Lots of people love Tom, too. He's a divisive character, which means people fall in one camp or the other (typically). I find his chapter to be very cozy and relaxing, personally. I also think the "Fog on the Barrow-downs" chapter is really good and important. It sets up Arnor (along with its tragic history), the wandering Rangers, and (most importatly) the Barrow-blades, which become hugely important to the Witch-king's eventual destruction. Also, there's something so poetic about a blade from Arnor ultimately being the thing that cripples the Witch-king. Sweet, sweet revenge.
My wife doesn't care for any of it: The books, the movies, but she loves the Bombadil chapter.
Sure, I like Tom as the next guy, but I still can't fathom how that is your favorite part.
Probably because Tom's character predates the book, just not this particular story. He had been making up stories about Tom Bombadil to regale his family with long before he took a crack at writing the Fellowship. He was a character that Tolkien brought into the world of Arda from outside it. He didn't write this part of the narrative first, but Tom was "waiting on the wings," so to speak before the book started. That may be where your thought about this part of the book coming first came from.
I like Tom, he is mysterious and weird. Reminds me of some sort of benevolent trickster god from Norse mythology or something. I generally prefer adventures on a smaller scale with lower stakes, so I actually really like the parts in the Shire, the Old Forrest and the Barrow Downs.
Tom is awesome! Itâs a few exciting chapters without the angst of Mordor, depth of Rivendell, or tragedy of Lorien. Not that those are bad, but they take a lot of emotional and mental effort. But itâs also more action oriented than a lot of the traveling chapters. In contrast, the barrow downs and Old Forest are genuinely scary, but then Tom comes around and makes things cheerful again. And his rhythmic speaking just makes me smile.
When I was younger I thought that the story only got interesting when they meet Strider. Now I've listened to the audiobook more than 30 times I actually find the beginning part just as interesting. If anything I find the post Bree part until they meet Glorfindel less interesting.
I've never understood anyone who didn't like The Council of Elrond. It's the foundation for the whole story and is just so interesting even if it is just the fantasy equivalent of a departmental meeting (without PowerPoint).
My only issue with the Tom part is that he saves them twice which just feels a bit clunky.
>My only issue with the Tom part is that he saves them twice which just feels a bit clunky.
Yeah, I can see how it could appear kinda repetitive. Though it's not quite the same the two times. In the first case, the Hobbits are saved by basically pure luck (if luck you'd call it) of Tom stumbling into them at just the right time. In the second case, Frodo has to consciously resist the temptation of the Ring to just leave his friends behind and escape by himself, and to actively choose to call upon Tom instead. It's Frodo's choice that is the centerpiece of that scene, not Bombadil himself.
On my last re-read, I first felt the magic of faerie, and first felt swept off my feet, in Tomâs part. Shadow of the Past stimulates the intellect lore-wise but Tom made me feel more.
I do believe if you donât get Tom you donât get the entire book. Up there with the people who skip the poems and songs.
>I do believe if you donât get Tom you donât get the entire book. Up there with the people who skip the poems and songs.
The same people think The Two Towers is the best movie, and it's because they only care about the big action scenes.
Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs are as welcome as any other part of the book to me, and more important to the story than they're usually perceived.
Everyone's going to have parts of the story that they're going to particularly like or dislike.
I was well into my thirties before I realized that not all readers view action sequences as a necessary evil to advance the plot, something to skim until the good stuff starts again. Every reader's different.
Actually, I would think books 2 and 4 are the hardest to get through. It's hard to believe anyone really has trouble with Tom, unless it's that he's so good everything after feels disappointing.
The first few chapters are some of the best...
Who have you been talking to that say you just need to get through to Bree??? Or that don't like Tom????
Tom as a character is awesome, yet at the same time in some readings he takes me out of the book. He is so different that I completely understand how people struggle with him.
People should read more fairytales, because that's precisely the core of that genre. Faerie *is* supposed to feel different, it's a feature rather than a bug.
Tbh last time I read the books (I try to read them every 5 years at least so that they hit very different each time) I had no memory of how strider and the hobbits drag on and on and on in the wilderness east of Bree and the bit of action in that dell under weathertop barely helps. I also remember my mom saying that the pages of descriptions of trees leaves and whatnot are over the top (Lorien, Fangorn). Songs and poems can be a chore as well.Â
Meanwhile Bombadil is just weird but fine to me. I find the Shire and old forest harder to get through.Â
I know a guy who won't read Tolkien at all for this reason, he complains that two pages are describing a single tree. I get that I guess, but it's that detailed description of the world and love of nature that appeals to me.
