Support NeoGAF

[WanderingWind]

I think I would study Tolkien if I were wealthy. This would be my version of yachting around the world.

 

[fanboi]

I'm sure you'll do well, you've always come across as having a thoroughly good grasp on Tolkien's Legendarium, especially the themes that the critics tend to dismiss and overlook.

WOW.

Where have you been? Like, all of GAF has been worried!

 

[Edmond Dantès]

WOW.

Where have you been? Like, all of GAF has been worried!

A loss of someone very close to me is what triggered the hiatus.

 

[fanboi]

A loss of someone very close to me is what triggered the hiatus.

Oh man, I am really sorry for your loss.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Oh man, I am really sorry for your loss.

Thank you, I'm better now and the Road goes ever on as Bilbo once sang.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

I'm sure you'll do well, you've always come across as having a thoroughly good grasp on Tolkien's Legendarium, especially the themes that the critics tend to dismiss and overlook.

Thanks, that means a lot! The thing with Tolkien criticism is that it's only really become super-prevalent in the last decade or so with things like Mythlore and Tolkien Studies beginning to be published. I was writing about the Legolas and Gimli relationship for example, and was quite surprised when I asked my tutor for a good critical work on the dwarven/elvish conflict and she told me there hadn't really been a definitive one published.

Here's hoping the mark comes out good, I had a lot of fun writing it regardless.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and Other Verses from the Red Book' to be re-released in a new edition this fall, thanks to the team of Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull.



Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull have done fantastic work before (namely 'The Art of the Hobbit' and 'J.R.R. Tolkien: Artist & Illustrator') so I'm sure this will be just as good. I've never read it myself, so I'll definitely be picking it up. And hey, anytime never-before-published Tolkien material is released its certainly cause for excitement.

this post has just reminded me that Mary Fairburn used to live next door to a friend of mine. Strange to think I've met someone who corresponded with Tolkien. And strange to see her illustrations called "previously undiscovered" when I and presumably others saw at least some of them over the last decade or two.

 

[Quick Mustard]

Really pleased your back Edmond

 

[The Artful Dodger]

Part of my English degree (make jokes as you will!). I hope in the time that I'm a teacher LotR becomes a widely taught literary text.

Can't knock it, I majored in English also.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Thanks, that means a lot! The thing with Tolkien criticism is that it's only really become super-prevalent in the last decade or so with things like Mythlore and Tolkien Studies beginning to be published. I was writing about the Legolas and Gimli relationship for example, and was quite surprised when I asked my tutor for a good critical work on the dwarven/elvish conflict and she told me there hadn't really been a definitive one published.

Here's hoping the mark comes out good, I had a lot of fun writing it regardless.

The Tolkien Society UK has a goldmine of good, thorough studies of Tolkien's work.

The Proceedings of the Tolkien 2005 Conference in book form is a good collection of articles presented at the 2005 conference.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0905520246/


The Proceedings of the J.R.R. Tolkien Centenary Conference, features some of the foundation stones of Tolkien criticism. Hard to come by though in book form these days.

The Proceedings of the recent Return of the Ring conference which I attended is scheduled for release this year. It was a great line-up, with some very good lectures.

 

[Jarrod38]

Anyone own these versions?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0395489318/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[bengraven]

I'm sure you'll do well, you've always come across as having a thoroughly good grasp on Tolkien's Legendarium, especially the themes that the critics tend to dismiss and overlook.

Owing to Tolkien's Catholicism and prevailing attitudes of his generation, the sex may well have bothered him somewhat. His style of romance was more in the classical vein, but nonetheless he would have seen much to his liking.

I was thinking that he may actually enjoy the non-violent/sexist points of some modern fnatasy, as in the more realistic, heavily researched at times portrayals.

 

[Loxley]

Man, the day all this Tolkien talk explodes is the day I'm away from my computer the most, go figure :lol. I'll try to get in on the discussions when I can a bit later on today.

Anyone own these versions?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0395489318/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Yep. I think they're very nice editions.

 

[4444244]

His style of romance was more in the classical vein, but nonetheless he would have seen much to his liking.

