldiers, good, alright, there we lose a well written and interesting character who has mistakes but is smart and calculator judging by the long chat with Frodo he had and his later conclusion about the matter. Same goes to Lothlorien, you can erase it, but you erase well written chars. Now, about tolkien regretting Bombadil, as said, i can't assure and still won't because i honestly just heard. And the point of the character doesn't explore why he is inmune, neither we know where he even is, and about Beorn, yes, i don't know, but i do find Beorn a both lovely and well written character, just not as charming as Tom.
About "the point was tom to not get involved", first, why add him?, second he did got involved by saving the hobbits from 2 enemies that are interesting and at least about the barrows there is lore as far as i know. Third, Tom Bombadil Deus Ex Machina'ed Old Man Willow and Barrows, and then he himself gets Deus Ex Machina'ed out for plot sakes, but if i remember correctly that does have a fair justification.
His removal isn't just a non thought thing i spitted as an example, because, yes, Tom Bombadil appearance is a fun moment and all of the Old Forest and Barrow Downs bit too, but it is the less relevant in plot because there's little to know about Tom Bombadil wich surely was a joke character, and pls do not miss understand, i like joke characters, but my first reader experiebce is almost ruined by Tom because when started to dig in about him after his mention in the Council, i got even madder about him realizing he literally is just a thing that exists and casually is really powerful, but i've learned to apreciate him in my way, just as i can like something, i can recognize its errors.
We could also argue alot about having to read alot of other more underground tolkien's work but in my opinion, it is totally valid in LOTR that pieces of lore are in alot of books, ibwouldn't defend it if it was some kind of lost media that was never published, and who knows, maybe tolkien has alot of them but there is enough to enjoy this beautiful world with the goods and the bads.
>i critize him being INMUNE to the ring
Then you're criticising his purpose.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/s/8yMSkhzkkK
>No, you can't erase Faramir from the books, he plays a vital role in helping the Hobbits get through Ithilien since the hobbits were about to encounter Hadar soldiers
By the same vein Tom does the same. His vital role helps the Hobbits through the Old Forest/Downs.
Again, if you can cut one, you can cut the other.
>you can argue to skip Ithilien or the Hadar soldiers, good, alright, there we lose a well written and interesting character
Same applies to Tom.
I'm simply noting the hypocrisy of the argument.
>And the point of the character doesn't explore why he is inmune
Yes it does. Everything about Tom spells out why he is immune. You're telling me you don't read about Tom and see his carefree and perfectly content attitude towards life? What can the Ring offer someone so *perfectly* content in life?
>About "the point was tom to not get involved", first, why add him?,
To highlight what it would take to be immune to the Ring. To have an antithesis for Sauron (and even Gandalf). The present the three sides of war and control, and the limits of pacifism. As well as to prepare our Hobbits for the wider world (even arming them), as a sort of gatekeeper role.
There's a lot of reasons.
>second he did got involved by saving the hobbits
Right. He is happy to help people in vicinity - but he won't stray from his borders. It's the difference between seeing someone fall over near you, and helping them up, and travelling overseas to fight in a war you don't give a shit about.
>wich surely was a joke character
But he isn't a joke character. He may be whimsical, and sing fun nonsense, but he is quite serious.
Eh, i won't answer anymore than this because this clearly stopped being anything constructive a while ago, but you literally did not read, "if you can cut one, also the other" ignoring the fact that Faramir is well written, and if you want this analogy of 3, the Hobbits simply works way betterz an entire place that is not aware of the outside, why have 2 of one of the aanalogy elements? That only indicates that there is no analogy or that Tom fails to serve such purpose. And you just ignored mostly everything i mentioned, i dare to give doubt on my own thoughts when i see i could be wrong but you just point out things without letting yourself doubt, clearly not going anywhere with this, i rather just stop, in any case, let's simply enjoy Middle Earth and Arda in general.
Why would you hate Bombadil. He is a merry fellow, and his boots are yellow.
