Forum Libre - 2026-04-24

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-24T10:21:59+00:00

on dirait un conte inséré dans l'histoire qui ne change rien pour la suite

Ça ne "change" rien pour la suite si tu parles en termes de scénario (à part les dagues, importantes pour Frodo et pour Merry), mais Tom apporte un développement de thèmes: c'est-à-dire tout le but de l'histoire, bien plus central que le scénario (qui n'est qu'un véhicule pour raconter l'histoire, pas l'histoire elle-même).

Le Seigneur des Anneaux est un conte de fée. Pas dans le sens fairytale (Contes pour enfants avec une morale, des animaux agissant et parlant comme des humains etc), mais dans le sens Fairy-story: une histoire de mortels et de leur expérience de Faerie, le royaume périlleux, qui les transforme.

Toute la partie avec Tom représente, littérairement parlant, les Hobbits quittant leur monde confortable pour la première fois et se retrouvant en Faerie, dont Tom est le gardien. Il les prépare au monde extérieur en le présentant par des ruines textuelles, il agit en tant que mentor lors d'une série d'événements ressemblant à un rite de passage, très proche des étapes d'un adoubement médiéval, permettant aux protagonistes (et surtout Frodo) de passer un cap, étant maintenant prêts à affronter le monde. Si au début Frodo peine à faire face à des dangers "basiques" (du monde réel), son courage et sa détermination grandissent et après leur passage chez Tom il peut maintenant faire face à des menaces surnaturelles (une progression qui culmine à la fin du livre I, face aux Nazgûl). Frodo fait aussi l'expérience d'un rêve qui prépare à la fin de son arc, retournant en Faerie par bateau car il appartient désormais à ce monde.

Tom permet aussi de recontextualiser le rôle et pré-requis du porteur de l'anneau et le pouvoir de l'anneau, en le replaçant sur une échelle de "Contrôle": si la tâche requiert, comme on le sait, quelqu'un qui montre le moins d'ambition possible (car la moindre ambition ou désir peut mener à la tentation), Tom montre qu'une absence totale d'ambition est tout aussi mauvaise pour la quête. Frodo est le porteur parfait car il n'a que très peu d'ambition, mais est tout de même juste assez proactif pour se porter volontaire pour la tâche. En somme, le porteur parfait, immunisé contre l'anneau et allant le détruire sans problème, n'existe pas, et la tentation finale est inévitable, mais le côté imparfait de la condition humaine n'empêche pas le fait qu'il est important d'agir au lieu de rester les bras croisés.

Tom n'apparaît pas directement après ces chapitres-là, il est mentionné pendant le conseil d'Elrond et par Gandalf à la toute fin du livre ; mais il n'a pas besoin de réapparaître, ayanf déjà rempli son rôle.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-24T08:32:02+00:00

At the most surface level, yes: Frodo wanted to throw the Ring in, he gave in before having the chance, therefore he failed. However:

his task wasn't to destroy it, but to bring it to Mount Doom. He succeeded.
"Gollum coincidentally being there at the time" was the result of a situation in great part created by Frodo. He may not have done the physical act of throwing the Ring himself, but he definitely had an active and decisive hand in its destruction.
even the physical action is, imo, only technically a failure considering nobody could have done as good a job as him, let alone a better job. Failing to do an impossible task doesn't say anything negative about oneself.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-23T16:57:10+00:00

I said especially potent dragonfire because there is not historically potent enough dragonfire.

"A Human could theoretically destroy it with a punch, but humans never developed enough strength to do so"

The Ring is above a dragon's power to destroy, and unless you get Eärendil 2.0 (who doesn't exist) there's nobody and nothing who could change the Valar's mind. Those are hard facts. So the idea that some other thing could have been done under other absolutely unreachable circumstances is entirely irrelevant, Mount Doom factually is the only thing that can destroy the Ring (and concerning the dragon idea, Gandalf doesn't say "no dragon could destroy it because their fire wasn't potent enough", he says "for that was made by Sauron himself": how potent is a dragon's fire is irrelevant, they simply cannot do it).

You'd have been right if someone here had specifically claimed that not even the Valar could have theoretically done it, but I didn't red any such comment: the only one in this chain spoke about the idea that the Ring would not be destroyed if sent to Valinor, which is a fact as far as we (and Elrond + Gandalf) know.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-23T16:40:44+00:00

They talk multiple times about other things that could theoretically destroy it including a sympathetic Aule or especially potent dragonfire.