Tolkien's works on Arda (including LOTR) are immensely rich and detailed don't get me wrong, but there are flaws to his work including him tackling the subject of romance.

Tolkien will write a paragraph every page describing a damp morning, but is only able to write a few sentances setting up romances.

This itself (his inability to create a convincing romantic narrative), is part of his greater inability to deal with character development.

We read so much about characters, what they do, how they do it, but never anything on a personal level.

Sometime when I read Tolkien I hear a schoolboy recounting a crushing battle, or a introverted scholar explaining the minutiae of history, but I don't hear a person telling me about what drives a person to do something.

It's like his work is, part text book, part childrens story. Which I guess is where it all came from I suppose.

I sometimes wish that Tolkien hung around with someone other than CS Lewis and those cronies so he could have crafted his books better - in the ways that they are lacking.

 

[The Artful Dodger]

Tolkien's works on Arda (including LOTR) are immensely rich and detailed don't get me wrong, but there are flaws to his work including him tackling the subject of romance.

Tolkien will write a paragraph every page describing a damp morning, but is only able to write a few sentances setting up romances.

This itself (his inability to create a convincing romantic narrative), is part of his greater inability to deal with character development.

We read so much about characters, what they do, how they do it, but never anything on a personal level.

Sometime when I read Tolkien I hear a schoolboy recounting a crushing battle, or a introverted scholar explaining the minutiae of history, but I don't hear a person telling me about what drives a person to do something.

It's like his work is, part text book, part childrens story. Which I guess is where it all came from I suppose.

I sometimes wish that Tolkien hung around with someone other than CS Lewis and those cronies so he could have crafted his books better - in the ways that they are lacking.

Tolkien tended to be more influence in works that preceded the Novel where many of those issues you are describing took root.

I love his works and think he was a master, but really to appreciate his prose you have to look at what he was reaching back to which was the Epics, Myths, and Sagas.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Tolkien's works on Arda (including LOTR) are immensely rich and detailed don't get me wrong, but there are flaws to his work including him tackling the subject of romance.

Tolkien will write a paragraph every page describing a damp morning, but is only able to write a few sentances setting up romances.

This itself (his inability to create a convincing romantic narrative), is part of his greater inability to deal with character development.

We read so much about characters, what they do, how they do it, but never anything on a personal level.

Sometime when I read Tolkien I hear a schoolboy recounting a crushing battle, or a introverted scholar explaining the minutiae of history, but I don't hear a person telling me about what drives a person to do something.

It's like his work is, part text book, part childrens story. Which I guess is where it all came from I suppose.

I sometimes wish that Tolkien hung around with someone other than CS Lewis and those cronies so he could have crafted his books better - in the ways that they are lacking.

There is much truth to that, especially with regard to the works published in his lifetime, but where Tolkien's heart lay, is were his most personal, fully realized characters exist, the works written under the Elder Days banner and published by Christopher Tolkien in The Unfinished Tales and the HOME series. The finest being Aldarion and Erendis. A moving Numenorean story of martial discord that shows neither side as right or wrong, it puts to rest any claims that Tolkien never created a fully realized female character.

The Athrabeth (debate) too from Volume 10 of HOME between Finrod (Elf) and Andreth (a human wisewoman) stands with the Council of Elrond as one of the great conversations in the professor's work. It certainly contains more dialogue, as opposed to narration than anything else he wrote about the Elder Days and features characters with a depth not seen in his published primary works.

It is however evident that Tolkien never satisfactorily solved many of the philosophical and eschatological problems inherent in his Legendarium and that these issues did take precedence over character development.

Aldarion and Erendis could have been a successful story on every level if Tolkien had brought it to completion and the Athrabeth as well may have found a place in the Silmarillion as Tolkien intended.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

I love the Council of Elrond. One of my favourite sections in LotR. Just great to read such discourse between such a multitude of characters and races.

 

[Loxley]

I love the Council of Elrond. One of my favourite sections in LotR. Just great to read such discourse between such a multitude of characters and races.

I've come around to it over the years, but man it was rough the first time through for me. I first started to read The Lord of the Rings in the lead-up to RotK's theatrical release, and initially found Tolkien's style of writing to be very jarring; I had never read anything quite like it (and to be fair, have yet to come across anything else that reads exactly like Tolkien). Upon subsequent read-throughs I gained a much better grasp on the way that chapter flows.