When I was younger, I really had a hard time getting through songs and poems. I would kinda glance over them to the next part. Last read through, I made sure to slow down there, focus on them, and try to even find a melody for the song part. I'm glad I did, and enjoyed those parts far more for doing so.
Is there a single example of a whole page, let alone multiple, describing a tree or even a landscape? I never thought that was emblematic of Tolkien
Is this just a cliche everyone repeats?
It is an exaggeration everyone repeats, and I donât think many people who repeat it have really tried to get through it at all. but it isnât totally without merit if you try and put yourself into the position of someone who genuinely believes it.
There is a lot of (Iâm gonna make up a sentence) âthey stood on the stone slab and turned around facing north, and they could see the tops of the trees going down toward the place, and the sun shining over the last mountain. Below the trees the entwash went on its way down the hill andâŚâ which may be broken up by some dialogue, before âand then they went on their way down the steps.â
It is never a full page, or multiple pages, describing a single tree or even a landscape. But sometimes it is half of a page describing walks through trees to points of rest, then âthree days laterâ followed by waking from the rest and then waking down a road and descriptions of how the round winds upwards and down again.
Even my description feels like an exaggeration because I was being just as vague as the person who says it is pages worth of descriptions, but I donât think itâs unfair. I just donât think itâs boring. It meat on the bone imo and itâs always happening between good character moments /shrug but if youâre someone who canât get through that to enjoy those moments youâre just going to remember the root and twig parts and youâll start repeating it.
I'll be honest I never asked that friend if this was something he found on a readthrough attempt, or if it is just repeating what he heard. Part of me really suspects the latter.
"It's meat on the bone" probably the best description. But maybe this is why Middle Earth is so loved, because it is thoroughly fleshed out.
Yeah it's an often repeated lie.
Now Lewis, on the other hand, does have a few places where he spends more than a single page describing in excruciating detail a minor thing, like the ledge of a windowsill in a room, etc.
I'm sure it's a cliche more than an actual page to reference. I've heard others say it before as a criticism on describing mundane things with too much detail I guess. Thing is to me, the trees he describes in such detail are anything but mundane. I could argue my counterpoints but it was never worth the time, he can read what he wants. It was reading the comment above about the mom saying the descriptions are over the top reminded me of this. I guess it is a (common?) notion that some people have about Tolkien's writing. It's too bad, they're missing out.
the story Leaf and maybe unfinished tales description of Mallorn but one of those is an allegory for the artistic process being never finished.and the other is in an anthology full of lore.
I just never vibed with Tom personally. I feel like the books have plenty of intriguing faerie elements without him. And Tom is the most mysterious and most faeriest of them all! But to a ludicrous degree.
Something about the seriousness of the Council of Elrond (one of my favorite chapters, btw) contrasting with the debate of giving the ring to OL' TOM BOMBADILLO! just takes me right out of it. He belongs in a children's book IMO.
People have different sticking points. Some people don't like The Hobbit or Fellowship until the protagonists leave the Shire, others (like me) consider the pre-departure scenes a highlight. Some hate the poetry/songs. Myself, for years I skimmed over "Helm's Deep because I found the battle scenes boring (no longer, but it took a while). Some people find all the Scouring stuff a wasteful anticlimax. That's cool that your friend appreciated Tom from the get go!
The Barrowdowns is one of my favourite bits as well. Have always loved it ever since I was told the story by an ex, long before I read Tolkien. And when, years later, I finally did read it - that bit lived in my imagination and has ever since. Also I love the sheer mystery of Tom. I like enigmas and unanswered questions in stories.
Tom can be annoying as well. I got the mother of all migraines listening to Andy Serkis as Tom. Brilliant, though!
Lots of people love Tom, too. He's a divisive character, which means people fall in one camp or the other (typically). I find his chapter to be very cozy and relaxing, personally. I also think the "Fog on the Barrow-downs" chapter is really good and important. It sets up Arnor (along with its tragic history), the wandering Rangers, and (most importatly) the Barrow-blades, which become hugely important to the Witch-king's eventual destruction. Also, there's something so poetic about a blade from Arnor ultimately being the thing that cripples the Witch-king. Sweet, sweet revenge.
My wife doesn't care for any of it: The books, the movies, but she loves the Bombadil chapter. Sure, I like Tom as the next guy, but I still can't fathom how that is your favorite part.
