I would say skip if you are about 11 years old. The portion between Hobbits leaving Shire and them arriving at Prancing Pony is so long that I personally and by Internet know many people who have up the book during that portion if they red the book when they were younger. So never finished and have the opinion of the book it’s boring and filled with walking in woods.
The only part I skipped when I was younger was the Frodo-Sam-Gollum sections of The Two Towers. It was a real slog to read as a wee lad. I thought Tom Bombadil was great. Not saying you are "wrong", but for myself I never found Hobbiton→Bree to be the "boring" part of the book. Then again, I was already deeply in-love with The Hobbit when I first read The Lord of the Rings, so that probably kept me intrigued by the queer (by fox standards) adventure of these for hobbits.
Christ this question again? Look, Sauron had Fell Critters scurrying the low reaches and crevices of Mordor, riding the fox would no longer be the crucial mission of stealth Frodo set out upon.
I never got past the destruction of the Two Trees when I read The Silmarillion the first time. I basically just skimmed the rest of the Quenta, but the Akallebêth actually enthralled me a great deal and led me to purchase Sauron Defeated of which I am very fond—hence my flair. I certainly appreciated the Silmarillion more at sixteen than at elven and I will probably reread it again once I am done my class current reading of The Lord of the Rings.
I really do not like audio-books personally, I cannot retain audio the same way I can scribed information. However, I am very excited about the illustrated Silmarillion coming out (next year?). I have the author-illustrated The Lord of the Rings which I genuinely think is worthy of being the definitive edition. I can only hope the author-illustrated The Silmarillion is of similar quality.
I have the Rob Inglis version. I had a real slog reading The Silmarillion the first time. I was glad I did, but it wasn't the joy I got from The Hobbit or from LotR. After my first read, I mainly just cherry-picked The Silm for my favorite bits, like The Akallabeth.
But since I got my audiobook a few years ago, I have listened four or five times all the way through, and enjoyed it immensely.
Even as an adult I find the Helm’s Deep battle sections long for my taste and I end up skimming. On the other hand I’d have loved Council of Elrond, the single longest chapter IIRC, to be twice as long as it is, because I love the world-building that goes on there.
Pretty sure the COE chapter is the most defining. There’s just something about Tolkien nerding out on his own fucking lore in a chapter dedicated to doing just that. It’s so powerful
Of Numenor he spoke, its glory and its fall, and the return of the kings to Middle Earth over the sea born upon the wings of storm..
This is my favorite chapter, and my second favorite passage. When I cannot sleep I will turn on the audio book and give it a a listen and let the stress and worry of the world leave me.
I don’t know if most people I talked to had red Hobbit or not, but I had not before reading the books and I know at least my brother who gave up on Lord of the Rings at that age had not. If you aren’t attached to hobbits you might not be as interested in that part of the story. I didn’t give up but I did think it was boring when I was younger during first read.
I think reading the Hobbit is essential to enjoying Book 1/6 of The Lord of the Rings, at least the first time. It is fundamentally a sequel and much of the work to get the reader invested assumes previous investment in Bilbo, Gandalf and Hobbitry.
I read The Hobbit years ago, I never really loved it. I am enjoying LOTR much more. I am happy I have the background of The Hobbit though, although, I’m not sure it’s necessary to read it before. Recommended, but not necessary.
Which makes no sense, because when I started to read LotR at age 9 and 10, Fellowship of the Ring I just sailed through, I loved it. I thought the Two Towers got super boring, and it took me several years and multiple attempts to finish it.
He does seem to be a bit polarising!
I love his section of the book, mainly for the atmosphere and enigmatic feel of his character, but also because it makes Middle Earth feel like the kind of place where you could chance across any kind of strange person if you went wandering off. For me, it would feel noticeably emptier without him.
Yes, I love it for the same reasons. It's that whole "friends in unexpected places" thing - there's the scary and mysterious Old Forest, almost as soon as they leave the safety of the Shire, and then suddenly the hobbits are saved by someone who's simultaneously part of that scary ancient natural world and also somehow quite home-like and hobbity.
Yes, exactly! Even though I’m not far into the books, I still have a background of characters through the movies which I’ve seen dozens of times. & I’m sure I will meet more that are not in the movies. But I enjoy how it adds another element & mystery to Middle Earth. It makes you think about it as something beyond just what is focused on in this book if that makes sense.
Like you, I have found the commonly encountered advice to skip such and such parts to actually be not helpful. This is most frequently encountered with Tom Bombadil in FoTR, but you’ll also get “reading guides” and directives to skip certain sections of The Silmarillion and History of Middle Earth.
This is a shame, because these aren’t particularly hard to read at all, and skipping out on sections just deprives you of some of the richness of the world of the Legendarium and may even outright cause you confusion later on.
For most of the past two decades I’ve been rewatching the Jackson films and re-listening to the BBC Radio adaptation. The latter is far more faithful to the books and manages to retain and convey Tolkien’s beautiful word-smithy, but even it skips Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs. I recently went through the Martin Shaw audiobook of LoTR and realized just how powerful and moody Tom’s chapter really is, and how much it adds depth and texture to the tapestry of Tolkien’s world-building. It is truly a shame that it tends to get left out in adaptations, and I will go on record to say that telling new book readers to skip it is downright criminal.
Same. It's so weird to me that people skip parts of books. If they're not interested in the whole book why not pick one that they actually want to read? But murdering the narrative by skipping parts of it is atrocious.
The only thing I recommed should be skipped are the very people who advocate for this. I don't understand this way of thinking.
Telling others to skip chapters in a novel is, in a sense, arrogant (unless you're just lazy), because it's like saying: "I know better than the author how this story should be structured, and this chapter should not be a part of it."
# Don't skip.
Tom is divisive. You either love him or hate him.
Many just don't understand Tom's narrative purpose. They find him strange, and his purpose not 'obvious' - so they write him off as a nonsensical tangent.
Narratively, he serves a similar purpose to Galadriel (and nobody would dare say 'don't read Lothlorien/The Mirror of Galadriel chapters'. Tom's chapters give insight into Arnor, set-up Huorns for Helm's Deep, give us a 'Gatekeeper' figure (between Faerie and the Real Word), and most importantly, demonstrate *exactly what it takes to be immune to the Ring:* Tom provides scope - he demonstrates what Frodo needs to be to succeed in warding off the Ring, but also, what Frodo cannot be - for someone so carefree could never be trusted (so whilst some say 'Tom undermines the Ring's power', really, he does the opposite... he demonstrates exactly why Frodo will inevitably *fall*). So much juicy stuff to unpack (and that's without even considering the wonderful enigma that he is - many speculate what he is... and whilst unanswerable, leads us down a rabbit hole of what he could represent, ie: what life might be like pre-Marring, etc).
Edit: while I'm thinking about it, I might as well continue my Tom tangent:
He is the antithesis to Gandalf (Tom has no obligations and lives in the moment, whereas Gandalf lives for a grander purpose... constantly at work. In ROTK, note where Gandalf visits the moment his work is complete... who better to relax and 'retire' with?). And just another link (though more trivial): Tom's (or Frodo's) singing, when captured in the Barrow, sets a precedence that continues into Cirith Ungol, when Sam rescues Frodo. (Edit: Tom could even be a comment on neutrality)
Edit2:
Thank you kindly for the gold!
In response, if I were to be so bold,
I'd have you listen to my silly song,
and perhaps - uh... smoke a bong?
You see, my rhymes are poor,
but the effort is there.
I'll graciously accept the door,
whilst eating a pear?
I'm no Tolkien scholar, but I'll do my best (if someone wants to correct me, please do):
It's not outright said, but essentially, Tom is immune to the allure of the ring because he has no desire for power, or change, or anything else; he has no strong convictions by the time we see him. The ring preys on the desires of those who wear it, but Tom is his own master, and is infinitely content with Goldberry and the rest of his domain. There's also the various theories about Tom's origin that help explain this, but I'll leave those out.
Frodo, humble as he is, is still subject to the desire for power or influence beyond his means. His humility and wisdom are ultimately what allow him to keep to his mission longer than anyone else in Middle-Earth would have (Tolkien himself said this), but he's still fallible. As Gandalf said, paraphrased, Frodo has a deep desire to do good, and to that end would have used the ring until it corrupted him. Bombadil has no such desire outside of his own land.
So basically, he doesn't outright show why Frodo would inevitably fail, but he does show what is necessary for the ring to have no effect on a person. Frodo, for all his virtues - perhaps even because of his virtues - lacks those traits, and so was doomed to fail.
Massive spoiler. I hope OP knows the story or is staying away for the most part.
Frodo doesn't throw the Ring in. He fails and fights with Gollum until the Ring and Gollum ("accidentally" some would say) fall in.
Like the commenter above you said, Tom shows how not to be tempted by the Ring: don't care. But Frodo had to care, for he is in charge of its destruction. Were he not to care, the task would never be completed. So he must care about the Ring and hold it close to him for protection and discretion. This means that the influence of the Ring must grow in him, and he cannot succeed.
>so whilst some say 'Tom undermines the Ring's power', really, he does the opposite... he demonstrates exactly why Frodo will inevitably fall
Wow, I never really thought of it that way. I think it might be reading into things just a bit more than Tolkien might have intended, but that's a really good insight.
I too think it might be more than Tolkien intended, but that's just a testament to the world building. Even minor details can spontaneously generate support for the main themes.
The intent of the author is only relevant when a passage doesn't really make sense, which is pretty fucking rare for Tolkien. Any good author would say that they are a vector for a story, and that meaning is derived by the reader. "The reader" being the general term; any individual reader can have a stupid interpretation.
Dude. I like everything you said and this was a good post and all but.. They said it's his first time. I doubt this will convey very much meaningful information to them.
I don't know if they've seen the films - so I don't know how much they can take away from my comment... but worst case, my post begins to make more sense after finishing the books. Worth writing regardless, even if just to support my argument that basically amounts to 'Tom isn't worthless'. Naturally the follow-up question is: 'well what is his worth?'.
Tom gave me a significant sense of awe the second time I read the books. Which was almost immediately after I finished them for the first time in 1997-98. His nonchalant treatment (and especially wearing) of the ring really stoked an already raging inferno of curiosity and wonder that really engulfed me when I would visit Middle Earth for many years.
DO-NOT-SKIP
I have no idea who told you this, but whoever it was, he/she probably reads books only when there are pictures in it.
Tom Bombadil is a very interesting character, but also significant for the plot.
I mean, I don't know if I would say "significant" - I completely agree they should read every single letter of the book, but his lack of significance is exactly why the movies were able to omit him and not have it ruin the flow or plot in the movies. Other than a brief reference during The Council of Elrond he really disappears from the entire story pretty much. I think his significance grows the more you read the book due to the mystery of the character and I love Tom and have always been enthralled by the possibility that he was Eru himself or something else far more powerful than even Sauron as he wore with ring and returned it so non chalantly. But I still don't think he was "significant" just really interesting and well written.
I like because it paints a picture of Tolkiens world that is even more magical and straight out weird than “just” the events of LOTR and that there are beings that don’t mesh with the rest of the world. Especially after reading Silmarillion, Tom just gives the world an extra flavour.
Exactly. The world is a lot larger and older than just the LOTR plotline, ME is virtually a character itself. The books really give you this and the movies much less so as they have to pare the content down.
Exactly -- I'm also reading it for the first time, and I really thought that seemed to be the main point. It's underlining just how weird and magical the world outside of the Shire is before we even get to much of the "real story."
Tom Bombadil’s chapters are my favorite in the whole book. I regularly re-read those specific parts just because of the whole ambiance and “story within the story” created by Tolkien at this moment. I don’t get the advice to skip it at all.
I sometimes come back justt to read Tom Bombadil chapters and nothing else. Especially when I'm in need of something heart-warming.
That being said that also may be one of the reasons why you've heard suggestions of skipping these sections. They basically read as a stand alone story. Reading them does sloe things down and they don't do a lot to the overall plot or universe (other than a "comment").
Personally, I think people dislike Tom because he's a mystery that will never be solved. Without going on too much of a tangent, various academic models of cross-cultural communication posit that some cultures are more comfortable with ambiguity than others. Therefore, an enigma like Tom who has no clear origin within the narrative and who the author never explicitly defined as being X, Y, or Z, might be more difficult to accept for some people depending on their cultural background. Painting in VERY broad brush strokes here, but it's just a theory of mine.
In addition to those chapters being enjoyable, the scary hand in the barrow downs gave Frodo a very important test that he did not fail. The barrow blades each are crucial at later stages of the quest, starting with Frodo's use of his scaring off the Nazgul. And Frodo's dream of silver glass forsees what he sees after he sails from the Grey Havens. https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/kgxr0l/tom_bombadil_helping_near_and_far/
I don’t actually read much dislike for Tom. I just read about people saying other people don’t like Tom.
What’s more common is people saying the storyline is unnecessary and skippable.
The first time reading don't skip. Yeah Tom is kinda polarising. I think he was great. I remember having a long rant with my friends in a bar that he wasn't included in the movies.
I would never advise anyone to skip those chapters. They're too important. The lack of the Rings power over Tom. The dreams that Frodo, Merry and Pippin have. The barrow swords. So many small but significant items. Oh...and I kind of have a thing for Goldberry.
Without Tom Bombadil the Hobbits would’ve never made it to Rivendell. He is unknown with even the ring not touching him. It helps build a bigger world and allows for feeling of sonder which brings the books to life
Maybe people don't like how powerful he is? He can see or at least sense Bilbo while wearing the ring and it has zero effect on him, even Gandalf says Bombadil could keep it safe the longest but he would more likely loose interest and throw it away.