(and I dig the new avatar)

 

[Edmond Dantès]

I've come around to it over the years, but man it was rough the first time through for me. I first started to read The Lord of the Rings in the lead-up to RotK's theatrical release, and initially found Tolkien's style of writing to be very jarring; I had never read anything quite like it (and to be fair, have yet to come across anything else that reads exactly like Tolkien). Upon subsequent read-throughs I gained a much better grasp on the way that chapter flows.

(and I dig the new avatar)

I've come across that quite a bit with first time Tolkien readers who jump straight into The Lord of the Rings. Some have persevered and have been rewarded with a whole new world to jump into, others have enjoyed the world enough to actually read through Wikipedia pages, but just haven't taken to Tolkien's prose.

By the way, I haven't had the opportunity to ask what you thought of T.E Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

 

[Mumei]

I've come across that quite a bit with first time Tolkien readers who jump straight into The Lord of the Rings. Some have persevered and have been rewarded with a whole new world to jump into, others have enjoyed the world enough to actually read through Wikipedia pages, but just haven't taken to Tolkien's prose.

By the way, I haven't had the opportunity to ask what you thought of T.E Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

I've come around to it over the years, but man it was rough the first time through for me. I first started to read The Lord of the Rings in the lead-up to RotK's theatrical release, and initially found Tolkien's style of writing to be very jarring; I had never read anything quite like it (and to be fair, have yet to come across anything else that reads exactly like Tolkien). Upon subsequent read-throughs I gained a much better grasp on the way that chapter flows.

(and I dig the new avatar)

I have to admit, I read the whole thing first time as a 10 year old, and looking back I have no idea how I coped with it. It's a very initially stuffy sort of prose, but once you get hooked on the world and the characters, it makes perfect sense. Moria is another great part of the books that springs to mind, with all the characters arguing over where to go, what to do, and the sort of foreboding sense from Aragorn and Gandalf that this is really not a place you want to go. I made so many damn Lego sets of the secret rooms and caves from Moria. This was before they made those "Ewok" short legs, so I had to have standard size Hobbits/Dwarves. I also only had one beard so had to have either Gandalf or Saruman. It's amazing they have licensed sets now, but there was a real magic to cobbling together my own Fellowship from bits and pieces.

And thanks on the avatar! My Uncle always had this poster in his house, and always thought it looked sorta cool. Also, with Dantes back I'm in a good ol' Tolkien mood.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

Recovering from a loss my friend.

 

[Kyleripman]

Glad you are back, Edmond, I don't post much but I always enjoy reading your posts.

I wanted to chime in and say that last year I discovered the BBC radio adaptation of LOTR, and it is fantastic. This is the one where Ian Holm plays Frodo and Bill Nighy plays Sam. In many ways it is more faithful to the text than the movies, and yet it is remarkably similar to them in other ways (I think that Ian McKellen and Sean Astin, among others, must have studied this version when they were getting into character). Anyone who hasn't listened to this, I really recommend it. It's roughly twelve hours long and extremely engaging. If you have a mindless office job like me and can listen to headphones, the time really flies.

 

[Loxley]

Here's a neat, brief little animation on the origins of dragons in Middle-earth.

I have to admit, I read the whole thing first time as a 10 year old, and looking back I have no idea how I coped with it. It's a very initially stuffy sort of prose, but once you get hooked on the world and the characters, it makes perfect sense. Moria is another great part of the books that springs to mind, with all the characters arguing over where to go, what to do, and the sort of foreboding sense from Aragorn and Gandalf that this is really not a place you want to go. I made so many damn Lego sets of the secret rooms and caves from Moria. This was before they made those "Ewok" short legs, so I had to have standard size Hobbits/Dwarves. I also only had one beard so had to have either Gandalf or Saruman. It's amazing they have licensed sets now, but there was a real magic to cobbling together my own Fellowship from bits and pieces.

And thanks on the avatar! My Uncle always had this poster in his house, and always thought it looked sorta cool. Also, with Dantes back I'm in a good ol' Tolkien mood.

