Tolkien fans

Originally posted by jarryd
Does anyone know if Peter Jackson is going to film The Hobbit? Has anyone seen the extended DVD of The Return of the King and know how Saruman is dealt with, as it was omitted in the cinema version.

That would be cool, but I hope the the Dragon talks like in the Book.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Third of all, Bombadil showed another side to the Maia. Looking at the film one would think that all wizards are into power-gaming. Not true. Bombadil showed that some of them didn't care about the going-ons of man.

He is not Maia. It's totally speculative and not well-supported
by the evidence (in fact the only evidence is the fact that his
'race' is not mentioned at all).

I like the theory that he is part of the Music of Ainur, myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil

Nemesio

Originally posted by shavixmir
There are various reasons Tom Bombadil should have been in the movie.

The first one is obviously the swords the hobbits find in the mire. These are special swords and only because of them could Pippin (or Merry...god knows) slay the wraith king.

In the film Aragorn hands them swords at weathertop. Why not before? Pathetic.

The second reason is ...[text shortened]... u'll find them funny. I believe one or two of them have disappeared...such is the way of art...

I agree that Bombadil should have been in the film. In fact, the books are so good that deviations from the plot line in the films were just annoying. Why should the story suffer - the films should simply have been longer!

I thought there were five wizards, though; Gandalf, Saruman, Rhadagast and two blue wizards. Was Bombadil one of the blue or something different? Opinions please...

Originally posted by Corsair
I agree that Bombadil should have been in the film. In fact, the books are so good that deviations from the plot line in the films were just annoying. Why should the story suffer - the films should simply have been longer!

I thought th ...[text shortened]... mbadil one of the blue or something different? Opinions please...

Bombadil is outside the standard Maiar - Valar heirarchy. He's totally seperate from the 5 Maiar sent to ME to fight Sauron.

Personally I believe he embodies ME itself, in the way that the Green Man or Jack in the Green does within traditional English myth.

Originally posted by Osse
Bombadil is outside the standard Maiar - Valar heirarchy. He's totally seperate from the 5 Maiar sent to ME to fight Sauron.

Personally I believe he embodies ME itself, in the way that the Green Man or Jack in the Green does within traditional English myth.

Tom Bombadil has been equated with the god of neutrality and indeed the idea of balance. Since Tolkein was primarily basing a lot of the book on his experiences of the Second World War, it is not inconceiveable to consider that he was attempting to create a character to whom the outcome of the war was a matter of balance and neutrality (perhaps he was Swiss...), not one of victory or loss. He and Goldberry are the very essence of nature and I think Tolkein was trying to show that there is a continuation of things above and beyond the petty squabblings of man, no matter how important they might seem to all involved. Just my view 🙂

Originally posted by Corsair
I thought there were five wizards, though; Gandalf, Saruman, Rhadagast and two blue wizards. Was Bombadil one of the blue or something different? Opinions please...

There were five Maiar sent to fight Sauron, but that wasn't the
entirety of that race. The blue wizards 'went east' or something
like that and do not play a role in the story. Bombadil was not
one of these, whatever the arguments about his being a Maya are.

I think that the idea that he is the first-born of creation, a 'Father
Earth' figure is a fine one, totally consistent with the books and
authentic supplementary literature. People keep trying to fit circle
pegs in square holes, which is silly. Bombadil doesn't have to
be anything; not Valar, not Maiar, &c.

No. Father Earth is a fine depiction and, as mentioned, there are
many such archetypal mythological figures in other stories with which
Tolkein would have been familiar.

However, I do disagree that his absence from the films was severely
detrimental to their excellence. I mean, 'my pants are green and my
boots are yellow?' I don't see how they could have done this well
in the movies without at least a half-hour of film.

Nemesio

Originally posted by jarryd
the other 2 wizards were called Pallando and Alatar. references are made to them in Tolkien's writings.
just thought you would like to know.