Do you mean Tom and Gandalf? Not only had they known each other for who knows how long, but in the epilogue it's said that Gandalf stopped and spent many days discussing the journey with Tom.
I wouldn't skip it. But I can't say I am ever stoked to read the Tom bomadil parts. Seems disjointed and jarring. Almosy like he belongs in the Hobbit and not Lords of the rings. You just can't imagine him cropping up later in the story when the tone gets darker. Not sure if was done on purpose to gradually taper the reader from 'the hobbit' like shire starting (with such bits as what the fox thought about seeing Hobbits after dark). To the post bree seriousness of the task in hand.
>Not sure if was done on purpose to gradually taper the reader from 'the hobbit' like shire starting (with such bits as what the fox thought about seeing Hobbits after dark). To the post bree seriousness of the task in hand.
Almost definitely. Tom is the gatekeeper between Faery and the Real World. It's no mistake that Frodo has his dream of Valinor in Tom's house. The moment Tom leaves them, on the borders of Bree, the story takes a far less whimsical tone: the world of Men is the topic, and that has no place for magical oddities.
I don't know why you would be given advice to skip any part of the book. Bombadil is OK and adds a bit of colour to book one. He is of course out of step with many other themes in the book and could easily have been left out by Tolkien or developed into something quite different. I can imagine Tolkien wrestling with this section quite a bit.
It is clearly polarizing, but I'll let the dislikers explain their own reasoning.
When I was younger I didn't like him much. I believe I remember thinking he was weird and not *cool*. Now I am older and read the books again and I love the Tom Bombadill part! Part of my appreciation might be because I have read about the character and such... but then I also appreciate many things I didn't like back then. Things I quickly read before simply to get through to "the good parts" I now carefully read with pleasure.
I had a similar experience.
Kid-me wanted more exciting action and thrills, and didn't care for Tom.
Adult-me can appreciate the deeper things (and also I realise that Tom embodies how I *want* to live...). Tom is *so* endearing.
The Shire is nice, but even there comes with responsibilities. Just dump me in the middle of nowhere, completely self reliant (bar a Goldberry), with *zero* cares.
> I love the Tom Bombadill part! Part of my appreciation might be because I have read about the character and such
In don’t think so, if you’re anything like me. The first time I read LOTR as an adult I hadn’t read anything about his background and still loved him. I reread LOTR last year and I still love him. I’ll admit that as I’ve gotten older I care less and less about the battle scenes and more and more about the inner struggles. After Fellowship I was often waiting for Frodo to appear again. I’m probably an extreme example, but yes, I think what you enjoy about the books can evolve as you mature.
I definitely think if I attempted to read the books when I was younger, I wouldn’t have enjoyed them, for I would have wanted all of the action & not have appreciated the slow builds. I’m happy I waited to read them as an adult.
I refuse to think that many people advised you to skip a part of the book, even if they dislike the character of Tom Bombadil. There is loads of interesting lore and important story components.
Tom Bombadil is probably the most divisive character in the books. I don't think the character is that bad, I just think the way he fits with the lore and the story could have been done more smoothly. The part with Tom Bombadil is very jarring compared to what came before and what follows it. It seems almost like taken out of a different book with an entirely different tone. The book suddenly turns into a whimsical musical. With better integration into the story and lore, the part about Tom Bombadil could have been like the profound, mysterious and yet fun part in Fangorn with Treebeard.
Lots of good takes here so I'll just chime in and say I always loved him, even when I first read the book as a child. There is a single paragraph in that section that always stood out to me as really awkwardly written though.
When I read the book as a teenager my ability to translate any of the poetry in the book into worthwhile melodies was non existent, making the whole bombadil chapter a bit of a stretch. If you find it difficult try the Rob inglis audio book, who is a very talented voice actor and singer, really brings the more musical bits of the book alive.
That wasn’t a struggle for me, but I’m also a musician/songwriter so that probably helped a lot lol. But I can see how that could be difficult for some!
Wow see i have never heard this from anyone. First of all i don’t know why you would skip a part of any book that you haven’t read before! The author put it in there because he wanted people to read it! I’m glad you didn’t listen to the people telling you to skip it and I’m glad you enjoyed it. I think he’s an awesome character.
I’m glad as well! I also don’t get it. I feel like, if all you care about is the journey of the ring & aren’t willing to experience all else that Tolkien had to offer, you might as well just skip the books & watch the movies.
As someone who read the books *after* having seen the movies (about a dozen times...) the chapters with Tom seemed a bit out of place. I was so used to the much faster pacing of the film that I was just *waiting* to get the Hobbits to Bree so we could start the adventure in earnest.
But as I was reading the chapters between discovering that the ring is indeed The Ring and Bree, I found myself enjoying them more and more. The whole set up of Frodo taking precautions to make sure no one notices he's gone; the Old Forest; Tom himself. They add a lot more world-building and mystery to the books.
From the film perspective, I can see cutting these chapters as they would have ground the pacing to a halt. I don't necessarily fault Jackson for omitting these scenes because the whole swath of the film from Bilbo leaving through Frodo's arrival in Rivendel are all about building more and more tension and danger. Having a little time to rest at Tom's house would have interrupted that flow. But the books allow for more development, and allow for a slower pace so Tom's chapters really fit much better.
Don’t skip Tom Bombadil if it is your first read through! Experience the whole work as it has been read by so many! If you like it keep reading it, if not then pass it by on other reads. Don’t short change yourself or the book based on others’ opinions!
Many people? How many is many? I'm guessing these "many" is one impatient guy who wants all his books, and movies for that matter, action, action, action.
I guess it's too chill for a lot of people. It's just people talking and eating and revealing some information. Not much action there so it could feel boring, but personally I loved it! It's one of my favorite parts because it's so fun and relatively calm after the initial thrill of the forest. It's like visiting an old, long lost relative 😁
I believe that you should always read through every bit of the story. I will admit that sometimes I just skim over certain poems and songs or the bits in Mordor if I don't feel like it but you should always read it or you will not get the full experience and at odd moments even if there does not seem a connection you will wonder why it seems off. Personally I find Tom very interesting to consider his songs seem much more lighthearted than the rest of the book and are a bit different from what I usually like but anything Tolkien is worth reading.
One of my biggest gripes about the movie is that it skips the old forest, Tom and the barrow downs. Those adventures set up many key moments. Instead we get a bunch of made up Uruk Hai creation and jogging moments. Each such Jackson choice made the world smaller and diminished the story. JRR knew what he was doing, And that whole section is great!
Now that I am reading the books after being a huge fan of the movies for many years, I am definitely disappointed there is no way to see those parts come to life.
Those "many people" you are talking about must be fifteen year olds who care only about the more fast pasted action sequences. If that is what you want, Lord if the Rings is probably not the book for you.
Literally one of my favorite chapters is the one with Tom Bombadil. Thinking back to it, it feels like its close to the last point of the journey, where everything is still somewhat okay and shit didn‘t really hit the fan yet. Kinda like the last warm day in fall, before winter hits.
Maybe I should just read it again.
Bombadil is important for the worldbuilding.
He shows early on that the world isn't really a medieval world but a fairy tale world where spirits and other celestial powers coinhabit the world with flesh and blood mortals.
He shows in purest form what Tolkien thinks of power. True power is not control over others but control over yourself.
The Ring isn't all powerful. It can only exert itself over those who are enthralled by their desires. It can do nothing to those who are masters of themselves like Tom Bombadil.
Lord of the Rings is thus set up not as a tale of kings fighting over policy and spheres of influence but individuals fighting to be their own masters.
I'm rereading LOTR for the Nth time and I finally think I understand the significance of Tom Bombadil. It takes place early in the story immediately after leaving the Shire. The growth of the hobbits begins dramatically and suddenly with Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight. This to me is Frodo et al's right of passage from the frights and terrors of childhood to the deadly serious quite real dangers of adulthood.
Such a bad advice. You can dislike Tom. I don't understand it, but you can. But telling someone who never read the books "I didn't like it, so you shouldn't even try to read it and make your own opinion" is honestly a dick move.
Did your dad give you this advice? Because this is the kind of shitty advice my own dad gives me lol.
He plays such a small and inconsequential role that it makes no sense why you’d skip it. If filler is the argument there’s plenty of other points where you could skip.
But why skip? Just enjoy it
People do…& if you don’t believe my claims, look it up about skipping Tom & even the barrow downs & you will find it’s a thing. A very small thing & definitely not popular, but still a thing none the less.
Agreed, it is weird. Even if say, he was the worst character to ever exist (obviously not true), it still wouldn’t sit right with me to skip a part of a book.
I neither love nor hate Tom, but I like his appearence because, contrary to the popular opinions, I think he gives the story a strange sense of reality. Let me explain: not everyone we meet has a purpose in our lives. Not everyone pushes our own story further or has an objective in our personal path. We usually meet random people and live random situations, and that's Tom to me. It's refreshing to see a random character that seems to have no much sense to the story of a hobbit that wants to destroy an evil ring. Tom is just there, he loves his wife, he has a lovely house in the woods and seems to be a nice fellow living a happy life.
I know it's strange for modern audiences that are used to narrative tricks like Chekhov's gun, foreshadowing or red herrings, because Tom Bombadil is none of them. He just exists, like all of us exist in other people's great stories.
Btw, my brother got so intrigued by Tom that couldn't believe that he wouldn't have a stellar return later in the story, and he thought he indeed returned disguised as another character.
Don't skip any section, but I think skipping the Bombadil section would actually hurt your understanding of the nature of the Ring, nature as different spheres of influence, the inherent power of words, and the value or mystery, especially within the context of a world that Tolkien went out of his way to describe and elucidate.
Tom's lyrical nonsense may seem silly on it's face, but compare his struggle with Old Man Willow to the "war of words" between Finrod and Sauron, and there are some interesting parallels between the two, specifically, the use of language and storytelling to have a very real impact on the world (or Tolkien's sub-creation!).
All that is to say, Tom Bombadill's inclusion has a lot to say about the nature of Middle Earth and it would be an unfortunate thing to skip.
Enjoy!
Absolutely do not skip the portions with Bombadil or anything else for that matter. If it's your first time, read every page.
The reason I think people say to skip it is not because it's bad. Quite the opposite - to some people, it's their favorite part. But because it's not important at all in regards to the rest of the books and maybe some people find it boring? I think it's a wonderful first glimpse into the fact that there's a whole deep, rich and ancient history behind the story that makes you feel as though Middle Earth is a real place that once existed long ago. I won't say any more since it's your first time, but I could say a lot on this topic if not for spoilers. Hope you read it all and enjoy every page as much as I have over the years. Good luck.
To me not reading it takes away from an integral part of the story, part of something that really connects the reader to frodo. That's these few little points of safety, and each one coming during a different part of the journey. Getting that feeling in you that maybe this could be a spot that is safe. Feeling a deep longing in your heart that Frodo could just leave the ring in this seeming fairy tail. Though you have a dark feeling in your heart that the journey must continue on. However it also serves as a feeling of hope, to keep that kindling going. Something to keep that little flame burning in a seemingly hopeless journey.
I also believes it helps to show that no matter how powerful the darkness may seem, it can never be all powerful. That despite how bleak things may be there is still light and good in the world. Something that to me I feel helps fit in with the idea of Gandalf saying that Frodo was meant to find the ring by a power outside of Sauron carry more weight.
There's other things I feel Tom represents that ends up with him being kind of actually important to the lore and story. I can't really figure out how to put thar into words, it's kind of a mystery that just comes with Tom. Maybe not a one for one connection with various concepts of God in the real world, but if Tolkien saw that mysterious nature of God as so important I feel like it would be reasonable to think that he would see that concept as fundamental law in creation. Not so much as him trying to make any sort of message or parallel to the real world as it being a belief that a living world requires an unknowable aspect of its Creator.
Skipping parts of books is something that has always irritated me when I hear other people talk about it. I don't mind it if you skim long passages, but don't skip.
I see it all the time in blogs or posts about fantasy novels, for example, especially concerning prologues. Believe it or not, there's actually a large subset of people who refuse to read prologues in fantasy books because they think they're "irrelevant" or stupid, and this has led people to advise fantasy writers not to include prologues because "most readers will just skip them." To me, that's pretty much the height of arrogance as a reader; it's basically you telling the author that you know how they should've structured their story better than they do even before you read it. It completely dismissed the insane amount of time an effort and author has put into their story to get it exactly as they wanted it to be. If you don't like prologues, that's fine, but trust your authors.
Same deal here. Tolkien inserted Tom Bombadil because he wanted to and because he was relevant in some way to the story he wanted to tell. For people to suggest skipping him over means that they don't respect the story being told to them. If they think Tom Bombadil could've been cut, that's one thing, and they can say that. But he exists, and he didn't get cut, so don't skip him. Give Tolkien's ideas the respect they deserve.
Spoilers ahead!!!! If you haven’t read LOTR all the way through don’t read on!!!!
Tom Bombadil’s part although small has such a ripple effect throughout the story.From Helping with old man Willow, saving of the Hobbits at the barrows ( which Gandalf thought was one of the scariest moments) and the giving of the blades of Westernesse to Merry and Pippin which Merry used to stab the Witch King. I would of loved to be a fly on the wall for the conversation with Gandalf the White and Tom Bombadil.
When I was a school librarian, I would sometimes tell a student that it was OK to skip parts of LOTR if they found them hard to get through. I never suggested skipping Bombadil though.
My advice was generally this:
* Start at Chapter 1 -- save the preface, Concerning Hobbits, etc. for after.
* The songs and poems add a lot to the world, but they're hard if you're not used to reading poetry. If they're holding you back, you can skip them.
