לא מתאים לסרט וטוב שהשאירו אותו בחוץ.

הגב לתגובה זו

מעניין לקרוא מה טולקין כתב על החלק שלו בסיפור:

''I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent 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 your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless...

I do not mean him to be an allegory -- or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name... [he is meant as] a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are ''other'' and wholly independent of the inquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with ''doing'' anything with the knowledge...
''Also Tom Bombadil exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental -- and therefore much will from that 'point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion -- but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe.''

הגרשיים שתוחמים את other ו doing נכתבו ע''י טולקין במקור.

הגב לתגובה זו