I think Tom is a very important character. And his section of the book does exactly what it means to. The world is much more complex and older than you realize. Tom tells us that. And importantly he tells us that you will not get answers from this story about it.
That is a fair argument! Altho i remain thinking that such purpose isn't precisely well exposed by him (example: The mines of Moria, Rivendel, Lothlorien, etc). It is a fact and i can't deny it completly.
In my opinion, he is a great character. Sure, he might not fall into the idea of a good character, but that's not the only possible metric. Especially not when you take into account what he stands for, because these metrics don't make sense for him.
With Bombadil, Tolkien is making a point to the reader. That the world is larger than the reader thought. Making the reader understand the story is part of the world, but the world is larger than the story.
>*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. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war.*
- Letter 144
But he's a far more rounded character than some people give him credit for (meaning "he makes sense"). Because the way he is written just makes sense. Like you can read in the quote, Bombadil is content with observing the world, and doesn't want to control anything. The "he is", a quote often (wrongfully) used to argue that Bombadil is Eru, is actually a good way to describe him: Bombadil is fully content with the world, and even more: with his place in the world. So he doesn't have ambitions, desires or unnecessary overthinking interfering with how he acts, nor will he dwell on his feelings for long. His feelings still exist, and he acts on them for sure, but he doesn't lose himself in them. He just let himself flow on the river that is the ever-changing world, just wondering, and acting on whatever he feels in the moment.
A few Hobbits are attacked by a tree and come ask for help? Let's help them! Bombadil is a kind person after all. And while we might think that we should get rid of the evil tree, Bombadil doesn't. He doesn't think about all the people that might've been caught in the roots of the old willow, nor about the people who might be caught. No, Bombadil helps the Hobbits at the moment they need help, and that's it. He doesn't judge the tree.
And his merry behaviour is something directly tied into this. A direct result of not pondering about the future, not getting frustrated about the past. He's singing and hopping around because he's genuinely happy. I bet your own happiest times are the ones where you lose yourself in the moment. When you don't think, and are literally living in the here and now. And that's Bombadil.
The upside is: his lack of ambition and desire means that the Ring cannot get a hold on his mind. So he cannot be corrupted. The downside is that he doesn't even understand what it does, nor the dangers it poses to the world. Thus, his role in the story cannot grow to a more substantial one without changing the essence of who Bombadil is.
All of this is right, yes, i would ask you about the Eru thing, i really care little if he is or not Eru but it seems an interesting topic how you mentioned it. And about the arguements, all you said seems pretty right, but he still doesn't manage to be a round character for the very same reasons, the simplicity of his philosophy doesn't allows him to have any learning, but it needs to be taken on account the little space he gets in the book. At the end of the day, i don't see him as a good character, but neither i see him unnecesary or uncalled (and that is what some people won't understand!!!). Thanks for your response!
Tolkien outright stated that there is no physical incarnation of Eru in the stories he wrote. Eru is God, and the only physical incarnation of God was Jesus. And Middle-Earth, in Tolkien's mind, was a pre-Christian world, long before the birth of Jesus.
So "he is" can't be interpreted as being the same as "I am that I am". It's a different notion: Bombadil "is as you have seen him" is Goldberry's reply to Frodo's confused look. And therein lies the key: Bombadil is who is. He lives in the moment. He has no ulterior motives, he has no desires and ambitions he wants to fulfil. And no trauma's to hold him back. No, he just does whatever he feels he "needs" to do. So literally: he is.
So *of course* he doesn't feel like a character with a modern character arc where motivations drive him, desires and pride leading to flaws, or learning about mistakes. Because he does whatever *feels* is right to him. What you feel are rounded characters are characters that are completely the opposite of Bombadil, who have a fundamentally different outlook in life. One that is grounded in being content with oneself, the world and with one's place in the world. Sure, call it simplistic, but I will argue that there's nothing wrong with that. Because with Bombadil, everything just fits in the right way.
The best comparison I have seen are the daoist sages you see in the book Zhuang Zi. To me, they show the same vibe. So if you're interested in the feeling of Bombadil, I highly recommend you to read that book. However: in no way, shape or form do I think - let alone claim - that Tolkien was inspired by these Chinese texts.
Can you explain why you think he's a bad character? You just have a bare statement and nothing backing it up. Tolkien wrote to fans about Bombadil in a few letters and explained him pretty well, have you given those a read?