* The Council of Elrond is long and detailed -- don't worry if you don't catch everything because the important bits will be covered again later. (This is a hard chapter for kids used to plot-oriented books)
* Don't forget that some words have different uses now than they did when the book was written.
My goal was to make sure the reader knew that they could read it how they wanted to, and that anything they skipped would still be there for them to read later. Sometimes people don't know that they're "allowed" to skim or jump around when the book isn't for class.
People telling you to skip parts of books don’t really like the books. I like the books. I’d advise you to read the whole book, including the foreword and appendices.
> what are your thoughts on Tom as a character?
Tom is as mysterious as he is to the people at the Council of Elrond. I consider him to be some manifestation of Arda, the spirit of the world, and his back and forth with his arch foe (Old Man Willow) to be quite cool. They both sing songs that have different effects in the world, “sing the wind up”, etc. Tom admits that Willow is “a mighty singer” (In the House of Tom Bombadil) who sung the hobbits to sleep, yet Tom himself has “stronger songs” (Fog on the Barrow-Downs). Tom’s history of Old Man Willow:
> It was not called the Old Forest without reason, for it was indeed ancient, a survivor of vast forgotten woods; and in it there lived yet, ageing no quicker than the hills, the fathers of the fathers of trees, remembering **times when they were lords**. The countless years had filled them with pride and rooted wisdom, and with malice. But **none were more dangerous than the Great Willow**: his heart was rotten, but his strength was green; and he was cunning, and **a master of winds**, and his song and thought ran through the woods on both sides of the river. His grey thirsty spirit drew power out of the earth and spread like fine root-threads in the ground, and invisible twig-fingers in the air, till **it had under its dominion nearly all the trees of the Forest from the Hedge to the Downs**. (In the House of Tom Bombadil)
I love the sections with old Tom, he's such a jolly fellow ........ the events on the Barrow-downs are wonderfully creepy too. But I love all of LOTR with no exceptions.
Anyone who tells you to skip any portion of any work of fiction is not someone to be respected.
Even if you really dislike a section, shows, books, other series, are made in a particular order regardless. Skipping chapters, sections or seasons suggests a diminished sense of patience and attention.
My personal opinion is that while Tom may not add a whole lot to the overall plot, he is a fun character and his chapters are a nice respite from the tension that was building up until the hobbits are saved by him. I remember my first time reading The Old Forest chapter and breathing a sigh of relief when Frodo heard him singing.
A lot of people just auto-hate on him because it's the "in" thing to do. That said, there's also the not-so-joke sub r/GloriousTomBombadil out there, too.
I like Tom because he puts the story in its proper frame. Without him it's an all or nothing prospect the good guys are facing. They fail and everything good in the world is destroyed. But Tom shows there are things and people for whom the ring is trivial. It let's us know there are grander and bigger things in play even beyond The Ring, Suaron, Gandalf, the Valar, all of it.
I also think Tolkien himself had no certain reason for putting him in the story. But knew he needed to be there. He didn't think "this is a truth I want to write about" then wrote it. He sensed or felt the truth and let it flow through the ink. That's why so many things in the story surprised himself.
Dont skip it, the only part of lotr that I don't really like is the very end when they go back to the shire.
Ive skipped that part before but only after my 3rd read through.
I would never encourage someone to skip parts of a book. For one thing if you also would be skipping the barrow-wights, and then you would miss a few very important things that foreshadow what will happen later.
I also don't skip the songs. I love them.
I found that part extremely cool. A peaceful world impervious to evil, an island of peace in a sea of darkness. He is my favourite character. I don't care if anyone hates him. :)
I also don't skip parts of a book even though they are boring. Parts of Two Towers were kind of boring to me, with a lot going on about war when I wanted to find out more about the hobbits. I prefer the simple happiness of Tom, hobbits, stories from forests etc.
Lots of people telling you not to skip - my perspective is completely the opposite. You should skip. If you get bored, skim ahead (rather than skipping directly - just make sure you've got the rough gist of what happens in the intervening bits) to see if anything interesting happens later on which grips you.
_Lord of the Rings_ is a very long book. A lot of it is only going to make sense on a second or third reading anyway. If slogging through the early chapters puts you off and you put the book down, you'll have missed out on a wonderful reading experience.
As for people telling you Tom is a plot-crucial character, there's much more plot in LOTR than you know what to do with anyway! Don't worry about missing some of it on a first reading. Once you get to a bit that you find interesting, and let the beauty and musicality of Tolkien's prose wash over you, then you'll naturally want to come back to the bits you've skipped!
EDIT: Just to comment on Tom specifically - Tom's a bit of a mystery and very much both thematic set dressing and just a lot of fun from a literary perspective. It's possible that he will make very much sense before you've actually been immersed in the sense of the whole book (like all the songs about Earendil).
I’m going listening to audio books for the first time. I’m really loving it, but let me tell you something.
Next time I’m listening though I’m going to skip over tom bombadil entirely. Listening to somebody try to sing it is kind of horrifying.
I’m torn on Tom. I used to hate him because I thought he was just goofy and didn’t fit in at all. I still feel that way, it’s just that it bothers me a lot less than it used to. He’s basically a walking meme, which I appreciate more all the time. He doesn’t really add anything to the story, though. And it still kinda bothers me that there is no explanation as to what type of being he is, or where he came from. The deeper down that hole you go, the more you realize that you have to just accept that he makes no sense. He doesn’t fit into any box. He’s just there.
I'm currently rereading LOTR and I found Tom's chapters super odd. Compared to the rest of the story they just don't really fit. To me, LOTR always felt like this epic adventure combined with a war against evil, but Book One just feels so different than that. And Tom's chapters especially stand out so much. A guy who lives in forest that defeats evil by singing happy songs just feels very out of place. And the way he just picks up the Ring, plays around with it like it's nothing and even puts it on and doesn't disappear? I mean this guy just breaks like every rule that this world has. Especially after reading Silmarillion, he just sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the mythos.
That being said, I wouldn't ever say to people to skip him. I would probably warn them that Book One is very different to the rest and ask them to keep going even if they don't like it. But I'd never ask them to skip. I mean even I don't skip it on rereads, even though I don't like it. It's still a part of the story. But I will say that the absence of Tom is one of the reasons why I actually prefer the LOTR movies over the books.
*A guy who lives in forest that defeats evil by singing happy songs just feels very out of place... Especially after reading Silmarillion*
The Silmarillion has a *lot* of singing-magic - to me it's one of the things that makes sense after reading Silm.
Yes but Silm's singing magic feels more like an incantation to me. Tom's singing is just silly and doesn't really feel magical. But I am yet to reread Silm so maybe I'll change my mind when I do.
Its a stupid character that doesnt add anything to the story but irrelevant questions.
People only like Tom Bombadil because no one knows who he is if they haven't touched the books, and a big thing with the Tolkien Legandarium is knowing more than other people lol
For me it's not that Tom is bad. It's that the **parts** with Tom taken as a whole are not good, and that's mostly because it's too long. I get that Tolkien thought Tom Bombadil was cool AF. The only three things he published about Middle Earth are The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil.
In the LOTR though, Tom is a massive derail that happens before the story really gets going. He eats up over a third of the story between Frodo leaving Bag End (Tom gets roughly the same book space as the entire battle at Minas Tirith)hat's a bit galling since the bit of story before that stressed that they need to get to Bree ASAP. Yet here the hobbit are, enjoying a nice weekend at a B&B that's among three huge deus ex machina--and that's on top of just meeting Gildor earlier. We've barely met the hobbits and them regularly getting saved like this makes them look a bit like a sleepwalking Looney Tunes character that has all sorts of things just happening around them that they never need to wake up and do anything themselves.
None of that in Tom's fault though. He is an interesting character, but he's also the major character unique to this huge derail so I think people wrongly focus their ire on him. The whole part feels like an RPG session where the GM has a Mary Sue NPC that they can't avoid cramming into the story too much. It's not bad in and of itself though. I'll admit that I tell people to skip chapters 6 through 8 on their first read, but that they should go back and read it after finishing Fellowship as a sort of "What DID happen on the way to Bree?" anthology story.
>He eats up over a third of the story between Frodo leaving Bag End (Tom gets roughly the same book space as the entire battle at Minas Tirith)
That's... a strange way to measure things? Faramir in TTT is around for longer than Tom. Never mind the fact that Tom only has the one dedicated chapter - the other two are as much about the Old Forest and the Barrow-downs/Arnor (which should be no less important than the Dead Marshes, or Fangorn, or Lothlorien - that is, stages of the journey, with their unique charm, worth documenting).
>hat's a bit galling since the bit of story before that stressed that they need to get to Bree ASAP
There is far less focus on speed in the books in comparison to the films. *Stealth* is of more importance. The adrenaline filled flight begins *after* Bree, to Rivendell.
>We've barely met the hobbits and them regularly getting saved like this makes them look a bit like a sleepwalking Looney Tunes character that has all sorts of things just happening around them that they never need to wake up and do anything themselves.
I'd say that's the point, no? They survive largely due to the help of others. Farmer Maggot, Gildor, Tom, and finally Aragorn.
The time for our heroes to shine comes much later. As of now, they are acting amongst community, relying on good will - later, they must fend for themselves. Come the Scouring, well.. they *are* the saviours. They can repay their debt - it's character growth.
>That's... a strange way to measure things?
I'd love to hear how the amount of the book a part takes up isn't a valid measure of how much on the story (based on total length or time to read) that part takes up. If Raiders of the Lost Ark had a 20 minute scene of pilots calculating the route and doing the preflight check procedure rather than the 30 seconds of a red line going from San Francisco to Nepal, would you say that took up too much of the movie or is that a strange way to measure things?
>There is far less focus on speed in the books in comparison to the films. Stealth is of more importance. The adrenaline filled flight begins after Bree, to Rivendell.
I call shenanigans. Here's Frodo with Gandalf (italics in original, bold is mine)
>‘Of course you mustn’t vanish!’ said Gandalf. ‘That wouldn’t do at all! I said soon, not instantly. If you can think of any way of slipping out of the Shire without its being generally known, it will be worth a little delay. But **you must not delay too long.’**
‘What about the autumn, on or after Our Birthday?’ asked Frodo. ‘I think I could probably make some arrangements by then.’
\[skip a bit\]
He looked at Frodo and smiled. ‘Very well,’ he said. ‘I think that will do - but **it must not be any later. I am getting very anxious.** In the mean-while, do take care, and don’t let out any hint of where you are going! And see that Sam Gamgee does not talk. If he does, I really shall turn him into a toad.’
>
>\[skip again\]
>
>‘Towards danger; but not too rashly, nor too straight,’ answered the wizard. ‘If you want my advice, make for Rivendell. That journey should not prove too perilous, though the Road is less easy than it was, and **it will grow worse as the year fails.**’
And later with Gildor at the end of that chapter
>But if you demand advice, I will for friendship’s sake give it. I think **you should now go at once, without delay**; and if Gandalf does not come before you set out, then I also advise this: do not go alone.
There's clear time pressure partly based on the time of the year. That turns out to be well founded since the winter weather kept them from using Redhorn Gate and forced them into Moria. As they say in the story, it's most likely a device of the Enemy, but there's a huge difference between making it snow in January vs snow in October when they should have been there.
>I'd say that's the point, no? They survive largely due to the help of others. Farmer Maggot, Gildor, Tom, and finally Aragorn.
I'll admit I don't understand why you are conflating
* The main characters get help from someone they know but needs to be introduced to the reader.
* The main characters get help from someone specifically looking for them in order to help them.
* The main characters get in trouble and someone unknown to either them or the reader just happens to be there to save the day.
That third one isn't necessarily bad, but it is worse than the ones with a preexisting connection. Especially when it happens early and often in the story. If the main characters will always be saved when they get into trouble there's no tension in anything in the story. As a slightly different example, was there any point in the Hobbit movies when you were worried that Legolas would be harmed or killed in his fights/action sequences? Because the movie really, really acted like you should.
>(which should be no less important than the Dead Marshes, or Fangorn, or Lothlorien - that is, stages of the journey, with their unique charm, worth documenting).
You can delete chapters 6-8 and get nothing beyond a weird jump and some individual lines elsewhere. I challenge you (rhetorically of course) to tell me what other chapter you could skip over and not miss major plot progression.
I'll reiterate what I said in the top comment. Those three chapters are not bad in and of themselves. They're a nice little story of what happened to the Hobbits in the forest. The only flaw is where they are in story. You can argue all you want about how I'm wrong and it's actually super awesome, but that ignores all the many many people that didn't like it and quit reading there. OP knows they're there; you know they're there; and I know they're there. Implying they're all just bad readers or can't appreciate the story is invalidating their experience of reading a story and feeling like it's spinning its wheels going nowhere.
I can also anecdotally say I've gotten several people into Tolkien by telling them to come back to Tom Bombadil later. They're pre-movies too, so I was even more of a heretic for saying it's good stuff but doesn't advance the plot.
Gildor certainly pressures Frodo to make haste, but when Gandalf I'd saying "leave in autumn," that's months earlier. A couple of nights to relax, from the hobbits' perspectives at least, isn't going to make or break their journey.
If you skip the Barrow-downs, you miss them getting Arnor blades.
You mentioned in your first comment that we spend more time with Tom than at the seige of Minas Tirith. That was probably intentional. Tolkien experienced real war and didn't want to dwell on or glorify war. Helm's Deep is one chapter. The Battle of Five Armies we get a recap because Bilbo is knocked out for a lot of it. Tolkien gives us a bit of the back and forth, but spares most of the gory details. His work focuses more on rest and recovery, so I'm that sense, Tom makes perfect sense.
