9 ms·

> Possibly the least liked character in The Lord of the Rings. A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptat

• ycombinete 4y ago
  I’m really surprised by this as well. Every fan I’ve spoken to also believes that he was sorely missed as a point of perspective to the story. His contentment with his place, and his power. That he was here before this war, and will be here afterward.
  • simplicio 4y ago
    I like him in the books, but he also seems like a really good example of why making movies their own thing instead of slavishly following the source material is a good idea. There's no way having the hobbits break the tense flight from the Shire->Rivendale for a weird musical number with an unexplained character who's never referenced again in the story would've been anything but confusing for the film audience.
    • ycombinete 4y ago
      I agree, the story would have had to go: Shire -> Buckland -> Old Forest (Tom) -> Bree -> Rivendell Instead of: Shire -> Bree -> Rivendell Part of me still wished he featured; or at least the spirit of Bombadil's relationship to the ring was embodied by something/someone in the story.
• lordfoom 4y ago
  There is even an active sub-reddit of fans: https://old.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/ https://old.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/ And his absence from the films was remarked upon, negatively in my circles.
  • Trasmatta 4y ago
    > And his absence from the films was remarked upon, negatively in my circles. Yeah, same. On Tolkien forums in the early to mid 2000's, I think these were the most commented on complaints about the movies: * No Tom Bombadil * No Scouring of the Shire * Movie Faramir vs book Faramir * The Ents deciding to not help Merry and Pippin at first (tbh, this is the one that still gets me the most. It sort of ruined a key attribute of the Ents just for a tiny bit of extra tension for a short scene.) I'm probably missing some, but those were the ones I remember coming up the most.
    • teddyh 4y ago
      Don’t forget the how the entire character of Gimli the dwarf was replaced with some sort of clown.
      • PeterCorless 4y ago
        They lost me at dwarf tossing.
        • teddyh 4y ago
          The axe to the ring was bad enough, but when the character later explicitly suggested that they go through Moria, ranting about food and beer, that’s when I knew we had gotten a clown on our hands. By the time the tossing was discussed, I was thoroughly disillusioned about the character, and expected no better.
        • JKCalhoun 4y ago
          With that one line of dialog I was snatched out of this carefully crafted fantasy world and pulled back to our (rather sad) present.
    • philbarr 4y ago
      No Saruman vs Gandalf rematch in the original films. It was included in the director's cut but then you could see why they left it out.
• jfengel 4y ago
  Possibly. But I know a lot of people who find Tom irrelevant to the plot. It looks more like a silly digression just at the time the book had shifted from "Hobbit sequel" to serious epic. He talks in poetry that can feel singsong and childish. Tolkien fans seem to focus on the bit with the Ring, which is an engaging enigma without a resolution. It makes him seem very important and powerful, but the story doesn't explore it much. It's a small part of a chapter that otherwise can feel like a distraction. So a lot of fans, I think, are happy to see him go so you can get to better developed characters like Elrond and Aragorn. There is a lot more going on in that chapter, especially if you read it closely, but I can see why a lot of people are happy to skip on to the barrow wights, where the stakes are higher. Even if the ending to it is just "Tom comes back to fix it".
  • dbingham 4y ago
    The comments on this thread make it seem more likely that your circle of people who disliked Tom is the outlier rather than those of us who thoroughly enjoy him as a character. Also, I submit as evidence this scifi.stackexchange thread: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1586/who-or-what-was-tom-bombadil https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/1586/who-or-what-w... I think Tolkien fans, on average, have long enjoyed the mystery that is Tom.
    • ethbr0 4y ago
      > I think Tolkien fans, on average, have long enjoyed the mystery that is Tom. If there's one thing a true lore fan adores, it's an ambiguous but textually-supported mystery. And also, it's fitting that Tolkien left a big "Is Deckard a replicant?" mystery untied in the Ring trilogy.
      • sn41 4y ago
        Huh. It never occurred to me that Deckard could be a replicant. That truly did come out of left field :D But it makes sense.
        • 4y ago
• fritztastic 4y ago
  I was disappointed he was not in the films, however everyone else I know was glad of this omission. I think his character adds a certain something- maybe something a lot of people don't appreciate. Not including him in the movies, I thought, was a missed opportunity.
  • chasil 4y ago
    I think that I really would have enjoyed the characterization discussed in the linked article, of Bombadil as the dark hand of Mirkwood, provider of the blade that would slay the witchking. A lot of people likely would have despised such a characterization.