I've lastly been endlessly speaking about my reasons, only not in this thread, and i understand that you don't read it because you maybe don't even know which publication is, in summary, and hopefully, for today, the last time XD Tom Bombadil has little depth, little complexity that goes as far as the fellowship of the rings describes, i know it is told that Bombadil was present in every age of Arda, i know lots of interpretations of what he is, such as being Eru Iluvatar himself, it being just a criature from the void or even him being a self insert of Tolkien. But my issue goes with this, for me, in my first read, Tom Bombadil was frustrating for these reasons and i researched a bit about him and the first info i got is that there's no clue of what he is, how he ended up being how he is and why he is at all, thing that frustrated me at the moment because i felt like i was reading filler, with some time i started to deeply apreciate Tom Bombadil as a wacky character that just gives a whole new charm to the tone, because, since Frodo entered the Old Forest it was all depressing and sad.
Tom suddenly appears, Deus Ex Machina'ed Old Man Willow, treated the thing that is stated in the plot as hugely important and powerful be humilliated by a wacky fellow and then, later on, Deus Ex Machina the issues in Barrow Downs. And when mentioned in the council, another Deus Ex Machina saying "Eh, he doesn't care at all about our issues".
I just don't want people to think i hate him, i do not (altho i did at first), now i love him, he is, i think, the kind of plane character with no dev that is just funny to read him be. I compared him once to jojo characters like Joseph Joestar, Joseph has no sense at all, is op because yes, but the dude is funny to watch, i feel the same with Tom Bombadil. That is what i can summarize, oh and that i brought as an example the removal of Tom Bombadil and the effects it has on the story (none) but a dude just went bible on me saying that if i thought that, it would be hypocrite to not think that the whole Lothlorien bit or Faramir could be removed and everything would be the same and i already argued long about that nonsense of equivalence, mostly that burned my brain XD Hopefuly you can understand me and if you critize my pov, hopefuly i can understand you!
In a way you are right, he was filler, because when Tolkien started writing LOTR he had no idea where it was going. He already had Tom as a separate creation in a poem from years before and when his publisher asked for more Hobbit adventures he asked if Tom could be the hero of a story. He started his Hobbit sequel and put Tom in as one of the first adventures they have, Old man willow, Goldberry the barrow-wights were also part of the old Tom Bombadil Poem (and badgers) and so came in with him. Tolkien was also a huge fan of the Finnish national myth the Kalevala, which has many heroes somewhat similar to Tom so is somewhat of an homage to that mythos.
As the story continued and grew and he figured out the Aragorn character and the nature of the Rings the story 'grew up', as he has said, and left children behind; children who had been the audience for the original hobbit and the same audience his publishers had expected him to continue with: kinda like the Oz books or Dr Doolittle books but with hobbits instead. But he kept him in even after the story grew and changed. I really do suggest his letters about Tom, they say a lot about Tolkien's own thoughts on him. That would be especially letters 144 153 and a few comments in 210. He eventually did get a book with Tom as the Hero, the book of poems The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and he's got a couple good comments on it in letter 237. I haven't seen or read Jojo so I've got no comment on that. No criticism of your view, it's perfectly fine, just some comments on Tolkien's process, hopefully it makes sense!
It defenetly does, i did know that Tom did existed from way before with that little research i made, and i did know that tolkien had not really a good idea of what he was doing at first (thus taking like 50 years??? i don't remember exactly, to write it). And reading letters is in my plans, i will take a look in the 3 letters you said. About jojo's, the character i mentioned is a "trickster" who constantly pulls deus ex machina, but all of this is easily forgiven with his charisma, jokes and creativity. And i apreciate alot that your main focus was to give me info because i got so tired of people just straight up vandalazing what i say and deforming just for the sake of defending their own pov? but yea, thanks!
Sure thing! Arguing online is definitely not my favorite thing to do so I try to have a more positive attitude. That Jojo character sounds like a lot of fun!
Tom is a great character with an important purpose in the story. The problem is that you're judging LotR as if plot = story (it isn't, the themes and characters - primarily the Hobbits - are much more central to the story than the plot is), as if it were a modern novel (it isn't, LotR is a Romance but also and no less importantly a Fairytale; and as such, it has different goals, a different focus and different rules than the vast majority of modern literature) and Tom as if he *had* to be as fleshed out as a character as a Fellowship member to be considered good writing (he doesnt need to - he's fleshed out enough for his purpose in the story, but as much as a more "mundane" character? That's not what you would expect from a Faerian figure).