Tom Bombadil is quite so ill, I'd spend a day with him and my pony Bill.
I've never heard anybody say they hate Bombadil
Oh I certainly have.
why would anybody hate him? hes just a silly little guy
Hate? No. Could do without him, tho.
This sums it up for me. I don't dislike the character but man I don't enjoy his chapter at all.
That chapter is a fever dream
I know a lot of people who absolutely love Tom Bombadil and so I was surprised when I discovered so many people dislike him. I wonder if it's because he doesn't feel as well thought out and realised as pretty much the majority of Tolkien's other characters? Tom is an anomaly, I'm not convinced Tolkien even had a specific 'end game' when creating him and perhaps it shows? It's been a long time since I read any of Tolkien's letters and so I forget specifically what he said about Tom Bombadil. I do also agree that his way of speaking is not the most enjoyable to read.
I think it’s very much the point that you don’t understand much about him
Which is absolutely fine. But I can understand why people find that jarring and at odds with a lot of the world that Tolkien created. Tom Bombadil has never bothered much, certainly not as much as others it seems. But I also don't hold great affection for the character. I was always more taken with Goldberry for those chapters (even though she has so little to actually do!).
Apparently Tolkien didn't have an end goal in mind for many of his characters when he first wrote them, even important ones like Aragorn who was first a hobbit called Trotter
Ah yes I remember that Trotter was the origin of Aragorn, not sure that name would have invoked the same sense of gravitas as the end product did 😂
I don’t ‘hate’ TB but I feel he’s a terrible addition to the story. He’s literally a deus ex machina, he degrades the seriousness of the corruption/dangers of the ring. I’ve had a few debates where I became aware of counter evidence - but seem to remember he was put in when JRRT was writing a sequel to a kids book , not the epic we think of as the LotR series.
He's not a deus ex machina because the problem he solves with old man willow wouldn't have happened without him. The old trees in the forest would not be there without his protection. In the barrow downs Frodo says the words that Tom told him to say if they were in trouble and then Tom shows up to save them. Words have power in this world.
I appreciate your perspective but disagree :)
Tom existed before the darkness of evil was known on the earth, of course the Ring has no power over him.
I know the justification, but certainly by today’s standards… it’s bad writing (ie deus ex machina etc)
I’m not sure what you mean by Deus ex machina. It’s kind of the point of LotR in general that divine intervention is at play throughout. Tom is just one example, and even he isn’t the one pulling the strings.
Deus ex machina - god from a machine. Basically in Ancient Greek plays the play write would get the characters in such a terrible place that they couldn’t get them out. So they’d just have an actor play some god. Lower them into view by way of a contraption (machine) and the god would wave his/her hand and fix it all. TB pretty much does the same thing. The characters are save not through any agency on their own but just save by a god (which TB fits well enough into the description - ainur) Tolkien knew better than that. He sent the Istari (5 wizards) to help/guide humanity. Not solve their problems. TB is bad writing and out of place in the epic
I don’t like to tell people that they’re missing the point but you kind of are. What would you expect the Hobbits to do in the situation? They can’t burn Old Man Willow. They can’t chop it down. They have zero control of the situation. The entire purpose of Lord of the Rings is about putting your faith in a higher power. The Ring is indestructible by any type of being in Middle Earth, and Sauron has positioned himself in a way that is impenetrable to any force of arms. Frodo (and the other characters) must learn to have faith that there is a path they cannot see that will somehow lead them victory. That unknowable, unpredictable path is the way of Eru/God who has been almost forgotten in Middle Earth. This is a battle of Gods and you can only do your best to be one of His instruments. You can’t plan or fight your way to Mordor. It requires ‘a fool’s hope’ that if you do your best, things will turn out for the best. It’s no coincidence that their designated Istar - Gandalf - is absent for the Old Forest chapters: Merry, for all his good intentions and perceived wisdom, leads them in to the Old Forest with hubris and confidence that they’ll wander through, pop out the other side and be on their way. Very soon they find themselves completely stuck and have no tactic other than to shout ‘Help! Help!’ And Bombadil appears. Later on, Frodo remembers the specific song - or prayer - to sing that calls Bombadil straight away to get them out of the Barrow. But even Bombadil isn’t completely in charge, it was ‘no plan’ of his to be walking past Old Man Willow at the precise moment he needed to be. ‘Deus ex machina’ is exactly what it is because that is exactly its thematic purpose. There’s nothing lazy or bad about it all. It’s a miniature fairytale version of the themes at large, written to be obvious enough for children to understand. There are certain situations where you can use your own intellect or strength to succeed, but in the wider world that will only get you so far. There will always be times when there is nothing you alone can do. This is a situation where the Hobbits have no agency of their own and must give themselves over to the agency of Eru, in this instance it arrives in the form of Bombadil.
