Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Publication / Publication history

These two sections seem to be mixed up. Details of the original publication are poor, and mixed up with later details. Also, a couple of undistinguished editions get disproportionate coverage. I suspect the original author of that section was referring to the books in front of him. Can the publication history be cleaned up, without stealing unduly from the "Note on the Text" in the 1994 edition? A complete publishing history would need an entire book in itself - we need to hit the high points. Special bindings and presentations only need a brief mention. ::Didactylos 18:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I suspect that you are referring to my edit of quite a while ago now (Sone back when I was a newbie). However, I think that a lot of this information is extremely relevant. Perhaps we create another article based on publication history? Ck lostsword|queta! 09:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Magnum opus?

Tolkien did not consider LOTR to be his magnum opus; he bestowed that honour upon The Silmarillion (as the J. R. R. Tolkien article states, "he regarded it as the most important of his works"). However, most people would probably consider LOTR to be his greatest work, and it is almost certainly the most popular. How do we stand here? I would follow the author: LOTR is a (fairly) simple story, whereas The Silmarillion is an entire legendarium. Adding {{dubious}}. Hairy Dude 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Silmarillion - that is also the one that he devoted most time for. Tolkien's word should be what we base this article on. However, the simplicity of the story should not be a factor in this. (As the Silmarillion was published after his death, surely it is a 'Post Mortem Magnum Opus'?) Ck lostsword 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, poor choice of words. I meant something like "mere", rather than "simple" in the sense of "not complex". I mean LOTR is purely a literary work, whereas The Silmarillion is a linguistic and "historical" work too. Hairy Dude 07:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken - possible revision: Whilst LotR is the most popular of his works, JRR Tolkien did not consider it to be his magnum opus; he bestowed that honour upon the Silmarillion. Whilst LotR could be considered as a mere story and a literary venture, the Silmarillion is an entire legendarium, which provides the historical and linguistic context for the more popular work. Ck lostsword 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, with a few minor alterations. Thank you :) Hairy Dude 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Considering that the Silmarillion is merely a compilation of Tolkien's notes substantially revised by other authors, it's hard to see this as his "great work", nor could he have easily "bestowed that honour" after his death. Since your sole source for this assertion is an unsourced statement in another Wikipedia article, and since the only Middle Earth work Tolkien himself devoted the time to publish was the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, I marked this statement as dubious in the article. —Steven G. Johnson 20:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
A few facts for consideration. First, Tolkien originally tried to get The Silmarillion published in 1937 - when it was rejected with a request for 'more about hobbits' he started work on his 'sequel to The Hobbit', in part hoping to generate more interest in Middle-earth to help get Silm published. Then, when he had finally completed LotR he actually refused to allow Allen and Unwin to publish it unless they also agreed to publish The Silmarillion. When they declined he sought other publishers (Milton Waldman) and only went back to A&U, hat in hand, when those negotiations dragged out. He then agreed to publish LotR alone, but again was hoping that it would generate interest for The Silmarillion... as indeed proved the case. Unfortunately, by this time his cosmological ideas had begun to change and he never resolved several issues central to completion of a revised Silmarillion. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
For a start, the only 'other author' was Christopher Tolkien, JRR Tolkien's son who took over his fathers editorial work following his death - he was Tolkien's literary executor (Tolkien: Author of the Century - Tom shippey - p.227). This means that anything added to Tolkiens body of text was Christopher's to change - it was he who was able to edit the Silmarillion, and so the Silmarillion - though posthumous - is still one of Tolkien's texts. The vast majority of Tolkien biographies regard the Silmarillion (or at least the body of work that it contains) as his magnum opus, throughout the chapter 'The Silmarillion - Work of his Heart' of the work referenced above, references are made to Tolkien's views regarding the Silmarillion - '[The Silmarillion] was a work of his heart, which occupied him for far longer than ... LotR. The better known works are only offshoots ... of the immense ... legendarium which is the Silmarillion.' (Tolkien: Author of the Century - p.226).

This (and other references) represents written proof of the fact that the Silmarillion was Tolkien's greatest work. Although I can see the basic grounding for your 'dubious' comment, there is plenty of evidence to support the comment previously included. Ck lostsword 20:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Note - CJRT received help on editing Silm from Guy Gavriel Kay. That said, most of the text was taken verbatim from JRRT's drafts. The editors only sorted out what text to take from each draft and how to close various holes and synch up disparate versions... still a major effort and producing only one of many possible presentations of the material, but definitely it was primarily the work of JRRT. That is clear from comparison of the drafts presented in the HoME series against the finished product. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Remember, a key policy of Wikipedia is verifiability. Unless we can directly quote Tolkien himself as saying that he didn't regard the LoTR as his greatest work, we shouldn't state this as an unambiguous fact in the article. If prominent biographers consider this to be true, then we should quote them or at least attribute this opinion to them. If we just want to say how much time he spent on each work, that is fine, but it is sufficient to simply state this fact (properly sourced) without inferring from it (ourselves) Tolkien's opinion of the relative worth of the works. (The inference is not at all obvious. Think about it.) —Steven G. Johnson 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Read up - I have already given quotes from 'prominent biographers.' If further prrof is needed, I'll get my book again ;). Unfortunately, my copy of History of Middle Earth at the moment only consists of Peoples of Middle Earth and the Book of Lost Tales, but I can check through these if it is necessary. There are, however, already some quotes mentioned. Ck lostsword 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, if we cannot definitively prove this statement, then let's change it! It's evident that WE the readers are of the opinion that The Silmarillion was Tolkien's "greatest work", but can we prove the statement made in our little wiki article? Unless we can do so, from a concrete source such as a foreword from one of J.R.R.'s books, or transcripts of an interview that he may have given (this would be great to quote as source material!), it should not be included in the article. EditCentric 07:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If people are going to be this fanatical about citing sources on an issue that is well known by those familiar with the legendarium, we need someone with a copy of The History of Middle-earth to quote chapter and verse. Sadly that can't be me. Hairy Dude 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it really up to the author of a work to solely determine if it is his magnum opus? 68.71.35.93 20:21, 14 February 2006. Referring to wikipedia itself you will get this definition of magnum opus "Magnum opus, from the Latin meaning great work, refers to the best or most renowned achievement of an author, artist, or composer". (UTC)

True, so that refers to personal opinion, which should not be present in an encyclopedia. Perhaps there should be no magnum opus comment? Ck lostsword|queta! 20:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't ever recall seeing Tolkien use this term anywhere. I don't see how he could "bestow this honor" without ever calling any of his works by it. If he had, this would have been a very short discussion, as the citation could have been provided first thing. While I think it's clear that The Silmarillion was, as Shippey (I think) called it, "the work of his heart", "magnum opus" is almost certainly going too far. (After all, he never finished it.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I came across a relevant quotation: "The sequel, The Lord of the Rings, much the largest, and I hope also in proportion the best, of the entire cycle, concludes the whole business..." Letters #131 (pg 159). The 'cycle' and 'business' referred to are the entirety of Tolkien's 'Middle-earth mythology' from The Silmarillion through LotR. Thus, at least in this case, Tolkien stated that he hoped LotR to be his best work - specifically in comparison to The Silmarillion. That said, it is also clear that he went to great lengths in trying to get Silm published. --CBDunkerson 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would guess he wanted LOTR to be "in proportion" his "best" work in that it is the most complete and consistent story with the same kind of time span. But in any case, if the issue is as contentious as this I think the best way is just to leave it out, which I see has been done while I was away. Hairy Dude 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The dispute has been in the article for almost four months now. Can we please either agree to leave it as is and remove the dispution tag or to delete the comment on the whole as proposed by Ck_lostsword? I would prefer the latter but some sort of agreement needs to be reached. SorryGuy 21:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

General copyedit

Just made a number of improvements, including:

  • "Delays in producing appendices and maps" - indexes were probably the most important factor in delaying RotK. Added.
  • Merged the two paragraphs on translation and added some more comments.
  • Merged the first two paragraphs on religious influences and turned the list of references to a proper bullet list.
  • Rearranged the paragraph on allegory to flow better and especially to remove the repetition of "however", and also added that Tolkien stated explicitly that LOTR is not an allegory.
  • "Ash nazg durbatulûk" etc. is not "phonetic" in any meaningful sense, it's just a transcription in the Latin script. Reworded.
  • Turned references using [external link notation] into refs with footnotes.
  • Just after Ralph Bakshi film image: removed "which was a precursor..." as redundant.
  • "Although some have criticized..." reworded to make it sound less like WP agrees.
  • Removed "that Director Peter Jackson chose for the adaptation of Tolkien's epic trilogy" as redundant.
  • Added {{future}} to The Lord of the Rings on stage. The preview performances may have started but it is still written in the future tense. Also added {{Unreferencedsect}} since no sources are given for this information.
  • Changed the converted cost in Canadian dollars (which was in sterling) to US dollars. I think this is generally the "moneta franca" to use (ISTR even the British edition of the Guinness Book of Records uses US dollars to convert currencies that aren't in Sterling).
  • Removed content-free clause "the subsequent productions ... greatest fantasy trilogies ever written" which is also full of bias. The resulting text is not very satisfactory and seems to give an overall negative impression, which isn't really intended.
  • "a professional company, which still produces work today" - redundant and may become invalid. I mean no offence to the company, but as far as I know theatre companies go bust prematurely just as often as other startups. In any case this information is hardly encyclopaedic.
  • "atomic weapons had not been deployed at the time the book was written" - to the inattentive (or stupid :) reader the article seems to contradict itself here as it states FotR was published in 1954-1955. Reworded.
  • Miscellaneous copyediting, including removing peacock terms in many places.

Some odd things I noted, without changing:

  • "The development of a specially bred Orc army ... [has] modern resonances." Is someone breeding Orcs then? and if so, can we verify this? :)
  • 1956 BBC version: "It is a very faithful adaptation" is ambiguous as to whether "it" refers to The Hobbit or LOTR. I couldn't fix this as I haven't heard them so I don't know which is "very faithful".
  • "It has made movie history as the largest Wednesday opening ever." "Largest" meaning what? That the film went on to gross more than any other film that opened on a Weds? This sounds like a reasonably interesting and encyclopaedic fact, if only we can substantiate it.
  • Please provide sources for information about the Toronto stage adaptation.

Hairy Dude 03:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Orc army

  • "The development of a specially bred Orc army ... [has] modern resonances." Is someone breeding Orcs then? and if so, can we verify this?" Hairy Dude
I see what you mean, but this is meant in a figurative sense; my interpretation is that it represents the creation of a typefied culture following the ideas of one individual. It could refer to any of the mid-20th Century dictatorships (Nazi Germany; Communist Russia, etc.). However, if it is used in the figurative sense, it is not entirely encyclopedaic. Ck lostsword 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It's probably more likely to be referring to cloning, and genetic engineering, and the pop-sci fear of there being armies of such bred warriors, --222.152.23.77 13:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC), 12 January 2006
The presence of these multiple ideas suggests that this reference is ambiguous and should be deleted. Ck lostsword 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I speak for everyone when I say... HUH???----Anthony Orzel 16:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an allusion to what was said by Tolkien, that orcs are an evil warping of Elves. The problem with that statement is that I can find no written base in academic writings or authoritative by Tolkien. This is because I live in Poland, and it's difficult to obtain additional material. Orcs are definitely an allusion to armies created by Hitler and Stalin, among others. Their power (as a unit) to forge unquestional obedience and fanatical loyalty clearly allude to those of Sauron's.

This is in direct contradiction to what Tolkien said of his own work. He was explicit more than once that it was not intended as a commentary on events current while he wrote it. The situation -- or orcs, at any rate -- was conceived prior to the rise of Naziism, and before Stalin came to power. (Seeing as how Stalin and Hitler were on opposite sides not long after their brief alliance, this would be inapposite anyway.) Tolkien's own part in WWI, and his experience in the Battle of the Somme, certainly informed part of his story, such as the Dead Marshes, but not in the way you suggest. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

removing "South African born"

While it's true that JRRT was born in South Africa, I'm removing it from the first line of this article. Tolkien lived in SA only until he was three; his formative years and all his professional years were spent in England. Listing South Africa first seems inappropriately misleading.

What happens when people enter the Undying Lands?

At the end of The Return of the King, Gandalf, Frodo, Galadriel, Elrond etc. all went on the last Elven ship to the Undying Lands. Does anyone know what happens to them when they go there? Do dead peoples spirits go to the Undying Lands?--Anthony Orzel 16:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Undying Lands are where immortals live, such as the Valar and those elves that answer the summons and go there before fading in the Fourth Age. A mortal who lives there might find healing (as did Frodo most likely; it's why he went) but not immortality.
Elves are not really immortal, just extremely longeval since they're bound to the earth for as long as it lasts. The spirits of slain elves go to a particular place in the Undying Lands, the halls of Mandos, to await reincarnation if it's granted them and they so desire. (Glorfindel in the house of Elrond was reincarnated, having been slain in combat with a balrog while covering Eärendil's escape from the fall of Gondolin in the First Age.) No one knows what happens to the spirits of Men other than that they depart from the "circles of the World." This explains the grief at Elrond and Arwen's separation. Elrond had chosen to be of elven kindred, and Arwen had chosen mortality, so there was a good chance they'd never see each other again ever, and Elrond had many millennia left to live. See the tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A.
Mortals were not able to travel to the Undying Lands without express permission, especially since the fall of Númenor when the flat earth was made round and they were physically disconnected from it. But this wasn't the last ship by any means anyway; it was just the departure of the most prominent Ñoldor remaining. Legolas himself took ship sometime later, as did Sam Gamgee. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You mention that Legolas goes, but forget about Gimli who, if memory serves, was the firstDwarf to be permitted to enter the Undying Lands. ;) Ck lostsword|queta! 22:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes he did, as Appendix B tells us. (Some think his love affair with Galadriel picked up where it left off. Among others. [1] :D) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Does Sam go to The Undying Lands because Rose Cotton died and he wanted to see Frodo again? When Sam enters The Undying Lands, what effect does it have on him?(He's mortal so he can't turn immortal, but also he doesn't need any healing.)--Anthony Orzel 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In Sam's case I think it was more a reward than a respite, because of his love for the Eldar. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it was more his love for Frodo. As for for what happens to humans in the undying lands. The last king of Numenor was put under a spell on the beach and so he never reached the inner lands. I think somewhere in Tolkien's letters he mentions that the spirits of mortals cannot endure long under in the precence of the high Maia.(Halbared 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC))
His love for Frodo made him worthy of the reward. His love for the Eldar determined which reward was suitable. The last king of Númenor wasn't so much put under a spell as killed beneath falling rock. Frodo went there for healing, not to hasten his death. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree aboot the reward for Sam. The last king of Numenor and his knights are asleep on the beaches, they were not killed. I did not imply that Frodo would 'die'. He was becoming less and less of the physical world anyway. I think though that in the letters there might be mention of an idea that the hobbits would have to leave Aman, but am not sure on that.(Halbared 08:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC))
From Akallabêth: "But Ar-Pharazôn the King and the mortal warriors that had set foot upon the land of Aman were buried under falling hills: there it is said that they lie imprisoned in the Caves of the Forgotten, until the Last Battle and the Day of Doom." It's hard to imagine any reading of this that does not mean they're dead. Even if we say they're sleeping, "asleep until Doomsday" is a fairly standard Christian euphemism for being dead. Nothing here about a "spell" of any kind.
We're talking aboot what happened, not aboot putting our own allogory or euphemisum onto it, the king isn't dead, like Arthur and his knights he is sleeping, spell was my term.(Halbared 09:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC))
Frodo did die in the end, so you ought to have implied it. Where ever would you get the idea that he did not? He was of mortal kind, and he was not Tuor. (See Letters 246 and 325.)
His death is covered in 246 and 325? I have not read them for a long time.
I can't recall where, if anywhere, Tolkien directly addresses the passing of Sam over the sea, so what I have said about it is either guesswork on my part (but consistent with the story) or a recollection of something I can't explicitly recall right now. Or it might have been a necessary cure along the same lines as Frodo's and Bilbo's, since he was touched by the Ring however briefly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is because he was a bearer that got him the trip. It's what I 'seem to remember' but can't really recall.:oD(Halbared 09:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Gimli's "love affair" with the lady Galadriel is not really an affair at all. Their relationship has its roots in the idea of courtly love, a medeival concept that went hand-in-hand with that of chivalry. I think this concept would have appealed to Tolkien immensely. To put things quickly, courtly love is the idea that a knight would ask for a lady's favor, and put himself in her service. She may give him a token of her grace (a handkerchief or something else). He would guard here and respect her above all other women. These knights usually remained unmarried, but the lady could be. An example of this is Lancelot and Guinevere in the tales of King Arthur.