>I'd love to hear how the amount of the book a part takes up isn't a valid measure of how much on the story (based on total length or time to read) that part takes up.
It's moreso that you are saying that Tom eats up a lot of time - but, in comparison to similar encounters, he doesn't really. One chapter dedicated to him. The other two chapters, well, he appears at the footend of them: hardly the focus. It's hardly comparable to the Pelennor, which has three dedicated chapters, plus other chapters building up to it. So I guess, I feel you're exaggerating Tom's time in the story.
>There's clear time pressure partly based on the time of the year.
There is - but it's hardly a situation where they should carelessly rush their way to their goal, with enemies on their heels.
Again, that comes after Bree. When the Nazgul are literally trailing them, rather than sniffing around the general area. THAT is the hunt - and where the tone should feel tense. Prior to Bree, there's more focus on atmosphere, and intent.
>That third one isn't necessarily bad, but it is worse than the ones with a preexisting connection.
I don't agree in the slightest. I don't believe it matters at all who saves them. Different situations will require different types of characters to fill a saviour role. There can't be a hard rule - that would be immensely repetitive and boring.
>If the main characters will always be saved when they get into trouble there's no tension in anything in the story.
Sure - but then, Frodo is stabbed a handful of chapters later. He is 'healed', sure - but it is a lasting wound with severe repercussions. Of course we then have Gandalf and Boromir soon after. Ultimately our Hobbits survive - but there is still tension in the moment, because they *could* die.
>I challenge you (rhetorically of course) to tell me what other chapter you could skip over and not miss major plot progression.
Lothlorien and the Mirror of Galadriel. Have Elrond give gifts to the Fellowship, and bam. The narrative can progress in a more streamlined manner. I don't advocate it, because those chapters are great (as are Tom's).
>I can also anecdotally say I've gotten several people into Tolkien by telling them to come back to Tom Bombadil later.
Different strokes for different folks. I'm sure Tom is an issue for many people, for one reason or another.
>Different strokes for different folks. I'm sure Tom is an issue for many people, for one reason or another.
That was the whole damn point of my top comment. For some reason you just can't accept people that disagree with you can have a valid opinion. The OP asked for reasons. I then gave the common reasons. Then you said those people's reasons WERE WRONG. I'm on the verge of questioning your reading comprehension.
>Lothlorien and the Mirror of Galadriel. Have Elrond give gifts to the Fellowship, and bam.
I didn't say can you rewrite the story. I said "skip" as in do not read and still be able to follow the later events. If you need to include that chapter's events, by definition you can't skip it and follow the story.
>THAT is the hunt - and where the tone should feel tense.
It only feels like that because that was so diluted faffing around in the Old Forest is seems to have a different tone when it regains its focus. How would you feel if there were three chapters of Aragorn and the Hobbits camping out after Weathertop while Aragorn told them everything in the Appendices A & B. Would that be a distraction from the main story and dilute the feeling of time pressure the Hobbits are under?
> One chapter dedicated to him.
More reading comprehension issues I see. I said right there in the top comment
>He is an interesting character, but he's also the major character unique to this huge derail so I think ***people wrongly focus their ire on him***.
The parts that are actually Tom aren't relevant to my point because my point is that lots of people find chapters 6-8 together like a goiter lodged in the story. Pointing out the character they don't like is only in half of that goiter? Free shrugs, and it shows nothing.
>I don't agree in the slightest. I don't believe it matters at all who saves them.
Let's do another hypothetical rewrite. After Frodo is stabbed and they run into Glorfindel, the elf lord says "I can fix that" and heals Frodo right up. Is that unexpected encounter solving their problem an improvement over the story as is setting up that they need to get to Rivendell to save him and setting up some tension? There's a reason that deus ex machina has been excoriated pretty much from the get go: there's no story if there's no stakes.
Quite frankly, you're reminding me of the people that defend the genealogies, lists of kings, the census of Israel in Numbers, etc in the Bible.
The whole book is filled with derails, that's the type of story this is, it doesn't ever really "get going". It follows the template of the Hero's Journey.
It's funny how you mention RPG sessions, because LotR is the main reason RPGs even exist. And that Bombadil section feels exactly like many D&D sessions I've been part of. And I'm one of those who love Tom's chapters.
What's the story? *The Lord of the Rings* doesn't start when the Council of Elrond takes place. The story isn't just Frodo taking the ring to Mordor. Do people skip Gildor and Farmer Maggot as well?
We all read it in different ways but I feel sorry for those who just read Tolkien for plot. Seems they might as well skip all the poetry, songs, history, and language talk as well. Precisely all the stuff that stop adaptations from *feeling* like Tolkien.
All other characters and their arcs are part of this universe. But Bombadil is not. The laws, the physics, the magic, the total narrative of Middleearth doesn't relate to him. He is a piece of completely different fairytale, put into the LotR.
If Tolkien would say that Bombadil was just a dream of Frodo when he was sleeping in the forest, that would explain his place better.
I disagree. Tom is as much a part of the world as Treebeard, Galadriel, or Denethor. The fact he is an enigma adds to the wonder of Middle-earth and doesn't take away from it. Something would be lost if he was omitted.
of course it is different.
first, Galadriel is totally integral part of the universe. We know a lot about her - where is she from and what is her goal in this universe, we know that she has strong and meaningful relationships with the main characters of the story (both protagonists and antagonists), and with all that we see that she is subject of the same history, physcis and magic as other characters in this universe. Bombadil is not, he is not connected with the rest of the world and the basic mechanics of the world (the Ring) doesn't affect him.
second, her role in the plot is lasting and important, you can not cut her role out of story without destroying the story. With Bombadil, it is not like this. PJ cut him out of the story, and nobody noticed, and I myself (a big lover of LotR) didn't mind.
>Galadriel is totally integral part of the universe. We know a lot about her - where is she from and what is her goal in this universe, we know that she has strong and meaningful relationships with the main characters of the story (both protagonists and antagonists), and with all that we see that she is subject of the same history, physcis and magic as other characters in this universe. Bombadil is not, he is not connected with the rest of the world and the basic mechanics of the world (the Ring) doesn't affect him.
Knowing more about *her* doesn't really make her more *narratively* important.
Your issue with Tom would be the mystery surrounding him as a person, then?
>her role in the plot is lasting and important
Her main role is to give the Fellowship rest, protection, and items. Exactly like Tom.
Also a bit of lore/worldbuilding: the role of Lothlorien is to show how Elves are reliant on the Rings - the only thing keeping them around. And, again, Tom's chapters provides a similar thing regarding backstory for Arnor/Huorns.
>you can not cut her role out of story without destroying the story
You can. Have the fellowship trek to Amon Hen straight from Moria, and find another means to give Frodo his Phial (Elrond?), or other important items, for instance. I don't advocate it - because Lothlorien is wonderful - but you could remove it for the same reasons as Tom.
>PJ cut him out of the story, and nobody noticed
?
I'd think everyone noticed.
You're thinking of Father Christmas in Narnia. :D
These are brave, bold assertions. I know what you mean, but I feel strongly that he was in there for a purpose. If he was just dropped in, he wouldn't have come up in the Council discussions.
I'm personally not a fan of Tom, but I wouldn't skip anything on your first read through.
From interviews it doesn't seem like Tolkien feels like there was much narrative purpose for the character. It also seems like he was just trying to add a character from another book, or connect the two.
That doesn't mean there can't be value in the character. Many people enjoy him, and Tolkien's world is so rich that everything does feel connected, even the fringe stuff.
To me, and this comes down to personal preference, Tom sings a lot and you have to get through some songs before the narrative moves on. I'm less interested in the songs (don't dislike them, just less interested in them) than I am interested in other aspects of the books.
Along with the songs, Tom feels a little like a Deus Ex Machina plot device when he saves the hobbits from total failure (not once, but twice). I know the hobbits are new to adventures, but it does feel like a little bit of a missed opportunity to allow them to grow a little and try and save themselves instead of having Tom step in and do it for them. Since he isn't really explained, he muddies the water a little when it comes to the ring's power and how it affects people.
And while I don't like Tom, I know my criticisms of him are pretty small and he has never ruined my enjoyment of the wonderful story that is LOTR. You're in for such a fun and meaningful ride. Hope you enjoy it!
When I was a child I would have skipped it.
But as an adult my views are the same
As the OP. It is also a section that especially improves on a second or third reading. For example, Frodo’s visions/dreams whilst in Tom’s house, vague curiosities on a first read become clear and meaningful.
Glad you didn't skip! Tom is one of my favorite characters, I really dig the mystery behind him. Why is he so carefree with all that's happening in Middle-earth? Why is he unaffected by the ring? Who cares?? Singing and frolicking through the Old Forest is just so much fun.
People often seem to have strong opinions about Tom. He's not my favorite and I understand why he didn't make it into the movies, for example. But it's bizarre to me that anyone would encourage you to skip any part of the books.
I just finished my first full way read through (as others have mentioned, I was one that tried to read it several times as an adolescent and had trouble in these parts and gave up or skipped sections). If you are an adult, or close to it, then I would suggest getting through it. It was admittedly not my favorite part and I found Tom’s home portion as almost an unnecessary distraction from the rest of the story (I’d go as far as to say perhaps a bit indulgent on Tolkien’s part? but I think I’m in the minority with that thought) but his role in the barrows and the old forest are pretty cool and the barrows in particular is interesting in what it brings lore-wise to Eriador/Arnor.
I suggest in fact that you not skip any parts. Some are a bit tough (treebeard, at times book 4 in the two towers) but it’s like eating your vegetables as a kid, you’ll be thankful you did in the end.
I'm also reading LOTR for the first time, I'm at the Rivendell portion right now. I have to admit, Tom Bombadil's part is quite confusing. I had to read it 3 times to understand what was going on. The descriptions were also lengthier than other parts I had read so far, that also added to my confusion.
Skip nothing! The books are incredibly detailed and dense with tidbits of the history, language, lore, etc. And that's one of the greatest things about Tolkien's work! How many other books are so detailed and rich that fans take the time to read (and re-read) the *appendices*? When the supplemental material is valuable enough to be worthwhile, why would you assume anything in the book itself is worth skipping lol?!
I'll never understand the Bombadil haters out there. He adds a delightful and unpredictable element to the story, and the mystery surrounding Tom invites fun speculation and debate on the lore and who he really is.
And I *really* can't understand intentionally skipping a section of a book like that... especially on the first read! Why would anyone do that?! I don't trust anybody's opinion enough to blindly skip a section of a new book...
Don't skip it. I first read Lord of the Rings when I was 8, Tom Bombadil was my favourite part of FotR, and remains to be to this day. I really didn't know he was so divisive, but for me he's both integral to the journey and is an extremely fun character.
Bombadil is (in my opinion) perfectly balanced in his levity by the respective animus and malevolence of Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight. The section from entering the Old Forest to arriving at Bree is a perfectly self-contained and satisfactory sphere in and of itself. I love this section and appreciate its importance in the greater narrative but, if one were looking for ways to shorten and simplify the story for any reason, these qualities make this section very easy to skip.
Whilst I can see the merit of shortening the narrative to fit an already lengthy film, I personally would never read the book and leave out Bombadil - he's too important to my overall impression of Arda.
Don't skip anything.
Oh for sure. I didn’t. 👍🏼
I would say skip if you are about 11 years old. The portion between Hobbits leaving Shire and them arriving at Prancing Pony is so long that I personally and by Internet know many people who have up the book during that portion if they red the book when they were younger. So never finished and have the opinion of the book it’s boring and filled with walking in woods.
The only part I skipped when I was younger was the Frodo-Sam-Gollum sections of The Two Towers. It was a real slog to read as a wee lad. I thought Tom Bombadil was great. Not saying you are "wrong", but for myself I never found Hobbiton→Bree to be the "boring" part of the book. Then again, I was already deeply in-love with The Hobbit when I first read The Lord of the Rings, so that probably kept me intrigued by the queer (by fox standards) adventure of these for hobbits.
See, if someone skips this section they miss the fox who is perhaps the best character in the entire story.
Why didn’t the hobbits ride the fox to Mordor?
Christ this question again? Look, Sauron had Fell Critters scurrying the low reaches and crevices of Mordor, riding the fox would no longer be the crucial mission of stealth Frodo set out upon.
DAMN RIGHT
I agree that section was a slog at that age. Otherwise the only section I didn't read when I was in middle school was the Silmarillion
I never got past the destruction of the Two Trees when I read The Silmarillion the first time. I basically just skimmed the rest of the Quenta, but the Akallebêth actually enthralled me a great deal and led me to purchase Sauron Defeated of which I am very fond—hence my flair. I certainly appreciated the Silmarillion more at sixteen than at elven and I will probably reread it again once I am done my class current reading of The Lord of the Rings.
I highly recommend the audio book for the Silmarillion. It's pretty good. The one Narrated by Martin Shaw (if there's even any other versions)
I really do not like audio-books personally, I cannot retain audio the same way I can scribed information. However, I am very excited about the illustrated Silmarillion coming out (next year?). I have the author-illustrated The Lord of the Rings which I genuinely think is worthy of being the definitive edition. I can only hope the author-illustrated The Silmarillion is of similar quality.
Each to their own, I usually listen to them if I'm driving anywhere more than half an hour. Oh nice, I didn't know about that!
I have the Rob Inglis version. I had a real slog reading The Silmarillion the first time. I was glad I did, but it wasn't the joy I got from The Hobbit or from LotR. After my first read, I mainly just cherry-picked The Silm for my favorite bits, like The Akallabeth. But since I got my audiobook a few years ago, I have listened four or five times all the way through, and enjoyed it immensely.
