Out of Egypt:

Who is Tom Bombadil?

Talk amongst y'selves. This might help to get you started.

The question was raised in my mind through reading Sacra Doctrina, which I wish was updated more often. Still, he's a professor; I'm a lowly college student. Thereupon hangs a tale, I suppose.

Someone who's even more grammar-obsessive than myself can tell me whether that was a proper use of the ever-elusive semicolon.

I wouldn't say that I'm grammar-obsessive, but I'm pretty sure that your use of the semicolon is OK. I think I remember hearing an old teacher say something about using the semicolon in place of a comma and what she called the "FANBOYS". An acronym for a list of words including "for", "and", "but", and "yet". In your case, the substitution could have taken the place of a comma and an "and": "Still, he's a professor, and I'm a lowly college student."

Correct me if I'm wrong; I want to know the truth.

Posted by: paul ned at January 20, 2004 4:28 PM

Tom Bombadil is a mistake. He is a character who accomplishes the difficult task of discouraging people from finding out what will happen later on in Lord of the Rings. Somebody will get mad at me for saying this but that's the way I see it.

Posted by: nougatmachine at January 20, 2004 6:41 PM

Love the acronym, Paul. That's what I think, too, but I'm not really sure. Thankfully, most people have abandoned grammar prescriptivism (except for when it comes to gender neutral language - arghh!) and so I suppose it matters not. As long as the meaning gets across, that's what I say.

And Dagen, that "somebody" is me. Tom Bombadil is the man. I think he's important to LotR, if only to show that, as Tolkien put it in a letter, not all were affected by desire for the ring.

Now if you want to talk about a mistake, look no further than the talking fox a few pages earlier. I think that must be a Lewisean interpolation or something.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 20, 2004 8:22 PM

Well, nearly everything in the Old Forest seems basically useless to me from a storytelling standpoint. Tom takes the cake, though. The first time I tackled the series, I almost couldn't get past that section. I think it's a lot less dramatic and a lot less cool to have somebody who obviously could be powerful that don't give a crap about the ring. This is one area where I actually think Jackson did Lord of the Rings one better than Tolkien (even though that borders on blasphemy).

"Alas, poor Frodo is borne on a terrible journey. He must destroy a Ring of immense power and evil. A ring so mighty that it can corrupt SOME of the beings of Middle-Earth!"

I don't think exceptions to the rule are generally a whole lot of fun in fantasy. Especially when they wear silly clothes and say "Ring a ding dillo."

Posted by: nougatmachine at January 20, 2004 10:23 PM

That "don't" should say "doesn't." Obviously.

Posted by: nougatmachine at January 20, 2004 10:23 PM

Well, for one thing, I don't really view Tom, who was there before Morgoth descended into Arda, in the same class as all the other beings of Middle-Earth. And if you like the other songs Tolkien puts in LotR, you can't exactly draw the line at "Ring-a-ding-dillo."

And what about the barrow downs, man? And how the hobbits wake up in Tom's house and it's filled with the weeds of the river. I find the whole nature spirit/river-daughter thing interesting.

I agree that viewing the Tom Bombadil episode(s) strictly from the standpoint of plotting, they're unnecessary and bog the story down. But I enjoy them nonetheless.

I think we're all agreed that Jackson did right by excluding him from the movie, though. For me, the situation there is like the situation with the scouring of the Shire (though Tom's not nearly as significant)- it would be awkward for the movie for them to be included, but since they are not the thematic character of the film changes slightly.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 21, 2004 11:10 AM