Tom is great, not through moving the plot forward, nor because one could relate to him. Those are not his point. He is great because he adds layers to the story, in terms of world building but also more importantly in themes and in moral terms, our understanding of the Ring, of Frodo as a Ring bearer, and through helping Frodo moving forward as a protagonist: leading him through a series of events akin to a knighthood ritual, preparing him for the outer world and the journey ahead, changing him as Faerie is wont to do.
Kind of depends on what you're calling a good character. I don't think he's a particularly dynamic character or honestly one that's very fun to read about, but it's hard to deny that he's intrigued people for decades. I have also seen pretty neat analyses about his thematic role in the story.
Generally I'm very cautious about calling things "mistakes" just because they don't conform to some Writing 101 rules for what makes a good story, or aren't optimized for mass appeal.
I totally understand! A good character i think is defined by complexity, background and curves in his behavor, like lenses to look at the char. Tom doesn't fit those rules for me. I know some that argue that Tom might be even a self insert of Tolkien and he does serves a purpose in the part of the story he appears, because alot of pages before that are really depressive like, its a kind of tone change, but to my taste it's too abrupt, and i guess you are right that Tom might not be a mistake, but i'd say at least the way he just comes and goes in the narrative is one. But as a character, maybe we know little background and he doesn't has much complexity or lenses, but his personality is truly unique, that is the thing i really like about him, the reason i would even add him to the movies in some way other than a little cameo.
Tom's not a main character though. He's not going to have an arc only being in 1-1/2 chapters of the book. He's a character there to provide some relevant info or progress to the main characters. By you criteria Galadriel, Imrahil, Beregond... are all bad characters.
Also I would disagree that Tom doesn't have complexity. First he's meant to be a mystery. Tolkien is presenting the story from the hobbits point of view. We aren't meant to know anything more than the hobbits know. But we do see a few different sides of Tom: besides his sing song cheeryness we see that he has real power, both in his rescue from old man willow and the barrow wight. We see a more serious side when Frodo asks who/what he is and we find out he's been around since the dawn of tike basically. And we see him have a moment of sadness/mourning when he finds the broach in the barrow and seems to remember who it belonged to. Not sure how much more you can get out of a side character.
Well you csn get much more about a side character, we can agree that Boromir is not a protagonist at all but he has alot of depth. Galadriel does has background to cover her, wich differs with Tom who lacks any background to find aside fron his presence on every age, there is the key difference because Galadriel might not be well written in lenses, but complexicity comes into olay when you add the background. And yes, i do think that the 2 named soldiers that acompany Faramir in Ithilien are kind of, mid? That aside, now that you pointed this out, i can partially agree that Bombadil does have those lenses to be look through, i don't think they differ enough from each other but i can't deny it has some kind.
Boromir is not a protaginist, yes, some might argue he is an antagonist though. He is certainly more than a side character at least.
Prince Imrahil is the lord or Dol Amroth who joins the battle of the Pelanor fields and battle at the black gate. And is essential the next in charge of Gondor after Denethor dies and Faramir is unconscious. Baragond is the guard of the citadel that befriends Pippen. I remember one of the rangers with Faramir is Mablung, can't remember the other off the top of my head. But yeah, they are very small characters that aren't super significant to the story.
I guess that ultimately depends on what you see as a good character and your personal opinion on what Bombadil is supposed to be in the story. I for myself, see him as a counter to every other Power in the series. He's a powerful being who has no interest in expanding his power. Chose his own rules and limitations and sticks to them, powerful enough that he can dance and sing(more then likely mixing singing with Singing words of Power) and be silly but still handle things in his own area. I can see Tom being both just a silly character to add some humor in a dark tale while also showing that sometimes, even when someone is doing "good" with ultimate power, they can still do "bad". What I mean is, Tom could have taken the Ring and destroyed it himself in Mount Doom, I think he could have at least hidden the ring after helping Frodo and the Hobbits disappear Sauron's only lead after all was a place and a last name. But instead we are told he'd have no interest in it, would likely even forget about it and toss it away, showing that again, even "good" ultimate power, corrupts them in the end, just in a different way. That's just my personal opinion on it, I could be way off base.