Couldn't agree more

Glad you are back, Edmond, I don't post much but I always enjoy reading your posts.

I wanted to chime in and say that last year I discovered the BBC radio adaptation of LOTR, and it is fantastic. This is the one where Ian Holm plays Frodo and Bill Nighy plays Sam. In many ways it is more faithful to the text than the movies, and yet it is remarkably similar to them in other ways (I think that Ian McKellen and Sean Astin, among others, must have studied this version when they were getting into character). Anyone who hasn't listened to this, I really recommend it. It's roughly twelve hours long and extremely engaging. If you have a mindless office job like me and can listen to headphones, the time really flies.

I've had a copy of the BBC Radio dramatization for a while but haven't gotten around to actually listening to them yet...I should fix that.

 

[Megalosaro]

Please do, Loxley. They did a fine job adapting the material. No Tom Bombadil, but it does have other stuff in it that was cut from the films.

Also, I really enjoyed all of the acting, except perhaps Eowyn who was a bit too over-the-top. The hobbits are all done amazingly well. Ian Holm is a fantastic Bilbo. Bill Nighy is THE Sam. I don't know who played Aragorn, but he does a great job being both gruff Strider and Kingly Aragorn.

Plus it had a fantastic soundtrack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgPadfvz05s

 

[Kyleripman]

I've had a copy of the BBC Radio dramatization for a while but haven't gotten around to actually listening to them yet...I should fix that.

Yes! And report back when you do. I listened to the whole thing three times last year alone, I loved it so much!

Please do, Loxley. They did a fine job adapting the material. No Tom Bombadil, but it does have other stuff in it that was cut from the films.

Also, I really enjoyed all of the acting, except perhaps Eowyn who was a bit too over-the-top. The hobbits are all done amazingly well. Ian Holm is a fantastic Bilbo. Bill Nighy is THE Sam. I don't know who played Aragorn, but he does a great job being both gruff Strider and Kingly Aragorn.

Plus it had a fantastic soundtrack.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgPadfvz05s

I think Gollum is also worth mentioning. As much as Andy Serkis is Gollum to me, this actor (Peter Woodthorpe IIRC) is fantastic. His maniacal ranting at Mount Doom gave me chills.

 

[ProfessorX]

Love Tolkien.

 

[Megalosaro]

Yes! And report back when you do. I listened to the whole thing three times last year alone, I loved it so much!



I think Gollum is also worth mentioning. As much as Andy Serkis is Gollum to me, this actor (Peter Woodthorpe IIRC) is fantastic. His maniacal ranting at Mount Doom gave me chills.

I prefer BBC Gollum's voice (and portrayal for that matter). Andy Serkis is a great actor, I really love him, but his voice goes a little too donald duck from time to time.

 

[WanderingWind]

After a cursory examination of YouTube's offerings under "BBC Lord of the Rings" I am forced to come to you fine folks for guidance. Which is the mythical radio play that I should be looking for, and is it for sale anywhere?

 

[hunnies28]

I wish I was a well versed in Tolkien knowledge as you guys are. Read LotR , one of the books of lost tales and the Silmarillion years ago. I really need to go back to them.

 

[fierrotlepou]

Welcome back, Edmond.

 

[Aylinato]

Recovering from a loss my friend.

I'm happy you are okay, sorry for your loss.




Can you tell me about tom bombadill

 

[maharg]

The closest we can get is what Christopher Tolkien himself thinks - but he's not his father, and his opinions are his own. Reading his notes on his father's work - it's clear that even to his own children Tolkien was a bit of an enigma to an extent; no one fully knew what was going on his head. Obviously Christopher Tolkien has a closer grasp on his father's mindset than anybody else, but it's still not 1:1.

I think Christopher Tolkien is too close to the subject to be the closest we can get. Reading interviews it's clear that his main task in life is the preservation of his father's work (even above his legacy, in so far as it's separate), and that makes him an extremely conservative viewpoint on the subject of his father's viewpoints.

There's a joy of discovery, exploration, and expression to JRR's work that I think would have had him *fascinated* with how his work has been adapted, and not in the glum reactionary way that Christopher could be said to be fascinated by it.