  • thehappypm 4y ago
    I’m disappointed too, but my least favorite thing about the movies is how they made Aragorn so different. He was supposed to be kingly right from the start, taking Anduril from Rivendell and repeatedly shocking the hobbits with his kingliness. The movies made him this reluctant guy who doesn’t want to be king — where in the book he knows it’s his destiny and it makes him a total badass. Also the fight scenes in the Fellowship.. they haven’t aged great for me. An elf, two men, and a dwarf can kill a hundred orcs? The battles in the book are awesome, but less of a one sided bloodbath. Aragorn cutting off a goblin’s head, which causes them to get freaked the fuck out and retreat. That’s way more believable than that these guys are super warriors who can take down an army when outnumbered 100:1.
• jccalhoun 4y ago
  Agreed. Back when Aint it Cool News was popular I would see tons of people complaining about Bombadil's absence. Personally, I hate Tom, not because he is childish, but because of the damn songs.
  • Trasmatta 4y ago
    Hah, I love Tolkien, but I still skip all the songs. They just never work for me in written text.
    • zikzak 4y ago
      I was like you once, then I read The Hobbit to my son and had to (HAD TO) sing all the songs to him. It kind of forced me to slow down and appreciate them as atmosphere enhancing and world building that really does improve the experience for me.
      • sfink 4y ago
        Ha! I could say exactly the same thing. The songs ended up being some of the most fun parts to read/sing. Even when some of them made us laugh about how repetitive or strange they were.
• lucideer 4y ago
  Absolutely thought "I must be living in a bubble" when I read this: I don't think I've spoken to a single book-reader who wasn't vocally disappointed by the omission of Tom from the films. He was certainly one of mine & my sibling's favourite characters.
  • PeterCorless 4y ago
    I was mostly bummed the barrow-wights were utterly missing from the movies.
  • jrumbut 4y ago
    And beyond that, I thought the first half or so of this reading (that Bombadil is a lot more than meets the eye) was also common. But he is definitely one of the most interesting characters and one of the best ways the story shows it is taking place in a big world with a lot of different things going on.
    • lucideer 4y ago
      > the first half or so of this reading (that Bombadil is a lot more than meets the eye) was also common Certainly that he's more than meets the eye (that seems plain) but the conclusions here seem less common... I think it's interesting to contrast the speculation in this article with the depiction of elves in The Hobbit (book) - much less obviously a benign force than as portrayed in LoTR. The author's assumption - accepted as given at the outset - is that the "evil" within the Old Forest is genuine, rather than a representation of a certain perspective. The thesis is then that Bombadil must be guilty by association. This initial assumption seems simplistic to me. A common trait of mystical (especially nature-connected) beings in northern European mythology (at least!) is a duality of intent - being a perhaps-positive yet untrustworthy force. This seems reflected in a lot of Tolkien's world; while Sauron / the Ring / others do have a more directly corrupt "evil" attributed to them, there's much more ambiguity elsewhere - it says of Old Man Willow that "his heart was rotten, but his strength was green": rotten != evil and in the context of nature has positive connotations (alcoholic fermentation) elsewhere in his writings. Green isn't necessarily positive either, but the usage here is notable.
• Forgeties79 4y ago
  Yeah I usually try to avoid going “well I never saw that personally,” but even combing through this thread it seems that saying folks generally don’t like Bombadil is a very hot, but also very questionable, take. I definitely remember many people remarking on his absence and debates about how critical he was (most conceded cutting him made sense it was just a bummer).
• aposm 4y ago
  I was so baffled by reading this opening paragraph that I assumed the entire post was meant to be read as a tongue-in-cheek or "edgy" theory, not a serious discourse on the books. Was I wrong??
  • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    No, not wrong. I'm not sure whether the post is serious, or just trying too hard for an edgelord take.
• greenie_beans 4y ago
  I read that and was like, "wait what? I must be a loser for liking him."
• mrzool 4y ago
  My thoughts exactly. I loved Tom Bombadil when reading the book as a child!
• rossdavidh 4y ago
  I think it depends on whether or not it's the sort of fan who read the books once, perhaps after seeing the Peter Jackson movies, or the sort of fan who reads them every few years. You are perhaps the latter sort.
• eric_cc 4y ago
  100% agree with you. Tom was my favorite character and an essential one in my opinion. I was one of those people that was deeply disappointed by his absence. Tom is entirely beyond caring about "good" or "evil". His peace is such a vital contrast to every other character and has stuck with me over time.
  • Trasmatta 4y ago
    > Tom is entirely beyond caring about "good" or "evil". His peace is such a vital contrast to every other character and has stuck with me over time. Yeah, exactly this. To me, Tom is a part of nature, even moreso than the elves or the ents, which isn't really good or evil. That's another reason I didn't like this post at all. Tom isn't some malicious force, biding his time until Sauron leaves when he can dance upon the corpses of the Hobbits. He's a mystery, a hint at the depth of the world, and a curious aspect of nature.