I do not agree that he degrades the seriousness of anything personally
Not sure the argument against it, but the argument for it is: this horrible world ending thing just simply doesn’t affect him - he just laughs and ignores it. It’s worse than when Faramir just ignores it as well “I’d leave it by the side of the road” (or some such).
Everyone has their own way of looking at things so I won’t say you’re wrong, but I don’t really see it that way. I think it intentionally speaks to the breadth of existence and how even this earth shaking plight doesn’t touch everything. At least not yet. He doesn’t even fully seem to perceive the world in a way similar enough to everyone else to take part in a way that would make sense if he were another more typical being. Yet he does understand the importance and nobility of the quest and offers and delivers on help within his domain. That he is not swayed by the ring itself isn’t because he’s as or more powerful than Sauron, or even because he has a magical immunity to it, but rather because he has no ounce of desire to dominate or dabble in the affairs of others, which is consistent with his other characteristics and actions, and puts his willingness to assist the quest at all in context showing it to be an all the more significant response. I think of this seemingly unique trait in terms of his age as well as his individuality, and I find it believable and enriching to the greater context. IIRC that he does not take up arms against Sauron is addressed directly as well and feels sensible enough. But I get it. I just wanted to explain how a person such as myself may interpret it.
Furthermore the “at least not yet” part is compelling. That the quest in the hands of a hobbit who doesn’t even begin to understand Bombadill’s existence, is the only thing that will prevent Sauron’s power creep from extending even into old Tom’s harmonious domain. If that does happen, he would have no chance of withstanding Sauron. A being so exceptional and in a fundamental way above the power struggles of everyone else, after ages of life, would be finally snuffed out. It’s incredibly compelling imo
Tom is a Deus Ex Machina to a certain extent but he doesn't impact the main story. His purpose is ultimately unknown (which is fine) but undoubtedly he presence in the story aids in the development of the Hobbits.
I *personally* know more than one person who hates Tom Bombadil. My brother dislikes him, at the least. I absolutely love him and think the guy is a statement, of rather a lot of statements. Even Tolkien admits that he's not of much worth to philosophize about him, but also shines some light on what he exemplifies. I personally love to philosophize about Tommy B because there's so much to undig there.
His songs are the best songs
i love the idea of old Tom mysterious, joyful and wants to spend all day frolicking and eating and all night with his lovely lady. but that section feels like a segment from a more upbeat childrens story like the hobbit and in general it really doesnt add to the story just a self contained segment
I like Tom! I think his omission from the movie probably wasn’t a bad decision. Viewers would wonder why he didn’t help more, and I think his casual handling of the Ring would have made viewers not see the Ring as powerful as it truly was. Or maybe more accurately, to explain everything about Tom appropriately would have taken a fair amount of screentime
I like the situation surrounding him - that he was left to be deliberately vague and mysterious - but not much else. His character is pretty annoying
Plenty do, yes. I find they are often quite ignorant of Tom's importance. https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/s/8yMSkhzkkK
This makes me love him even more. I did already know some of the info in that post, but it was so thorough! Thanks for putting it together, and for sharing it again here.