Whether he would have liked Jackson's adaptation is anyone's guess, especially since if he'd lived long enough to see it there'd be a lot of cultural context he didn't have when he died. But as a student of the history of literature, being a part of a living, evolving, canon that it's now clear will endure for many times his lifetime, I think he'd have been humbled and interested in where it was going and how it would evolve.

 

[fredrancour]

I think Christopher Tolkien is too close to the subject to be the closest we can get. Reading interviews it's clear that his main task in life is the preservation of his father's work (even above his legacy, in so far as it's separate), and that makes him an extremely conservative viewpoint on the subject of his father's viewpoints.

There's a joy of discovery, exploration, and expression to JRR's work that I think would have had him *fascinated* with how his work has been adapted, and not in the glum reactionary way that Christopher could be said to be fascinated by it.

Whether he would have liked Jackson's adaptation is anyone's guess, especially since if he'd lived long enough to see it there'd be a lot of cultural context he didn't have when he died. But as a student of the history of literature, being a part of a living, evolving, canon that it's now clear will endure for many times his lifetime, I think he'd have been humbled and interested in where it was going and how it would evolve.

Yes, when his goal was to make a mythological work, he couldn't have been too upset to see it reinterpreted by future generations like actual myths.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

After a cursory examination of YouTube's offerings under "BBC Lord of the Rings" I am forced to come to you fine folks for guidance. Which is the mythical radio play that I should be looking for, and is it for sale anywhere?

All three radio adaptations were once on Youtube in full, but have since been deleted.

But the following user has kindly uploaded some chapters.

https://www.youtube.com/user/sophierosewea/videos

It's available in CD form from Amazon. Famous Tolkien commentator Brian Sibley and Michael Bakewell are responsible for the adaptation. Brian omitted the Tom Bombadil sequence in the adaptation, but later felt that he had made a mistake in doing that, so rectified this by adding that sequence to the radio adaptation of the Tales of the Perilous Realm.

Also a very accomplished adaptation.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1602834784/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[Edmond Dantès]

I'm happy you are okay, sorry for your loss.




Can you tell me about tom bombadill

Thank you.

As for Tom, here's some background info on Tom from Tolkien:

“As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists)
... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).”

"The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless.”

"Tom represented Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality.”

Some theories put forward at a Tolkien Society Event in 2012:

That the Music of the Ainur is still prevalent in Arda and that Tom is an embodiement of it thus explaining his constant singing. It also details why Tom would be regarded as the last if Sauron were victorious as the Music was the foundation of Arda and thus would be the only thing left if all came to ruin.

That Tom was a byproduct of the initial weaving of Arda when Melkor's discord directly opposed Eru's will. Melkor's theme took precedence the second time out of the three occasions hence Ungoliant was created (the very antithesis to light; the darkness that consumes light). Then Eru rebounded and his wrath was known to all the Ainu and his chords triumphed over Melkor's discord hence Tom was created (the antithesis of the dark; the light, incorruptible).


I'll post a more detailed analysis shortly.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Had no idea Tom was so powerful (outside of his lack of interest in the ring).

 

[bengraven]

Anyone else find it sad that Christopher devoted his life to his father's work? He's an incredibly intelligent man who has put in a lifetime's work in relation to the literature, and he did have a seperate life from his father's work when he was younger especially in the military and post-military life, but part of me feels sad that he was just like "I'm good just keep my dad's legacy intact".

Actually...since I wrote that last line, I suppose I can see his point...

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Anyone else find it sad that Christopher devoted his life to his father's work? He's an incredibly intelligent man who has put in a lifetime's work in relation to the literature, and he did have a seperate life from his father's work when he was younger especially in the military and post-military life, but part of me feels sad that he was just like "I'm good just keep my dad's legacy intact".

Actually...since I wrote that last line, I suppose I can see his point...

He had a successful career as a lecturer at New College Oxford, and worked on The Saga of King Heidrek the Wise, the Nun's Priest's Tale, The Canterbury Tales and the Pardoner's Tale as an editor.