That was a joke, son! TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The real earth

from Csernica's edit summary: "(rv. Tolkien was quite clear that the world of the story is supposed to be the real earth. I can dig up references later if you insist.)"

  • References are always welcome. It should also be clear that, however you interpret Tolkien's stated intentions, that this work of fantasy is not set on the "real Earth". --Dystopos 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
By what standard? In a manner of speaking, every fictional story no matter how otherwise realistic is not set in the "real Earth". However, a setting (particularly in fantasy) may be conceived as taking place within a fictional world -- like Earthsea or The Land -- or not. Fairy tales are, for instance, invariably conceived of as having taken place in some corner of the real world, sometimes involving identifiable places (e.g. Town Musicians of Bremen) but other times not (e.g. Briar Rose). It might be more apt to put it, as Tolkien did in the case of his legendarium, that these take take place on the real Earth but in a fictional time. I don't see how it makes any difference that the story is deliberately planned and written rather than handed down in tradition.
I see your point, but I also don't see how anyone could mistake this for actual history. (It's feigned history though.)
I've just noticed that the Briar Rose link above redirects to the Disney film. How disappointing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who reads Tolkien's intro to The Fellowship of the Ring will see that the novels are, in fact, set on the "real earth", if not the one we recognize today. Tolkien was very clear on this. However, be careful who you tell that, as it could be misunderstood and seriously mess up the fanbase.

It can be deduced internally within the tales of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings that the setting is from a bygone era of our own past. The disclaimer that these are fictional tales should be understood by any sane person. LotR 21:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

After Lord of the Rings

Does anyone know any details what happened in Middle-Earth (eg. What did King Elessar did in his reign?Anthony Orzel 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See Appendix B in the back of The Return of the King for a chronology. Also some hints can be gotten from the tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A. Otherwise it was pretty much standard Golden age stuff. Tolkien began a sequel that took place in the reign of Elessar's son Eldarion, but it didn't really engage him and he dropped it after the first chapter. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The text of this first chapter can be found in the History of Middle-earth Volume XII (Peoples of Middle Earth). It is entitled 'The New Shadow'. Ck lostsword|queta! 13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is the Lord of the Rings?

I feel this is appropriate to discuss, following contributor MartinMcCann's addition of an alternate link at the top of the page to a page for Sauron... Whom I guess most of us think of as the "lord" - but has anyone thought of the one ring itself as the lord of all rings? And should we address this with another alternate link at the top? I know it sounds like overdoing it, but I thought it at least merits some quick discussion. Joshyoua 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, no one has to my knowledge. If there's notable LotR criticism that does make this identification then we should mention it, otherwise no. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's quite logical to think of the Lord of the Rings as of the One Ring itself; after all, it's said in "One ring to rule them all". The one who rules the others is a lord, isn't he? -- Sandius 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things are logical. That doesn't make them part of the story. We cannot engage in original analysis here anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Gandalf said that Sauron was the 'Lord of the Rings'... as did Tolkien himself. Could the title also be applied to the One... Frodo... Celebrimbor... Morgoth... Fatty Lumpkin... et cetera? Sure, there are possible ways of making other things fit, but since we know what Tolkien actually intended... why? --CBDunkerson 23:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we? It's all clear, then. Thanks for the info. -- Sandius 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I almost said this myself without actually looking it up, but then I thought I recalled that when Gandalf rebuked Pippin in Rivendell, it was because Pippin had called Frodo "the Lord of the Ring", singular. I suppose Tolkien called Sauron this explicitly in Letters somewhere? I can't remember exactly ATM. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to Gandalf saying, "Indeed I spoke of them once to you; for the Black Riders are the Ringwraiths, the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings." FotR, Many Meetings (emphasis added). This reference is clear enough, but in the index Tolkien references (see 'Lord of the Rings' entry) and redirects to 'Sauron'. --CBDunkerson 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct of course, and I wasn't really disagreeing with you. That one line had escaped my memory earlier. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
A similar but distinguishable interpretation is that whomever controls the Ring of Power is the Lord of the Rings. It is unclear whether any other individual could master it, but the hope for mastery is implied by the temptation of Galadriel or Gandalf, both of whom clearly understand something of the nature of the Ring. Nevertheless, no one but Sauron could be so described within the story that is told. --Dystopos 23:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"The books" section

There's a lot of twaddle here (to put it bluntly) and I'm pretty sure that most of it constitutes original research since it presents itself as a straightforward analysis with no references. Even if it's sourced, it presents only a single POV where multiple lines of analysis ought to be mentioned from various sources if it is to be done at all. I'm inclined to cut it drastically. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

If you've noticed, LOTR has symbolism that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't even know he put into his trilogy. It's like Narnia, cause things in Narnia represent stuff. Plus If you didn't know, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were actually friends and it was C.S. Lewis that converted J.R.R. Tolkien to a christian, so don't you think these things should be mentioned?

Actually, that is not the case. It was Lewis who was converted by Tolkien. Lewis began his life as a Puritan, and then became an Atheist. It was only after long discussions with Tolkien (on the idea of Christianity as a "true myth") that Lewis began to seriously reconsider Christianity. As far as symbolism goes, both Tolkien and Lewis strongly objected to the idea of their books being considered as direct allegories. See especially the forward written by Tolkien in the LOTR. For a further development of this topic, see the book “Tolkien, Man and Myth” by Joseph Pearce. --Kingjon 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Characters (from the movies only)

Is this really necessary? Isn't it largely redundant with Template:Lotr, at least as far as acutal characters and those likely to have articles written about them? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Indeed. And why only the movies...considering that this page isn't even about the movies? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I second that! --Arided Sun Mar 26 2006

Removed. We'll see how long that lasts. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing

This article has many Fair-use images, which all need clean-up and not a single one has a fair use rationale. You also have a section with a cleanup tag, yes. Fix these problems and renominate. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not another F*ing Elf

Someone added the adjective "f*ing" to the Dyson quote, and it was reverted. My instinct was to revert too, but I did a little searching first. It seems to be the actual quote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2001/11/24/bfanw24.xml

The decision as to whether the word is to be spelled out, ***ed, or just eliminated, I'll leave to regular editors at this page. Rizzleboffin 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. If it's notable, relevant, and really was said, then we ought to quote it as spoken. If Dyson said "fucking", then "fucking" it is.
Frankly, I don't even know how to pronounce "f*ing". TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Csernica. I wasn't sure how blue the noses were around here, so I threw in the asterisk so as not to be accused of vandalism, like the other anonymous editor was. (By the way, '*' is pronounced "uck".) Rizzleboffin 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's got a cite now. You can't argue with a cite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

The list looked as if it was getting unwieldy, so I had a go at organizing it. Along the way I cut out a couple of message boards and foreign-language sites. Sites I was not familiar with I categorized according to the descriptions given, so I may have miscategorized some. If so I apologize, and please don't hesitate to make corrections. "Informational" was something of a catch-all, and there may be a better way to put it. (Some of the links appeared to be used as sources for the article. It would be better to cite them inline instead.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Last Two Paragraphs of Publication History

This section was listed for cleanup and I have been attempting to do so. As is it is much better than it was before. However the last two paragraphs of the section are irksome. They do not really fit there yet there are somehwta informational and should probably stay in the article. So would anyone protest if I made a new section called derivatives? Or if not what do you all think of deleting it outright? SorryGuy 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Praise

Our praise section of the article have also recently been reworked. It reads much nicer now. The quote gallery has always been unessasary and now that there is substantial content would anyone objection to a transwiki of the quotes from there? It would make the article look much nicer I think. SorryGuy 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

The current Synopsis is far too small. It has been a long time since I actually read the books and while I am using some references to try and make it longer an expert on the story would be nice. We need some more content in there. SorryGuy 03:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Review comments

There are a few too many indiscriminate general references for my liking.

The publication history is a bit bald, there should be a fuller description of the changes to the Second Edition and also the recent 2004 edition.

