Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil | Hacker News Reader

Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil

km-515.livejournal.com

158 pointsJun849 comments

I seem to be in the small minority but I always found Tom Bombadil to be one of the most curious characters in the LoTR, it's a pity he's usually edited out in adaptations. And he's no transient character either, Tolkien later wrote poems about him and he's also mentioned in The Return of the King.

I don't quite buy the explanation given in this post, although it was an interesting read. I think Bombadil is beyond good and evil, he just is. From http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1586/who-or-what-wa...:

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954

Agreed 100%. He's an aspect of nature in physical form, with all the danger and ambiguity that nature brings.

He is underneath nature, primal and original. The ring was nothing to him; it changed things in such a trivial way, to his understanding, as to be irrelevant.

I think there's a good argument that he is nature.

Nature in middle earth tends to be mildly kind and hospitable, but does not care about evil. Which matches up to Tom pretty closely.

Tom Bombadil is undoubtably one of Tolkien's most popular--and fascinating--characters. The author, km-515, seems not to understand this.

Well heres my single data point. 20 years ago, young me had to pick a nickname for the first online adventures. All the popular LotR characters were already taken, except Tom Bombadil, so I begrudgingly used that.

There might be a bias when it comes to presenting oneself as the 'fellow whose boots are yellow'. For some people it is not a problem; there's even a punk-rock band frontman who claimed Tom Bombadil is his alter-ego. On the other hand in 2012 I role-played a pastiche character of Bombadil at a major larp festival and everyone agreed that in the over-twenty-year history of that game, a couple thousands of participants for sure, I was the first to do so.

(in doing so, I sticked to the leprechaun interpretation of T.B.; not a Dark Lord as the linked article would like to inflate, but not a goody-two-shoes either. Mind you, these leprechauns have as much in common with green-irish-hat figure as elves with Santa Claus elfs)

Everyone I've ever discussed LoTR with either can't remember Tom Bombadil or despises him. That's about 20 data points for what it's worth.

Everyone i spoke with loved Tom bombadil andò was sorry there wasnt more about him in the Books. Maybe it's a cultural thing, or just a very polarizing character.

Truth to be told I was extremely fascinated by the fact that the first character Frodo encountered in his journey was T.B., the only character in Middle Earth upon whom the "one ring" had no power at all. He wouldn't disappear.

However, the fact that Gandalf brings in many reasons to avoid hiding the ring there IMHO, was always kinda curious.

I think you're correct but I don't think the author was arguing his version was Tolkien's intention, just that it fits the evidence surprisingly well.

This is a wonderful reinterpretation of the existing "facts" in Middle-Earth, and I'm very glad that it's trending on Hacker News some time after I used it in an RPG, to great effect.

There are rather a lot of hidden depths one can mine out of Middle-Earth, often in directions its creator would probably not have approved of.

Along similar lines, for example, if you cross-reference the location of Nan Dungortheb, the Valley of Dreadful Death which is the last known location of Ungoliant, with the Third-Age map of Middle Earth, you discover that it's just a short way off the coast of the Western edge of Middle-Earth, more or less in a direct line between the Grey Havens and Valinor.

Which does present an alternative, less happy hypothesis about what happens to all the elves after they set sail for the Western Shore, and in turn begs the question of why exactly they're being compelled to do so...

> more or less in a direct line between the Grey Havens and Valinor.

Elven ships go in a straight line while the sea follows the curvature of Arda.

There is one major, major problem with this interpretation. He states over and over again that no hobbit has ever seen Tom Bombadil. But that's not true. At least one other hobbit has been described as knowing Bombadil--that is Farmer Maggot (the one Frodo used to steal mushrooms from). Let me quote from the story: "[Bombadil] made no secret that he owed his recent knowledge largely to Farmer Maggot, whom he seemed to regard as a person of more importance than they had imagined. 'There's earth under his old feet, and clay on his finger; wisdom in his bones, and both his eyses are open'" said Tom.

Later, it is mentioned that Bombadil already had messages from Gildor that Frodo & co were going through the forest.

I think the reason that Bombadil his hardly ever mentioned is the taboo which Hobbits have of going on adventures. If they talked about their adventures in the forest, meeting with magical folk like Bombadil, they would lose respectability.

This is addressed in the article:

"Now, in his conversation with Frodo, Bombadil implies (but avoids directly stating) that he had heard of their coming from Farmer Maggot and from Gildor’s elves (both of whom Frodo had recently described). But that also makes no sense. Maggot lives west of the Brandywine, remained there when Frodo left, and never even knew that Frodo would be leaving the Shire. And if Elrond knows nothing of Bombadil, how can he be a friend of Gildor’s?

