I'm not sure how reliable this information is, but I read somewhere how the orcs could only be cleansed and redeemed by Eru. It makes sense, because it was him who made them in the first place.
Well, since the Dagor Dagorath has yet to happen, not really. I imagine it was meant to happen once the second music has happened.Hmm, interesting... I kind of like this idea. Is there an example of this happening in Tolkien's works?
True, true. Do you, by any chance, have a link to this information?Well, since the Dagor Dagorath has yet to happen, not really. I imagine it was meant to happen once the second music has happened.
I read it in a fanfiction, I think. The author was insanely loyal to the text, so I'm taking her words as facts, if with a little grain of salt.True, true. Do you, by any chance, have a link to this information?
You seem to be confusing mistake with personal preference. You don't like Tom or don't think he contributes much, and that's your prerogative, but that doesn't really constitute a mistake, in the sense of a plot hole or something in the plot that's not adequately explained..Yes, it is possible that Tolkien had some reason for such a character as Tom. It kind of came off to me as something that didn't really belong in The Lord of the Rings, but I guess Tolkien will be Tolkien.
However, I still stand by my belief that Tom doesn't really contribute as much as he could have. If he had the deep purpose mentioned, I wish he could have done something with it.
At least the rest of the book makes up for this, and I'll be reading and re-reading it until the end of time.
At the end, aren't both Elwing's opinions?You seem to be confusing mistake with personal preference. You don't like Tom or don't think he contributes much, but that doesn't really constitute a mistake.
Oh, yes, I just meant what some people think Tolkien could have done better, just like how some people talk about some things that Peter Jackson could have done better! I don't mean to say it is a mistake, just a personal opinion. Sorry if that was unclear or confusing.You seem to be confusing mistake with personal preference. You don't like Tom or don't think he contributes much, and that's your prerogative, but that doesn't really constitute a mistake.
Yes, but I don't think it's an opinion to say that Tom does actually contribute to the plot. I mean, if you remove him, you have to accept that the Hobbits all die in the Barrow-downs. Or you can say you don't need the Barrow-downs either. But they're necessary for adding tension to the story and also for Frodo to display his bravery. Both are necessary elements.At the end, aren't both Elwing's opinions?
I get that, and I agree. Elwing did say she didn't really mean to use the word mistake, but couldn't find a better substitute.Yes, but I don't think it's an opinion to say that Tom does actually contribute to the plot. I mean, if you remove him, you have to accept that the Hobbits all die in the Barrow-downs. Or you can say you don't need the Barrow-downs either. But they're necessary for adding tension to the story and also for Frodo to display his bravery. Both are necessary elements.
I also don't think it's fair to say Tom is a mistake or something that considered to be "wrong" (per the post title). There's nothing about him that contradicts anything else, like a plot hole.
Oh, I think you misunderstood me there. I mean to say, I personally don't think that Tom contributed *enough* to the plot. Because you could argue that anything in a book contributes to a plot somehow, I just meant that I just don't feel that he is as important as people make him out to be in my personal opinion.Yes, but I don't think it's an opinion to say that Tom does actually contribute to the plot.
I don't know that people do, on the whole. Obviously, Peej didn't. But I think he missed out on a lot of things that were important, overall. In any case, I don't think Tom detracts from the story in any way.Oh, I think you misunderstood me there. I mean to say, I personally don't think that Tom contributed *enough* to the plot. Because you could argue that anything in a book contributes to a plot somehow, I just meant that I just don't feel that he is as important as people make him out to be in my personal opinion.
Yes, Tom does seem to be from another world and I think that's intentional. Tolkien's exact words were, "even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." So, basically, you're not supposed to know or figure out what Tom is.I also kind of feel the same way about Glorfindel, but to a lesser extent than I do Bombadil, as Glorfindel actually had a backstory and didn't feel like he belonged to another world.
Oh my goodness, that would be the best Xmas present ever!Are you perchance related to @TrackerOrc?
I think you must be....Yes, I'm quite sure you are....same literary DNA, missing the "Tom Bombadil" cognitive gene.
I shall propose to the other forum-ites, come Christmas, we present you and TrackerOrc with copies of LOTR wherein we have cut out (with scissors) the chapters about Tom. 😁
Couldn't agree more.I've seen a lot of threads discussing the bad desicions that Peter Jackson, the director of the movies adapted from Tolkien's works, made, but I wasn't able to find one talking about the ones that Tolkien himself made. I know, I know. "How could J.R.R Tolkien, the author who gave us The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and many other great works do something wrong?"