Thu 08:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ace Books publication controversy

Can anyone provide a print reference for the Ace Books LotR publication controversy? I'm editing the Ace Books article and would like a good print reference for this. My usual SF bibliographic references have failed me on this one, though the Tuck Encyclopedia does mention the Ace edition and then calls the Ballantine edition the "first authorized pa. ed." (i.e. paperback edition). I have found this url: Lord of the Rings: The Tale of a Text for an online reference but would like a printed reference if anyone knows of one. And of course it could be added here too. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The best source for this is probably The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. Tolkien wrote several letters on the subject and Carpenter also explains the matter in editorial comments. I believe it also gets mentioned in Carpenter's biography and Hammond & Anderson's Descriptive Bibliography. I can dig up precise references if you need them / don't have the texts. --CBDunkerson 12:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the letters, or Hammond & Anderson; I think I have the Carpenter somewhere, but I'm not sure. If you could provide a reference from whichever is the best source (sounds like that would be the letters) I'd really appreciate it. It would be terrific if you would either create a footnote reference to the discussion of the controversy on the LotR page, and then I could copy that; or if you want to simply create the footnote yourself directly on the Ace Books page that would be just as good. Thanks! Mike Christie 13:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I added a reference to the Ace Books page for the most relevant letters. --CBDunkerson 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; I appreciate the help. Mike Christie 23:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Critics

Are their no critics who like it ?

Seems like we have "Praise" - polls and sales; "Critcism" - quotes from reviewers.

-- Beardo 06:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a common concern. The main problem I have been finding when attempting to even them out better is that:

A. Most actual book reviews for Lord of the Rings appeared during the 1950s. At the time they were not all that well-received. B. The critcism of the books is now well-known as today it is considered strange and as a result finding references for them are easier than for praise. C. Content for reviews are from the 1950s and finding references for them are difficult.

If you can, or if anyone can, find links to positive reviews I will be happy to produce the prose for it. In the meantime I will attempt to cut and summarize the critcism better. SorryGuy 07:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    • "Found these:

The English-speaking world is divided into those who have read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit and those who are going to read them." — Sunday Times

"Among the greatest works of imaginative fiction of the twentieth century." — Sunday Telegraph

"Here are the beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron." — C.S. Lewis

"J.R.R. Tolkien's epic trilogy remains the ultimate quest, the ultimate battle between good and evil, the ultimate chronicle of stewardship of the earth. Endlessly imitated, it never has been surpassed." — Kansas City Star

"A story magnificently told, with every kind of colour and movement and greatness." — New Statesman

"I wonder how could he have been able to invent all this stuff. It feels more like Tolkien discovered some sort of long-lost scrolls” (Morning Edition. National Public Radio 17 Dec. 2001.).— Peter Jackson

"Intelligence is not determined by what grades or I.Q. you've got - it is determined by whether or not you have read what is, doubtlessly, the greatest fantasy epic ever to be written, in British or International history"; Tom Essex

In this form they can never go into the article but I will soon attempt to reference them and create prose around them. SorryGuy 07:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Moorcock & Brin

Michael Moorcock is demonstratively unable to sustain a plot for more that 100 pages without resorting to nonsense and Deus Ex Machina. I don't know why he's considered a critic worth noting and I don't know how he gets off criticising LOTR.

David Brin is a man who's only book worth remembering was twenty years ago and involved talking dolphins on a starship who mutiny because some of them were really killer whales. If I were him I'd say anything to get attention too.

Sorry if this is harsh. I'm tired of reading sneers about LOTR from people whose qualifications consist largely of wishing they'd written something as successful.

Trim the article to fit size standards

Should we maybe cut off some extra information from this page? I mean for example, do we need so much on the movies when there is another page for it? Maybe also trim off the game section and keep the book section more simple? Also maybe get a few more pictures in here and there. Right now, it seems more like a research essay. --Steven 00:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have working on this as a result of the PR and my attempt to get this article up to FAC standards. I have considerably trimmed the Books section tonight much of it was repeating itself and little of it had much meaning. I merged these as influences. As for the games section I agree considering its impact on the overall saga it should be shorter. However besides trimming actual sentences all of the information there is useful and none of it is all that repetive. Nonetheless I will see what I can do. As for the movies I am happy with them as they are but if others agree that need be trimmed I would be happy to help in doing as. Finally to address the image problem this article did have more images a month ago. However many of them were not fair-use. If you can find or create a fair-use screenshot of the video games or the movies that would be most useful. SorryGuy 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the stuff on games should be trimmed. An article about The Lord of the Rings should be mostly focused on the story, not commercial games based upon the story. LotR 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hobbit or hobbit?

They are asking in the FAC for standardization, when it which used? Can't check if it's right...

Also, should we wikilink the Middle Earth dates in the year part? Judgesurreal777 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien used 'hobbits' to speak of a group and 'Hobbits' to speak of the type. Thus, 'seven hobbits' but 'Hobbits had furry feet'. Ditto for 'elves', 'dwarves', 'men', et cetera. On the dates we should probably say something like, 'All dates are Third Age unless otherwise indicated' and then separately link any which arent. --CBDunkerson 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I may have lost my mind, but

I thought there was one live-action film inbetween the animated ones and the Jackson ones. Maybe it was just a TV Movie? (I'm not finding at all on IMDB so I may have gone mad! Maybe it was the hobbit :) ). RN 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You have lost your mind. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction rewritten

I've rewritten the introduction to give a better balance. If it is too long and others want to remove stuff, please reinsert it in the appropriate place later in the article. Thanks. Carcharoth 20:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Lead section asks that the lead does not have more than four paragraphs. Now some of this can be cut and reduced but I am unsure if the article can reach FA with a lead being the size it currently is. We shall see. SorryGuy 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the last paragraph of the intro can be cut with no loss. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed it and reinserted the material lower down. I've also tweaked the intro to mention the Peter Jackson films and more recent events, hopefully rounding the intro off enough. If anything needs to be moved further down, I think it would be the third paragraph, which could alternatively be shortened and merged with the second one. Carcharoth 10:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See also section

I removed the following from the "See also" section, as many are irrelevant and should be linked from the relevant articles, not from here:

Carcharoth 11:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The only of these I sort of disagree with is the bestiary but otherwise it should be fine. SorryGuy 21:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive edit conflict messed up article

Can people hold off for about 15 minutes while I try and sort out an edit conflict? I'll revert to my last version and then try an incorporate all the edits from the IP address. Carcharoth 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I've repaired everything. Could people please check? Carcharoth 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Beware Hobbit/hobbit capitalisation

Changing the capitalisation of Hobbit/hobbit needs care - see earlier discussion. In particular, this bit: "the man the Hobbits know as "Strider"" makes no sense. Here, "hobbits" refers to four hobbits, rather than the race of Hobbits. Similarly for the bits where Frodo and Bilbo are described as being hobbits. Small 'h', not capital 'H' - though those case are more borderline. Also, quotes from books should preserve the capitalisation used in the latest printing. Carcharoth 12:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Other changes

Other changes I've made include:

  • redoing the hatnote at the top and writing The Lord of the Rings (disambiguation)
  • reinserting the "published 1937" information for The Hobbit and Tolkien's ages when writing the story (these had been removed from the introduction but not replaced further down the article).
  • moving more stuff from the introduction to later in the article, and tightening up the introduction.

