Seriously, does this man look all powerful?

Destroy the ring, of course.

Tom Bombadil was not part of Middle Earth. Tolkien introduced him in the book to give the Hobbits something to do in between the Shire and Bree. Tom was a character in other stories written by Tolkien.

Exactly, Tom has his own story. Tolkien was aware enough to recognize the literary impact of Tom. He had no choice but to mention him at Rivendale, no choice but to have Gandlaf speak with him. Each of these occurrences are pretty minor, and I think they amount to nothing more than Tolkien explaining away Tom.

That said, it's difficult for a reader not to notice some significance in the character. Perhaps he is the man who keeps himself outside of the power struggles. Such conclusions seem reasonable. Even though he was used by Tolkien as a particularly simple literary device, this doesn't mean that the device is devoid of meaning.

To tell the truth, it seems to me at least that Tom Bombadil is a representation of God, or maybe an extension of God. Kinda like Aslan was the representation of God in the Chronicles of Narnia. But then again not really, because Bombadil is limited creature in terms of the story not first in terms of the general cosmogony. He was certainly not the first first, that goes to Il'uvetar, but on middle earth in particular. But he possess some of the qualities of God, like immortality (but I would imagine not invulnerability) and musicality (which in Tolkien's cosmogony shaped the universe).

So would that make Tom Bombadil in some respects the Adam of the Bible? Probably not.

But then, even if you think of Bombadil like that, it makes sense that he is incorporated. Look at Sauron. He was not the first first evil figure, yet he plays a central role in the story. But interestingly enough, contrast the two characters. Sauron is a being who is always active, always interveening. Bombadil on the other hand is a character that is always passive, always aloof and distanced from everything. Two extremes in a story between the underlings of the two parties?

I would destroy the ring, assuming it didnt drive me nuts before then Although it depends of how many other elements of the book were in the real world. According to the book only a powerfull mage or sauron could use the full power of the ring, so if there wasnt any of then in the world the powers of the ring would be limited to invisibility and nuts driving... and also, winhout the mountain where it was created it would be impossible to destroy the ring (Thought maybe with modern technology that the dwarves didnt had it would be possible to create enough heat)

I think Tom Bombadil is more a character to make the reader think a bit than to actually do anything in the history. He also adds a touch of mystic to the forest he lives in, and that forest was notorious for the weird stuff on it

One thing I didnt understood in the history is why Gandalf had one of the elven rings... wasnt it supposed to be in possession of a elf lord?

I think Bambadil acts as the literary device deus ex machina in the Lord of the Rings--well a student in one of my classes gave a presentation on it a few semesters ago. The character has many godlike characteristic and seems to be a representation of the good in the story. This would also explain why the external world has little effect on him an vise versa.

" Narya, also named the Ring of Fire or Red Ring, is one of the Three Rings. According to Unfinished Tales, at the start of the War of the Elves and Sauron, Celebrimbor gave Narya together with the Ring Vilya to Gil-galad, High King of the Noldor. Gil-galad entrusted Narya to his lieutenant , Lord of the Havens of Mithlond, who kept it after Gil-galad's death. According to The Lord of the RingsGandalf's true nature as one of the Maiar from Valinor, gave him the ring to aid him in his labours. It is described as having the power to inspire others to resist tyranny, domination, and despair (in other words, evoking hope from others around the wielder), as well as giving resistance to the weariness of time: "Take now this Ring," he said; "for thy labours and thy cares will be heavy, but in all it will support thee and defend thee from weariness. For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith, maybe, thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valour of old in a world that grows chill"Grey Havens. It was a gold ring adorned with a red ruby." (Wikipedia)

Three Rings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gotta love Wikipedia... and judging by the veracity of the fanbase, I would suppose this is pretty accurate in terms of Tolkeins story. But isn't it amazing how much depth the story has around even a small bit in the grander scheme of things. Tolkein really had a complex vision when he wrote his collection of storys on middle earth.

Indeed, The depth of the story of the Lord of the Rings is beyond belief. Thanks for the info regarding the ring... I gotta get myself to read the rest of the stories sometime

I may have to pick up the Silmarillion by Tolkien again as this thread is rekindling my thoughts on Tolkien's world. I tried to read it in the past, but it is so dense that I think I had too much on my mind at the time to grasp the narrative.

The Silmarillion is difficult to read as a narrative; it's closer to a history text.

One interesting thing to remember: Tolkien did not imagine that his stories took place on another planet. They are set on Earth, our Earth. Essentially, he invented a new mythology, drawing on various Anglo-Saxon and Nordic traditions. His brilliance is that the mythology speaks to many particularly modern problems, like global war.

I enjoyed the Silmarillion more than the Lord of the Rings - it has much more depth of metaphor.

The interesting thing about the One Ring, is that Frodo has to take it up in order to destroy it. One cannot destroy it without taking it up.

I see it as a metaphor for governmental power, presidency, or perhaps secretary of the world bank. The way that presidents age so quickly during their terms is disturbing. Even when one is critical of their decisions, one is sympathetic to the tremendous stress of the job they take on.

Who can not pity Boromir, or Gollum, despite their misadventures?

You bet - you have to pity them. At first, Frodo does not pity Gollum, but over time Frodo comes around and pities him the way Gandalf did.

It's interesting you talk about leadership, about the aging of Presidents in relation to the way the One Ring ages it's possessor (while also imparting immortality!). I've always been intrigued by the King of Rohan and the Regent of Gondor. The King of Rohan, once in cahoots with Sauron, is essentially awakened from his slumber and becomes one of the more prominent leaders to oppose Sauron. The Regent is removed in favor of the vaguely populist King Aragorn, someone who has spent his whole life until that point fighting evil as a ranger.

Thought I think the characters are a bit surrealisticly idealized, I mean, The elves are everthing of good and nice, while the orcs are everthing of ugly and bad... even their languages obey this rule. Boromir is also an example of this: for being of noble descendency, he was like worth several men, so much that he killed around 20 orcs before being slain.

Destroy the ring? I hope I would have the strength to, yet I am Man, and Man is weak to Power... unlimately, I would want the Ring in the hands of an Elf before I ever came near it.

But what would the Ring, in the hands of an elf, create other than the most vicious Orc even conceived?

Galadriel refused the ring then Frodo offered it to her, so we can suppose even an elf would not resist its powers for long. It seens the power of the ring was such that those who had the power to resist its "brainwashing" would fall to the temptation of using the ring to control the world, becoming as bad or worse than Sauron. So much that the greatest fear of Sauron was that this happened, because even thought the world would be taken over by evil he would not be the one in command.

In the other books, its noted that the Orcs and the Elves are actually the same people, (although there are other contradictory explanations as well), and that the orcs became as they were, through being tortured by evil.

The Brown Elves in the Hobbit are not quite as nice as the Grey Elves and the Wood Elves, whereas the Sea elves are prone to faults of vanity. The Noldorian elves, are underground creatures, who were happy to destroy almost the entire Sea Elf fleet when they refused to give them transport to attack Sauron.

There is quite a lot of mixing up of good and evil amongst the elves. And they had numerous squabbles with the Dwarves too. A catankerous bunch of rowdy folk, themselves.

The annoying thing about the movie, is that it construes the Elves in a dishonest way. Except for Legolas, the elves mostly chicken out of the fight against Sauron and Saruman. They are not even at 'Helm's Deep'. Hardly a 'good and nice' thing to do, both from the elves, and hollywood giving them a far-too-rosy veneer.

Typically, Hollywood 'disneyfied' the story, and warped its realism into a mere fantasy movie! :thats-enough:

I would never had got to read the book if the movies hadnt caught my attention thought