A question about LOTR

[Darth Caedus]

Sorry to bump this back up, but I have another question. Please don't spoil it if there is an answer, but just let me know IF I will get one later in the book.

I don't understand the point of the Tom Bombadil chapter at all. Will there be anything later on this in the book? I don't understand how the ring seemed to have NO effect on him and why he didn't turn invisible when he put it on. It almost seemed to diminish the importance of the ring.

I am just to the "Prancing Pony" chapter.

Well, you have picked upon one of the most controversial tolkien topics there is. From The Letters of JRR Tolkien #144 (It's pathetic that I know that) he discusses that every story needs an enigma. That any story, no matter how large of how small, needs to have one element that is up to the intrepretation of the reader. And Tolkien's enigma is Tom Bombadill. OH, just read this page, all the possibly answers for Tom....

https://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html

 

[CAhobbit]

Don't forget the theory that Tom Bombadil is actually the witch king. Hehehe.

https://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm

 

[Darth Caedus]

Don't forget the theory that Tom Bombadil is actually the witch king. Hehehe.

https://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm

 

[KitFisto]

Well, you have picked upon one of the most controversial tolkien topics there is. From The Letters of JRR Tolkien #144 (It's pathetic that I know that) he discusses that every story needs an enigma. That any story, no matter how large of how small, needs to have one element that is up to the intrepretation of the reader. And Tolkien's enigma is Tom Bombadill. OH, just read this page, all the possibly answers for Tom....

https://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html

Good read..thanks.

 

[Calle_Sandell]

A little note about bambadill... Don't think I can say that it's a spoiler since it's just a comment later in the book but I wanted to add it to the discussion..



Frodo asks at the council I think if Tom can't take the ring and keep it a secret, since he's not affected by it, but as you might have figured out, they decides not to do that

 

[Darth Loki]

Who the hell is this Bombadil guy? He wasn't in the movies. And if it wasn't in the movies, it isn't real.

Oh wait, this isn't SW

 

[KitFisto]

Who the hell is this Bombadil guy? He wasn't in the movies. And if it wasn't in the movies, it isn't real.

Oh wait, this isn't SW

 

[pixletwin]

Who the hell is this Bombadil guy? He wasn't in the movies. And if it wasn't in the movies, it isn't real.

Oh wait, this isn't SW

That was good.

 

[Wetanut]

Most definitely one of the most controversial aspects of books vs. movies, and even Tolkien lover vs. Tolkien lover (even more than the old "do balrogs have wings?" debate). There are those who are still up in arms about the movies because of the omission of Bombadil, Goldberry, and the Barrow-wights (among other omissions which I won't go into since you aren't that far along and I don't want to spoil). I understand their frustration and ire. But at the same time, I'm also one who felt that the Bombadil sojourn was a dead end in the books. In fact, when I first started reading these books (in 1967), I almost put them down and away because of it. Even now in my annual reading, I skim over those chapters....they bore me spitless. (don't flame --- I know it's blasphemy ). For me, the story seemed to be in the same tone and vein as the Hobbit...initially written for a younger audience...until they leave Bombadil behind. Then it seems that, all of a sudden, it becomes a completely other book when they reach Bree. I like to think that the book took on a separate life of its own and Tolkien was dragged along with it.

 

[Darth Caedus]

Most definitely one of the most controversial aspects of books vs. movies, and even Tolkien lover vs. Tolkien lover (even more than the old "do balrogs have wings?" debate). There are those who are still up in arms about the movies because of the omission of Bombadil, Goldberry, and the Barrow-wights (among other omissions which I won't go into since you aren't that far along and I don't want to spoil). I understand their frustration and ire. But at the same time, I'm also one who felt that the Bombadil sojourn was a dead end in the books. In fact, when I first started reading these books (in 1967), I almost put them down and away because of it. Even now in my annual reading, I skim over those chapters....they bore me spitless. (don't flame --- I know it's blasphemy ). For me, the story seemed to be in the same tone and vein as the Hobbit...initially written for a younger audience...until they leave Bombadil behind. Then it seems that, all of a sudden, it becomes a completely other book when they reach Bree. I like to think that the book took on a separate life of its own and Tolkien was dragged along with it.

I agree with you on the skimming over the lost forest. I love the books, but that part is just not necessary in future rereads. I love the beginning of the book (Shadows in the Past is my favorite chapter), then it goes downhill in the old forest, then it perks back up in bree like you said. I can understand that the story connections with old man willow needed to be addressed before the ents showed up (for the living tree connection), but it was just way too long.