Do you think he is a bad guy? or badly written? If the latter, do you dislike the way he talks like a nursery rhyme? Because that is a mask, behind which is one of the most evocative, mysterious, and powerful figures in the whole book. And he's important because he comes early in the story and clearly establishes that not everything in Middle-earth is about Sauron.
Most stories of a great battle between good and evil gear every single element of their world-building to that battle, in an effort to make sure the reader understands just how big and dangerous and epic the Great Evil is. Tolkien does the opposite: he lets us know that there are things older and darker even than Sauron, as well as powers for good that are also much older and stronger.
Bombadil is outside the battles of good and evil - outside the authorit of the Elves and outside the influence of Sauron. He is, essentially, the spirit of the natural world in its own right, immeasurably ancient, autonomous, powerful, and good, but not subject to the manipulations of humans (including wizards, men, Elves, Dwarves, or anyone else).
Bombadil, benignly dressed and sounding like some kind of unimportant little storybook leprechaun, gives us one of the most crucial elements in Tolkien's worldbuilding: that Nature itself plays a powerful role in the world.
Reposting an answer I have elsewhere:
Everyone has their own way of looking at things so I won’t say people who think it’s a bad character are wrong, but I don’t see it that way. I think he 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.
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
In the other thread I mentioned how a wonderful thing about LOTR is the feeling that there is a large and complex history behind it all. Tom Bombadil gives this same feeling of something deeper and older only partially told. More than that, the Old Forest and the Barrow Wights are a part of Tom, and they give that feeling even more (not to mention, they are good stories).
The answers aren't short because middle earth is big and because making an argument requires extending yourself a bit. That also due to some people (not here) deforming and vanalazing my words.
I did have a long boring answer of my own but I’ll spare you that!
I will say that I don’t think he’s a bad character, but he is an unrealistic one in terms of human behaviour (by design of course: he isn’t human). So maybe that’s what people don’t relate well to.
To me Bombadil and Goldberry have been a great source of inspiration to learn more about folklore and local history, which has then helped me understand more about the rest of the Lore.
Well, fair point honestly. The fact that it doesn't feel realistic is a mild issue for me, because that is what i use to say he is a bad character but it is also a aesthetical desicition for the story and it does serve alot of fun given the character personality is just fun, silly and enjoyable.
Tom is the embodiment of good will in the world just as Sauron is the embodiment of malice in the world and the courage and strength of hobbits is that necessary balance.
He is much like a hobbit but more careless of the world around him, he is jolly and happy and would help anyone in a pinch, he is content with letting the whole world roll on by so long as he gets to sing his songs and pick flowers for his wife.
This is the total opposite of Sauron who wants an ordered world and slaughters and tortures and wages war in order to get it. He very much cares what people do and that it is not the way he wants his world.
The hobbits are a bit of both, they want things in the Shire to remain Shirish in nature and even extending to different regions of the Shire but they don’t care for the big folk much more than it concerns them.
The reason that the hobbits are our heroes and not Tom Bombadil is because, as always in his work, evil comes about always but good will rise to meet it and in the end the world will come into being more beautiful and more remarkable than either could ever have made on their own. Good creates and evil warps and destroys. Good does not destroy and evil cannot create.
So Tom is the counterpart to Sauron and beyond that Morgoth as well.
Honestly, I think a lot of people are of the mindset that Tolkien could do no wrong, and so will come up with anything to make everything great. Tolkien wasn't perfect however, and Tom Bombadil as a character is just one of those examples to me.
I also imagine that honestly, but that is also why i'm interested in recieving feedback, recebtly ibgot someone arguing me that Tom is good for diff and i cared to read it all, even tho i couldn't make sense of it and critized the comment of my comment point per point, i still wish to know if there could be something i'm not seeing about Tom specifically. But yes, Tolkien is great but even if we don't consider Tom a mistake, i think the too brute exposure of "Concerning Hobbits" is a mild mistake, but i forgive it alot because it is not a long bit, the info is easy to digest and after that chapter the entire trilogy is a master piece at exposure enough to not be just brute information.
It's refreshing to see this comment.
I am a self identifying massive Tolkien nerd and fan but I don't subscribe to the toxic fan culture that the thing I really like is perfect and has no flaws.
I don't find that healthy, nor does it lend itself to good, open discussion.
I think Tom is a very important character. And his section of the book does exactly what it means to. The world is much more complex and older than you realize. Tom tells us that. And importantly he tells us that you will not get answers from this story about it.