But in the end, after his father's death, he felt he had a duty to carry on what his father started, but failed to complete to his absolute satisfaction. Christopher applied his skill set to the quest in hand, realising or already knowing that he lacked his father's imaginative genius and that trying to carry on his father's work as a writer, rather than an editor was folly.

But the result is, that one man's imaginative genius has had the benefit of two lifetime's work.

 

[bengraven]

He had a successful career as a lecturer at New College Oxford, and worked on The Saga of King Heidrek the Wise, the Nun's Priest's Tale, The Canterbury Tales and the Pardoner's Tale as an editor.

But in the end, after his father's death, he felt he had a duty to carry on what his father started, but failed to complete to his absolute satisfaction. Christopher applied his skill set to the quest in hand, realising or already knowing that he lacked his father's imaginative genius and that trying to carry on his father's work as a writer, rather than an editor was folly.

But the result is, that one man's imaginative genius has had the benefit of two lifetime's work.

Sounds like a Tolkien adventure, in both meanings.

I wasn't aware of him working as an editor prior to J. R. R.'s, but The Canterbury Tales would have been some intimidating work to edit and good experience for what's to come. That and having first hand knowledge of the world from before it was even put to paper.

I suppose it's my own "daddy issues" coming to froth, wondering why someone would dedicate a large part of their life to their father's work instead of creating your own.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

On Tom Bombadil.

"Who is Tom Bombadil?” asks Frodo fearing it a foolish question. Goldberry’s response of "He is” has led to much discussion for Tolkien fans. Some have equated “He is” to the biblical “I am” mistakenly equating Tom with Eru Iluvatar. Frodo also mistakes Golberry’s use of the word “Master” confusing it with power and domination.

Further on:

Frodo asks, "Then all this strange land belongs to him?”

Goldberry responds, "No indeed!” “The trees and the grasses and all things growing or living in the land belong each to themselves. Tom Bombadil is the Master".

Note that she actually doesn't explain what she means, but simple repeats the key word, "Master". Now we must turn to the Letters of Tolkien for some clarification.

"He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear and no desire of possession or domination at all"

Clearly is seems that the philologist Tolkien is using the word in the sense of 'teacher' or 'authority', its original Latin usage. But that says what but not who and doesn't answer Frodo's question at all.

Further on, Frodo, trying to get a straight answer, asks Tom "Who are you Master?" . Tom frustratingly answers the question with a question:

"Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer."

In the Letters (#153), Tolkien explained that:

"Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names."

Another clue, but still no answer.

At the Council of Elrond, the mystery deepens even more as Tom acquires more names that also say what, but not who he. The Men of the North call him 'Orald' (Old English for 'very ancient'). The Dwarves call him 'Forn', an Icelandic word meaning 'old', as in the ancient past. Elrond's name for him is 'Iarwain Ben-adar', oldest and fatherless, which is a literal translation of Sindarin iarwain, 'old-young' and ben , 'without,' plus adar, 'father'.

All of these names essentially express the same idea, it seems that the additional names of Tom add only a common acknowledgment of age to our knowledge of who he is.

The 'is' from Goldberry's initial statement is the operative word. Tom as the oldest being comes before history and therefore cannot be related to or associated with anything but himself, his own existence. Tom Bombadil is pre-language and therefore not formed by language, saying of himself:

"Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made the first paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving.... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless before the Dark Lord (Tom referring to Melkor here) came from Outside".

As with Väinämöinen, the eternal singer of the Kalevala (one of the key germs of inspiration for Tolkien), Tom is Arda's oldest sentient being. He is self begotten, fatherless, pre-existent. He simply 'is'.

The idea seems to be that there is an important connection between thing and word, and that each in a sense creates the other.

 

[WanderingWind]

All three radio adaptations were once on Youtube in full, but have since been deleted.

But the following user has kindly uploaded some chapters.

https://www.youtube.com/user/sophierosewea/videos

It's available in CD form from Amazon. Famous Tolkien commentator Brian Sibley and Michael Bakewell are responsible for the adaptation. Brian omitted the Tom Bombadil sequence in the adaptation, but later felt that he had made mistake in doing that, so rectified this by adding that sequence to the radio adaptation of the Tales of the Perilous Realm.