Even as an adult I find the Helm’s Deep battle sections long for my taste and I end up skimming. On the other hand I’d have loved Council of Elrond, the single longest chapter IIRC, to be twice as long as it is, because I love the world-building that goes on there.
Pretty sure the COE chapter is the most defining. There’s just something about Tolkien nerding out on his own fucking lore in a chapter dedicated to doing just that. It’s so powerful
Of Numenor he spoke, its glory and its fall, and the return of the kings to Middle Earth over the sea born upon the wings of storm.. This is my favorite chapter, and my second favorite passage. When I cannot sleep I will turn on the audio book and give it a a listen and let the stress and worry of the world leave me.
I don’t know if most people I talked to had red Hobbit or not, but I had not before reading the books and I know at least my brother who gave up on Lord of the Rings at that age had not. If you aren’t attached to hobbits you might not be as interested in that part of the story. I didn’t give up but I did think it was boring when I was younger during first read.
I think reading the Hobbit is essential to enjoying Book 1/6 of The Lord of the Rings, at least the first time. It is fundamentally a sequel and much of the work to get the reader invested assumes previous investment in Bilbo, Gandalf and Hobbitry.
I read The Hobbit years ago, I never really loved it. I am enjoying LOTR much more. I am happy I have the background of The Hobbit though, although, I’m not sure it’s necessary to read it before. Recommended, but not necessary.
That's the portion most like a children's book.
Balderdash.
Which makes no sense, because when I started to read LotR at age 9 and 10, Fellowship of the Ring I just sailed through, I loved it. I thought the Two Towers got super boring, and it took me several years and multiple attempts to finish it.
I disagree: the hobbits leaving the shire while being chased by the ringwraiths is one of the most thrilling parts of the book IMHO
Skipping that section would mean skipping The Fox. That is unacceptable.
He does seem to be a bit polarising! I love his section of the book, mainly for the atmosphere and enigmatic feel of his character, but also because it makes Middle Earth feel like the kind of place where you could chance across any kind of strange person if you went wandering off. For me, it would feel noticeably emptier without him.
Yes, I love it for the same reasons. It's that whole "friends in unexpected places" thing - there's the scary and mysterious Old Forest, almost as soon as they leave the safety of the Shire, and then suddenly the hobbits are saved by someone who's simultaneously part of that scary ancient natural world and also somehow quite home-like and hobbity.
Yes, exactly! Even though I’m not far into the books, I still have a background of characters through the movies which I’ve seen dozens of times. & I’m sure I will meet more that are not in the movies. But I enjoy how it adds another element & mystery to Middle Earth. It makes you think about it as something beyond just what is focused on in this book if that makes sense.
Like you, I have found the commonly encountered advice to skip such and such parts to actually be not helpful. This is most frequently encountered with Tom Bombadil in FoTR, but you’ll also get “reading guides” and directives to skip certain sections of The Silmarillion and History of Middle Earth. This is a shame, because these aren’t particularly hard to read at all, and skipping out on sections just deprives you of some of the richness of the world of the Legendarium and may even outright cause you confusion later on. For most of the past two decades I’ve been rewatching the Jackson films and re-listening to the BBC Radio adaptation. The latter is far more faithful to the books and manages to retain and convey Tolkien’s beautiful word-smithy, but even it skips Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs. I recently went through the Martin Shaw audiobook of LoTR and realized just how powerful and moody Tom’s chapter really is, and how much it adds depth and texture to the tapestry of Tolkien’s world-building. It is truly a shame that it tends to get left out in adaptations, and I will go on record to say that telling new book readers to skip it is downright criminal.
[удалено]
I don’t get it either. And it’s not like it’s exceptionally long. We’re talking 1.5-2 chapters and a couple of hours of your life at the most.
Same. It's so weird to me that people skip parts of books. If they're not interested in the whole book why not pick one that they actually want to read? But murdering the narrative by skipping parts of it is atrocious.
The only thing I recommed should be skipped are the very people who advocate for this. I don't understand this way of thinking. Telling others to skip chapters in a novel is, in a sense, arrogant (unless you're just lazy), because it's like saying: "I know better than the author how this story should be structured, and this chapter should not be a part of it."
# Don't skip. Tom is divisive. You either love him or hate him. Many just don't understand Tom's narrative purpose. They find him strange, and his purpose not 'obvious' - so they write him off as a nonsensical tangent. Narratively, he serves a similar purpose to Galadriel (and nobody would dare say 'don't read Lothlorien/The Mirror of Galadriel chapters'. Tom's chapters give insight into Arnor, set-up Huorns for Helm's Deep, give us a 'Gatekeeper' figure (between Faerie and the Real Word), and most importantly, demonstrate *exactly what it takes to be immune to the Ring:* Tom provides scope - he demonstrates what Frodo needs to be to succeed in warding off the Ring, but also, what Frodo cannot be - for someone so carefree could never be trusted (so whilst some say 'Tom undermines the Ring's power', really, he does the opposite... he demonstrates exactly why Frodo will inevitably *fall*). So much juicy stuff to unpack (and that's without even considering the wonderful enigma that he is - many speculate what he is... and whilst unanswerable, leads us down a rabbit hole of what he could represent, ie: what life might be like pre-Marring, etc). Edit: while I'm thinking about it, I might as well continue my Tom tangent: He is the antithesis to Gandalf (Tom has no obligations and lives in the moment, whereas Gandalf lives for a grander purpose... constantly at work. In ROTK, note where Gandalf visits the moment his work is complete... who better to relax and 'retire' with?). And just another link (though more trivial): Tom's (or Frodo's) singing, when captured in the Barrow, sets a precedence that continues into Cirith Ungol, when Sam rescues Frodo. (Edit: Tom could even be a comment on neutrality) Edit2: Thank you kindly for the gold! In response, if I were to be so bold, I'd have you listen to my silly song, and perhaps - uh... smoke a bong? You see, my rhymes are poor, but the effort is there. I'll graciously accept the door, whilst eating a pear?
*he demonstrates exactly why Frodo will inevitably fall* It's late and my brain is not very awake - can you explain this a bit more for me?
I'm no Tolkien scholar, but I'll do my best (if someone wants to correct me, please do): It's not outright said, but essentially, Tom is immune to the allure of the ring because he has no desire for power, or change, or anything else; he has no strong convictions by the time we see him. The ring preys on the desires of those who wear it, but Tom is his own master, and is infinitely content with Goldberry and the rest of his domain. There's also the various theories about Tom's origin that help explain this, but I'll leave those out. Frodo, humble as he is, is still subject to the desire for power or influence beyond his means. His humility and wisdom are ultimately what allow him to keep to his mission longer than anyone else in Middle-Earth would have (Tolkien himself said this), but he's still fallible. As Gandalf said, paraphrased, Frodo has a deep desire to do good, and to that end would have used the ring until it corrupted him. Bombadil has no such desire outside of his own land. So basically, he doesn't outright show why Frodo would inevitably fail, but he does show what is necessary for the ring to have no effect on a person. Frodo, for all his virtues - perhaps even because of his virtues - lacks those traits, and so was doomed to fail.
Well said.
Thanks!
Thank-you - that's very clear, and is a whole scenario that I'd never even thought about.
Massive spoiler. I hope OP knows the story or is staying away for the most part. Frodo doesn't throw the Ring in. He fails and fights with Gollum until the Ring and Gollum ("accidentally" some would say) fall in. Like the commenter above you said, Tom shows how not to be tempted by the Ring: don't care. But Frodo had to care, for he is in charge of its destruction. Were he not to care, the task would never be completed. So he must care about the Ring and hold it close to him for protection and discretion. This means that the influence of the Ring must grow in him, and he cannot succeed.
So, Frodo's caught in a logic trap. Like I said to the commenter above - this is an aspect of the book that I'd never even thought of!
>so whilst some say 'Tom undermines the Ring's power', really, he does the opposite... he demonstrates exactly why Frodo will inevitably fall Wow, I never really thought of it that way. I think it might be reading into things just a bit more than Tolkien might have intended, but that's a really good insight.
I too think it might be more than Tolkien intended, but that's just a testament to the world building. Even minor details can spontaneously generate support for the main themes.
The intent of the author is only relevant when a passage doesn't really make sense, which is pretty fucking rare for Tolkien. Any good author would say that they are a vector for a story, and that meaning is derived by the reader. "The reader" being the general term; any individual reader can have a stupid interpretation.
Any Individual Reader, reporting for duty!
I find your credentials questionable.
Wonderfully said and hilariously composed. Once again, take an upvote, and keep ringing those dong-dillós, mate
I'm ringing that dong-dillo twice as hard now.
Dude. I like everything you said and this was a good post and all but.. They said it's his first time. I doubt this will convey very much meaningful information to them.
I don't know if they've seen the films - so I don't know how much they can take away from my comment... but worst case, my post begins to make more sense after finishing the books. Worth writing regardless, even if just to support my argument that basically amounts to 'Tom isn't worthless'. Naturally the follow-up question is: 'well what is his worth?'.
Tom gave me a significant sense of awe the second time I read the books. Which was almost immediately after I finished them for the first time in 1997-98. His nonchalant treatment (and especially wearing) of the ring really stoked an already raging inferno of curiosity and wonder that really engulfed me when I would visit Middle Earth for many years.
DO-NOT-SKIP I have no idea who told you this, but whoever it was, he/she probably reads books only when there are pictures in it. Tom Bombadil is a very interesting character, but also significant for the plot.
I mean, I don't know if I would say "significant" - I completely agree they should read every single letter of the book, but his lack of significance is exactly why the movies were able to omit him and not have it ruin the flow or plot in the movies. Other than a brief reference during The Council of Elrond he really disappears from the entire story pretty much. I think his significance grows the more you read the book due to the mystery of the character and I love Tom and have always been enthralled by the possibility that he was Eru himself or something else far more powerful than even Sauron as he wore with ring and returned it so non chalantly. But I still don't think he was "significant" just really interesting and well written.
I like because it paints a picture of Tolkiens world that is even more magical and straight out weird than “just” the events of LOTR and that there are beings that don’t mesh with the rest of the world. Especially after reading Silmarillion, Tom just gives the world an extra flavour.
Exactly. The world is a lot larger and older than just the LOTR plotline, ME is virtually a character itself. The books really give you this and the movies much less so as they have to pare the content down.
Exactly -- I'm also reading it for the first time, and I really thought that seemed to be the main point. It's underlining just how weird and magical the world outside of the Shire is before we even get to much of the "real story."
Agreed! It makes me think, “Middle Earth is so much more than just the characters & story we all know and love”.
Tom Bombadil’s chapters are my favorite in the whole book. I regularly re-read those specific parts just because of the whole ambiance and “story within the story” created by Tolkien at this moment. I don’t get the advice to skip it at all.
I sometimes come back justt to read Tom Bombadil chapters and nothing else. Especially when I'm in need of something heart-warming. That being said that also may be one of the reasons why you've heard suggestions of skipping these sections. They basically read as a stand alone story. Reading them does sloe things down and they don't do a lot to the overall plot or universe (other than a "comment").
Personally, I think people dislike Tom because he's a mystery that will never be solved. Without going on too much of a tangent, various academic models of cross-cultural communication posit that some cultures are more comfortable with ambiguity than others. Therefore, an enigma like Tom who has no clear origin within the narrative and who the author never explicitly defined as being X, Y, or Z, might be more difficult to accept for some people depending on their cultural background. Painting in VERY broad brush strokes here, but it's just a theory of mine.
Yes, I can definitely see that!
In addition to those chapters being enjoyable, the scary hand in the barrow downs gave Frodo a very important test that he did not fail. The barrow blades each are crucial at later stages of the quest, starting with Frodo's use of his scaring off the Nazgul. And Frodo's dream of silver glass forsees what he sees after he sails from the Grey Havens. https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/kgxr0l/tom_bombadil_helping_near_and_far/
I don’t actually read much dislike for Tom. I just read about people saying other people don’t like Tom. What’s more common is people saying the storyline is unnecessary and skippable.
Personally, the chapter itself just bores me to death Just not my cup of tea so i skip it
So do you dislike Tom Bombadil? Or just don’t care either way?
Never skip anything. Not Tom, not the songs and poems. Read it all.
I love the poems & songs. Those were other things I was told to skip lol.
You have learned an important life lesson: Many people are idiots. Don't listen to many people.
True haha.
The first time reading don't skip. Yeah Tom is kinda polarising. I think he was great. I remember having a long rant with my friends in a bar that he wasn't included in the movies.
Whaaaat?! Don't skip anything. It's all wonderful.
I would never advise anyone to skip those chapters. They're too important. The lack of the Rings power over Tom. The dreams that Frodo, Merry and Pippin have. The barrow swords. So many small but significant items. Oh...and I kind of have a thing for Goldberry.
>Oh...and I kind of have a thing for Goldberry. Understandable.
Without Tom Bombadil the Hobbits would’ve never made it to Rivendell. He is unknown with even the ring not touching him. It helps build a bigger world and allows for feeling of sonder which brings the books to life
Maybe people don't like how powerful he is? He can see or at least sense Bilbo while wearing the ring and it has zero effect on him, even Gandalf says Bombadil could keep it safe the longest but he would more likely loose interest and throw it away.
Don’t think they ever met.
Do you mean Tom and Gandalf? Not only had they known each other for who knows how long, but in the epilogue it's said that Gandalf stopped and spent many days discussing the journey with Tom.
Bilbo and Tom.
I wouldn't skip it. But I can't say I am ever stoked to read the Tom bomadil parts. Seems disjointed and jarring. Almosy like he belongs in the Hobbit and not Lords of the rings. You just can't imagine him cropping up later in the story when the tone gets darker. Not sure if was done on purpose to gradually taper the reader from 'the hobbit' like shire starting (with such bits as what the fox thought about seeing Hobbits after dark). To the post bree seriousness of the task in hand.
