Tom Bombadil

Originally posted by The Sacred Fire
True. But people must understand that Tolkien invented Tom for personal reasons and not to satisfy anyone else. He also didn't want everything to be known about him, he wanted him to be an enigma.

Also, Tolkien considers Tom unimportant to the story.

Tolkien said:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in The Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

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

That "feeling" he is talking about there we know part of and is mentioned in my last post:

Tolkien envisioned Tom as a nature-spirit that is expressive of the English countryside, which in Tolkien's time had begun to disappear. Also, any Tolkien scholar will tell you that Tolkien had a deep love for trees. This is shown by the characters the Ents and Tom (among others).

So there you have it, from the man himself: Tom must have had some purpose otherwise Tolkien wouldn't have added him.

I love Tom. He's colourful, different and a total mystery 🙂

It's all well and good citing sources et cetera, but it doesn't change the fact that Bombadil has never found the mass appeal other characters have enjoyed.

There's no doubt Tom Bombadil was an important character for Tolkien, but disregarding Tolkien's intentions, and taking into account the "love/hate" relationship readers have with him, either something got lost in ranslation or that's simply the way the character was concieved and executed.

Originally posted by exanda kane
It's all well and good citing sources et cetera, but it doesn't change the fact that Bombadil has never found the mass appeal other characters have enjoyed.

Sure, totally agree. Tom isn't as popular as other characters, I'm not saying he is. I love that aswell, sometimes characters that are worshiped too much by fans can be offputting (e.g - Legolas, the movie version). Just my opinion!

Originally posted by exanda kane
There's no doubt Tom Bombadil was an important character for Tolkien, but disregarding Tolkien's intentions, and taking into account the "love/hate" relationship readers have with him, either something got lost in ranslation or that's simply the way the character was concieved and executed.

As I said, Tolkien deliberately created Tom to be an enigma. Afterall, what kind of a fantasy story has absolutely no mystery: a boring one!

I see Tom as Tolkien's indulgence. He's his treat, for him. I think it's fair that he has something that represents his personal views and that is purely for him to enjoy (if not the readers aswell). Seeing as, lets be honest, when you write a book (although I never have! 😛) you do want it to appeal to people, which it obviously did.

People who try to analyse Tom too much are taking the fun out. Tolkien actually told an older fan they were looking into it too much/being too serious when they questioned Tom and the mystery surrounding him.

As for that WK theory, as impossible as it is. I read somewhere that Eru/Illuvatar was Tom. Tolkien also dismissed this idea too though.

Tom was a wonderful detour in the book. I perfectly understand cutting him from the film, it was the right, if painful, thing to do. Still, how good would it be to see what those scene's would have looked like? I deeply missed the Scouring of the Shire as well- but there was absolutely no way to have it in the movies without adding at least 30 min. to an already LONG run time. The truth is, only a television miniseries could ever do justice to the books (maybe we'll see this happen, in twenty years or so?)

Tom doesn't play an important part of the story and Jackson didn't have time to focus on stuff not plot related.

yes i agree that bombadil didn have much effect on the storyline but WHY !!!!
it kinda does effect them in a ways , when they get taken by the barrow wight and Tom saved them they got the kickass swords , in the movie strider gives them normal swords , which shouldve made it impossible for pippin to kill the WK

Pippin?

merry , i get those confused ive read the book and seen the movie dozens of times and still get them mixed up

I would have loved to of seen Frodo's wild cousin in the film , but I believe the right decisison was made to cut Tom Bombadil from the movie. The film turned out to be a masterwork of moviemaking and the E.E. make's it even more so. So one can't really complain that much. Would have been nice but ultimatley you have to do what's right for the film.

EXCELLENT DISCUSSION

Originally posted by Khamul 666
it kinda does effect them in a ways , when they get taken by the barrow wight and Tom saved them they got the kickass swords , in the movie strider gives them normal swords , which shouldve made it impossible for pippin to kill the WK

Depends on the definition of "normal". The swords they got in the book were normal Dúnedain swords, no "elven magic". It is certainly not unlikely that Aragorn had access to such normal Dúnedain swords to give them to the hobbits (as in the movie).

Also, the Witchking was certainly not killed because of a special sword, but because of Merry's and Éowyn's courage - after all, we're in a book, not in a computer game. The sword that killed him was Éowyn's plain normal Rohan blade, but yielded by a desperate woman with a loyal friend.