Sounds indeed more in line with what Tolkien said, although everyone can create their own version of the story of course.
Tolkien:
"But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story. But of course in another way, not that of pure story-making, Bombadil is a deliberate contrast to the Elves who are artists. But B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the things that are not himself. The spirit of the [deleted: world > this earth] made aware of itself. He is more like science (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art. He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we can catch a little of it. But I do suggest that it is possible to fear (as I do) that the making artistic sub-creative spirit (of Men and Elves) is actually more potent, and can ‘fall’, and that it could in the eventual triumph of its own evil destroy the whole earth, and Bombadil and all."
I really like this. In many many many works of fiction, if you are presented with an odd detail that seems extraneous to the plot or the aesthetic, there’s a huge chance that this will turn out to be some kind of pivotal point later in the story. I love that Tolkien was introducing them simply to create depth - and to a great extent - to provoke the feelings that bring about posts and discussion like this
Thanks for the link to that Wikipedia page, I'd never seen it before. Really amazing stuff. There have been many authors since that have done a good job at replicating that "impression of depth", but I still feel like none of them has ever done it at Tolkien's level.
For my tastes, it's not a matter of the biggest scope or the most obsessively detailed world history.
What I appreciate about Tolkien's world is the sense of wonder I felt when reading LOTR. He explained soo many details of that world but just as crucially he was very artful about what he chose not to explain. Adding to that, Tolkien and the characters themselves seemed to share this sense of wonder. Gandalf, who knew more about the world than even the Elves, never lost his sense of wonder and reverence for things.
GRRM's fantasy world is, well... more realistic, that's for sure. Characters are mostly just trying to be king, or to fuck, or get money, or simply survive. I like those books too. And GRRM has said of course that he was explicitly trying to create something like an anti-LOTR that showed the lives of people who weren't necessarily heroes or even good people.
I like the GRRM novels but I still prefer LOTR's sense of wonder. But, nobody's wrong if they have the opposite opinion. Or if they hate both. :)
Kind of strange that the only other two authors they talk about are Ursula K. Le Guin and J.K. Rowling. I don't think the use of depth by either was particularly noticeable compared to other authors, and certainly nowhere near what Tolkien was doing (and I'm saying that as someone who would rather read Le Guin than Tolkien).
That seems like an example of Chekhov's gun rather than the opposite of it. The seemingly unnecessary thing is actually quite vital, adhering to Chekhov's idea that you should only introduce vital things, just with a bit of subterfuge.
It's funny, this is somewhat consistent with TFA. Humans consider nature to be evil and scary. Tolkien has no fear of his creation; it is what it is, but TFA's author is terrified at the notion that nature could overgrow the creations of man- and elf-kind if the simple powers of good and evil are removed from the world.
If you keep salmon jerky in your tent, that's a great appetizer and you're a convenient meal. Doesn't make the bear evil though.
Tolkien: "But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story. But of course in another way, not that of pure story-making, Bombadil is a deliberate contrast to the Elves who are artists. But B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the things that are not himself. The spirit of the [deleted: world > this earth] made aware of itself. He is more like science (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art. He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we can catch a little of it. But I do suggest that it is possible to fear (as I do) that the making artistic sub-creative spirit (of Men and Elves) is actually more potent, and can ‘fall’, and that it could in the eventual triumph of its own evil destroy the whole earth, and Bombadil and all."
http://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/bombadil.html