  • Aerroon 4y ago
    >Tom is entirely beyond caring about "good" or "evil". His peace is such a vital contrast to every other character and has stuck with me over time. I think characters like that can make the world seem more... worldly. It gives a perspective that everything doesn't just revolve around the central plot.
  • avidphantasm 4y ago
    A good point. He is an indifferent character, much as nature is indifferent to humanity. However, to “humans” experiencing peril, indifference can feel like evil.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Global Climate Disruption is (1) a looming catastrophe for human civilization, (2) potentially a major setback for us as a species with a population crash from billions to millions, but (3) barely a hiccup to the biosphere, just one among many pulses of extinctions.
• vlunkr 4y ago
  I've seen both sides. My first time reading it I think I was just baffled. Now I enjoy him as an enigma.
• illuminerdy 4y ago
  Yeah, I've never felt the way about Tom Bombadil that the author implies. I find his character fascinating. But I also understand why Jackson didn't include him in the movies. There's only so much you can do before a movie becomes unwieldy.
  • SkyMarshal 4y ago
    Yeah Jackson even explained that in one of his interviews. Bombadil doesn’t really contribute anything to the main plot of the books or the character development of the hobbits. He’s a mysterious interlude that never appears again or has any effect on the plot development or outcome. It just wasn’t possible to justify giving him precious minutes in an already long movie, and would likely have confused audience who hadn’t read the book yet. But I’m also not aware of anyone who actually dislikes him, as the article asserts.
• libraryatnight 4y ago
  Your experience matches my own. For me and my circle Tolkien's works were a draw in part because of how much lore and detail was in the world and yet there were huge mysteries all over that ignite the imagination. Tom was one of those, and as kids he was a source of long debates about how powerful he was, and as we got older and read wider and deeper he still prompts conversation on nature, the nature of power, mystery in story telling - he's the reason I read the Kalevala. Anyway -Tom's awesome and this blog post did not resonate with me much at all, I was glad to see this and most of HN's comments in response.
• nindalf 4y ago
  > Did I just run in different Tolkien circles than the author? Almost certainly. Tolkien fans aren't a monolith, there's plenty of diversity of opinion. I remember seeing these screenshots of a Tolkien forum from 2000 and 2001 of people berating Peter Jackson in the most scathing terms. They were talking about how he's completely ruined Tolkien's legacy. That said, if you're looking for a Tolkien fan who dislikes Tom - hi, I'm one. Fuck Tom Bombadil. He contributed exactly nothing to the story.
  • Trasmatta 4y ago
    I know that there are fans that don't like Tom. Just that it doesn't seem to be dominant or overarching opinion that the author makes it seem like.
  • mynameisash 4y ago
    > He contributed exactly nothing to the story. Couldn't the same thing be said of Tolkien's colorful description of the countryside that can go on for pages at a time?
    • nindalf 4y ago
      When I was reading the story I could understand that the descriptions of the country side were just for setting the scene. Whereas this guy takes up pages and pages, to ultimately have no effect on the story at all? Felt like a bait and switch to ten year old me.
      • dorchadas 4y ago
        Maybe it comes down to a difference of how people approach books? Do you think that everything in a book should ultimately have an effect on the story? Do you think Hugo's descriptions in Les Misérables contribute to the story, or that it should only ever be read in an abridged version? Personally, I think those things (and Tom!) do contribute a lot to the story, so maybe that's why I liked Tom. There's more to writing than simply telling a story and making everything pertinent to that, and thus there's more to reading. Of course, I also like worldbuilding and would read D&D manuals simply for that, without ever playing sometimes, so another reason why I liked Tom, but I can't help but wonder if it's split into two camps because of how people approach reading and literature.
• micromacrofoot 4y ago
  I agree! an impish godlike figure that doesn't care all that much about the outside world and wants to sing and dance around in the woods? what's not to love.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• mabbo 4y ago
  I tried to read LoTR when I was 11. I got to Tom Bombadil and just gave up. 70 pages of him singing with no real point. I just couldn't go on. I finally read it in full around 5 years later.
  • Hayvok 4y ago
    As a kid I would get bored and skip the Tom Bombadil section - it was only years later as a young adult and I was starting to get deeper into the lore that I found him to be a fascinating character, with deep implications. Absolutely agree he needed to be dropped from the theatrical release. Would have been nice to see him in the extended edition though.
  • slavik81 4y ago
    The first LotR movie released when I was in grade nine. IIRC, of the 14 students in our class, 11 started reading the books after the movie. Of those, maybe 4 finished. The boredom of Tom Bombadil was the cause of a lot of the dropouts.