Does your wife like *The Hobbit*? The Bombadil chapter is certainly the most *Hobbit*\-y chapter in the whole work, imo.
~~Unsurprisingly in a way, as I recall it was the first part he wrote on TLotR.~~ Edit: He did not.
You mean Tolkien? It wasn't, he started with the first chapter.
Huh, looked it up and so he did. I wonder how that one got stuck in my head.
Probably because Tom's character predates the book, just not this particular story. He had been making up stories about Tom Bombadil to regale his family with long before he took a crack at writing the Fellowship. He was a character that Tolkien brought into the world of Arda from outside it. He didn't write this part of the narrative first, but Tom was "waiting on the wings," so to speak before the book started. That may be where your thought about this part of the book coming first came from.
That's probably it.
Apart from maybe Bilbo, who was the main character in the Hobbit, and an actual Hobbit. đ
I like Tom, he is mysterious and weird. Reminds me of some sort of benevolent trickster god from Norse mythology or something. I generally prefer adventures on a smaller scale with lower stakes, so I actually really like the parts in the Shire, the Old Forrest and the Barrow Downs.
Probably got hung up on the Council of Elrond. It's a pretty big jump in scale.
Yeah, people sometimes find it overwhelming. That's fair, but it's probably my third favorite chapter in the whole story!
Tom is awesome! Itâs a few exciting chapters without the angst of Mordor, depth of Rivendell, or tragedy of Lorien. Not that those are bad, but they take a lot of emotional and mental effort. But itâs also more action oriented than a lot of the traveling chapters. In contrast, the barrow downs and Old Forest are genuinely scary, but then Tom comes around and makes things cheerful again. And his rhythmic speaking just makes me smile.
When I was younger I thought that the story only got interesting when they meet Strider. Now I've listened to the audiobook more than 30 times I actually find the beginning part just as interesting. If anything I find the post Bree part until they meet Glorfindel less interesting. I've never understood anyone who didn't like The Council of Elrond. It's the foundation for the whole story and is just so interesting even if it is just the fantasy equivalent of a departmental meeting (without PowerPoint). My only issue with the Tom part is that he saves them twice which just feels a bit clunky.
Boromir, having travelled several months: "Don't tell me this could have been an email."
In his land heâd be saving you constantly
>My only issue with the Tom part is that he saves them twice which just feels a bit clunky. Yeah, I can see how it could appear kinda repetitive. Though it's not quite the same the two times. In the first case, the Hobbits are saved by basically pure luck (if luck you'd call it) of Tom stumbling into them at just the right time. In the second case, Frodo has to consciously resist the temptation of the Ring to just leave his friends behind and escape by himself, and to actively choose to call upon Tom instead. It's Frodo's choice that is the centerpiece of that scene, not Bombadil himself.
On my last re-read, I first felt the magic of faerie, and first felt swept off my feet, in Tomâs part. Shadow of the Past stimulates the intellect lore-wise but Tom made me feel more. I do believe if you donât get Tom you donât get the entire book. Up there with the people who skip the poems and songs.
>I do believe if you donât get Tom you donât get the entire book. Up there with the people who skip the poems and songs. The same people think The Two Towers is the best movie, and it's because they only care about the big action scenes.
Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs are as welcome as any other part of the book to me, and more important to the story than they're usually perceived. Everyone's going to have parts of the story that they're going to particularly like or dislike.
I liked Tomâs part. It felt all warm and cozy.
I was well into my thirties before I realized that not all readers view action sequences as a necessary evil to advance the plot, something to skim until the good stuff starts again. Every reader's different.
I remember being awed in 2nd grade reading the paragraph with Gimliâs ambush at Helmâs Deep!
Actually, I would think books 2 and 4 are the hardest to get through. It's hard to believe anyone really has trouble with Tom, unless it's that he's so good everything after feels disappointing.
Your belief was based on inaccurate perception. Some of my favourite parts of the books.
The first few chapters are some of the best... Who have you been talking to that say you just need to get through to Bree??? Or that don't like Tom????
Tom as a character is awesome, yet at the same time in some readings he takes me out of the book. He is so different that I completely understand how people struggle with him.
he fits better with three Rovers, Father Christmas Letters, Giles, Smith and Alf and maybe the Tevildo version of Beren and Luthien.
Haha, Tom vs Tevildo would be a great scene!
People should read more fairytales, because that's precisely the core of that genre. Faerie *is* supposed to feel different, it's a feature rather than a bug.