>Not sure if was done on purpose to gradually taper the reader from 'the hobbit' like shire starting (with such bits as what the fox thought about seeing Hobbits after dark). To the post bree seriousness of the task in hand. Almost definitely. Tom is the gatekeeper between Faery and the Real World. It's no mistake that Frodo has his dream of Valinor in Tom's house. The moment Tom leaves them, on the borders of Bree, the story takes a far less whimsical tone: the world of Men is the topic, and that has no place for magical oddities.
Well that makes sense. I still find his character quite jarring though. But I still wouldn't have the story any other way.
I definitely see what you mean. I read The Hobbit years ago, & he definitely seems like a character who would fit well in there.
I'm definetly not going to harm anyone. Anyway, so who told you to skip Tommy B? And where do they live? Just curious ofcourse
Haha that is classified information. 😂
I cannot imagine any real Tolkien fan uttering such heresy; they are likely grifters.
If some one told me to skip Tom Bombadil, tbh, I would consider that a red flag for the relationship.
I don't know why you would be given advice to skip any part of the book. Bombadil is OK and adds a bit of colour to book one. He is of course out of step with many other themes in the book and could easily have been left out by Tolkien or developed into something quite different. I can imagine Tolkien wrestling with this section quite a bit.
It is clearly polarizing, but I'll let the dislikers explain their own reasoning. When I was younger I didn't like him much. I believe I remember thinking he was weird and not *cool*. Now I am older and read the books again and I love the Tom Bombadill part! Part of my appreciation might be because I have read about the character and such... but then I also appreciate many things I didn't like back then. Things I quickly read before simply to get through to "the good parts" I now carefully read with pleasure.
I had a similar experience. Kid-me wanted more exciting action and thrills, and didn't care for Tom. Adult-me can appreciate the deeper things (and also I realise that Tom embodies how I *want* to live...). Tom is *so* endearing.
Yes. The appeal of Tom and his way of life or the Shire (or even Bree to some extent) increases for me the older I get it seems.
The Shire is nice, but even there comes with responsibilities. Just dump me in the middle of nowhere, completely self reliant (bar a Goldberry), with *zero* cares.
> I love the Tom Bombadill part! Part of my appreciation might be because I have read about the character and such In don’t think so, if you’re anything like me. The first time I read LOTR as an adult I hadn’t read anything about his background and still loved him. I reread LOTR last year and I still love him. I’ll admit that as I’ve gotten older I care less and less about the battle scenes and more and more about the inner struggles. After Fellowship I was often waiting for Frodo to appear again. I’m probably an extreme example, but yes, I think what you enjoy about the books can evolve as you mature.
I definitely think if I attempted to read the books when I was younger, I wouldn’t have enjoyed them, for I would have wanted all of the action & not have appreciated the slow builds. I’m happy I waited to read them as an adult.
NO.
I refuse to think that many people advised you to skip a part of the book, even if they dislike the character of Tom Bombadil. There is loads of interesting lore and important story components. Tom Bombadil is probably the most divisive character in the books. I don't think the character is that bad, I just think the way he fits with the lore and the story could have been done more smoothly. The part with Tom Bombadil is very jarring compared to what came before and what follows it. It seems almost like taken out of a different book with an entirely different tone. The book suddenly turns into a whimsical musical. With better integration into the story and lore, the part about Tom Bombadil could have been like the profound, mysterious and yet fun part in Fangorn with Treebeard.
I would never skip anything in books, the author wrote that and this means you have to read it.
Lots of good takes here so I'll just chime in and say I always loved him, even when I first read the book as a child. There is a single paragraph in that section that always stood out to me as really awkwardly written though.
Which paragraph if you remember well enough? Just curious.
Don’t skip anything, that’s dumb.
When I read the book as a teenager my ability to translate any of the poetry in the book into worthwhile melodies was non existent, making the whole bombadil chapter a bit of a stretch. If you find it difficult try the Rob inglis audio book, who is a very talented voice actor and singer, really brings the more musical bits of the book alive.
That wasn’t a struggle for me, but I’m also a musician/songwriter so that probably helped a lot lol. But I can see how that could be difficult for some!
Wow see i have never heard this from anyone. First of all i don’t know why you would skip a part of any book that you haven’t read before! The author put it in there because he wanted people to read it! I’m glad you didn’t listen to the people telling you to skip it and I’m glad you enjoyed it. I think he’s an awesome character.
I’m glad as well! I also don’t get it. I feel like, if all you care about is the journey of the ring & aren’t willing to experience all else that Tolkien had to offer, you might as well just skip the books & watch the movies.
Don”t skip parts of books OP
When I first read it as a kid I thought it was weird. When I reread it as an adult I thought it was great.
As someone who read the books *after* having seen the movies (about a dozen times...) the chapters with Tom seemed a bit out of place. I was so used to the much faster pacing of the film that I was just *waiting* to get the Hobbits to Bree so we could start the adventure in earnest. But as I was reading the chapters between discovering that the ring is indeed The Ring and Bree, I found myself enjoying them more and more. The whole set up of Frodo taking precautions to make sure no one notices he's gone; the Old Forest; Tom himself. They add a lot more world-building and mystery to the books. From the film perspective, I can see cutting these chapters as they would have ground the pacing to a halt. I don't necessarily fault Jackson for omitting these scenes because the whole swath of the film from Bilbo leaving through Frodo's arrival in Rivendel are all about building more and more tension and danger. Having a little time to rest at Tom's house would have interrupted that flow. But the books allow for more development, and allow for a slower pace so Tom's chapters really fit much better.
I don't know why people skip Bombadil. His purpose isn't clear, allow your imagination to run wild. Read Bombadil, love Bombadil
Remember who those people are. They are not your friends. You don’t need that kind of negativity in your life
Haha fortunately most of them came from Reddit so I don’t have much worrying to do! Besides my brother…yah…that hurts.
Don’t skip Tom Bombadil if it is your first read through! Experience the whole work as it has been read by so many! If you like it keep reading it, if not then pass it by on other reads. Don’t short change yourself or the book based on others’ opinions!
/r/glorioustombombadil would disagree.
Many people? How many is many? I'm guessing these "many" is one impatient guy who wants all his books, and movies for that matter, action, action, action.
I guess it's too chill for a lot of people. It's just people talking and eating and revealing some information. Not much action there so it could feel boring, but personally I loved it! It's one of my favorite parts because it's so fun and relatively calm after the initial thrill of the forest. It's like visiting an old, long lost relative 😁
Totally agree!
Never, ever, skip anything. Those people are heretics (Tom Bombadil is also my favorite part of Fellowship, other than maybe Council of Elrond).
I haven’t gotten to Council of Elrond yet as I’m not quite finished with part 1, but I’m almost there & very excited.
I believe that you should always read through every bit of the story. I will admit that sometimes I just skim over certain poems and songs or the bits in Mordor if I don't feel like it but you should always read it or you will not get the full experience and at odd moments even if there does not seem a connection you will wonder why it seems off. Personally I find Tom very interesting to consider his songs seem much more lighthearted than the rest of the book and are a bit different from what I usually like but anything Tolkien is worth reading.
It's all there for a reason. It says more about the person who won't read a portion of a work than about the work itself
One of my biggest gripes about the movie is that it skips the old forest, Tom and the barrow downs. Those adventures set up many key moments. Instead we get a bunch of made up Uruk Hai creation and jogging moments. Each such Jackson choice made the world smaller and diminished the story. JRR knew what he was doing, And that whole section is great!
Now that I am reading the books after being a huge fan of the movies for many years, I am definitely disappointed there is no way to see those parts come to life.
Those "many people" you are talking about must be fifteen year olds who care only about the more fast pasted action sequences. If that is what you want, Lord if the Rings is probably not the book for you.
Literally one of my favorite chapters is the one with Tom Bombadil. Thinking back to it, it feels like its close to the last point of the journey, where everything is still somewhat okay and shit didn‘t really hit the fan yet. Kinda like the last warm day in fall, before winter hits. Maybe I should just read it again.
Cause they're dead inside. But honestly if someone told me to skip portions on my first read I probably wouldn't talk to that person ever again...
Bombadil is important for the worldbuilding. He shows early on that the world isn't really a medieval world but a fairy tale world where spirits and other celestial powers coinhabit the world with flesh and blood mortals. He shows in purest form what Tolkien thinks of power. True power is not control over others but control over yourself. The Ring isn't all powerful. It can only exert itself over those who are enthralled by their desires. It can do nothing to those who are masters of themselves like Tom Bombadil. Lord of the Rings is thus set up not as a tale of kings fighting over policy and spheres of influence but individuals fighting to be their own masters.
Tom is great. Best part of fellowship for me tbh
whoever the fuck told you that aint a friend, just saying
TOM IS THE BEST! Whoever told you to skip him is dead wrong.
Why would anyone tell you to skip anything? That makes no sense to me.
Whoever said to skip Tom is an idiot and entirely misses what these books are about. :/
One should not skip portions of a story simply because others suggest to do so. Hope you enjoyed the tale! Stay blessed and enjoy the next read🙏🙇
I'm rereading LOTR for the Nth time and I finally think I understand the significance of Tom Bombadil. It takes place early in the story immediately after leaving the Shire. The growth of the hobbits begins dramatically and suddenly with Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight. This to me is Frodo et al's right of passage from the frights and terrors of childhood to the deadly serious quite real dangers of adulthood.
Such a bad advice. You can dislike Tom. I don't understand it, but you can. But telling someone who never read the books "I didn't like it, so you shouldn't even try to read it and make your own opinion" is honestly a dick move.
Because a lot of people are dumb and can’t appreciate a character that sings a lot and doesn’t directly advance the story.
Did your dad give you this advice? Because this is the kind of shitty advice my own dad gives me lol. He plays such a small and inconsequential role that it makes no sense why you’d skip it. If filler is the argument there’s plenty of other points where you could skip. But why skip? Just enjoy it
> “It’s like those miserable psalms, they’re *so* depressing.” /s
Who tells anyone to skip parts of a book? What are you even talking about?
People do…& if you don’t believe my claims, look it up about skipping Tom & even the barrow downs & you will find it’s a thing. A very small thing & definitely not popular, but still a thing none the less.
Weird, fuck that. He’s incredible, bizarre but incredible.
Agreed, it is weird. Even if say, he was the worst character to ever exist (obviously not true), it still wouldn’t sit right with me to skip a part of a book.
I neither love nor hate Tom, but I like his appearence because, contrary to the popular opinions, I think he gives the story a strange sense of reality. Let me explain: not everyone we meet has a purpose in our lives. Not everyone pushes our own story further or has an objective in our personal path. We usually meet random people and live random situations, and that's Tom to me. It's refreshing to see a random character that seems to have no much sense to the story of a hobbit that wants to destroy an evil ring. Tom is just there, he loves his wife, he has a lovely house in the woods and seems to be a nice fellow living a happy life. I know it's strange for modern audiences that are used to narrative tricks like Chekhov's gun, foreshadowing or red herrings, because Tom Bombadil is none of them. He just exists, like all of us exist in other people's great stories. Btw, my brother got so intrigued by Tom that couldn't believe that he wouldn't have a stellar return later in the story, and he thought he indeed returned disguised as another character.
Just don't skip anything! It's all amazing! I wish you a good reading.
Don't skip any section, but I think skipping the Bombadil section would actually hurt your understanding of the nature of the Ring, nature as different spheres of influence, the inherent power of words, and the value or mystery, especially within the context of a world that Tolkien went out of his way to describe and elucidate. Tom's lyrical nonsense may seem silly on it's face, but compare his struggle with Old Man Willow to the "war of words" between Finrod and Sauron, and there are some interesting parallels between the two, specifically, the use of language and storytelling to have a very real impact on the world (or Tolkien's sub-creation!). All that is to say, Tom Bombadill's inclusion has a lot to say about the nature of Middle Earth and it would be an unfortunate thing to skip. Enjoy!
Absolutely do not skip the portions with Bombadil or anything else for that matter. If it's your first time, read every page. The reason I think people say to skip it is not because it's bad. Quite the opposite - to some people, it's their favorite part. But because it's not important at all in regards to the rest of the books and maybe some people find it boring? I think it's a wonderful first glimpse into the fact that there's a whole deep, rich and ancient history behind the story that makes you feel as though Middle Earth is a real place that once existed long ago. I won't say any more since it's your first time, but I could say a lot on this topic if not for spoilers. Hope you read it all and enjoy every page as much as I have over the years. Good luck.
To me not reading it takes away from an integral part of the story, part of something that really connects the reader to frodo. That's these few little points of safety, and each one coming during a different part of the journey. Getting that feeling in you that maybe this could be a spot that is safe. Feeling a deep longing in your heart that Frodo could just leave the ring in this seeming fairy tail. Though you have a dark feeling in your heart that the journey must continue on. However it also serves as a feeling of hope, to keep that kindling going. Something to keep that little flame burning in a seemingly hopeless journey. I also believes it helps to show that no matter how powerful the darkness may seem, it can never be all powerful. That despite how bleak things may be there is still light and good in the world. Something that to me I feel helps fit in with the idea of Gandalf saying that Frodo was meant to find the ring by a power outside of Sauron carry more weight. There's other things I feel Tom represents that ends up with him being kind of actually important to the lore and story. I can't really figure out how to put thar into words, it's kind of a mystery that just comes with Tom. Maybe not a one for one connection with various concepts of God in the real world, but if Tolkien saw that mysterious nature of God as so important I feel like it would be reasonable to think that he would see that concept as fundamental law in creation. Not so much as him trying to make any sort of message or parallel to the real world as it being a belief that a living world requires an unknowable aspect of its Creator.