Please discuss here if any problems. Carcharoth 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The introduction is nice now however I still felt the last line needed to be deleted as it does not really relate to this article and should instead be in Tolkien's. SorryGuy 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to deposit the sentence here for future use (if I find time to work it in another way): 2004 and 2005 saw the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Lord of the Rings, and several celebratory and commemorative events were held around the world. - personally, I think this is relevant to an article about LotR (it was the 50th anniversary of the publication of the book) - though something more should be said about the whole response to LotR in the USA in the 1960s. That would be a similar sort of thing. I'll try and expand a bit on the relevance of LotR to Tolkien fandom. It was, after all, this book that started it all off. The Hobbit alone wouldn't have been enough. Carcharoth 23:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As an example, it seems that the phrase "Frodo Lives!" is not in Wikipedia! That was a cultural phenomenon in itself! Carcharoth 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Themes

This recently added section seems like it should be cut. Not all of them are really themes and they are all difficult to reference. In addition it is a list instead of prose. Also it adds length to an article which we are attempting to shorten. Is it agreed that it can be cut? SorryGuy 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, some of these themes are controversial or complex, and should not be presented in the simplified form seen here. Instead, a series of articles on Tolkien literary criticism, scholarship and responses should summarise the views and give links to external sources. We shouldn't try and do more than that, though some of the Tolkien and Middle-earth articles do... Carcharoth 22:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I will contact the IP which added the section and ask if he would mind creating a separate article for themes. I would not mind him putting a note in the See Also for it though. SorryGuy 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreword, prologue, appendices, maps, index and illustrations

The writing and publication sections mention the appendices and maps only in passing. This should be expanded slightly to give more details (especially for the appendices), as is done for the bit about the index. The prologue is mentioned in the backstory part, but again, an extra sentence or two could be added. The Foreword is only mentioned in the "themes" section - there should be something in the publication history about how Tolkien rewrote the Foreword for the 1966 Second Edition - mentioning that this was where he made his famous comments about allegory and applicability. Finally, it should be mentioned that Tolkien did some illustrations for LotR (Doors of Durin, Book of Mazarbul) - some of which were published in the First Edition, some in later editions. Carcharoth 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Saul Zaentz statement

There is a dubious statement about Saul Zaentz in the article, in the "musical" section: "London-based theatre producer Kevin Wallace and his partner, Saul Zaentz, representing the Tolkien Estate..." - I suspect the original editor meant to say Tolkien Enterprises, instead of the Tolkien Estate. Please can someone confirm or correct this. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, beware dodgy journalism when researching stuff like this. I found this article from The Observer only a few weeks ago, which has: "...he [Zaentz] bought the rights to The Lord of the Rings trilogy from the Tolkien estate...". This is, of course, completely wrong. The correct sequence of events is described at Tolkien Enterprises: "Tolkien sold these rights to United Artists in 1968, who in turn sold them to Zaentz in 1976.". So, a black mark for The Observer there! Carcharoth 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting back story and synopsis sections

I suggest that the back story and synopsis sections are drastically rewritten (they are riddled with errors and misleading statements, and lack balance). Also, a general encyclopedia article should not be seeking only to summarise the plot of the book. It should use that summary to enable the rest of the article to expand on certain areas and explain certain themes. I suggest a much shorter summary, with more detail as and when needed elsewhere. This would integrate the plot into the article a lot more. Also, the summary should present things in the order the reader encounters them, with much of the backstory emerging in the Shadow of the Past chapter, at the Council of Elrond, elsewhere in the book, and in the Appendices. This is lost in the current synopsis style, and the Foreword, Prologue and Appendices are not mentioned at all. Carcharoth 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked for this above as I do not believe I am knowledgeable to do it. No one came to my call. I can contact everyone in the Middle-earth WikiProject but this may take a while. Do you suppose this needs be done by the time the FAC closes are do you think we can change it afterward? SorryGuy 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I can give it a go. May not have time before the FAC closes (is there a deadline, or is it open-ended?). I would also want to find somewhere to deposit the material already written here before replacing it, as the changes may be quite drastic. Carcharoth 20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What I would lean towards right now is allowing the FAC to close after making the last fixs. You can then give it a go but post whatever you create here. We can then decide if it goes it. Let me know if you have any objections to this. SorryGuy 05:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to have time now anyway. So yes, let's wait until after the FAC closes. I hope I've been able to help improve the article a little bit. Good luck! Carcharoth 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a late comer to this project, so I don't know if I have much say, but I actually do prefer some focus on the storyline itself, since TLotR is a story. In working towards shortening it, I would prefer to see all the commercial stuff taken out first. LotR 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think people have the wrong idea about shortening things. A lot of these sections point to "main articles", so those sections should be summaries of that main article. When shortening or expanding such sections, it is good policy to add the extra material to the main article (eg. The Fellowship of the Ring), or to make sure that nothing is in the summary and not the main article.
And more generally, when shortening or removing excessively long content, it should not be deleted. It is recoverable from the page history, but it is much better practice to find another article to put the content in to, or to leave it on the talk page for another editor to work back into an appropriate article. ie. Preserve the information. Rewrite it, but be aware when you are deleting information and facts that may not be recorded anywhere else in Wikipedia. Carcharoth 06:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

References could be improved

Some of the references are not to the primary sources. Many of them are to web articles that will have used sources like The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien or the biography by Humphrey Carpenter. I think we should, where possible, replace these website references with ones to Letters or Biography. Carcharoth 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I admit that some of the sources I have chosen in the past are less than optimal. However finding good resources has been difficult with some of the statements in the article so I take what I can get. If you are able to find what the primary source is please feel free to change it. SorryGuy 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Themes section

I've deposited here a link to the removal of the "Themes" section, so that it can be more easily obtained and re-used elsewhere if needed. Please can people stop deleting potentially useful content without considering where else it could be put, or at least giving a link like this on the talk page: [2].

It needs a lot of tidying up, but could turn into something useful. Carcharoth 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We have page histories Carcharoth and during FAC deletion of information is a way of life. As said above I contacted the creator of the section and we agreed that he should start a new article on it. Seeing as he has done so I have moved the section to a see also. Is there any problems with this? SorryGuy 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No problems at all. That looks great. Thanks. Carcharoth 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sales, awards and polls

I initially created the "Sales, awards and polls" section header to separate out these things from the critical response section of opinions of critics and authors, as these are different things. The sales, awards and polls are facts that can be cited. The opinions of critics and other authors are nothing more than opinions, and they shouldn't be confused with listings of sales statistics, and awards and results of polls. Does anyone support or oppose the separation of these things into separate sections? Carcharoth 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation hatnote

I changed the disambiguation hatnote as the previous version was becoming bloated and unbalanced. A comment at the Featured Article Candidates page pointed out that the hatnote refers to the book, while the article covers much more than just the book. I agree, though I think this is a problem more with the article than the hatnote. It is obvious that the article at the title The Lord of the Rings should be about the book, so there is nothing wrong with the hatnote. The problem then becomes one of balance in the article, and whether this article should say as much about the adaptations as it does. At the moment, it is more of a summary-style article covering both book and adaptations. There could easily be another summary-style article covering all the LotR adaptations on one page - say Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. That would summarise the material at the main articles. In fact Wikipedia:Summary style is probably required reading before making decisions about how to handle this. What do people think? Carcharoth 08:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the late reply but is great. Good work. SorryGuy 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

A brief explanation of a recent edit where I removed a "facts" tag: the general style on Wikipedia seems to be to not have references in the lead (or summary) section that would simply be repeated later. The lead section merely summarises the article in an engaging way. See Wikipedia:Lead section. Carcharoth 10:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Novel, trilogy, or romance?