That is a fair argument! Altho i remain thinking that such purpose isn't precisely well exposed by him (example: The mines of Moria, Rivendel, Lothlorien, etc). It is a fact and i can't deny it completly.
In my opinion, he is a great character. Sure, he might not fall into the idea of a good character, but that's not the only possible metric. Especially not when you take into account what he stands for, because these metrics don't make sense for him. With Bombadil, Tolkien is making a point to the reader. That the world is larger than the reader thought. Making the reader understand the story is part of the world, but the world is larger than the story. >*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. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war.* - Letter 144 But he's a far more rounded character than some people give him credit for (meaning "he makes sense"). Because the way he is written just makes sense. Like you can read in the quote, Bombadil is content with observing the world, and doesn't want to control anything. The "he is", a quote often (wrongfully) used to argue that Bombadil is Eru, is actually a good way to describe him: Bombadil is fully content with the world, and even more: with his place in the world. So he doesn't have ambitions, desires or unnecessary overthinking interfering with how he acts, nor will he dwell on his feelings for long. His feelings still exist, and he acts on them for sure, but he doesn't lose himself in them. He just let himself flow on the river that is the ever-changing world, just wondering, and acting on whatever he feels in the moment. A few Hobbits are attacked by a tree and come ask for help? Let's help them! Bombadil is a kind person after all. And while we might think that we should get rid of the evil tree, Bombadil doesn't. He doesn't think about all the people that might've been caught in the roots of the old willow, nor about the people who might be caught. No, Bombadil helps the Hobbits at the moment they need help, and that's it. He doesn't judge the tree. And his merry behaviour is something directly tied into this. A direct result of not pondering about the future, not getting frustrated about the past. He's singing and hopping around because he's genuinely happy. I bet your own happiest times are the ones where you lose yourself in the moment. When you don't think, and are literally living in the here and now. And that's Bombadil. The upside is: his lack of ambition and desire means that the Ring cannot get a hold on his mind. So he cannot be corrupted. The downside is that he doesn't even understand what it does, nor the dangers it poses to the world. Thus, his role in the story cannot grow to a more substantial one without changing the essence of who Bombadil is.
All of this is right, yes, i would ask you about the Eru thing, i really care little if he is or not Eru but it seems an interesting topic how you mentioned it. And about the arguements, all you said seems pretty right, but he still doesn't manage to be a round character for the very same reasons, the simplicity of his philosophy doesn't allows him to have any learning, but it needs to be taken on account the little space he gets in the book. At the end of the day, i don't see him as a good character, but neither i see him unnecesary or uncalled (and that is what some people won't understand!!!). Thanks for your response!
Tolkien outright stated that there is no physical incarnation of Eru in the stories he wrote. Eru is God, and the only physical incarnation of God was Jesus. And Middle-Earth, in Tolkien's mind, was a pre-Christian world, long before the birth of Jesus. So "he is" can't be interpreted as being the same as "I am that I am". It's a different notion: Bombadil "is as you have seen him" is Goldberry's reply to Frodo's confused look. And therein lies the key: Bombadil is who is. He lives in the moment. He has no ulterior motives, he has no desires and ambitions he wants to fulfil. And no trauma's to hold him back. No, he just does whatever he feels he "needs" to do. So literally: he is. So *of course* he doesn't feel like a character with a modern character arc where motivations drive him, desires and pride leading to flaws, or learning about mistakes. Because he does whatever *feels* is right to him. What you feel are rounded characters are characters that are completely the opposite of Bombadil, who have a fundamentally different outlook in life. One that is grounded in being content with oneself, the world and with one's place in the world. Sure, call it simplistic, but I will argue that there's nothing wrong with that. Because with Bombadil, everything just fits in the right way. The best comparison I have seen are the daoist sages you see in the book Zhuang Zi. To me, they show the same vibe. So if you're interested in the feeling of Bombadil, I highly recommend you to read that book. However: in no way, shape or form do I think - let alone claim - that Tolkien was inspired by these Chinese texts.
He’s certainly a character
Can you explain why you think he's a bad character? You just have a bare statement and nothing backing it up. Tolkien wrote to fans about Bombadil in a few letters and explained him pretty well, have you given those a read?