 

[Captain Faramir]

I myself love the Bombadil chapters, but they are much more a part of Tolkien's reliance on Norse legends and the Faerie Tale than on any "modern" plot relevance. Tom Bombadil is drawn from nature itself, one could say the spirit of all Nature. He is one with the natural world because he is the natural world, and just as the rocks and the waters care little for the affairs of those who dwell in them, so also does Tom Bombadil have little to say about the outside world. He controls nature because he is nature, and the Ring only has power over those who seek power or need power or use power. Bombadil, as the "spirit of nature" one could say, has no need for added power because the earth itself is a power. Very interestingly, Sam is the ONLY other character over whom the ring has no power, if only because of his intense yet plain connection to the Earth and all that grows within, a little similarity with profound reprecussions.

Nonetheless, Bombadil is indeed rather esoteric in nature and is certainly more a deep exploration of Tolkien's studies of lore than a part of the plot. However, people who read LOTR only for the story are omitting other crucial elements of Tolkien's work. It's not just a story, nor can it be read as such. It's a modern recreation of myth, with history and mystery, and just as with the Greek or Norse myths, Tolkien wanted to create something that people would believe in, a history which to it's intended audience would be real. To exclude Bombadil would make his work inauthentic; it would lack elements which are absolutely necessary to the structure of a true mythical work. The Hobbit was a story to be read as a story; the Lord of the Ring and the other related works are not. They are modern myth, and include deeper morals, spirituality, hidden meanings and deeper purposes. To read them just as a story and brush off longer chapters or characters is to forget that they have elusive, yet significant purpose. Maybe they doesn't make for an exciting adventure, but they do carry a very serious and beautiful importance, and as one reads the stories for their meaning and not just their story, one begins to see why Tolkien was such a literary genius, and just how profound his work actually was.

 

[LOTRFan]

The Hobbit was a story to be read as a story; the Lord of the Ring and the other related works are not. They are modern myth, and include deeper morals, spirituality, hidden meanings and deeper purposes. To read them just as a story and brush off longer chapters or characters is to forget that they have elusive, yet significant purpose. Maybe they doesn't make for an exciting adventure, but they do carry a very serious and beautiful importance, and as one reads the stories for their meaning and not just their story, one begins to see why Tolkien was such a literary genius, and just how profound his work actually was.

*Cues inner geek...*

Well this actually quite hotly debated. I am sure that you have read the preface to LOTR in Tolkien's own words, he in no uncertain terms states how much he utterly despises allegory and warns the reader against attempting to find any deeper, or hidden meaning. Personally, as a writer and a student/teacher of history/philosophy I don't find it possible to separate one's world view from their writing; but that said, Tolkien seems to not at least want us to find any deeper meaning.

Impossible likely, it is really hard to not assign meaning, find moral themes and such -- it is a given with any sort of conflict and resolution. So though Tolkien appears not to want us to look deeper, it is almost inconceivable that we won't.

 

[Captain Faramir]

Indeed I'm as aware of that as well as I am aware of his other writings about LOTR, however, I would be defying all Tolkien worked for if I implied that. However, while I also reject the concept of allegory, I am also aware of his heavy dependance on patterns, themes, and motifs. Tolkien does indeed make strong and beautiful claims on morality, good and evil, the profane and the sublime. However, these qualities are all done with characterization rather than allegory; the meaning is inherent in the characters, and qualities are anthropomorphised or characterized in species, races, or characters. There is profound significance, not in what subjects mean, but in what they are; for Tolkien essence can be taken at face value, but that value is greater than most people assume.

Boy I love to ponder over my favorite books!

 

[pixletwin]

As much as I feel the whole Bombadil in the books is sort of irrelevent to LOTR as a whole, I too love the character of Bombadil and Goldberry. I think it is charming (if irrelevent) part of the books.

ps. someone teach me to spell irrelevent... It don't look right to me.

 

[CAhobbit]

ps. someone teach me to spell irrelevent... It don't look right to me.

Irrelevant

You just were a letter off.

 

[pixletwin]

Irrelevant

You just were a letter off.

Thanks!

 

[Captain Faramir]

Rats, looks like I missed my cue. Some spellcheck I am!

 

[Captain Faramir]

ps. someone teach me to spell irrelevent... It don't look right to me.

Oh, and that ought to be doesn't look right. Ha ha!

 

[Captain Faramir]

Man I only get this annoying when I'm really tired. I need a nap lol.

 

[Anzik]

I think TB is an example that there are always going to be things that defy definition. Basically that the universe is too vast for mortals to understand fully. Even when an evil as all encompassing as Sauron and the Ring are, they are still just a part of a larger picture. It kind of echoes the creation story in the Silmarillion that no matter how much Melkor tried to make the music his own, the more it just became a greater part of the larger composition.