I'm pretty sure it's not really a trilogy, because the division into 3 volumes, while common, is arbitrary. But is it a novel or a romance? 222.126.75.68 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien would, at times, adopt the terminology of his correspondent when to enter into a discussion on it would be beside the point. So we actually find him calling LotR a "Trilogy" in a letter to Auden (Letters 163) because Auden had, even though we know he objected to it elsewhere (149, for instance).
But in Letters 329, which is written to the Polish translator of LotR, he's explicit that it's not a novel but an 'heroic romance'. However, if you call it a romance in the article everyone will think it means romance novel unless they click on the link, and it's called a novel almost universally. So we can either be correct, or we can be understood. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend in favor of calling it a "novel." I don't know what objection Tolkien had to the term; Webster defines a novel as "an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events," which seems perfectly correct. The OED offers several definitions, but none of the usages are troubling. Perhaps Tolkien thought "novel" was simply less specific than "heroic romance." In any event, "book" is problematic because it can refer to the physical package of pages that a novel comes in, i.e. a "volume," of which there are of course 3 for LOTR. However, while it is important to note that the entire story was written by Tolkien as a single novel (as the dictionary defines it and as people understand the word), its division into a "trilogy" is not arbitrary. It might be noted of course that it is also a "sixtilogy," having been divided by Tolkien into six "books" (another reason to avoid using that term to describe LOTR as a whole), two of which are put into each volume of the trilogy. Anyway, the three volumes clearly are not "arbitrarily" divided; the divisions come at significant junctures in the story and the three volumes each have their own tone, pace, narrative style, and thematic focus.
In summary, I would say that "novel" is both correct and understandable, and therefore clearly the correct choice. "Trilogy" is correct inasmuch as it indicates that LOTR has three major divisions, but can be troublesome in that it seems to indicate that the work consists of three "books" (of which there are six) or "novels" (which the three volumes together make up one of). As such I suggest a brief note along these lines about the "trilogy" aspect of the work but then not using the word again.
Read about trilogy here. LotR fails on both meanings of trilogy. It was published in three volumes, but it is a single story. And it's not a Greek collection of tragedies. Similarly, the sixtilogy bit is nonsense. It was six books, but that is all that needs to be said. No need to start creating neologisms. A book can refer to the physical object, rather than the story, but the article is about both the book and the story. Anyway, LotR is also published as a single volume. As for novel, that has a specific meaning that is misleading for LotR. See novel. Carcharoth 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
More specifically, from novel: "Until the eighteenth century, the word referred specifically to short fictions of love and intrigue as opposed to romances, which were epic-length works about love and adventure." - Tolkien was using the word romance to refer to his work in this sense, as distinct from a novel. Thus using the word novel is misleading. Carcharoth 14:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Seeing as we were al speaking about it on our talk pages anyway I agree with Carcharoth that we may as well bring discussion here. Highway has suggested numerous citations in the back story and summary sections of the article. This seemed a little strange to me so I went ahead and looked at other featured books, like The Giver and The Old Man and the Sea where I found that instead of citing each statement when speaking about the books they instead cite the books at the end of the whole article and allow it to apply for the whole article. I believe this style will work well for this article and began to do so. I would guess that we need added the Hobbit as well. Thoughts? SorryGuy 22:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I have since added these. May I now remove the citations needed from the article? SorryGuy 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I would suggest citing The Silmarillion as well, as much of the back story is from there (well, from 'Akallabeth' and 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' actually, so you might want to reference those works instead). Then no specific citations will be needed. I would double-check though for people metioning stuff only mentioned in the Appendices to LotR or in the other parts of The Silmarillion. If that happens, maybe a separate citation is needed. Carcharoth 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I did so. SorryGuy 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks great (and I see you had already added Silmarillion, so my comment was superfluous - should have checked the article first!). So I guess the "citation needed" tags can be removed? I'll do that now. Carcharoth 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have added a new batch of references. I have found the genesis peice to be very useful citing it multiple times. What exactly it is though is difficult to know, the reading itself seems to indicate it is a lecture. However it cites multiple citable books. I do not own any of these however I was wondering if you could cite these Carcharoth? If so I think we are good to go on references. SorryGuy 05:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Influences

The influences section is very incomplete. See J._R._R._Tolkien#Writing for a brief summary, this article should expand on it in more detail. As it stands, it looks like LotR is an entirely Catholic allegory with no mention of all the scholarly influences from Old English, Norse, Boethius, etc.. -- Stbalbach 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. For example the Finnish Kalevala epic influenced Tolkien a great deal, I believe he once said he wanted to create "an English Kalevala". The character of Gandalf bears many similarities to the Kalevala character Vainamoinen, and both epics end with these characters sailing away.

Easter egg links

I'm not sure I like all those Easter egg links in the last intro paragraph (see Wikipedia:Piped link). I spelled out one and was about to spell them all out when I realized this would make the paragraph look bad. Since all these articles are mentioned (or ought to be mentioned) in the "See Also" section, I guess they don't do any harm, and may in fact be a good idea (since they make it easier for online readers to get to the articles, but don't clutter things up for offline readers). JRM · Talk 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Easter egg links"? In what sense are these Easter eggs? This is a normal mode of linking text on the Web. For that matter, Wikipedia is an inherently hyperlinked resource -- how does including links "clutter" anything? I guess I just don't understand what you're complaining about here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a normal mode of linking text on the Web. Of course. But despite being a web-based encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not exclusive to the web. It should be equally useful in print. Linking like this, where the reader has no idea where they will end up unless they actually follow the link is a bad idea. Conversely and more importantly, if the link disappears when the article is printed, no pertinent information should be lost, so no writing things like "Not all U.S. Presidents have been uncontroversial."
Now, as I said, the links in the intro probably get away with this because they are nonessential, fairly obvious and duplicated in the "See Also" section. I wasn't complaining, I was musing. Yes, musing. Let's call it that. JRM · Talk 23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, no, your examples above are not the normal mode of linking on the web. You link via relevant text so that you do have some idea of at least the subject of the target. Here on Wikipedia we can tell they're internal links, so we have an even better idea. Anyone making links like those above are -- to put it bluntly -- doing it wrong and should be condemned to the same hell reserved for those who use the blink tag. In this case though, we have text like "fans of Tolkien's works" linking to Tolkien fandom, which is perfectly appropriate.
And who says that Wikipedia should be just as useful in print? That's absurd. These are two different media. To apply the limitations of print to the web is to cripple the web, not make it more useful. In any event, Wikipedia would not be just as useful in print no matter what you did. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Re consigning people to hell: I've seen plenty of examples of piped links that were suitably unhelpful (by linking text that described the topic in a vague way rather than just naming it), though admittedly none were as absurd as the examples I gave.
Re usefulness on paper: I worded my intention badly. Rephrasing it to "Wikipedia should not go out of its way to become less useful in print". That would cover including linked text that doesn't make clear what it's linking to. JRM · Talk 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

A few comments on some recent changes:

  • I like the new ME map that is now being used.
  • Someone added "one of the most widely read books in human history" to the intro. This does seem a bit over the top, but if someone can find a source for this, it can stay, otherwise it should go.
  • I created a navbox to allow easy navigation between this article and the three articles about the three volumes. I added the navbox to the top right of the article The navbox got moved to a different location (the "Writing" section). See this navbox in operation at The Fellowship of the Ring. My feeling about navboxes is that they should go at top right so that they appear in the same place on all the articles they are linking between. The current LotR template at the bottom of the article is rather bloated. I am working towards a slimmer version that can go down the right-hand side, similar to what has been done at History of Arda, and at The History of Middle-earth and at The Silmarillion. The problem here is that these navboxes tend to push pictures downwards or to the left. Putting the navbox anywhere else destroys its functionality (it kind of acts like a navigation frame, so it needs to appear in the same place in all locations). So my feeling is either no navbox, move the picture, or incorporate the picture into the navbox. That last one might be the best solution.

What do people think? Carcharoth 09:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'one of the most widely read' bit is probably accurate, but certainly not verifiable. I generally like big navboxes at the bottom as sort of a formatted 'See also' section, but the smaller three-link one for the books works in the upper right... except for the pictures. Incorporating pictures into the navbox could be odd if the picture doesn't seem particularly related to the info in the box. I might suggest just putting the picture and the navbox in a simple table, centered on different rows. Keeps them neatly organized in the upper right section. --CBD 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I would agreed with CBD. His solution seems fine. The intro comment should be removed as far as I am concerned. SorryGuy 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In other languages

What's the point? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Not a clue. In favor of deletion. SorryGuy 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Titles removal

I'm unsure as to why we have this piece. It feels rather pointless. Shall we remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) .

I don't understand... remove what? Bryan 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean the Other Languages thing. Wiki-newbie 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical Influences