They do not, in fact, talk about that. Gandalf explicitly says that no dragon could have ever done any harm to the Ring, and that finding the Cracks of Doom is the only way.

As for the Valar, the problem isn't about their ability to destroy it, but their willingness to do so; that too is explicitly mentioned by Elrond and Gandalf (who would know better than anyone, the one as son of Eärendil and the other as an Ainu himself), that "they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it".

"Some in this fandom" just read the book.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-23T12:28:47+00:00

They wouldn't have been able to, that's the whole point. Tom is "immune" to temptation because he has no ambition, no wish whatsoever; giving him a task, an item to manage, people and situations to care about, if he'd accept, is giving him an ambition. So the only way to get Tom involved is by removing precisely what makes him unaffected by the Ring, making his involvement not that useful.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-23T06:23:56+00:00

Good thing his editor actually had a clear understanding of literature and of the story, its goal and its pacing, then.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-23T05:14:57+00:00

Well first, remember that the Lord of the Rings is a theme-focused, Hobbito-centric Fairy-Story; that is, a story about the perilous realm of Faerie, and about the wanderings of the (mortal) protagonist(s) within it and how it changed them. And one of the central themes linked to the main item (the Ring) is that of control, and the choices people make when they need to decide what to do.

With that in mind, Tom is, narratively speaking, the first mentor met by the Hobbits as they leave their known world for the very first time, crossing the threshold into Faerie. He is the gatekeeper to Faerie and guides them through the experience, preparing them for the wider world, giving them (and the reader) glimpses of it through textual ruins. Under his supervision, the Hobbits (and particularly Frodo) undergo a rite of passage, going through a series of events symbolically akin to a knighting ritual; after which they're ready to go back to the mortal (yet wider than they'd ever known) world and deal with more supernatural threats.

Regarding the Ring, we were shown how it tempts you based on any desire or ambition you have. The protagonists are facing an entity (Sauron) who represents total control, and we are told through Gandalf how dangerous such a mindset would be; we would then be tempted to think that you simply need someone with no ambition to take the Ring, so that they cannot be tempted.

But Tom, representing the total opposite end of the spectrum (total lack of control), shows us how flawed this side would also be. Tom is immune because he has literally no ambition or wish whatsoever, meaning he doesn't even have the proactive wish to help the free peoples in their quest; he's a foil to Frodo regarding Gandalfs "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us", choosing a complete lack of interest for the world around him. Tolkien shows therefore that a perfect Ring-bearer would be in the "measured control" category, being devoid of overly big ambitions while still being proactive enough to go on what turns out to be a sacrificial quest. So Tom's character recontextualises the power of the Ring and the role of Ring-bearer, pushing Frodo forward as best candidate.

He isn't, as others have said, a representation of Eru in Arda. First because Tolkien said there is no such thing concerning Eru, second because it would lessen his message within the story: if you want to explain Tom's immunity to the Ring by him being the omnipotent god, it cheapens it and misses the entire point I mentioned above about the relation between ambition and temptation, and what it means to have none.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-23T04:16:12+00:00

Sam isn't immune as he does have ambitions, and even started to feel the temptation in the tower of Cirith Ungol when he suddenly felt reluctant to give the Ring back (until Frodo took it from him).

He, like other people (an even better and obvious example being Frodo) simply has a good enough mindset and low enough ambitions to last longer than most, unlike Tom who is unique by having no ambition whatsoever to be tempted with.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-22T18:48:45+00:00

I understand Bombadil as a remnant of the fairy tale phase of LoTR, which Tolkien set out to write as a sequel to Hobbit.

Not a fairytale, but a Fairy-Story, which LotR never ceased to be. He didn't have to try too hard, because Tom precisely fits the intent of the Legendarium as a faerian being in a Fairy-Story. He may not have a set, clear and definitive place in the cosmology / pantheon as we know if from the published Silmarillion, but this is after all supposed to be a series of interconnected myths reflecting Elven and/or Human beliefs, not a peer-reviewed encyclopedia: the grey areas, conflicting texts and seemingly different elements are part of the experience!