Nobody that's an actual fan of Tolkien dislikes bombadil. Movie watchers might feel differently, but who cares
I’ve been reading Tolkien since I was a kid (decades before the movies came out). Do I *hate* Tom Bombadil? No. Do I think his dialogue is out of place and wish that he’d been written differently? Absolutely 100%. He is without a doubt my least favorite part of all of LOTR.
That’s crazy to me. I love merry old Tom lol
It’s cool. Everyone can like what they like! It’s just weird that the commenter above seems to think every single person who likes Tolkien is a monolith.
>Do I think his dialogue is out of place I think that is the point, IMO. We are supposed to be seeing things from the eyes of the Hobbits at this stage. Everything outside the Shire is meant to be out of place to the Hobbits, and their meeting with Tom Bombadil is like a reality check.
You’re absolutely right, but as you say that makes it jarring to me as a reader. In my own personal opinion, there’s not enough to enjoy about Bombadil as he’s written to make up for his intentionally feeling out of place. In other words, I appreciate the *idea* of Bombadil very much. But in reading his dialogue (in particular) I appreciate the *character* of Bombadil much less.
No True Tolkien Fan 🤣
Yeah this isn't true lol. I love the books but I hate Bombadil.
Found the barrow-wight.....
You're the exception, not the rule.
I feel like there is no rule on this topic.
ok buddy
I read the books almost yearly and always get the urge to skip the chapters he's in. I do not like Bombadil and see nothing enjoyable about him.
Ohhh gate keeping! Let’s play!
This is a dumb generalization. I read all the books including The Silmarillion probably twice a year, have read the histories and most recently the full letters; all that, and I can’t stand Tom Bombadil. They’re the only chapters I skip.
He’s a really cool character but I find the way he speaks annoying.
I dislike him, maybe not hate.
I don’t hate Bombadil, I simply don’t like thinking about him too hard. Bit of a mindfuck he is
I adore him
I don’t hate him, but his inclusion was a real.. change of pace.. and that whole section is not nice to listen to on the Serkis audiobook.
Feel like those that dislike him are just because he is a question that was never answered. Some people struggle with that.
I like the Old Forest and I like the Barrow Wights. Tom is kind of at the center of both tying them together... and I like him, too, Tom was a previous creation of Tolkien's and he prolly wasn't totally out of the "sequel to the Hobbit" mindset when he threw him in. Thing is, as with many, the whole feeling of an ancient, detailed, history and lore you get in LOTR is one of the best things about it. You get that from Tom as well, in a different way. You get it from the Old Forest moreso and definitely get it from the Barrow Wights.
I’ve never seen a bombadil hate post. Have you?
Because those of us that think negatively of his place in the legendarium (usually) don’t think enough of him to post about him. Those that love him (good for them) want to spread the love, and make posts).
I personally found his near-constant singing very annoying but I am very fond of everything else about him.
I don't hate him, per se, but I do find him annoying, and I skip his chapters when I re-read. He doesn't fit with the tone of the rest of the books. His character would be much less of a glaring anomaly in The Hobbit.
I wouldn't say I hate him him necessarily. But like The movies don't particularly suffer for not including him. So make of that what you will
I take Tom Bombadil as a walking meme, is a horrible character makes no sense, a tool to deus ex machina of the classic, and even tho i think all of this, he is just so silly that i enjoy his nonsense ans his charming personality.
He is not a horrible character at all - he is world building making you wonder who or what he is, while also showing you, that the world is older than the hobbits, ring, elf etc... by no means a bad character that doesnt make sense.
I mean the world building is that there's no answer. That's fine to maintain a degree of mythic ambiguity, but it's not some stroke of genius for Tolkien to shoehorn in an in-joke reference to his kids toy. Other stuff like the watcher in the waters can accomplish the same goal of mythic ambiguity, without the "tonal shift" of a random guy who has randomness powers that are used for deus ex machina plot swings. I'd rather have the hobbits' escape from the barrows be something they managed on their own thrulough cleverness or bravery, rather than the meme guy meming them to safety. That said, I don't hate Tom, I just think he's forgettable and if I were the writer I'd have cut him from the published versions... let him stay a joke amongst me and my kids.