Shouldn't there be a section on the historical influences or inspirations for the setting and events of the story? Some parallels seem beyond coincidence: Middle Earth is the Middle Ages; Minas Tirith and Constantinople were both known for their great walls and were both perilously close to threats from the east; etc. National Geographic did a documentary about it, but I haven't watched it:

http://shopngvideos.com/products/BeyondtheMovieTheLordoftheRingsReturnoftheKing--130.85.194.154 01:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age is in no way parallel to the Middle Ages; the geopolitical situation and social organization is entirely different. (You'd actually be hard-pressed to identify any point in Middle-earth's fictional history that closely resembles the Middle Ages.) There's one important difference between Minas Tirith and Constantinople in dealing with threats from the east -- Constantinople lost. If this is a sample of what's on that video, I think we can easily do without it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I misrepresented myself when I said "Middle Earth is the Middle Ages." I'm not saying that LOTR is an allegory of the Middle Ages, just that the story/characters/events were in part /influenced/informed/inspired by Tolkiens knowledge of history as well as fantasy. The Siege of Constantinople need not correspond well to the events in the story to have served as inspiration for the author. Let me be clear, Middle Earth is fantasy. And original. But it was not created in a vacuum - for example there is already reference to Tolkien's WWI experience - and I'm merely floating the idea of a section dealing with the possible mishmash of historical influences.
Of course it was influenced by Tolkien's knowledge of history; that's transparently obvious. But the historical range of his influences is enormous; all the way from Classical Antiquity (and earlier) through WWI and the present situation in England during WWII when he wrote the book. To try to pick them apart, when the author himself didn't acknowledge the vast majority of them, and where most of them are likely to be controversial, is an exercise that ought not be undertaken here.
The WWI influence is easy though: Tolkien explicitly mentioned it. He also explicitly acknowledged a few Middle Ages influences; the culture of the Rohirrim is one. To go much past what Tolkien himself has said is asking for endless argument, though, no matter what National Geographic might have thought. They were in fact probably using LotR's popularity as a platform for an educational presentation that's mainly about the Middle Ages, and any comparison they seemed to draw would have been purely with that aim in mind. Kind of how the "Science of Star Trek" and like books are mainly about science, with "Star Trek" involved only to attract readers to the subject. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Csernica's note demonstrates the reason we don't have such a section in the article... it would be original research and generally disputed. Tolkien himself described Middle-earth as a 'legendary time' within the history of our own Earth precisely because it didn't correspond to the Middle-ages or any other time period... and Minas Tirith he compared conceptually to Egypt and geographically to the latitude of Florence. --CBD 10:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand if the topic would be too controversial or subjective to contribute much value to the article, but the two comparisons you have provided are the types of things I'm talking about.

Translations

Maybe the "In other languages" section should be restored, with proper formatting. Look at the The Hobbit article. Uthanc 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you say anything earlier? I reiterate my contention from above that this is not a useful addition to the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Split?

As Carcharoth wrote above in Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Disambiguation_hatnote, this article covers a lot more than just the book, so moving more info into other articles might be a good idea. I made some trial The Lord of the Rings and Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings pages. However, the book article sort of looks wrong, with such a huge chunk gone... but other topics have similar pages. Uthanc 09:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Made Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. Uthanc 23:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and ideology

In the main article, under "critical response", it is suggested that some of the criticisms levelled againt LOTR are in response to Tolkien's perceived ideology rather than the artistic merit of he work. I quote, "It should be noted that most such objections are levelled against the ideology behind the Lord of the Rings, not against the work's artistic merit." I am unsure as to the extent that these can be separated. Art is ideological, intentional or otherwise and it always expresses to the reader/viewer some worldview or se of values. I would suggest that this remark about such negative reviews of LOTR should just be omitted, allowing the idelogy-based criticism to stand by itself, without qualification.


I agree that they are fairly inseparable, but it is generally not a critic's job to rate something poorly just because they do not personally agree with the ideology behind it. --Tarranon 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Literary criticism is the study, discussion, evaluation, and interpretation of literature, not simply about judging the quality of the work, it also involves classifying genres, making comparisons with other cultural works and looking at the relationship between art and life. It is possible to take a sociological perspective within literary criticism so we have, for example, Marxist and feminist criticism. This is also tied up with the nature of aesthetics and why we like what we like. It is perfectly acceptable for a literary critic to criticise a work for its ideology despite acknowledging the value of it's form, structure, language, characterisation and other literary categories. --Voloshinov 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence "It should be noted that most such objections are levelled against the perceived ideology behind The Lord of the Rings and of its author, not against the work's artistic merit" For reasons discussed above the politics of a work of art cannot be considered as separate from its artistic merit. --Voloshinov 10:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Beowulf?

No mention of beowulf? Beowulf was a huge influence to the Lord of the Rings. I think it should be added to the article. Neokyotodragon 09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no mention of influences in this article. This particular statement could be construed as Original Research unless you provide appropriate sources for it. In the mean time, I think we'll leave it out. Ck lostsword|queta! 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Three movies about walking (Clerks 2)

In the movie [Clerks 2], Randal equates the Lord of The Rings movies as being 3 movies about walking. The first movie is demonstrated by Randal taking an exaggerated step while blank-faced. The second by tripping and looking back and down mid-walk. The third consisting of the same walk culminating in a gesture to remove the ring from the finger and toss it downward. I found this analogy to be quite apt , witty, reflective of my attitudes on Lord of The Rings (or at least the movie). I leave this here for others to decide on it's merit for inclusion in this article (mainly as I am unsure where in the article this would best be placed). AnarchyElmo 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the book. Why don't you try The Lord of the Rings film trilogy? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In universe style

So guys, quick question. I'm ready to edit the backstory and synopsis, but I heard once WP:ME wants past tense. How come? Wiki-newbie 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To quote WP:ME's standards...

"All articles that cover in-universe material must be in past tense, as decided as a consensus here. Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, Tolkien related articles are an exception, due to the fact that we are discussing more than just plots of novels, we are outlining the history of [what we now intepret as] a fictional world — the novels are written in past tense because they are memoirs meant to explain a mythical past of our Earth, much like the Greek Mythology. Also, take consideration into the fact that many of the information is taken not from the novels, but from informational texts (e.g. The History of Middle-earth)."

...As well as from the consensus decided (which was mentioned above):