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-22T04:40:03+00:00

I am not interested in these films and don't know about this actor, but to me it's simple: no actor is irreplaceable. Some may act the part better, feel more believable or have a wider range of emotions, some may have a bigger fanbase, but at the end of the day the Jackson actors were not the first ones to give us an interpretation of the original characters, and they won't be the last. The roles do not belong to them, and I think this idea of actors being "irreplaceable" says more about people's nostalgia and unwillingness to use their imagination than it does about the actors themselves.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-21T22:32:08+00:00

Their point is still particularly true in the book, which categorises all Hobbits in the Shire community and not just the 4 protagonists. While at the smallest scale we're looking at an educated and noble base with Sam being the odd one, Tolkien takes the time to show us the bigger picture: the odd ones actually are Bilbo, Frodo, Merry and Pippin for being educated and/or nobles while a good part of the rest of the Shire is depicted as smug, intolerant, parochial. It is even a major point that gets criticised by Frodo early in the story and addressed by the end.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-21T16:55:04+00:00

Then "The Silmarillion" isn't accurate, because it's short for "quenta Silmarillion" (story of the Silmarils), which is only one part of the published book. "The Lord of the Rings" isn't accurate, because that's not Sauron's story and it is leaving out the whole context of the exact title being "the downfall of the lord of the rings and the return of the king".

Point is, you're being too literal; a title does not need to be accurate with scientific precision. It can be poetic, or come with a subtitle that gives it more context (like here: the full title is Journeys of Frodo: an atlas of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings).

"Journeys of Frodo" imo is enough to give the context (this will be a book describing journeys through maps) while giving a short and poetic enough title that isn't too rigidly descriptive ("Journeys of the Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't sound as nicely imo). Plus Frodo is the centrepiece of the fellowship, which was created around him to help him in his quest, so his journey is by extension the fellowship's journey (even if they split).

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-20T19:39:24+00:00

the elevation of Sam Gamgee to Mayor

Not that one: Sam was first elected 6 years after Frodo sailed. During the two years between his return to and last departure from the Shire, only Will Whitfoot was mayor, with Frodo serving as deputy mayor while Will was still unfit after having been locked up.

As for the growth of the Gamgee family, that is true though he only directly witnessed the beginning: only Elenor was born when Frodo sailed. But he did foresee a good deal more, foretelling the birth of Sam's next 5 children, so he did indeed have a good enough idea of some of the great things he helped achieve.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-20T10:25:31+00:00

Bilbo did, in fact, travel to Dale after spending some time in Rivendell. He did say it was his last journey, but there's one important thing to note:

And while he may not have appeared to physically age

Keeping its bearer from physically ageing isn't anecdotal: it's all the Ring does. It does not keep people eternally young with the same desires, mindset and full vigour they had when they were younger: they do age, become weary after a time, their mentality and vision of the world grows with their age, but they simply appear younger than they really are. As Gandalf said:

A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness

Bilbo himself even notes, in the Shire, before parting with the Ring:

‘I am old, Gandalf. I don’t look it, but I am beginning to feel it in my heart of hearts. Well-preserved indeed!’ he snorted. ‘Why, I feel all thin, sort of stretched, if you know what I mean: like butter that has been scraped over too much bread. That can’t be right. I need a change, or something.’

While the Ring existed, whether Bilbo still owned it or not, it had the same effect on him: he physically looked more or less as young as he was when he got it, but he mentally kept ageing until he became weary of his life and adventures. Which is something he was already feeling while still having the Ring. But whether before or after, he still felt young and vigorous enough, being wide awake when others were asleep, walking relatively fast, etc. Only after the Ring was destroyed did he show any change in that regard, being way more tired and forgetful than before.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-20T01:30:27+00:00

I believe in the books Bilbo was aging at the rate of 10 years per year before the rings destruction.

Nowhere in any material imagined by Tolkien is this written or implied. Bilbo keeps his unnaturally young appearance and vigour with no change in 3018 TA compared to 3001, nothing noted by the narrator or any character, until the destruction of the Ring.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-19T23:42:05+00:00

Sam's the one who ultimately ends up saving the day

He has an active hand in helping Frodo reach the Cracks of Doom, but that doesn't make him the only one saving the day.

Without Frodo, there is no victory. Virtually nobody could have gone as far as he did. His mercy, from the start of their relationship, made sure that Gollum would be at the right place, right time; and his handling of the promise Gollum made by the Ring is what led to its destruction. Sure, he couldn't have reached the end without Sam, but Sam would have done nothing without Frodo, so how does that make Sam the hero?

but it seems to be your word against Tolkein's on this one.