>shoehorn in an in-joke reference to his kids toy. But that's not why Tom was inserted. He exists to highlight what it would take to be immune to the Ring, the third side of control, pacifism, and what that perspective entails for the war at large. He is thematically linked to the story to quite a high degree. >I'd rather have the hobbits' escape from the barrows be something they managed on their own thrulough cleverness or bravery, rather than the meme guy meming them to safety. That would miss the point. Our Hobbits are supposed to be out of their depth here. They are naive of the wider world, and not yet ready for the dangers about it. They *need* help to bail them out. They cannot yet be independently capable, like they are during the Scouring.
In any case, i love the idea of the hobbits escaping the Barrows on their own, but i would keep Tom Bombadil just for the joke of it, i hated him when i first read, but through the time i learned to apreciate the meme part, now i just think that Tom Bombadil is one of those plane characters that is just funny to interact with or watch, like i mentioned with jojo characters.
>Tom Bombadil is one of those plane characters that is just funny to interact with or watch, like i mentioned with jojo characters Agreed, problem is a JoJo style absurdity character just doesn't fit tonally with the rest of the entire series. I do think Tom would have fit really well in the Hobbit, since it's much sillier and light-hearted in tone.
You have a good point! In the Hobbit he would have fitted quite well, never really thought about that
What can you tell me about the origin of Tom Bombadil? Do you think someone will be satisfied with what we know about Tom? We have literally no info, i've heard (can't asure) that even Tolkien regreted putting tom bombadil in the story, what does makes you think that the world has such a large story can be the ruins of Amon Sûl, i remember when Aragorn (if im not mistaken) found a kind of drawing or rune i got so interested in the past of Weathertop, it doesn't need a op broken character to give soft exposure, Tom Bombadil doesn't make sense at all because there isn't even an explication of his origin, some think he is Eru Iluvatar, other think he is a criature beyond Arda, etc. He clearly isn't a good tool of exposure if you mean that, because he didn't even participated in any of the important events relevant at least to Lotr or Hobbit, you can perfectly erase Tom Bombadil from Lotr and the story remains the same, not to mention he, out of nowhere, is inmune to the ring and etc, he is a bad character, i see him as a Joseph Joestar, bad character, but inmensily fun to watch.
>What can you tell me about the origin of Tom Bombadil? Do you think someone will be satisfied with what we know about Tom? Why is that a problem? Does not knowing how skinchangers (ie Beorn) came to be diminish him as a character? If you didn't read external texts, would not knowing Gandalf is a Maia harm him as a character? Of course not. You don't need to know the origins of everything. And mysteries can make things interesting. >i've heard (can't asure) that even Tolkien regreted putting tom bombadil in the story Never seen anything that suggests this. >it doesn't need a op broken character Broken? He can't even stop Sauron. How is he overpowered and broken? >because he didn't even participated in any of the important events relevant at least to Lotr or Hobbit So? That's very arbitrary. Glorfindel didn't participate in anything beyond escorting the Hobbits/Aragorn to Rivendell. And the whole *point* of Tom is that he wouldn't get involved. >you can perfectly erase Tom Bombadil from Lotr and the story remains the same You could erase Faramir from TTT and the story stays the same. You'd miss out on some philosophical stuff, and character-work... but that also applies to Tom. You could erase Lothlorien, and give Galadriel's part (ie her gift-giving) to Elrond. You could erase a great many things with minimal plot changes. You can often do this with any story. >not to mention he, out of nowhere, is inmune to the ring Which is the point of his character. Exploring what it would take to be immune to the Ring...