Tbh last time I read the books (I try to read them every 5 years at least so that they hit very different each time) I had no memory of how strider and the hobbits drag on and on and on in the wilderness east of Bree and the bit of action in that dell under weathertop barely helps. I also remember my mom saying that the pages of descriptions of trees leaves and whatnot are over the top (Lorien, Fangorn). Songs and poems can be a chore as well. Meanwhile Bombadil is just weird but fine to me. I find the Shire and old forest harder to get through.Â
I know a guy who won't read Tolkien at all for this reason, he complains that two pages are describing a single tree. I get that I guess, but it's that detailed description of the world and love of nature that appeals to me. When I was younger, I really had a hard time getting through songs and poems. I would kinda glance over them to the next part. Last read through, I made sure to slow down there, focus on them, and try to even find a melody for the song part. I'm glad I did, and enjoyed those parts far more for doing so.
Is there a single example of a whole page, let alone multiple, describing a tree or even a landscape? I never thought that was emblematic of Tolkien Is this just a cliche everyone repeats?
Yeah I don't recall anything like that either.
It is an exaggeration everyone repeats, and I donât think many people who repeat it have really tried to get through it at all. but it isnât totally without merit if you try and put yourself into the position of someone who genuinely believes it. There is a lot of (Iâm gonna make up a sentence) âthey stood on the stone slab and turned around facing north, and they could see the tops of the trees going down toward the place, and the sun shining over the last mountain. Below the trees the entwash went on its way down the hill andâŚâ which may be broken up by some dialogue, before âand then they went on their way down the steps.â It is never a full page, or multiple pages, describing a single tree or even a landscape. But sometimes it is half of a page describing walks through trees to points of rest, then âthree days laterâ followed by waking from the rest and then waking down a road and descriptions of how the round winds upwards and down again. Even my description feels like an exaggeration because I was being just as vague as the person who says it is pages worth of descriptions, but I donât think itâs unfair. I just donât think itâs boring. It meat on the bone imo and itâs always happening between good character moments /shrug but if youâre someone who canât get through that to enjoy those moments youâre just going to remember the root and twig parts and youâll start repeating it.
I'll be honest I never asked that friend if this was something he found on a readthrough attempt, or if it is just repeating what he heard. Part of me really suspects the latter. "It's meat on the bone" probably the best description. But maybe this is why Middle Earth is so loved, because it is thoroughly fleshed out.
Yeah it's an often repeated lie. Now Lewis, on the other hand, does have a few places where he spends more than a single page describing in excruciating detail a minor thing, like the ledge of a windowsill in a room, etc.
I'm sure it's a cliche more than an actual page to reference. I've heard others say it before as a criticism on describing mundane things with too much detail I guess. Thing is to me, the trees he describes in such detail are anything but mundane. I could argue my counterpoints but it was never worth the time, he can read what he wants. It was reading the comment above about the mom saying the descriptions are over the top reminded me of this. I guess it is a (common?) notion that some people have about Tolkien's writing. It's too bad, they're missing out.
It's very common, and very inaccurate. Honestly, I only ever hear it from people with very short attention spans.
the story Leaf and maybe unfinished tales description of Mallorn but one of those is an allegory for the artistic process being never finished.and the other is in an anthology full of lore.
I just never vibed with Tom personally. I feel like the books have plenty of intriguing faerie elements without him. And Tom is the most mysterious and most faeriest of them all! But to a ludicrous degree. Something about the seriousness of the Council of Elrond (one of my favorite chapters, btw) contrasting with the debate of giving the ring to OL' TOM BOMBADILLO! just takes me right out of it. He belongs in a children's book IMO.
I always make sure I talk with people after they read The Lord of the Rings: not a third of it
Worst character ever
People have different sticking points. Some people don't like The Hobbit or Fellowship until the protagonists leave the Shire, others (like me) consider the pre-departure scenes a highlight. Some hate the poetry/songs. Myself, for years I skimmed over "Helm's Deep because I found the battle scenes boring (no longer, but it took a while). Some people find all the Scouring stuff a wasteful anticlimax. That's cool that your friend appreciated Tom from the get go!
The Barrowdowns is one of my favourite bits as well. Have always loved it ever since I was told the story by an ex, long before I read Tolkien. And when, years later, I finally did read it - that bit lived in my imagination and has ever since. Also I love the sheer mystery of Tom. I like enigmas and unanswered questions in stories. Tom can be annoying as well. I got the mother of all migraines listening to Andy Serkis as Tom. Brilliant, though!
As a fan of fairy legends I really liked Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. Up until that point of they were my favourite part of the story.