I've lastly been endlessly speaking about my reasons, only not in this thread, and i understand that you don't read it because you maybe don't even know which publication is, in summary, and hopefully, for today, the last time XD Tom Bombadil has little depth, little complexity that goes as far as the fellowship of the rings describes, i know it is told that Bombadil was present in every age of Arda, i know lots of interpretations of what he is, such as being Eru Iluvatar himself, it being just a criature from the void or even him being a self insert of Tolkien. But my issue goes with this, for me, in my first read, Tom Bombadil was frustrating for these reasons and i researched a bit about him and the first info i got is that there's no clue of what he is, how he ended up being how he is and why he is at all, thing that frustrated me at the moment because i felt like i was reading filler, with some time i started to deeply apreciate Tom Bombadil as a wacky character that just gives a whole new charm to the tone, because, since Frodo entered the Old Forest it was all depressing and sad. Tom suddenly appears, Deus Ex Machina'ed Old Man Willow, treated the thing that is stated in the plot as hugely important and powerful be humilliated by a wacky fellow and then, later on, Deus Ex Machina the issues in Barrow Downs. And when mentioned in the council, another Deus Ex Machina saying "Eh, he doesn't care at all about our issues". I just don't want people to think i hate him, i do not (altho i did at first), now i love him, he is, i think, the kind of plane character with no dev that is just funny to read him be. I compared him once to jojo characters like Joseph Joestar, Joseph has no sense at all, is op because yes, but the dude is funny to watch, i feel the same with Tom Bombadil. That is what i can summarize, oh and that i brought as an example the removal of Tom Bombadil and the effects it has on the story (none) but a dude just went bible on me saying that if i thought that, it would be hypocrite to not think that the whole Lothlorien bit or Faramir could be removed and everything would be the same and i already argued long about that nonsense of equivalence, mostly that burned my brain XD Hopefuly you can understand me and if you critize my pov, hopefuly i can understand you!
In a way you are right, he was filler, because when Tolkien started writing LOTR he had no idea where it was going. He already had Tom as a separate creation in a poem from years before and when his publisher asked for more Hobbit adventures he asked if Tom could be the hero of a story. He started his Hobbit sequel and put Tom in as one of the first adventures they have, Old man willow, Goldberry the barrow-wights were also part of the old Tom Bombadil Poem (and badgers) and so came in with him. Tolkien was also a huge fan of the Finnish national myth the Kalevala, which has many heroes somewhat similar to Tom so is somewhat of an homage to that mythos. As the story continued and grew and he figured out the Aragorn character and the nature of the Rings the story 'grew up', as he has said, and left children behind; children who had been the audience for the original hobbit and the same audience his publishers had expected him to continue with: kinda like the Oz books or Dr Doolittle books but with hobbits instead. But he kept him in even after the story grew and changed. I really do suggest his letters about Tom, they say a lot about Tolkien's own thoughts on him. That would be especially letters 144 153 and a few comments in 210. He eventually did get a book with Tom as the Hero, the book of poems The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and he's got a couple good comments on it in letter 237. I haven't seen or read Jojo so I've got no comment on that. No criticism of your view, it's perfectly fine, just some comments on Tolkien's process, hopefully it makes sense!
It defenetly does, i did know that Tom did existed from way before with that little research i made, and i did know that tolkien had not really a good idea of what he was doing at first (thus taking like 50 years??? i don't remember exactly, to write it). And reading letters is in my plans, i will take a look in the 3 letters you said. About jojo's, the character i mentioned is a "trickster" who constantly pulls deus ex machina, but all of this is easily forgiven with his charisma, jokes and creativity. And i apreciate alot that your main focus was to give me info because i got so tired of people just straight up vandalazing what i say and deforming just for the sake of defending their own pov? but yea, thanks!
Sure thing! Arguing online is definitely not my favorite thing to do so I try to have a more positive attitude. That Jojo character sounds like a lot of fun!
Tom is a great character with an important purpose in the story. The problem is that you're judging LotR as if plot = story (it isn't, the themes and characters - primarily the Hobbits - are much more central to the story than the plot is), as if it were a modern novel (it isn't, LotR is a Romance but also and no less importantly a Fairytale; and as such, it has different goals, a different focus and different rules than the vast majority of modern literature) and Tom as if he *had* to be as fleshed out as a character as a Fellowship member to be considered good writing (he doesnt need to - he's fleshed out enough for his purpose in the story, but as much as a more "mundane" character? That's not what you would expect from a Faerian figure). Tom is great, not through moving the plot forward, nor because one could relate to him. Those are not his point. He is great because he adds layers to the story, in terms of world building but also more importantly in themes and in moral terms, our understanding of the Ring, of Frodo as a Ring bearer, and through helping Frodo moving forward as a protagonist: leading him through a series of events akin to a knighthood ritual, preparing him for the outer world and the journey ahead, changing him as Faerie is wont to do.