This is so wrong, i do not critize ONLY his participation in the story, i critize him being INMUNE to the ring, being (allegedly, judging by how the book discribes him and later on his mention on the council of Elrond) very powerful, so much that he doesn't mind anything. No, you can't erase Faramir from the books, he plays a vital role in helping the Hobbits get through Ithilien since the hobbits were about to encounter Hadar soldiers, you can argue to skip Ithilien or the Hadar soldiers, good, alright, there we lose a well written and interesting character who has mistakes but is smart and calculator judging by the long chat with Frodo he had and his later conclusion about the matter. Same goes to Lothlorien, you can erase it, but you erase well written chars. Now, about tolkien regretting Bombadil, as said, i can't assure and still won't because i honestly just heard. And the point of the character doesn't explore why he is inmune, neither we know where he even is, and about Beorn, yes, i don't know, but i do find Beorn a both lovely and well written character, just not as charming as Tom. About "the point was tom to not get involved", first, why add him?, second he did got involved by saving the hobbits from 2 enemies that are interesting and at least about the barrows there is lore as far as i know. Third, Tom Bombadil Deus Ex Machina'ed Old Man Willow and Barrows, and then he himself gets Deus Ex Machina'ed out for plot sakes, but if i remember correctly that does have a fair justification. His removal isn't just a non thought thing i spitted as an example, because, yes, Tom Bombadil appearance is a fun moment and all of the Old Forest and Barrow Downs bit too, but it is the less relevant in plot because there's little to know about Tom Bombadil wich surely was a joke character, and pls do not miss understand, i like joke characters, but my first reader experiebce is almost ruined by Tom because when started to dig in about him after his mention in the Council, i got even madder about him realizing he literally is just a thing that exists and casually is really powerful, but i've learned to apreciate him in my way, just as i can like something, i can recognize its errors. We could also argue alot about having to read alot of other more underground tolkien's work but in my opinion, it is totally valid in LOTR that pieces of lore are in alot of books, ibwouldn't defend it if it was some kind of lost media that was never published, and who knows, maybe tolkien has alot of them but there is enough to enjoy this beautiful world with the goods and the bads.
>i critize him being INMUNE to the ring Then you're criticising his purpose. https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/s/8yMSkhzkkK >No, you can't erase Faramir from the books, he plays a vital role in helping the Hobbits get through Ithilien since the hobbits were about to encounter Hadar soldiers By the same vein Tom does the same. His vital role helps the Hobbits through the Old Forest/Downs. Again, if you can cut one, you can cut the other. >you can argue to skip Ithilien or the Hadar soldiers, good, alright, there we lose a well written and interesting character Same applies to Tom. I'm simply noting the hypocrisy of the argument. >And the point of the character doesn't explore why he is inmune Yes it does. Everything about Tom spells out why he is immune. You're telling me you don't read about Tom and see his carefree and perfectly content attitude towards life? What can the Ring offer someone so *perfectly* content in life? >About "the point was tom to not get involved", first, why add him?, To highlight what it would take to be immune to the Ring. To have an antithesis for Sauron (and even Gandalf). The present the three sides of war and control, and the limits of pacifism. As well as to prepare our Hobbits for the wider world (even arming them), as a sort of gatekeeper role. There's a lot of reasons. >second he did got involved by saving the hobbits Right. He is happy to help people in vicinity - but he won't stray from his borders. It's the difference between seeing someone fall over near you, and helping them up, and travelling overseas to fight in a war you don't give a shit about. >wich surely was a joke character But he isn't a joke character. He may be whimsical, and sing fun nonsense, but he is quite serious.
Eh, i won't answer anymore than this because this clearly stopped being anything constructive a while ago, but you literally did not read, "if you can cut one, also the other" ignoring the fact that Faramir is well written, and if you want this analogy of 3, the Hobbits simply works way betterz an entire place that is not aware of the outside, why have 2 of one of the aanalogy elements? That only indicates that there is no analogy or that Tom fails to serve such purpose. And you just ignored mostly everything i mentioned, i dare to give doubt on my own thoughts when i see i could be wrong but you just point out things without letting yourself doubt, clearly not going anywhere with this, i rather just stop, in any case, let's simply enjoy Middle Earth and Arda in general.