Also a very accomplished adaptation.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1602834784/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Thanks, I will give that a listen when I have some time.

As to Bombadil, I find it fascinating that he's the one part of Tolkien's work that has most eluded both categorization and translation to film. The biggest piece of his story that requires the biggest leap of imagination fails filmmakers, scholars and readers alike. Probably will for all time.

As a side note, Christopher may not have always made the right moves when protecting his father's legacy, but I think the world would have been a darker place with a Hobbit Saturday morning cartoon, Star Wars-like EU and many darker things that might have come to pass without his steadfast stewardship.

 

[The Artful Dodger]

As a side note, Christopher may not have always made the right moves when protecting his father's legacy, but I think the world would have been a darker place with a Hobbit Saturday morning cartoon, Star Wars-like EU and many darker things that might have come to pass without his steadfast stewardship.

Ugh, can you imagine Peter Jackson doing a three-part movie trilogy about the Adventures of Tom Bombadil?

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Ugh, can you imagine Peter Jackson doing a three-part movie trilogy about the Adventures of Tom Bombadil?

The end credit songs would be a repetition of the following with various singers:

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

As a side note, Christopher may not have always made the right moves when protecting his father's legacy, but I think the world would have been a darker place with a Hobbit Saturday morning cartoon, Star Wars-like EU and many darker things that might have come to pass without his steadfast stewardship.

Yeah, for how much I think he's overly harsh on Jackson, the bits I don't like of The Hobbit are enough to make me glad of the restrictions he places.

 

[WanderingWind]

Ugh, can you imagine Peter Jackson doing a three-part movie trilogy about the Adventures of Tom Bombadil?

Well, no but what kind of mons....

The end credit songs would be a repetition of the following with various singers:

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

...nooooooooo. Don't give him ideas!

Yeah, for how much I think he's overly harsh on Jackson, the bits I don't like of The Hobbit are enough to make me glad of the restrictions he places.

I agree. Though, I am looking forward to the finale, I still find it sad that we're never going to get a proper Hobbit treatment, with silliness intact and needless romance cut.

 

[The Artful Dodger]

The end credit songs would be a repetition of the following with various singers:

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

haha, that and just knowing Legolas would be shoehorned into the story

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Three Tolkien related recommendations:

In light of the imminent release of Tolkien's translation of Beowulf. Juilan Glover's abridged interpretation of Beowulf:

And a performance by him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOyi0jg0K3g


Michael Wood's Beowulf documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C0sFXU0SLo


In general, for anyone in the UK, a lecture at the British Museum dealing with Icelandic Sagas in conjunction with the current 'Vikings life and legend' exhibition.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_...=1344&title=Icelandic sagas&eventType=Lecture

 

[Loxley]

Well, no but what kind of mons....



...nooooooooo. Don't give him ideas!



I agree. Though, I am looking forward to the finale, I still find it sad that we're never going to get a proper Hobbit treatment, with silliness intact and needless romance cut.

We absolutely could. My thought is this - I don't think we'll see an adaption of The Lord of the Rings again for quite some time, but The Hobbit? I'm more than willing to bet that an animated adaption of it will be the next step. That allows two things - more silliness, and it it'll side-step direct comparisons to Jackson's films.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

We absolutely could. My thought is this - I don't think we'll see an adaption of The Lord of the Rings again for quite some time, but The Hobbit? I'm more than willing to bet that an animated adaption of it will be the next step. That allows two things - more silliness, and it it'll side-step direct comparisons to Jackson's films.

I'd go for a Pixar Hobbit. I'd go for that hard. Seeing as the rights are with WB, we'll be cold and dead in the ground though.

EDIT: haha maybe not

When J.R.R. Tolkien sold the film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, he demanded a guarantee that The Walt Disney Company would never be involved with adaptations of his work. Tolkien had an intense hatred for the studio’s eternally upbeat, bright, and frequently altered adaptations of well-known stories, and he rejected several previous offers to make movies based on his Middle-Earth stories due to the pitches seeming too “Disney-fied” in their approach. Four years after he died, in 1977 The Hobbit was adapted into an animated musical and released by Warner Bros

Guess my two big loves don't go together!