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He lies."

The only word we have is Bombadil's. Not that I buy this interpretation, but your complaint is addressed there.

But, the Hobbits did have rhymes about Tom Bombadil, so someone among the Hobbits knew about him. Not that it really detracts from the article, he was just having a bit of fun.

"What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He lies."

The author fundamentally misunderstands Tom Bombadil, both in terms of where he fits (or doesn't) into Tolkien's mythology, and in terms of Tom's literary purpose.

Tolkien deliberately made Tom an enigma: "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)" (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954).

The following are three suggested articles that are far more intelligent, subtle, well-researched, and balanced in comparison to km-515's rant.

Mark Fischer, The Riddle of Tom Bombadil: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html

Steuard Jensen, What is Tom Bombadil?: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil.html

Gene Hargrove, Who is Tom Bombadil?: http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

I get the impression that this is a purposeful misunderstanding, mostly for kicks and giggles. Maybe I'm wrong? But it certainly seemed tongue in cheek to me, aimed at bringing a fresh perspective to a work that's already been picked over a billion times by fans.

That might because the author wrote that:

> Do I think that Tolkien planned things in this way? Not at all, but I find it an interesting speculation.

> To speculate further and more wildly:

my theory: tom bombadil is the author.

Part of me loves speculation like this, but the other part of me wonders if the speculators are aware that Tolkien (and authors in general) is/are "just another imperfect human".

Did Tolkien think of any of this? It's his world. Speculators creating their own fantasy around it aren't really speculating, but making up their own version.

It's like the "nerd at star trek convention" finding plot holes. The reality is a staff room filled with writers working under deadlines and restrictions. However there seem to be people who want/need (and speculate) that every possible detail can/should be nailed down into something that makes absolute sense.

Maybe someone just wasn't very creative one day, or wanted to move onto a bigger plot point.

Anyway, this is just one dude's (me) point of view, maybe the speculators are more imaginative and better at life, and I'm just a cynical old man.

I thought Tom Bombadil was one of the more interesting characters and was disappointed with his absence in the movie adaptations as he always seemed central to the theme; the spirit of a disappearing time and age.

But then again blockbuster movies rarely have time for such symbolic exposition.

If you like Tom as a character, you might like the book all about him: http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Tom-Bombadil-J-Tolkien-eboo...

It's quite amusing.

This is the "Squall is dead" of LotR fan theories. Tom Bombadil exists outside of the struggles for control Middle-earth because he, like the world, is far older and more inscrutable than any of the persons or races contending in those struggles.

Alternatively he is the spirit of "Just repeat to yourself it's just a story, I should really just relax".

Is he that unpopular? Me and most of my friends like him, and we're disappointed that he got left out of the movies.

Yeah he was the most mysterious, since the Ring seems to have no power over him; unlike everyone else including even Gandalf.

The LOTR movies were decent, but LOTR really needs to be in HBO miniseries form. Too many details like this lost in the movies.

> Yeah he was the most mysterious

I agree about mysterious, but the first claim of the article was that he's unpopular.

That fact alone--that, out of all of the characters, Tom alone has power of the Ring--is enough to captivate the reader's attention. Add to that the whole business of being "Oldest" and "Fatherless", yet being neither a Vala, nor a Maia, nor even Eru Iluvatar, is enough to make him worthy of deep scrutiny, research, conversation, and speculation.

Actually, if I remember right, it was discussed (briefly) giving the ring to Tom. But Gandalf said the ring would eventually consume Tom in the end. I always wondered just how Gandalf knew this. Given that he confessed not really knowing what Tom was.

I always thought Tom was sort of "outside reality". Maybe Tom was the physical representation of Eru itself. Or maybe some aspect of Eru.

> Actually, if I remember right, it was discussed (briefly) giving the ring to Tom. But Gandalf said the ring would eventually consume Tom in the end.

You don't remember right. :)

I think what you are remembering is when the Council discusses leaving the Ring with Bombadil, at the end of which they conclude that it wouldn't work; even if you could make him accept, he would lose it, or forget the necessity and importance of it, and even if he didn't, then all of Middle-Earth would fall to Sauron (who can torture even the hills), last of all Tom: Last as he was First. There is no suggestion that the Ring would ever afflict Tom.

