A Song of Ice and Fire

Neither is the fox in the Shire, though that one could easily have been in The Hobbit. I wonder if Tom Bombadil would've been as jarring (to use Eldo's word) if he was in The Hobbit instead?

posted this before but its superb. Its the best fan made vid I have ever seen.

The brackets there are inaccurate -- I said that the entire sequence is very much part of LOTR, and Bombadil the character is only one element within the sequence.  To be honest, though, I'm not sure what you mean by "not LOTR".  The character is in the book, and while he's probably the weirdest and most whimsical character to appear, he's not the only strange one.  Especially not in the first several chapters where the influence of The Hobbit is still strongly felt.  Remember the fox?

EDIT: I missed that there was a new page, so simulpost with Ringo (who I agree with).

The fox was a two line throw-away, not two chapters.

Bombadil is not LotR in that he doesn't fit into the created universe the way the other characters, places, and races do. Sure, it's kind of fun to have him in there, but out of the whole logical edifice Tolkien built, it's almost a shame to have such an anomaly.

halfwise wrote:The fox was a two line throw-away, not two chapters.  

Bombadil is not LotR in that he doesn't fit into the created universe the way the other characters, places, and races do.  Sure, it's kind of fun to have him in there, but out of the whole logical edifice Tolkien built, it's almost a shame to have such an anomaly.  

But why do you think he doesnt fit exactly?

I think he fits exactly but I will wait to hear your thoughts.

halfwise wrote:The fox was a two line throw-away, not two chapters.

I understand, and it certainly makes the fox seem less jarring when reading the book, but when you sit down to think about it, the implications of ordinary woodland animals having developed thought processes is really quite massive. Much more so than a fat old dude who lives in the woods and sings. Of course, most people just sweep the fox into the same corner as the matches from The Hobbit, but being easier to ignore doesn't make it substantively different.

Bombadil is not LotR in that he doesn't fit into the created universe the way the other characters, places, and races do.  Sure, it's kind of fun to have him in there, but out of the whole logical edifice Tolkien built, it's almost a shame to have such an anomaly.  

As I said, I think Bombadil is tonally jarring, but I'm not sure what makes him logically inconsistent with the rest of Middle-earth.

but why is he tonally jarring. all these things are found throughout LOTR

whimsy- check
singing funny songs - check
mysterious character - check
powerful nature magics - check
help unlooked for - check
words of wisdom - check
strange timey wimey effects - check
ancient wisdom/loremaster - check
remembrance of ages past - check
breaking of spells - check
coloured clothes - check (Dwarves)
light against dark - check
heirlooms - check

You raise some good points, and I think that in a lot of ways the Hobbits' interlude with Bombadil is not unlike the Fellowship's interlude in Lorien. But while the supernatural elements of Lorien are portrayed in a very remote and ethereal manner, Bombadil is much earthier and, well, goofier. Which I think highlights the surreality of that sequence in a way that Lorien doesn't. Whereas other moments of whimsy, especially those relating to Hobbits or Wood-elves, don't have the mystical weirdness. Bombadil combines both, and this throws a lot of people (myself included), because it's not expected of a big serious epic fantasy story.

That's just my theory, though.

I dont find Tom goofy. I think he is quite scary in a way, unknowable, and I think he scared Frodo with that bright blue eye staring at him. There is something unsettling and ancient about him, under all that capering about I think he could be a dangerous and wild nature spirit.

He's not logically inconsistent, he's just not part of the logic, if you follow me.

It's like you build a gothic cathedral with all these statues of saints, which come from the bible, and gargoyles which maybe don't but fit into a concept of creatures from hell perhaps.....and then somewhere somebody hangs a picture of a panda.

There's no logical reason why they can't hand a picture of a panda, but it doesn't fit in. All the saints reference the bible, and the gargoyles are thematically consistent with themselves at least, but what the hell is the panda doing there?

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think LOTR is nearly as self-serious as the Gothic Cathedral comparison suggests (or as its endless imitators can suggest it to be).  Singing, for example, is probably Tom's most famous characteristic, but he is hardly the only character to burst into song at odd times.  And there are numerous times when the story slows down and goes on an excursion to explore a setting or side-story in depth, as happens with Tom, though he ends up being less relevant to the overall story than, say, Quickbeam or Beregond and Bergil.

I have the idea that if Tom didnt superficially act and look like a hippy he would be far more acceptable to folk. Its the running around with Yellow boots that does it. But with the right actor in the part and a bit of the tra-la la- lally fruit loops toned down I think he could have been in LOTR films no probs.

You both make good points: Singing is more important in Tolkien's middle earth than in other stories he wrote. And if Tom was toned down I don't think the fact that he isn't part of the framework wouldn't stick out so much. He's sort of flaming, in his own way.

Yeah, a toned down Tom singing less silly songs would seem more acceptable to me in the context of LotR. If Tolkien had made these changes in one more draft before publishing, I think readers of the new version of History of Middle Earth who saw the original version would be going "what the h...?"

we see Tom through the eyes of cynical 21st centurians. We have had years of hippy trippy flower power imagery which sometimes borders on parody. We are used to laughing with embarassed glee at semi naked groovy tie-dyed flower children prancing around Woodstock, and people associate all that with Tom. We have all met the nut cutlet knit your own yogurt brigade in down town thrift shops. Its not his fault we cant take him seriously.

I actually never saw him as a hippy type. He's just whimsical in a sort of unconnected way.

Season 3

Mrs Figg wrote:I have the idea that if Tom didnt superficially act and look like a hippy he would be far more acceptable to folk. Its the running around with Yellow boots that does it. But with the right actor in the part and a bit of the tra-la la- lally fruit loops toned down I think he could have been in LOTR films no probs.

I got no problem with Tom, but to be honest he's one of the very few things I'm glad were left out of the movies; I just don't think an actor of any sort could do him justice: For me anyways.

Starts here monday

Interesting piece on the influences in Game of Thrones from history on the BBC-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26824993

Watch it once. Not bad. But once will be enough.

Now I wish I knew French, that series looks great

Well the article mentions its getting a re-release and an English version, no Fjordian as far as I know but then your english is superb anyway.

Oh, you   I'd most definitely be interested in an English translation, though! It would probably be closer to the original than a Fjordian version would anyway, given the many similarities English and French share. Besides, English is a more suited language for tales about knights and lances Fjordian is suited only for stories about pillaging and worse