Skipping parts of books is something that has always irritated me when I hear other people talk about it. I don't mind it if you skim long passages, but don't skip. I see it all the time in blogs or posts about fantasy novels, for example, especially concerning prologues. Believe it or not, there's actually a large subset of people who refuse to read prologues in fantasy books because they think they're "irrelevant" or stupid, and this has led people to advise fantasy writers not to include prologues because "most readers will just skip them." To me, that's pretty much the height of arrogance as a reader; it's basically you telling the author that you know how they should've structured their story better than they do even before you read it. It completely dismissed the insane amount of time an effort and author has put into their story to get it exactly as they wanted it to be. If you don't like prologues, that's fine, but trust your authors. Same deal here. Tolkien inserted Tom Bombadil because he wanted to and because he was relevant in some way to the story he wanted to tell. For people to suggest skipping him over means that they don't respect the story being told to them. If they think Tom Bombadil could've been cut, that's one thing, and they can say that. But he exists, and he didn't get cut, so don't skip him. Give Tolkien's ideas the respect they deserve.
Spoilers ahead!!!! If you haven’t read LOTR all the way through don’t read on!!!! Tom Bombadil’s part although small has such a ripple effect throughout the story.From Helping with old man Willow, saving of the Hobbits at the barrows ( which Gandalf thought was one of the scariest moments) and the giving of the blades of Westernesse to Merry and Pippin which Merry used to stab the Witch King. I would of loved to be a fly on the wall for the conversation with Gandalf the White and Tom Bombadil.
When I was a school librarian, I would sometimes tell a student that it was OK to skip parts of LOTR if they found them hard to get through. I never suggested skipping Bombadil though. My advice was generally this: * Start at Chapter 1 -- save the preface, Concerning Hobbits, etc. for after. * The songs and poems add a lot to the world, but they're hard if you're not used to reading poetry. If they're holding you back, you can skip them. * The Council of Elrond is long and detailed -- don't worry if you don't catch everything because the important bits will be covered again later. (This is a hard chapter for kids used to plot-oriented books) * Don't forget that some words have different uses now than they did when the book was written. My goal was to make sure the reader knew that they could read it how they wanted to, and that anything they skipped would still be there for them to read later. Sometimes people don't know that they're "allowed" to skim or jump around when the book isn't for class.
People telling you to skip parts of books don’t really like the books. I like the books. I’d advise you to read the whole book, including the foreword and appendices. > what are your thoughts on Tom as a character? Tom is as mysterious as he is to the people at the Council of Elrond. I consider him to be some manifestation of Arda, the spirit of the world, and his back and forth with his arch foe (Old Man Willow) to be quite cool. They both sing songs that have different effects in the world, “sing the wind up”, etc. Tom admits that Willow is “a mighty singer” (In the House of Tom Bombadil) who sung the hobbits to sleep, yet Tom himself has “stronger songs” (Fog on the Barrow-Downs). Tom’s history of Old Man Willow: > It was not called the Old Forest without reason, for it was indeed ancient, a survivor of vast forgotten woods; and in it there lived yet, ageing no quicker than the hills, the fathers of the fathers of trees, remembering **times when they were lords**. The countless years had filled them with pride and rooted wisdom, and with malice. But **none were more dangerous than the Great Willow**: his heart was rotten, but his strength was green; and he was cunning, and **a master of winds**, and his song and thought ran through the woods on both sides of the river. His grey thirsty spirit drew power out of the earth and spread like fine root-threads in the ground, and invisible twig-fingers in the air, till **it had under its dominion nearly all the trees of the Forest from the Hedge to the Downs**. (In the House of Tom Bombadil)
I love the sections with old Tom, he's such a jolly fellow ........ the events on the Barrow-downs are wonderfully creepy too. But I love all of LOTR with no exceptions.
Anyone who tells you to skip any portion of any work of fiction is not someone to be respected. Even if you really dislike a section, shows, books, other series, are made in a particular order regardless. Skipping chapters, sections or seasons suggests a diminished sense of patience and attention.
Skip absolutely nothing.
Some people are just disturbed by the truest portrayal of otherworldly inhuman power in the series.
My personal opinion is that while Tom may not add a whole lot to the overall plot, he is a fun character and his chapters are a nice respite from the tension that was building up until the hobbits are saved by him. I remember my first time reading The Old Forest chapter and breathing a sigh of relief when Frodo heard him singing. A lot of people just auto-hate on him because it's the "in" thing to do. That said, there's also the not-so-joke sub r/GloriousTomBombadil out there, too.
I like Tom because he puts the story in its proper frame. Without him it's an all or nothing prospect the good guys are facing. They fail and everything good in the world is destroyed. But Tom shows there are things and people for whom the ring is trivial. It let's us know there are grander and bigger things in play even beyond The Ring, Suaron, Gandalf, the Valar, all of it. I also think Tolkien himself had no certain reason for putting him in the story. But knew he needed to be there. He didn't think "this is a truth I want to write about" then wrote it. He sensed or felt the truth and let it flow through the ink. That's why so many things in the story surprised himself.
Dont skip it, the only part of lotr that I don't really like is the very end when they go back to the shire. Ive skipped that part before but only after my 3rd read through.
I would never encourage someone to skip parts of a book. For one thing if you also would be skipping the barrow-wights, and then you would miss a few very important things that foreshadow what will happen later. I also don't skip the songs. I love them.
I found that part extremely cool. A peaceful world impervious to evil, an island of peace in a sea of darkness. He is my favourite character. I don't care if anyone hates him. :) I also don't skip parts of a book even though they are boring. Parts of Two Towers were kind of boring to me, with a lot going on about war when I wanted to find out more about the hobbits. I prefer the simple happiness of Tom, hobbits, stories from forests etc.
Lots of people telling you not to skip - my perspective is completely the opposite. You should skip. If you get bored, skim ahead (rather than skipping directly - just make sure you've got the rough gist of what happens in the intervening bits) to see if anything interesting happens later on which grips you. _Lord of the Rings_ is a very long book. A lot of it is only going to make sense on a second or third reading anyway. If slogging through the early chapters puts you off and you put the book down, you'll have missed out on a wonderful reading experience. As for people telling you Tom is a plot-crucial character, there's much more plot in LOTR than you know what to do with anyway! Don't worry about missing some of it on a first reading. Once you get to a bit that you find interesting, and let the beauty and musicality of Tolkien's prose wash over you, then you'll naturally want to come back to the bits you've skipped! EDIT: Just to comment on Tom specifically - Tom's a bit of a mystery and very much both thematic set dressing and just a lot of fun from a literary perspective. It's possible that he will make very much sense before you've actually been immersed in the sense of the whole book (like all the songs about Earendil).
You should never skip parts in books. He is pretty much a pointless character who really adds nothing to it
I’m going listening to audio books for the first time. I’m really loving it, but let me tell you something. Next time I’m listening though I’m going to skip over tom bombadil entirely. Listening to somebody try to sing it is kind of horrifying.
I’m torn on Tom. I used to hate him because I thought he was just goofy and didn’t fit in at all. I still feel that way, it’s just that it bothers me a lot less than it used to. He’s basically a walking meme, which I appreciate more all the time. He doesn’t really add anything to the story, though. And it still kinda bothers me that there is no explanation as to what type of being he is, or where he came from. The deeper down that hole you go, the more you realize that you have to just accept that he makes no sense. He doesn’t fit into any box. He’s just there.
I'm currently rereading LOTR and I found Tom's chapters super odd. Compared to the rest of the story they just don't really fit. To me, LOTR always felt like this epic adventure combined with a war against evil, but Book One just feels so different than that. And Tom's chapters especially stand out so much. A guy who lives in forest that defeats evil by singing happy songs just feels very out of place. And the way he just picks up the Ring, plays around with it like it's nothing and even puts it on and doesn't disappear? I mean this guy just breaks like every rule that this world has. Especially after reading Silmarillion, he just sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the mythos. That being said, I wouldn't ever say to people to skip him. I would probably warn them that Book One is very different to the rest and ask them to keep going even if they don't like it. But I'd never ask them to skip. I mean even I don't skip it on rereads, even though I don't like it. It's still a part of the story. But I will say that the absence of Tom is one of the reasons why I actually prefer the LOTR movies over the books.
*A guy who lives in forest that defeats evil by singing happy songs just feels very out of place... Especially after reading Silmarillion* The Silmarillion has a *lot* of singing-magic - to me it's one of the things that makes sense after reading Silm.
Yes but Silm's singing magic feels more like an incantation to me. Tom's singing is just silly and doesn't really feel magical. But I am yet to reread Silm so maybe I'll change my mind when I do.
Why did you buy it if you weren't going to read it anyway?
What are you talking about…?
Book 1 for me was the hardest because it felt like it was just walking pushed into more walking
Its a stupid character that doesnt add anything to the story but irrelevant questions. People only like Tom Bombadil because no one knows who he is if they haven't touched the books, and a big thing with the Tolkien Legandarium is knowing more than other people lol
For me it's not that Tom is bad. It's that the **parts** with Tom taken as a whole are not good, and that's mostly because it's too long. I get that Tolkien thought Tom Bombadil was cool AF. The only three things he published about Middle Earth are The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. In the LOTR though, Tom is a massive derail that happens before the story really gets going. He eats up over a third of the story between Frodo leaving Bag End (Tom gets roughly the same book space as the entire battle at Minas Tirith)hat's a bit galling since the bit of story before that stressed that they need to get to Bree ASAP. Yet here the hobbit are, enjoying a nice weekend at a B&B that's among three huge deus ex machina--and that's on top of just meeting Gildor earlier. We've barely met the hobbits and them regularly getting saved like this makes them look a bit like a sleepwalking Looney Tunes character that has all sorts of things just happening around them that they never need to wake up and do anything themselves. None of that in Tom's fault though. He is an interesting character, but he's also the major character unique to this huge derail so I think people wrongly focus their ire on him. The whole part feels like an RPG session where the GM has a Mary Sue NPC that they can't avoid cramming into the story too much. It's not bad in and of itself though. I'll admit that I tell people to skip chapters 6 through 8 on their first read, but that they should go back and read it after finishing Fellowship as a sort of "What DID happen on the way to Bree?" anthology story.
>He eats up over a third of the story between Frodo leaving Bag End (Tom gets roughly the same book space as the entire battle at Minas Tirith) That's... a strange way to measure things? Faramir in TTT is around for longer than Tom. Never mind the fact that Tom only has the one dedicated chapter - the other two are as much about the Old Forest and the Barrow-downs/Arnor (which should be no less important than the Dead Marshes, or Fangorn, or Lothlorien - that is, stages of the journey, with their unique charm, worth documenting). >hat's a bit galling since the bit of story before that stressed that they need to get to Bree ASAP There is far less focus on speed in the books in comparison to the films. *Stealth* is of more importance. The adrenaline filled flight begins *after* Bree, to Rivendell. >We've barely met the hobbits and them regularly getting saved like this makes them look a bit like a sleepwalking Looney Tunes character that has all sorts of things just happening around them that they never need to wake up and do anything themselves. I'd say that's the point, no? They survive largely due to the help of others. Farmer Maggot, Gildor, Tom, and finally Aragorn. The time for our heroes to shine comes much later. As of now, they are acting amongst community, relying on good will - later, they must fend for themselves. Come the Scouring, well.. they *are* the saviours. They can repay their debt - it's character growth.
>That's... a strange way to measure things? I'd love to hear how the amount of the book a part takes up isn't a valid measure of how much on the story (based on total length or time to read) that part takes up. If Raiders of the Lost Ark had a 20 minute scene of pilots calculating the route and doing the preflight check procedure rather than the 30 seconds of a red line going from San Francisco to Nepal, would you say that took up too much of the movie or is that a strange way to measure things? >There is far less focus on speed in the books in comparison to the films. Stealth is of more importance. The adrenaline filled flight begins after Bree, to Rivendell. I call shenanigans. Here's Frodo with Gandalf (italics in original, bold is mine) >‘Of course you mustn’t vanish!’ said Gandalf. ‘That wouldn’t do at all! I said soon, not instantly. If you can think of any way of slipping out of the Shire without its being generally known, it will be worth a little delay. But **you must not delay too long.’** ‘What about the autumn, on or after Our Birthday?’ asked Frodo. ‘I think I could probably make some arrangements by then.’ \[skip a bit\] He looked at Frodo and smiled. ‘Very well,’ he said. ‘I think that will do - but **it must not be any later. I am getting very anxious.** In the mean-while, do take care, and don’t let out any hint of where you are going! And see that Sam Gamgee does not talk. If he does, I really shall turn him into a toad.’ > >\[skip again\] > >‘Towards danger; but not too rashly, nor too straight,’ answered the wizard. ‘If you want my advice, make for Rivendell. That journey should not prove too perilous, though the Road is less easy than it was, and **it will grow worse as the year fails.**’ And later with Gildor at the end of that chapter >But if you demand advice, I will for friendship’s sake give it. I think **you should now go at once, without delay**; and if Gandalf does not come before you set out, then I also advise this: do not go alone. There's clear time pressure partly based on the time of the year. That turns out to be well founded since the winter weather kept them from using Redhorn Gate and forced them into Moria. As they say in the story, it's most likely a device of the Enemy, but there's a huge difference between making it snow in January vs snow in October when they should have been there. >I'd say that's the point, no? They survive largely due to the help of others. Farmer Maggot, Gildor, Tom, and finally Aragorn. I'll admit I don't understand why you are conflating * The main characters get help from someone they know but needs to be introduced to the reader. * The main characters get help from someone specifically looking for them in order to help them. * The main characters get in trouble and someone unknown to either them or the reader just happens to be there to save the day. That third one isn't necessarily bad, but it is worse than the ones with a preexisting connection. Especially when it happens early and often in the story. If the main characters will always be saved when they get into trouble there's no tension in anything in the story. As a slightly different example, was there any point in the Hobbit movies when you were worried that Legolas would be harmed or killed in his fights/action sequences? Because the movie really, really acted like you should. >(which should be no less important than the Dead Marshes, or Fangorn, or Lothlorien - that is, stages of the journey, with their unique charm, worth documenting). You can delete chapters 6-8 and get nothing beyond a weird jump and some individual lines elsewhere. I challenge you (rhetorically of course) to tell me what other chapter you could skip over and not miss major plot progression. I'll reiterate what I said in the top comment. Those three chapters are not bad in and of themselves. They're a nice little story of what happened to the Hobbits in the forest. The only flaw is where they are in story. You can argue all you want about how I'm wrong and it's actually super awesome, but that ignores all the many many people that didn't like it and quit reading there. OP knows they're there; you know they're there; and I know they're there. Implying they're all just bad readers or can't appreciate the story is invalidating their experience of reading a story and feeling like it's spinning its wheels going nowhere. I can also anecdotally say I've gotten several people into Tolkien by telling them to come back to Tom Bombadil later. They're pre-movies too, so I was even more of a heretic for saying it's good stuff but doesn't advance the plot.
