4 ms·

> 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 rem

> 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.
high_5 4y ago
> He contributed exactly nothing to the story. I see you point, but there are so many chapters in our meandering lives that don't add nothing to our "story". It still does add a layer of depth to the LOTR as others have pointed out. And in a way he acts as a comic Cerberus, scaring away the materialistic minds that want to speedrun through a completely coherent story once again.
mrex 4y ago
>He contributed exactly nothing to the story. Or, did you just not understand what he contributed? Why was Tom Bombadil invulnerable to the ring's power? Why was he not tempted by it? If you can't cogently answer that, I feel like you've probably just not yet understood what Tolkein was trying to represent.
reddog 4y ago
> He contributed exactly nothing to the story. He was in the books to add depth, history and verisimilitude to Middle Earth. He was an important part of world building. Tolkien could have left him out and the story would not have suffered but the same could be said for the appendixes and map as well.

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.

high_5 4y ago

> He contributed exactly nothing to the story. I see you point, but there are so many chapters in our meandering lives that don't add nothing to our "story". It still does add a layer of depth to the LOTR as others have pointed out. And in a way he acts as a comic Cerberus, scaring away the materialistic minds that want to speedrun through a completely coherent story once again.

mrex 4y ago

>He contributed exactly nothing to the story. Or, did you just not understand what he contributed? Why was Tom Bombadil invulnerable to the ring's power? Why was he not tempted by it? If you can't cogently answer that, I feel like you've probably just not yet understood what Tolkein was trying to represent.

reddog 4y ago

> He contributed exactly nothing to the story. He was in the books to add depth, history and verisimilitude to Middle Earth. He was an important part of world building. Tolkien could have left him out and the story would not have suffered but the same could be said for the appendixes and map as well.