> "Could [Sauron's] power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come."

Well ok at least I got it generally right. It was a long time ago. In fact, might be time to reread LOTR and the Silmarillion.

The author of the article, km-515, is the first person I've ever heard of who does not like Tom Bombadil.

For a competing anecdote, most of my friends who've read the books say they ended up skimming most of the Bombadil section and found it quite boring.

I suspect Bombadil is disproportionately popular among the people who like to critique what they read compared to the general public.

For me it wasn't so much him as all of the songs IIRC. Once I started just skimming the songs/poetry he became much less annoying (I'm horrible at deciphering meter and it just trips me up). The first words out of my mouth upon seeing the first film was "they left out Bombadil".

Had been looking forward to hearing one of those songs.

I didn't really like him either. He clashed with the overall feeling of Fellowship while at the same time breaking its logic. If he just clashed, he'd be comic relief. If he just broke the logic, he'd be a mystery wrapped in an enigma. But by being both at the same time, he becomes the big-lipped alligator moment of the whole series.

I don't see any reason to think the author dislikes Bombadil! If anything, they'd have to like him quite a bit to research his background and come up with this sort of wild theory about him.

I doubt his popularity was the issue. Time was. Tom is singular. He doesn't appear anywhere else in the story. And he's only mentioned in conversation. Easy to edit him out. And save precious time for the film.

Good film adaptations of novels, especially books as rich in backstory as LOTR, almost always have to be simplified even if it does drive a lot of fans crazy. And, of course, even well-regarded and popular novels might well have benefited from tighter editing. Not saying this is the case with Tom Bombadil in LOTR, but it's probably true of back half of Return of the King. Even with the scouring of the Shire cut, the film version of Return of the King really went on too long after the climax.

Bombadil is possibly my favorite enigma in all of Tolkien's work. You can dig all you want, but there is nothing, no lore. My own interpretation is that he is not part of the music of the children, but somehow an incarnation of the natural world that was created along side it. Tolkien focuses very much on how the music determines course of the history of middle earth, but Tom seems to be a kind of reminder that nature doesn't really care about us and will continue long after we are gone (unless we destroy it, but Tolkien's experience of the 20th century made human destruction of nature of secondary concern behind our destruction of our fellow man). Of course, the liar interpretation is always possible, but seems to undermine the importance of what the character represents.

I've always dreamed of a movie featuring Samuel L. Jackson as Tom Bombadil.

"Elvish, motherfucker! Do you speak it?"

are the entwives the trees that are under his control? is that what happened to them?

Wow, live journal is still out there. I am impressed.

Very much enjoyed that analysis. Shows there is still much to contemplate in LoTR.

If you can get a hold of it, I absolutely love Ursula K. Le Guin's writing about Lord of the Rings in The Wave in the Mind, one of her nonfiction collections. Lord of the Rings has true depth and longevity.

My friends and I always considered Tom Bombadil to be Tolkien's interpretation of the Christian God, as he was a Christian himself it isn't that far fetched.

I agree that Melkor's narrative is essentially the same as Lucifer's: God created the world, and fathered a quantity of powerful and benevolent beings to watch over it... until one of them goes rogue, eventually becoming their Evil counterpart. But if Tom Bombadil pre-dates even the Valar, then he doesn't really fit into that Biblical narrative. He's definitely not "God". There already is a God (Eru/Iluvatar), and he's utterly absent from world affairs after the Creation.

We all "know" that Lucifer was an angel who disagreed with God (or some such), who then banished him from Heaven... But do we really know that? The Bible doesn't actually say much on the topic. All we know is that he was once in Heaven, and was cast out. We don't know if Lucifer was born there (as opposed to merely visiting) or if he was even an angel at all!

Most of us believe the Serpent and Satan to be one and the same... but the Bible never says this. It's entirely possible that they are two separate entities, with different explanations. If Melkor is the Serpent (who corrupted the Elves), then perhaps Bombadil is the real original evil. Possibly even the one who corrupted Melkor in the first place?

The Bible, much like Tolkein's mythos, has many inconsistencies + leaves a TON to speculation. That's half the fun (if not most of it) :-P

It seems that others asked Tolkein about this, and he denied it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil#Characteristics (fourth paragraph)

This has a few more relevant quotes: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/46928

The closest analog to the Christian God in Tolkien's mythology would be Eru Ilúvatar, I think.

I'm just happy that other people are as fascinated by Tom Bombadil as I've always been.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com