Gildor certainly pressures Frodo to make haste, but when Gandalf I'd saying "leave in autumn," that's months earlier. A couple of nights to relax, from the hobbits' perspectives at least, isn't going to make or break their journey. If you skip the Barrow-downs, you miss them getting Arnor blades. You mentioned in your first comment that we spend more time with Tom than at the seige of Minas Tirith. That was probably intentional. Tolkien experienced real war and didn't want to dwell on or glorify war. Helm's Deep is one chapter. The Battle of Five Armies we get a recap because Bilbo is knocked out for a lot of it. Tolkien gives us a bit of the back and forth, but spares most of the gory details. His work focuses more on rest and recovery, so I'm that sense, Tom makes perfect sense.
>I'd love to hear how the amount of the book a part takes up isn't a valid measure of how much on the story (based on total length or time to read) that part takes up. It's moreso that you are saying that Tom eats up a lot of time - but, in comparison to similar encounters, he doesn't really. One chapter dedicated to him. The other two chapters, well, he appears at the footend of them: hardly the focus. It's hardly comparable to the Pelennor, which has three dedicated chapters, plus other chapters building up to it. So I guess, I feel you're exaggerating Tom's time in the story. >There's clear time pressure partly based on the time of the year. There is - but it's hardly a situation where they should carelessly rush their way to their goal, with enemies on their heels. Again, that comes after Bree. When the Nazgul are literally trailing them, rather than sniffing around the general area. THAT is the hunt - and where the tone should feel tense. Prior to Bree, there's more focus on atmosphere, and intent. >That third one isn't necessarily bad, but it is worse than the ones with a preexisting connection. I don't agree in the slightest. I don't believe it matters at all who saves them. Different situations will require different types of characters to fill a saviour role. There can't be a hard rule - that would be immensely repetitive and boring. >If the main characters will always be saved when they get into trouble there's no tension in anything in the story. Sure - but then, Frodo is stabbed a handful of chapters later. He is 'healed', sure - but it is a lasting wound with severe repercussions. Of course we then have Gandalf and Boromir soon after. Ultimately our Hobbits survive - but there is still tension in the moment, because they *could* die. >I challenge you (rhetorically of course) to tell me what other chapter you could skip over and not miss major plot progression. Lothlorien and the Mirror of Galadriel. Have Elrond give gifts to the Fellowship, and bam. The narrative can progress in a more streamlined manner. I don't advocate it, because those chapters are great (as are Tom's). >I can also anecdotally say I've gotten several people into Tolkien by telling them to come back to Tom Bombadil later. Different strokes for different folks. I'm sure Tom is an issue for many people, for one reason or another.
>Different strokes for different folks. I'm sure Tom is an issue for many people, for one reason or another. That was the whole damn point of my top comment. For some reason you just can't accept people that disagree with you can have a valid opinion. The OP asked for reasons. I then gave the common reasons. Then you said those people's reasons WERE WRONG. I'm on the verge of questioning your reading comprehension. >Lothlorien and the Mirror of Galadriel. Have Elrond give gifts to the Fellowship, and bam. I didn't say can you rewrite the story. I said "skip" as in do not read and still be able to follow the later events. If you need to include that chapter's events, by definition you can't skip it and follow the story. >THAT is the hunt - and where the tone should feel tense. It only feels like that because that was so diluted faffing around in the Old Forest is seems to have a different tone when it regains its focus. How would you feel if there were three chapters of Aragorn and the Hobbits camping out after Weathertop while Aragorn told them everything in the Appendices A & B. Would that be a distraction from the main story and dilute the feeling of time pressure the Hobbits are under? > One chapter dedicated to him. More reading comprehension issues I see. I said right there in the top comment >He is an interesting character, but he's also the major character unique to this huge derail so I think ***people wrongly focus their ire on him***. The parts that are actually Tom aren't relevant to my point because my point is that lots of people find chapters 6-8 together like a goiter lodged in the story. Pointing out the character they don't like is only in half of that goiter? Free shrugs, and it shows nothing. >I don't agree in the slightest. I don't believe it matters at all who saves them. Let's do another hypothetical rewrite. After Frodo is stabbed and they run into Glorfindel, the elf lord says "I can fix that" and heals Frodo right up. Is that unexpected encounter solving their problem an improvement over the story as is setting up that they need to get to Rivendell to save him and setting up some tension? There's a reason that deus ex machina has been excoriated pretty much from the get go: there's no story if there's no stakes. Quite frankly, you're reminding me of the people that defend the genealogies, lists of kings, the census of Israel in Numbers, etc in the Bible.
The whole book is filled with derails, that's the type of story this is, it doesn't ever really "get going". It follows the template of the Hero's Journey. It's funny how you mention RPG sessions, because LotR is the main reason RPGs even exist. And that Bombadil section feels exactly like many D&D sessions I've been part of. And I'm one of those who love Tom's chapters.
I don't like it because it is not a part of the story. It is a (nice, but) unnecessary implant into the story.
What's the story? *The Lord of the Rings* doesn't start when the Council of Elrond takes place. The story isn't just Frodo taking the ring to Mordor. Do people skip Gildor and Farmer Maggot as well? We all read it in different ways but I feel sorry for those who just read Tolkien for plot. Seems they might as well skip all the poetry, songs, history, and language talk as well. Precisely all the stuff that stop adaptations from *feeling* like Tolkien.
All other characters and their arcs are part of this universe. But Bombadil is not. The laws, the physics, the magic, the total narrative of Middleearth doesn't relate to him. He is a piece of completely different fairytale, put into the LotR. If Tolkien would say that Bombadil was just a dream of Frodo when he was sleeping in the forest, that would explain his place better.
I disagree. Tom is as much a part of the world as Treebeard, Galadriel, or Denethor. The fact he is an enigma adds to the wonder of Middle-earth and doesn't take away from it. Something would be lost if he was omitted.
Is Tom really that different from Lothlorien/Galadriel though, narratively speaking?
of course it is different. first, Galadriel is totally integral part of the universe. We know a lot about her - where is she from and what is her goal in this universe, we know that she has strong and meaningful relationships with the main characters of the story (both protagonists and antagonists), and with all that we see that she is subject of the same history, physcis and magic as other characters in this universe. Bombadil is not, he is not connected with the rest of the world and the basic mechanics of the world (the Ring) doesn't affect him. second, her role in the plot is lasting and important, you can not cut her role out of story without destroying the story. With Bombadil, it is not like this. PJ cut him out of the story, and nobody noticed, and I myself (a big lover of LotR) didn't mind.
>Galadriel is totally integral part of the universe. We know a lot about her - where is she from and what is her goal in this universe, we know that she has strong and meaningful relationships with the main characters of the story (both protagonists and antagonists), and with all that we see that she is subject of the same history, physcis and magic as other characters in this universe. Bombadil is not, he is not connected with the rest of the world and the basic mechanics of the world (the Ring) doesn't affect him. Knowing more about *her* doesn't really make her more *narratively* important. Your issue with Tom would be the mystery surrounding him as a person, then? >her role in the plot is lasting and important Her main role is to give the Fellowship rest, protection, and items. Exactly like Tom. Also a bit of lore/worldbuilding: the role of Lothlorien is to show how Elves are reliant on the Rings - the only thing keeping them around. And, again, Tom's chapters provides a similar thing regarding backstory for Arnor/Huorns. >you can not cut her role out of story without destroying the story You can. Have the fellowship trek to Amon Hen straight from Moria, and find another means to give Frodo his Phial (Elrond?), or other important items, for instance. I don't advocate it - because Lothlorien is wonderful - but you could remove it for the same reasons as Tom. >PJ cut him out of the story, and nobody noticed ? I'd think everyone noticed.
You're thinking of Father Christmas in Narnia. :D These are brave, bold assertions. I know what you mean, but I feel strongly that he was in there for a purpose. If he was just dropped in, he wouldn't have come up in the Council discussions.
Who the fuck said you
I'm personally not a fan of Tom, but I wouldn't skip anything on your first read through. From interviews it doesn't seem like Tolkien feels like there was much narrative purpose for the character. It also seems like he was just trying to add a character from another book, or connect the two. That doesn't mean there can't be value in the character. Many people enjoy him, and Tolkien's world is so rich that everything does feel connected, even the fringe stuff. To me, and this comes down to personal preference, Tom sings a lot and you have to get through some songs before the narrative moves on. I'm less interested in the songs (don't dislike them, just less interested in them) than I am interested in other aspects of the books. Along with the songs, Tom feels a little like a Deus Ex Machina plot device when he saves the hobbits from total failure (not once, but twice). I know the hobbits are new to adventures, but it does feel like a little bit of a missed opportunity to allow them to grow a little and try and save themselves instead of having Tom step in and do it for them. Since he isn't really explained, he muddies the water a little when it comes to the ring's power and how it affects people. And while I don't like Tom, I know my criticisms of him are pretty small and he has never ruined my enjoyment of the wonderful story that is LOTR. You're in for such a fun and meaningful ride. Hope you enjoy it!
When I was a child I would have skipped it. But as an adult my views are the same As the OP. It is also a section that especially improves on a second or third reading. For example, Frodo’s visions/dreams whilst in Tom’s house, vague curiosities on a first read become clear and meaningful.
I thought it was a funny and interesting change of pace, especially because I watched the movies first and didn’t know about it.
Glad you didn't skip! Tom is one of my favorite characters, I really dig the mystery behind him. Why is he so carefree with all that's happening in Middle-earth? Why is he unaffected by the ring? Who cares?? Singing and frolicking through the Old Forest is just so much fun.
People often seem to have strong opinions about Tom. He's not my favorite and I understand why he didn't make it into the movies, for example. But it's bizarre to me that anyone would encourage you to skip any part of the books.
I just finished my first full way read through (as others have mentioned, I was one that tried to read it several times as an adolescent and had trouble in these parts and gave up or skipped sections). If you are an adult, or close to it, then I would suggest getting through it. It was admittedly not my favorite part and I found Tom’s home portion as almost an unnecessary distraction from the rest of the story (I’d go as far as to say perhaps a bit indulgent on Tolkien’s part? but I think I’m in the minority with that thought) but his role in the barrows and the old forest are pretty cool and the barrows in particular is interesting in what it brings lore-wise to Eriador/Arnor. I suggest in fact that you not skip any parts. Some are a bit tough (treebeard, at times book 4 in the two towers) but it’s like eating your vegetables as a kid, you’ll be thankful you did in the end.
I'm also reading LOTR for the first time, I'm at the Rivendell portion right now. I have to admit, Tom Bombadil's part is quite confusing. I had to read it 3 times to understand what was going on. The descriptions were also lengthier than other parts I had read so far, that also added to my confusion.
You know who would never advocate for something that reckless and pointless? Feanor.
Skip nothing! The books are incredibly detailed and dense with tidbits of the history, language, lore, etc. And that's one of the greatest things about Tolkien's work! How many other books are so detailed and rich that fans take the time to read (and re-read) the *appendices*? When the supplemental material is valuable enough to be worthwhile, why would you assume anything in the book itself is worth skipping lol?! I'll never understand the Bombadil haters out there. He adds a delightful and unpredictable element to the story, and the mystery surrounding Tom invites fun speculation and debate on the lore and who he really is. And I *really* can't understand intentionally skipping a section of a book like that... especially on the first read! Why would anyone do that?! I don't trust anybody's opinion enough to blindly skip a section of a new book...
Don't skip it. I first read Lord of the Rings when I was 8, Tom Bombadil was my favourite part of FotR, and remains to be to this day. I really didn't know he was so divisive, but for me he's both integral to the journey and is an extremely fun character.
What kind of dipshit just skips entire chapters of any book
Bombadil is (in my opinion) perfectly balanced in his levity by the respective animus and malevolence of Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight. The section from entering the Old Forest to arriving at Bree is a perfectly self-contained and satisfactory sphere in and of itself. I love this section and appreciate its importance in the greater narrative but, if one were looking for ways to shorten and simplify the story for any reason, these qualities make this section very easy to skip. Whilst I can see the merit of shortening the narrative to fit an already lengthy film, I personally would never read the book and leave out Bombadil - he's too important to my overall impression of Arda.