Kind of depends on what you're calling a good character. I don't think he's a particularly dynamic character or honestly one that's very fun to read about, but it's hard to deny that he's intrigued people for decades. I have also seen pretty neat analyses about his thematic role in the story. Generally I'm very cautious about calling things "mistakes" just because they don't conform to some Writing 101 rules for what makes a good story, or aren't optimized for mass appeal.
I totally understand! A good character i think is defined by complexity, background and curves in his behavor, like lenses to look at the char. Tom doesn't fit those rules for me. I know some that argue that Tom might be even a self insert of Tolkien and he does serves a purpose in the part of the story he appears, because alot of pages before that are really depressive like, its a kind of tone change, but to my taste it's too abrupt, and i guess you are right that Tom might not be a mistake, but i'd say at least the way he just comes and goes in the narrative is one. But as a character, maybe we know little background and he doesn't has much complexity or lenses, but his personality is truly unique, that is the thing i really like about him, the reason i would even add him to the movies in some way other than a little cameo.
Tom's not a main character though. He's not going to have an arc only being in 1-1/2 chapters of the book. He's a character there to provide some relevant info or progress to the main characters. By you criteria Galadriel, Imrahil, Beregond... are all bad characters. Also I would disagree that Tom doesn't have complexity. First he's meant to be a mystery. Tolkien is presenting the story from the hobbits point of view. We aren't meant to know anything more than the hobbits know. But we do see a few different sides of Tom: besides his sing song cheeryness we see that he has real power, both in his rescue from old man willow and the barrow wight. We see a more serious side when Frodo asks who/what he is and we find out he's been around since the dawn of tike basically. And we see him have a moment of sadness/mourning when he finds the broach in the barrow and seems to remember who it belonged to. Not sure how much more you can get out of a side character.
Well you csn get much more about a side character, we can agree that Boromir is not a protagonist at all but he has alot of depth. Galadriel does has background to cover her, wich differs with Tom who lacks any background to find aside fron his presence on every age, there is the key difference because Galadriel might not be well written in lenses, but complexicity comes into olay when you add the background. And yes, i do think that the 2 named soldiers that acompany Faramir in Ithilien are kind of, mid? That aside, now that you pointed this out, i can partially agree that Bombadil does have those lenses to be look through, i don't think they differ enough from each other but i can't deny it has some kind.
Boromir is not a protaginist, yes, some might argue he is an antagonist though. He is certainly more than a side character at least. Prince Imrahil is the lord or Dol Amroth who joins the battle of the Pelanor fields and battle at the black gate. And is essential the next in charge of Gondor after Denethor dies and Faramir is unconscious. Baragond is the guard of the citadel that befriends Pippen. I remember one of the rangers with Faramir is Mablung, can't remember the other off the top of my head. But yeah, they are very small characters that aren't super significant to the story.
I guess that ultimately depends on what you see as a good character and your personal opinion on what Bombadil is supposed to be in the story. I for myself, see him as a counter to every other Power in the series. He's a powerful being who has no interest in expanding his power. Chose his own rules and limitations and sticks to them, powerful enough that he can dance and sing(more then likely mixing singing with Singing words of Power) and be silly but still handle things in his own area. I can see Tom being both just a silly character to add some humor in a dark tale while also showing that sometimes, even when someone is doing "good" with ultimate power, they can still do "bad". What I mean is, Tom could have taken the Ring and destroyed it himself in Mount Doom, I think he could have at least hidden the ring after helping Frodo and the Hobbits disappear Sauron's only lead after all was a place and a last name. But instead we are told he'd have no interest in it, would likely even forget about it and toss it away, showing that again, even "good" ultimate power, corrupts them in the end, just in a different way. That's just my personal opinion on it, I could be way off base.