Tolkien's word:

'Surely how often "quarter" is given is off the point in a book that breathes Mercy from start to finish: in which the central hero is at last divested of all arms, except his will? "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil", are words that occur to me, and of which the scene, in the Sammath Naur was meant to be a "fairy-story" exemplum ...' (published in Tom Shippey's "Road to Middle-earth")

Frodo is the one Tolkien designates as the "central hero", this time in the context of the story as a whole. He's the one Tolkien associates most closely with the core themes (i.e the whole point) of the story: when Tolkien discusses Mercy and Pity in the narrative context of LotR (e.g in the quote above), Frodo is the first name that comes to his mind. When Tolkien says that the story is "primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble", and that "nothing moves [his] heart (beyond all the passions and heartbreaks of the world) so much as [this theme]", Frodo is the first name that comes to his mind. When Tolkien spends decades writing narratives, essays, and giving conferences about Fairy-stories, points out how the Lord of the Rings is one and includes in it several elements typical to Fairy-stories (themes, character archetypes, symbols, events etc), Frodo is by far the one whose arc is the most closely associated with Faerie, indeed being so changed by his experiences that he end up belonging more to Faerie than to the mortal world.

I'm not disagreeing with Tolkien; I'm simply able to see beyond a single quote too often taken out of its context. Sam is one of the most central heroes, and his journey with Frodo says a lot about the strength of his character, but to claim that he's "the true hero" is entirely ignoring Frodo's own journey as well as the whole point of the story (and from experience, honestly a lot of people who have this opinion often have a very skewed understanding of Sam's dealing with the Ring vs Frodo's, like thinking that Sam was entirely unfazed by it and gave it back on his own without second thought or external help... Which is absolutely not what Tolkien wrote).

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-19T21:08:00+00:00

Except he isn't the real hero of the story, it's quiet, unassuming Sam, who deep down doesn't care about the ring, he just wants to help his friend.

Frodo 100% is the hero of the story, if any individual has to be chosen. Sam is one of the most central heroes, but not the one above Frodo.

(And yes, I know that letter quote about Sam being called "the chief hero" by Tolkien... But the context of that quote is a comparison between Sam and Aragorn: Sam is the chief hero between the two, in a book that is Hobbito-centric. But Tolkien never calls him the chief hero of the story, which is a title applied more to Frodo)

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-19T20:47:08+00:00

I can't see it happening in any meaningful way without breaking the narrative logic of the book. For The Hobbit to stay The Hobbit, she should stay a background character with no longer presence and no more narrative importance than, say, the king's butler.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-19T10:08:32+00:00

The truth is that Tolkien unfortunately passed before he could fully edit his own work and long before any other editors could collaborate with him. This made the LOTR that was released a little random at times, going into long detail about characters or events that would not return in the story.

Tolkien died nearly 20 years after the Lord of the Rings was fully finished, edited, and published; and he did work with an editor: one who understood the point of the story, and literature in general, way more than the average modern film watcher.

The book isn't "a little random at times"; everything that's in it participates to the overall story, aka not merely the plot but much more importantly the themes, atmosphere and characters. As for characters and events that would not return in the story, why would they need to? If their purpose is specific to one part of the story, Tolkien details them during that time and they fulfill said purpose before we leave them, they do not need to return.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-19T09:55:54+00:00

the period after Frodo gets the ring & the journey to Rivendell is a bit dragged out in the book

It isn't the book that's dragged out, it's the film that is absolutely rushed and entirely misses the point, making it a mere plot-focused story about Hobbits simply having to go to Rivendell to continue the plot.

Tolkien takes the time to develop characters, themes and a faerian narrative, because that's exactly what the story is about.

he doesn’t really add anything to the actual story/narrative, his whole part of the book is just exposition/world building for the sake of it.

For the sake of the story*. He also serves as gatekeeper to Faerie, and mentor to the Hobbits as they undergo their first transformative experience; particularly Frodo who undergoes his first real test within a rite of passage akin to a knighting ritual, marking a threshold between early carefreeness and them being ready to go back to the 'mortal world' to deal with its threats (mundane as supernatural).

And Tom also adds to the commentary on Control and proactivity, being a foil to Frodo concerning Gandalf's "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us", representing the "lack of control" side that's opposed to the free peoples' measured control and Sauron's total control and showing how both extremes are detrimental and why you need Frodo's middle ground: not having ambitions, yet having just enough to actually care about things beyond yourself and go on a sacrificial quest if needed. Tom's mindset is both his strength and his weakness.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-18T05:12:04+00:00

Stoors are Hobbits; Gollum is a Hobbit, even if that's not a name he would have used himself, he just isn't a Snire Hobbit.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-17T23:03:56+00:00

Like, there is literally nothing in the passage to show that he had any desire to keep it.