"...When discussing the plot of a book, it is customary to use the present tense. However, when discussing history, albeit of a fictional world, it might make more sense to use the past tense. Here, it poses a problem, because the information comes from a book. In any case, the current mix makes for awkward reading." yEvb0 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Generally I think that the past tense makes sense in this case. Alot of Tolkien's work is written in the past tense and it is ostensibly meant to be a mythical past of our own world. Also, consistently using the present tense when describing events meant to take place millennia apart would seem misleading. Thus I don't think this really fits the 'usual' practice for book plots... at that a good deal of the information on Middle-earth comes from texts which don't have a plot per se." --CBD ☎ ✉ 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"It's written in past tense because it's from a first-person point of view of a character's memoirs or the like. Plus it's implied it's already happened as the viewer is hearing it. Not to mention the aeons they chronical (i.e. Silmarillion). Past tense certainly seems appropriate." Eluchil 12:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the reason why WP:ME decided to use past tense for Tolkien articles discussing in-universe material. —Mirlen 19:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
So is this in fact approved by the rest of the Wikipedia community? Are you approved as an exception? Wiki-newbie 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I fixed it, so we can remain FA. Wiki-newbie 16:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the page you cite, Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction, actually indicates that history (including fictional history) is usually written in the past tense. Tolkien's work includes a mix of fictional histories and stories... which might be argued to suggest that some articles (e.g. The Lord of the Rings) should be present tense while others (e.g. The Silmarillion) should be past tense. However, that doesn't make alot of sense and would run into contradictions with subjects that appeared in multiple places - so we've adopted the standard of using past tense consistently. The 'Guide to writing better articles' is, after all, only a guideline of what often works... not a set of requirements meant to cover every situation. The 'present tense' guideline was meant for standard works of fiction covering a period of up to a few months... not millennia of fictional history. --CBD 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Where do we stand on this? It looks like in spite of his comment above ("I fixed it"), Wiki-newbie's change here still stands, and most of the back-story and synopsis are now (still) in present tense. JordanSamuels 04:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We stand on past tense, as it how it is decreed by a consensus. I was waiting for Wiki-newbie to respond. If there is no response, I'll change the article back to past tense tomorrow (and we can improve the synopsis and back story with a more OOU-perspective [with past tense, of course].) —Mirlen 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Look guys, when describing the plot of a novel, keep it in present tense. If you want to write stuff on characters or histories etc, keep it to the project. Wiki-newbie 17:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. The reason that writing about most novels is done in present tense is because the novel itself gives the appearance of 'present' events regardless of the era in which it is actually set. Tolkien's work frequently and clearly identifies the events being described as past history. It is paradoxical to try to 'maintain the sense of present events' in books which deliberately had none to begin with. Further, the whole concept of using present tense to 'keep the story alive' is directly at odds with Wikipedia's standards against describing fiction with an 'in-universe' perspective. Guidelines are guidelines because they don't always apply. --CBD 08:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree (that it should be in present tense) either. On re-reading of both the general rules at WP:WAF and the specific consensus-seeking and justification of past tense at ME:S, I can say for my part the specific needs of the ME project outweigh the general desire to have a consistent standard across all of Wikipedia. I'm normally a huge fan of consistency and one-rule-to-bind-them, but in this case even I prefer the advantages of a tailored standard for ME. JordanSamuels 13:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Per CBD and JordanSamuels. The plot of The Lord of the Rings is an account of fictional history itself. In fact, the content in The Lord of the Rings is what you would call a story within a story, or this case a history within a story. In-universe-wise, The Lord of the Rings, along with The Hobbit, is written by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins bound in one volume: the Red Book of Westmarch — formally called, The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King with a summary: "(as seen by the Little People; being the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo of the Shire, supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the learning of the Wise.) Together with extracts from Books of Lore translated by Bilbo in Rivendell." Also note that The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, The Silmarillion, which is translated by Bilbo, and the appendices (found in the Return of the King) are also known to books of lore in Tolkien's legendarium compiled along with the Red Book. This a testament to the statement that The Lord of the Rings is not a plot of a novel, but a historical account of a fictional history, a mythical past of our world much like the Greek Mythology, as Me:S points out. The only difference in the purpose of Greek Mythology and The Lord of the Rings is the style and medium in which it is written. —Mirlen 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is not a reply within a day (I take it as unreplied answers to disputes when there is a majority means that the issue is settled), I am going to revert the back story and synopsis into past tense because if you consider this dispute, the majority is for past tense. (Not trying to be hasty, but it is best if this issue is settled quickly.) —Mirlen 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel for your love of Tolkien and his mythology. But more WP editors will come, look, get confused, and may well take the article off FA. We don't want that do we? Look what happened to Middle-earth. Wiki-newbie 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what explanations are for. If people get confused, there are always people to help them get un-confused (they can also read Me:S; it only takes a few minutes of their time). Confusion isn't a justification for why Tolkien related articles shouldn't be in past tense.
Also, I can assure you that my love for Tolkien's works isn't blinding me. J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium is a compilation of FICTIONAL HISTORY (my reasons are stated above, along with CBD and JordanSamuel's arguments). Tolkien has clearly emphasized this by writing a history within his stories, such as The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, and other texts. The fact that he created the languages (and then the places) before he began writing the books is a testament to that.1, 2, 3, 4 Also, WP:1SP also states that fictional history can be written in past tense:
“ Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well. ”
As for Middle-earth, that article was made a FA when the internal peer review process wasn't so rigorous for fictional articles (for example, if you look at WP:WAF's history, you can see that is a pretty recent guideline created this year during the end of March — 2 whole years after Middle-earth was promoted to a FA article). It was, if you will say, an outdated FA. The guidelines are now stricter and tighter, so the article was rightly stripped of its FA status. (However, this is not the case with The Lord of the Rings article, so using the Middle-earth article as an example would not work.) Also, take note the History section in the Middle-earth article was written in an IU-perspective. It is perfectly possible (and acceptable, as WP:1SP deems) to write about fictional history in past tense with an OOU perspective. Can the backstory and synopsis in The Lord of the Rings article be written with a more OOU perspective? Yes. Is it possible to that with it being past tense, and rightly justified, since fictional history should be written in past tense (much like the Greek Mythology as I have said before)? The answer is whole-heartedly, yes — yes, it is.
If you want, we can take a poll and settle this debate once and for all (at least, for a while). —Mirlen 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll reach a compromise: keep the actual story synopsis in present tense, considering that's how Tolkien tells his story like any other author, but work on backstory with footnotes to the actual description eg. the war of the Last Alliance within 'Shadow of the Past' and 'Council of Elrond'. Wiki-newbie 08:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to be diplomatic (I sincerely do :); honest!), however, it would be rather inconsistent to have the synopsis in present tense and backstory in past tense (or perhaps you are not even suggesting that, since all you have said was to have footnotes). To go to your point of confusion, if you look in the history of Faramir's article here when you yourself have reverted the article to present tense, only to be reverted back by Galadh on 15:38, August 20, 2006 (who isn't a member of WP:Me), who seemed to be confused by the fact that while the rest of the Tolkien related articles were in past tense, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were in present tense. I daresay that the fact there is an inconsistency of tenses among Tolkien related articles creates more confusion than if all the Tolkien related articles discussing IU material (in an OOU perspective of course) were in past tense. I hate to be dogmatic, but such inconsistency would not do, as keeping consistency within all Tolkien related articles past tense was why we reached such a verdict (e.g. see JordanSamuel's point on consistency in having tailored standards for Tolkien related material).
Of course, you could argue that keeping all Tolkien related articles past tense while rest of the fictional material is in present tense is inconsistent, but then you would have to apply the same logic to mythologies (i.e. Greek Mythology), as myths are fictional material as well. But as I see it, you are not interested "stuff on characters or histories etc," as you have said earlier, only in keeping this article and other Tolkien novel-related articles present tense. You give approval to keeping character and history articles (e.g. War of the Ring) in past tense, yet you do not for synopsis of novels. But isn't the War of the Ring what The Lord of the Rings is about, and so it would make LotR a book of lore? If you suggest on keeping plots of novels present tense, then you should maintain that on articles that illustrates the history of Middle-earth. After all, the synopsis of The Lord of the Rings is merely a summary of the history articles related to Tolkien's legendarium, such as the War of the Ring. (Now please understand that I am not trying to attack you, I am merely confused on what your stance is. I know that you are making a compromise now, but I am confused in the consistency and to me, seemingly contradictions, over the stance you have made in having Tolkien related novels present tense, such as the synopsis.) —Mirlen 14:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The view that Tolkien, 'tells his story in present tense like any other author', is the fundamental problem I think. Because it is not true. How many books begin with a prologue describing the tale as excerpts from a historical text? How many casually have lines like, "Twelve more years passed."? How many 'jump ahead' to tell of future events such as, "And afterwards when all was over men returned and made a fire there and burned the carcase of the beast; but for Snowmane they dug a grave and set up a stone upon which was carved..."? The stated reason for generally writing about fiction in the present tense is that the fiction itself is designed to give the impression of events unfolding. In Tolkien's case that is distinctly not true. Tolkien 'steps outside the story' and comments on it as a history. There is no 'illusion of current events' to maintain. Seriously, why should Tolkien's stories be written about in present tense? Because there is some standard which you think says so? That's not a reason... what is 'better' about present tense? Why would it make sense here? Should Heracles and other mythology articles also be re-written from past to present tense? Should articles on historical events like George Washington be in present tense? And if mythical and historical articles should not then why should a mythic history be so presented? --CBD 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologise then if I was rash to defy the Project's rules, and do revert. But nonetheless, do work on making it a fictional history nonetheless. Wiki-newbie 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much about defying WP:Me or for any other rule belonging of a group for that matter (after all, Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia in the fact that its based on constant changes), it's more of the fact that there doesn't seem to be strong, solid arguments backed with verified claims that are justified against Tolkien articles being in past tense...other than the following: 1) Because Wikipedia's guidelines state "all" articles dealing with fictional material "must" be in past tense, 2) Confusion — both which I cannot see as justified reasons.
But working on to making the back story and synopsis of this article from a more OOU-perspective is certainly one of our goals, rest assured. And of course, I hope this dispute will not scare you off from contributing to the article — though we may have different approaches to improve this article, the common goal is to firstmostly, improve it. :) —Mirlen 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links Deleted

I know that they did not all need to be deleted, but, until we can establish what links need to be here, i deleted them. There were what, 20 of them? Scholarship links are not appropriate for the main article. - KaoBear(talk) 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I do not believe this is the correct action. I would instead prefer to restore them all and then take those which we deem to not be deserving out. Removing useful content for a period of time is worse then leaving less useful information. Can you agree to this? SorryGuy 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor change

As there was no 'Characters' item in the Contents, I moved Books below the line referencing the character page and added a sectional header so that the Character link can be more easily found. Pejorative.majeure 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Book terminology

The three volumes definitely aren't novels in their own right; but should we use "novel" for the whole book or just "book" and/or "story"? (Definitely not "trilogy".) As said above and in the article, it's called a novel very often though Tolkien objected to the term, preferring "heroic romance" (the distinction between heroic and "romantic romance" has already been explained in the article). TIME and Wikipedia itself uses novel, while the Middle-earth WikiProject instructs that we use "the words "story" (for the story as a whole), "book", "books" (both for LotR, its volumes and the 6 books — but make clear which you are referring to), "volume", "volumes" (for the three volumes of LotR)." (Me:S#Terminology) Uthanc 03:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.