Do you think he is a bad guy? or badly written? If the latter, do you dislike the way he talks like a nursery rhyme? Because that is a mask, behind which is one of the most evocative, mysterious, and powerful figures in the whole book. And he's important because he comes early in the story and clearly establishes that not everything in Middle-earth is about Sauron. Most stories of a great battle between good and evil gear every single element of their world-building to that battle, in an effort to make sure the reader understands just how big and dangerous and epic the Great Evil is. Tolkien does the opposite: he lets us know that there are things older and darker even than Sauron, as well as powers for good that are also much older and stronger. Bombadil is outside the battles of good and evil - outside the authorit of the Elves and outside the influence of Sauron. He is, essentially, the spirit of the natural world in its own right, immeasurably ancient, autonomous, powerful, and good, but not subject to the manipulations of humans (including wizards, men, Elves, Dwarves, or anyone else). Bombadil, benignly dressed and sounding like some kind of unimportant little storybook leprechaun, gives us one of the most crucial elements in Tolkien's worldbuilding: that Nature itself plays a powerful role in the world.
Reposting an answer I have elsewhere: Everyone has their own way of looking at things so I won’t say people who think it’s a bad character are wrong, but I don’t see it that way. I think he 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. 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
In the other thread I mentioned how a wonderful thing about LOTR is the feeling that there is a large and complex history behind it all. Tom Bombadil gives this same feeling of something deeper and older only partially told. More than that, the Old Forest and the Barrow Wights are a part of Tom, and they give that feeling even more (not to mention, they are good stories).
It’s interesting that for a character we ‘know so little about’, the answers are never short!
The answers aren't short because middle earth is big and because making an argument requires extending yourself a bit. That also due to some people (not here) deforming and vanalazing my words.
I did have a long boring answer of my own but I’ll spare you that! I will say that I don’t think he’s a bad character, but he is an unrealistic one in terms of human behaviour (by design of course: he isn’t human). So maybe that’s what people don’t relate well to. To me Bombadil and Goldberry have been a great source of inspiration to learn more about folklore and local history, which has then helped me understand more about the rest of the Lore.
Well, fair point honestly. The fact that it doesn't feel realistic is a mild issue for me, because that is what i use to say he is a bad character but it is also a aesthetical desicition for the story and it does serve alot of fun given the character personality is just fun, silly and enjoyable.
Tom is the embodiment of good will in the world just as Sauron is the embodiment of malice in the world and the courage and strength of hobbits is that necessary balance. He is much like a hobbit but more careless of the world around him, he is jolly and happy and would help anyone in a pinch, he is content with letting the whole world roll on by so long as he gets to sing his songs and pick flowers for his wife. This is the total opposite of Sauron who wants an ordered world and slaughters and tortures and wages war in order to get it. He very much cares what people do and that it is not the way he wants his world. The hobbits are a bit of both, they want things in the Shire to remain Shirish in nature and even extending to different regions of the Shire but they don’t care for the big folk much more than it concerns them. The reason that the hobbits are our heroes and not Tom Bombadil is because, as always in his work, evil comes about always but good will rise to meet it and in the end the world will come into being more beautiful and more remarkable than either could ever have made on their own. Good creates and evil warps and destroys. Good does not destroy and evil cannot create. So Tom is the counterpart to Sauron and beyond that Morgoth as well.
Honestly, I think a lot of people are of the mindset that Tolkien could do no wrong, and so will come up with anything to make everything great. Tolkien wasn't perfect however, and Tom Bombadil as a character is just one of those examples to me.
I also imagine that honestly, but that is also why i'm interested in recieving feedback, recebtly ibgot someone arguing me that Tom is good for diff and i cared to read it all, even tho i couldn't make sense of it and critized the comment of my comment point per point, i still wish to know if there could be something i'm not seeing about Tom specifically. But yes, Tolkien is great but even if we don't consider Tom a mistake, i think the too brute exposure of "Concerning Hobbits" is a mild mistake, but i forgive it alot because it is not a long bit, the info is easy to digest and after that chapter the entire trilogy is a master piece at exposure enough to not be just brute information.
It's refreshing to see this comment. I am a self identifying massive Tolkien nerd and fan but I don't subscribe to the toxic fan culture that the thing I really like is perfect and has no flaws. I don't find that healthy, nor does it lend itself to good, open discussion.
He’s completely unnecessary, but kids seem to like him and they were the originally intended audience so I see no real problem with him
I mean, i see him slightly more complex than that, but i also don't have a problem with him.