Thanks - I have always wanted to know that! Seriously, I am not being sarcastic for a change! 😀

Originally posted by Corsair
Thanks - I have always wanted to know that! Seriously, I am not being sarcastic for a change! 😀

There's a fantastic book called "The encyclopedia of Middle Earth", I forget who by, but it covers synopsis of the evolution of middle earth, the various races, characters (from all the ages and stories) and history and also has an index. It is a really interesting source of Tolkien knowledge and I can reccomend it to all 🙂

Originally posted by Starrman
There's a fantastic book called "The encyclopedia of Middle Earth", I forget who by, but it covers synopsis of the evolution of middle earth, the various races, characters (from all the ages and stories) and history and also has an index. It is a really interesting source of Tolkien knowledge and I can reccomend it to all 🙂

I have that book tucked away somewhere...

you may want to try this site
The Encyclopedia of Arda
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/

here is what it has to say about Ol' TB ...and this is only a little of what is available on Tom:

2. Bombadil as a Literary Character
It seems clear that, within the cosmos to which he belonged, Tom cannot be classified with any certainty. Outside that cosmos, though, we can at least reach some firmer conclusions (and offer some freer speculations).

Tom's Origins in Earlier Writings
At the time of writing The Lord of Rings, Tolkien had already completed a body of work that many writers would do well to equal in a lifetime. Tom himself had appeared in print as early as 1933 (though the collection The Adventures of Tom Bombadil did not appear until 1961 - and in fact Tom only appears in the first two of these sixteen poems). What's more, the Silmarillion was already well developed (though much of it as it existed then would be unrecognisable to readers familiar with the published version, a great deal of its narrative was already in place).

It seemed at that time that the Silmarillion would never be published, and so Tolkien felt free to use names from that work in his sequel to The Hobbit: Glorfindel is the most famous example, but the names Gildor, Denethor, Boromir, Minas Tirith and many others besides all appear in both works, referring to different characters and places (the hyperlinks here refer to entries for the older versions).

Tom must also have been part of this process, but in his case, his entire character, rather than just his name, seems to have been transplanted into the emerging Lord of the Rings. Tom's appearance in the early chapters is natural - Tolkien at that time seems to have envisaged the work as a children's book, a sequel to The Hobbit following the same style, and Tom certainly would not have seemed out of place. As it grew, though, the world of The Lord of the Rings began to merge with that of The Silmarillion. Here the difficulty seems to have arisen - a character like Tom, though he fits easily into the unconstrained story-telling of The Hobbit, doesn't have an obvious place in the detailed universe of The Silmarillion.

Though Tom's insertion into the nascent Lord of the Rings might be viewed (at least in a sense) as 'accidental', it is certainly no accident that he remained there. Tolkien reviewed and revised the book with his customary meticulousness - it is inconceivable that the character of Tom Bombadil would have stayed in place if Tolkien didn't see him, in some sense, 'fitting' with the rest of the story. In Tolkien's own words:

"...I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954


In the same letter, he goes on to summarise what these 'certain things' are. It is difficult to paraphrase his statements here: the suggestion is that while all sides in the War of the Ring seek, in their different ways, some sort of political power, Tom is immune from this in the same way that he is immune from the Ring. He only wishes to understand things for what they are, and desires no control over them. (This is a rather pale rendering of Tolkien's actual comments - for further study of this topic, a copy of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, with special reference to Nos 144 and 153, is indispensible.)

Tom's Place in Mythology
Tolkien's own understanding of what Tom represents in the Lord of the Rings seems to have evolved 'after the event': from what evidence we have, Tolkien apparently first decided that he wanted Tom in the book, and then rationalised his inclusion. One of his earliest comments on Tom after the publication of The Lord of the Rings is:

"...he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954


In the same passage, he then goes on to give an account of Tom's literary function within the book, and the ideas that he represents. But this is an account of ideas from an intellectual perspective, not of the 'feeling' that led to his original inclusion. Here we will speculate a little (the word 'speculate' cannot be over-emphasised!) on Tom's mythological role, and where Tolkien's 'feeling' might have originated. Before continuing, though, it's important to note that Tolkien himself disliked this line of reasoning. Writing of an introduction to the Swedish version of The Lord of the Rings by a Dr Åke Ohlmarks, he says:

"As for Wayland Smith being a Pan-type, or being reflected both in Bombadil and Gollum: this is sufficient example of the silly methods and nonsensical conclusions of Dr O[hlmarks]."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 229, dated 1961


(Wayland Smith is a god of the Anglo-Saxons; Pan is of course Greek). It is unclear here whether Tolkien is criticising Dr Ohlmarks' specific conclusions (sadly we have no record of what these were), or whether he is dismissing the role of mythological comparison altogether. Ultimately, though, Tolkien was in the business of creating his own mythology (intentionally or not); to avoid comparison with other mythologies is to miss a rich seam of material. Nonetheless, what follows should be read in light of his own comments quoted above.

The particular aspect of other mythologies that we address here is the role of the 'mischievous outsider'. This refers to a god or other being who in some sense does not 'belong' with the others (and indeed, is often literally imported into a mythology from outside). Such characters may be meddlesome and irritating (like the Norse Loki, or the original form of the Arthurian Cei or Kay), but more usually they are simply jolly, frolicsome creatures (Egypt had Bes, the baboon-god, while the Greeks 'borrowed' Bacchus from the people of Thrace). There are many other examples who fulfil this archetype: Coyote in North America, Ueuecoyotl in Mexico or the eastern monkey-god variously called Hanuman or Sun Hou-tzu (better known in the West simply as 'Monkey'😉.

It is not our concern here to discuss why this figure should be so universally represented, only to note that he is. (The word 'he' is used advisedly - this role always seems to be filled by a male).

Is Tom Bombadil a 'mischievous outsider'? He is certainly 'mischievous' (or, more precisely, joyfully unconcerned with the world at large), and we've seen that he is emphatically an 'outsider', in that he doesn't fit easily with the rest of Tolkien's universe. What we're suggesting here is that these elements are not in any sense objections to his inclusion in The Lord of the Rings; in fact they are recommendations: they help to add an inherent sense of 'myth' to the book, that would otherwise be far less evident.

This is not to suggest, of course, that Tolkien consciously considered these points. Rather, to a man steeped in mythical tradition as he was, Tom would have 'felt' right as a character - he helps to lift the Quest of Mount Doom from mere 'legend' into the realms of 'myth'. This perhaps (remember we are speculating wildly here) helps to account for Tolkien's imprecise 'feeling' about him.

'Conclusion'
There is only one answer to the riddle of Tom Bombadil: that there is no answer. Though we've presented some of the evidence here, this article does no more than dip beneath the surface. It seems, though, that Tom's nature is ultimately undiscoverable, and this is surely a good thing.

Part of the wonder of Tolkien's world is its depth and detail, but it needs its mysteries and unknowns too: if we knew everything about the World of Arda and its inhabitants, there would be no joy of exploration and discovery. If nothing else, Tom Bombadil stands proudly as a symbol of the mysterious, and we should be glad that he does.

Originally posted by Nemesio
1) The ring goes to Osgiliath? I find the way that they
handle Faramir to be a little disappointing. He turns
Boromir-eque in the movie whereas in the book he is
a true hero, the hero that Denethor, Son of Ecthelion
thought Boromir was (and should have been).

2) Elves at Helms Deep? Sure the elves don't have
a lot to do in the movies, but I find their addition to
be superfluous eye candy.

Whilst I recognise that adaptations have to be made for a film, these two points I agree with entirely.
Especially Faramir, who is more or less a baddie in the film.
The Elves at helms deep replace the rangers in the book. So much for the "Last Alliance of Elves and Men". On top of which, it was done extremely cheesily: "We Elves are proud to fight alongside men!". Bleh!!

Originally posted by shavixmir
The second reason is that Goldberry (or whatever her name was) is a babe.

Who would you envisage playing Goldberry then?
And I won't accept ridiculously bad casting, such as Liv Tyler as Arwen.