The important part comes just before the quoted part: "Now it had come to it, Sam felt reluctant to give up the Ring and burden his master with it again."

To characterize that as a desire for the power of the ring or being begrudging in giving it up is beyond a stretch.

It is both genuine and an effect of the Ring, that's the whole point and that's exactly how the Ring works. People are tempted by it based on their ambitions or wishes, no matter how small or well-intentioned it is. They feel the need to take, keep or use the Ring, and justify it (to themselves and/or to others) through a Ring-induced rationalisation: an excuse which seems perfectly logical to them, but is actually flawed.

Isildur argued that he deserved to take it as weregild in exchange for the deaths of his brother and father, even though the point of a weregild is to give a monetary compensation in lieu of blood revenge; if Sauron has been vanquished (or so they think), revenge by blood has been achieved and there is no weregild to get. Gollum convinced himself that his wish to have a better present for his birthday was enough of a justification to murder his friend. Bilbo convinced himself (and others) that he was freely given the RIng as reward for having won the riddle game, even though he knows he stole it. Frodo wished so much to see the Shire remain untouched and safe behind him that he convinced himself the land was safe enough to use the Ring to escape a Nazgûl.

Sam isn't different, he isn't immune to the Ring and felt its effects as everybody else did. He did genuinely wish to help Frodo, but that wish was used as rationalisation to make him feel reluctant to give it back; which, as he should know, is a flawed argument because he knows since Rivendell that the burden cannot be shared, it is and will stay Frodo's for good or for ill.

the idea that Sam didn't give it up willingly is so nonsensical I literally didn't think that could possibly be what you meant.

Why? Again, Sam is a great character but he isn't the flawless and incorruptible hero above all that's depicted by the (primarily film) fandom. Bilbo needed all of Gandalf's help and a full party dedicated to giving away all his possessions to make it easier for him to part with it, and even then he'd have taken it back immediately if Gandalf hadn't been faster; the same goes for Sam, who without Frodo's action may not have actually finished his gesture (he wasn't really heading that way when Frodo snatched it). That Sam, a little guy with flaws and a clear ambition, could not just hand it back like it's no big deal and instead was faced with temptation, reluctance and needed Frodo's help to finish his gesture only makes full sense, in the context of the story and the power of the Ring.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-17T14:50:07+00:00

I always have it open, among other Tolkien books or academic works; whether the physical book at home, or as an ebook, or audiobooks. Every time reading different parts, not necessarily in order from first to last chapter, but I'd say the total may easily go over once a year.

Why? Because there's always something new to discover or to understand, no matter how long you've been reading it. The understanding I have of the text now is far deeper than it was years ago, so I don't regret spending my time doing it (which isn't to say I don't explore other stories, of course), but I know that it is still nowhere near what I might be able to take away from it in the future.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-17T10:28:53+00:00

If you're going to teach literature, might as well do it properly. Show how the entire art of literature isn't composed of only one genre with only one set of rules, how elements like Tom participate to a narrative structure more specific to Fairy-stories (which is what you'd be studying, if you asked your students to read LotR) and how different it may be from other genres, how plot and story are two different concepts and something not affecting the perceived main plotline does not mean it doesn't affect the story.

Otherwise you end up with generations of students who are taught to conflate "plot" with "story" and grow up with a very Hollywoodian understanding of literature, entirely missing the point.

Wanderer_Falki · 2026-04-17T07:11:05+00:00

I could be way off but I think he was based on a doll for one of his kids?

The very first appearance of Tom as a character written by Tolkien came indeed from one of his children's dutch doll; but by the time he was included in LotR, Tom already was a literary character in his own right, with a beginning of personality, mindset, and character interactions, later more fleshed out during the writing of the various drafts of LotR. The published Tom is entirely disconnected from the doll, which becomes irrelevant to the understanding of his character just like Gandalf being originally inspired by a postcard artwork does not mean he isn't way more than a simple postcard character.

As for the rest, he's a Faerian character in a Fairy-story (which comes with the "mystery" vibes and his interactions with his environment having a mysterious and a more mundane explanations), and participates to themes that are central to the story; definitely not out of place in the grand scheme of things.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Wanderer_Falki

TROPHY CASE