> He is one of the only characters able to just casually put on the one ring with seemingly no effect and then give it back immediately afterwards.
OK, that's fair enough. But to my mind, this is just a setup that cries out for an explanation that never comes. It's a major flaw in the dramatic structure of the narrative, a bug not a feature.
But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
One of Tolkien's goals was to create something which resembled history rather than literature. Or if not history, then mythology that plausibly belongs to a real place, rather than a neatly-constructed story. So, some of the things that he does are "janky" from a purely dramatic perspective, but fulfill that purpose.
A common example from Lord of the Rings is having many related characters with the same or similar name. The convention in literature is to make characters distinguishable for practical reasons, but in "real" history naming conventions are messy and people aren't always distinguishable. There are even real debates among historians about whether a name refers to multiple people or not!
Tom Bombadil is a similar thing. He serves no dramatic purpose. But a history, or a mythology, doesn't always have events that fit together in a neat way. Sometimes stuff just happens, or there are things that are only tangentially related. And it's difficult to draw a circle around events and say inside the circle is our story, and outside the circle not our story. There are other stories, intersecting.
In part, I think it's one of the ways he mimics the form of books like Beowulf or Gilgamesh or other works of that sort—that kind of thing tends to be full of digressions and whole scenes that simply seem like mistakes—dragging down the "momentum", not "advancing the plot"—if you're going by modern very-focused standards of what constitutes acceptable plotting, which of course is the kind of thing most people are used to reading/watching.
See, that's the best part. It's what makes people "fall into" Middle Earth. That there was whole parts of the backstory that don't get explained. That there are periods of history you get a glimpse into to believe there is a huge depth to it. That the way we see the continent now is not how it always was. Who were the barrow wights? Why were they cursed?
As a kid first reading it, I feared the barrow wights as much if not more than the Nazgul.
The whole aside was to show that the hobbits had truly "left the Shire" and that perils lay along the road in any direction they might turn. But, again, there were allies or, at least, guides all along that road as well.
Bombadil and Old Man Willow are a foreshadowing of the Ents to come.
The naive reader’s expectation of conformity to dramatic structure is an expectation that plenty of authors have played with, for reasons including stylistic effect, subtext, and for fun. It’s not a flaw, bug, feature, or other arbitrary and inappropriate use of software jargon.
Chekhov's Gun is but one playwright's opinion on what makes for "correct" dramatic structure.
As others have also stated, Tom is one of my favorite characters purely because he is left so unexplained. Tolkien sought to create a world. In order to create a world [0], it doesn't make sense for the whole of that world to be defined by a singular story or set of events. Least of all a world created by an author who so dearly loved folklore and mythology.
It's not that I'm taking Chekhov's Gun as an axiom. The rest of LOTR hangs together quite well on this criterion. I'm judging Tom by that standard. Gollum, for example, makes sense. In fact, Gollum is probably one of the best examples of a dramatically coherent character in all of literature. He is introduced as a bit player and ends up being a pivotal and very complex character, almost a protagonist in his own right. But that only happened (and let me apologize in advance for venting some frustration here) because he didn't just fucking vanish after being introduced!
How would one demonstrate a character who is so powerful that they can "just fucking vanish" without having them do just that?
You could go on to explain that fact or similar, but I think driving home that point any more than Tolkien did just muddies it and makes it more clumsy.
David Lynch directing The Lord of the Rings would be a fascinating experiment. Lynch would make the experience of the Ring-bearer, in particular, sublime.
The goal to some is the journey and not the destination. I wish I had a link, but there's a TikTok of some woman that always thought the Lord of the Rings looked stupid, but then her partner mentioned that it had all this backstory lore like the family trees and she then read all the books in like a week. She didn't care about the ring or Sauron, just the fun world building. I'm fairly similar.
I have a system that I use to rate movies: "Must see", "Worthwhile", "Wait for the video" and "Don't waste your time." After watching Mulholland Drive I had to invent a fifth rating: "I want those two hours of my life back."
Lynch fills his works with characters and scenes that are—at best—plot-adjacent, whimsical/incongruous/uncanny, and full of often-unexplained and apparently-metaphysical mystery or magic. He's as likely to let mood or theme drive the content of and editorial-decision-to-include a scene or a shot or an entire character(!), as plot. It makes sense you'd dislike his stuff if you don't like the Bombadil section of LOTR.
(this is not intended as some kind of judgement, to be clear, I was just curious if works with similar qualities had the same effect for you, or it was something specific to that kind of element being in LOTR in particular, maybe because of the context or something)
It's both. I like a story to go somewhere, to have a point. I want it to at least be possible to figure out what the fuck is going on, even if it requires some effort and isn't obvious on a first reading (or viewing in the case of movies). In fact, the best stories are the ones where you have to do some work (The Godfather is my poster child). But if I put in the work, I want it to at least be possible that I could figure it out.
LOTR is mostly like that. Most of the events make sense in the context of the overall arc of the narrative. If you ask, "Why is this scene here?" there is usually an answer.
Except Tom. He appears, puts on the ring, fails to disappear -- which is quite extraordinary! --- and that's it. The end. Toodle-oo. Vanishes entirely from the story without so much as a by-your-leave. Why was he introduced? To this day I have no idea. And that is why Tom bothers me particularly. With Lynch you know what you're getting. Tom seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch.
OK, that's fair enough. But to my mind, this is just a setup that cries out for an explanation that never comes. It's a major flaw in the dramatic structure of the narrative, a bug not a feature.
But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.