  • IlliOnato 4y ago
    I think a lot of kids just don't like (or get) poetry in general, and there are lots of verses in LoTR. I guess in most cases they are easy to skip, but not in the Bombadil chapters. Myself I enjoyed the poetry, but my first reading of Tolkien at the age of 12 was in Russian translation. The poetry was translated absolutely beautifully, and I memorized several poems from the book. But I don't know how I would like the original poetry if English was my first language. I think the Tolkien's books are very poetic overall, not just the verses, and it's much subtler than just an adventure story of the fight between good and evil. These days, when I re-read LoTR, I do it for this "poetic" value, for impressions, rather than for the story (which I know so well, it becomes just a background)...
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• anupj 4y ago
  I stopped taking the article seriously after I read this line. IMO Tom Bombadil was a very likeable character. The author seems to have imagined a problem (where none existed) and then proceeded to explain why it's not a problem. Almost a clickbait.
• slaymaker1907 4y ago
  Yeah, I've gotten a lot of positive comments for my character "Tom Bombabil" in FFXIV. It's kind of an insider thing for who read the books vs who just watched the movies. Personally, I liked him just for carefree and silly he was.
• alrlroipsp 4y ago
  I absolutley agree with you! I remember reacting badly seeing first movie in cinemas when they had left out Tom. I brought it up many times with friends that it was the biggest mistake to exclude him, but many argued he is not central to the story. I have never ever heard anyone dislike Tom. I even read the Tom Bombadill songs child book.
  • halostatue 4y ago
    I skipped Tom Bombadil—even on my rereading of the cycle. Completely irrelevant to the story and entirely Tolkien the Old English professor marking time. Absolutely nothing is lost from the quality of story by dropping him, and ignoring him makes the whole series more accessible. Then again, I’m not one of those folks who considers Tolkien sacrosanct. I generally think that he’s a bit like George Lucas: a pretty good idea guy, some interesting ideas, but not the best person to write the stories.
    • alrlroipsp 4y ago
      How would you know when you skipped it?
      • halostatue 4y ago
        Because, ~20 pages in, I wanted to throw the book against the wall and never pick it up again. I skipped past the Bombadil chapter and decided that the book was worth reading now that the professorial digression had been skipped. A good editor would have had it shortened or eliminated.
• cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Reading it again as an adult (read outloud in full to my daughter when she was 11 or 12 or so, before watching the movies) I really liked Bombadil. But I didn't dig that section at all when I read the books as a 14 year old. It seemed whimsical and childish. More fairy tale than the overall dark and serious epic tone in the rest of the book. I see the Bombadil portion and the sections after it as Tolkien making the transition from "I'm writing a sequel to The Hobbit with a similar feel" to "I'm writing a sequel to my Silmarillion, with much more mature and darker themes". I think Bombadil fits more in the style of The Hobbit (fundamentally a children's book) than the larger Quenta Silmarillion.
• UncleOxidant 4y ago
  Yeah, I can't get past that sentence either, and it's the 2nd sentence. I just don't get the impression they know what they're talking about and have serious doubts about spending time reading the rest of it.
• sigzero 4y ago
  That is one the top 10 complaints about the movies "No Tom Bombadil?!!". So yeah, entirely wrong.
• qorrect 4y ago
  Well I'm glad you said that, I was very disappointed he wasn't in the movies. My other friends seemed not to care, or they thought he would be too difficult to portray on camera.
• cloverich 4y ago
  There's a bit of selection bias going on w/ Tolkien fans vs readers of the book in general. I know many people who read the and loved the book, disliked the sections on Tom (at least, beyond a few pages of it), and have never participated in any Tolkien fan community. I suspect "fans of the book" meant more the casual rather than the hard-core fan you are alluding to.
• xxs 4y ago
  Since my school days, I have not met anyone who dislikes Tom.
• ergonaught 4y ago
  I’ve hated Tom since the first time I read the series, which must be over 40 years ago now. I’ve hated him on every reread. Leaving him out of the films was one of my happiest moments. Sooooo we exist…?
  • sfjailbird 4y ago
    You and me both. He seems like a copy/paste from some children's book Tolkien had lying around, which he then threw in as filler for LOTR. Of course, hardcore fans come up with more or less tortured explanations for the glaring inconsistencies. I say that as someone who has held up LOTR as some of my favorite books my whole life. I started re-reading them recently after 20 years and had to quit after Tom Bombadil.
    • WJW 4y ago
      Honestly why would you quit after the Tom Bombadil part if you love everything but his part. He literally doesn't appear at all after the few chapters he takes up.