Despite the fact the Tolkien wrote wonderful stories, and was an amazing world builder, it doesn't mean he never sometimes had a slip-up here and there, and strangely enough, not many people seem to talk about them.
I can't really find any major flaws in Tolkien's way of creating worlds itself, as he executed that aspect of his tales very well, so that none of it feels fake, forced, or downright simple-minded. That being said, I have been able to notice a couple of mistakes that he did make in terms of story telling.
One of these I think was Tom Bombadil. Not Tom himself (as he was a fun, if a bit weird, character), of course, but his involvement in the plot.
The scenes that Tom Bombadil is in don't really move the plot forward, and nothing is much changed when he is taken out all together.
I think that Tom Bombadil could have worked out better as a side story. For example, J.R.R Tolkien could have cut him out of the first book, but then published his encounters with the hobbits in a separate book. Or, better yet, Tom Bombadil could actually loop back into the books later on, and contribute to the plot in some different way.
There are some other things that I think Tolkien could have possibly altered a bit, but I'll save those for later.
Of course, this is my opinion, and I'm curious to see what other people think as well.
Absolutely. He seems to have been around for ever yet does very, very little with his time.However, I still stand by my belief that Tom doesn't really contribute as much as he could have. If he had the deep purpose mentioned, I wish he could have done something with it.
Now that's a title worth aspiring to!being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth
Asfaloth would have been probably weighed down with Glorfindel's added weight.I don't know that people do, on the whole. Obviously, Peej didn't. But I think he missed out on a lot of things that were important, overall. In any case, I don't think Tom detracts from the story in any way.
Yes, Tom does seem to be from another world and I think that's intentional. Tolkien's exact words were, "even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." So, basically, you're not supposed to know or figure out what Tom is.
It's interesting you mention Glorfindel, though, because he represents a scene in the book which may point to a mistake in logic. It's not really plot hole, per se, but it does seem like a logical glitch and a contrivance. I know the reason for the contrivance but that doesn't mean it's not a contrivance.
The scene to which I refer is where Glorfindel lends Asfaloth to Frodo to ride to Rivendell. It seems to me odd that Glorfindel doesn't just take Frodo with him and hightail it to Rivendell, like Arwen does with Frodo in the movies. I refuse to give the movie any points over the book (and I think the movie depicts the scene rather ridiculously), but it does seem more logical to me for Frodo to be transported to Rivendell rather than leave it to him to ride there by himself, even on a horse like Asfaloth. I don't understand why Frodo, on Asfaloth, rides at the same pace the rest of the party is walking, only taking off when the Ringwraiths catch up to them.
The reason of course is so that Frodo has his moment on the Ford where he defies the Ringwraiths, facing them alone. Tolkien obviously felt this scene important, just like the earlier Barrow-downs scene, neither of which Peej thought important, which is why I don't give him any points for showing the logical thing. I like the fact that Tolkien contrived the scene, I just kind of wish he'd found a different way to do it.
Well he didn't really invented those names himself. I think they're from the Norse language.A minor detail for me, but Tolkien's rhyming names often annoyed me. Despite the fact that they're easy to remember off the top of your head, it makes the characters blend together in your mind, especially in the case of the thirteen dwarves, where most of them don't do much in the story that would be particularly memorable.
Hm, very interesting. Thanks for this piece of information. I'll probably be using this in my writings.Another passage about the Orcs and redeemability is found in Morgoth's Ring:
"But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not ‘made’ by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.* This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded."
MR, MT X, Orcs
Yeah, most of them where, but I wish he could have at least made their names sound a bit different, or, if not, give them more time and contribution to the story.Well he didn't really invented those names himself. I think they're from the Norse language.
To be fair, The Hobbit is meant to be a short novel for children, which is why I think deaths weren't fleshed out in general. If I remember, the death of Thorin was also pretty short and non-graphic. Also, the book is from the POV of Bilbo. He can't be at two places at once.Not a big thing, but I also wish there could have been more attention drawn to the deaths of Fili and Kili in the books. I guess since they died at the same time as Thorin, it would be hard to convey the same feeling that Thorin's death gave.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?