Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

What exactly is Middle-earth?

Hi guys, just wanted to clarify the categorical definition of what Middle-earth is, as is relevant to its mention at the beginning of the second paragraph of the introduction. In the article it was previously the "fictional region of Middle-earth", but this doesn't really work because Middle-earth isn't simply some geographical area in Tolkien's world, or at least if it once was it is not any more (at the time of LOTR). To call it a continent doesn't help much either, for the same reasons. I mean, am I correct in saying that the name and concept derive from equivalents in several European mythologies, for example Midgard of Norse Mythology, which is the mortal world below the world of the gods and above the underworld of the dead? And if this is true, is it not then reasonable to simply refer to this story as being set in the fictional "world" of Middle-earth, the same way we call the real Earth the world, and don't mean to include such metaphysicals as "heaven"? Genedecanter 03:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in Tolkien's world, Middle-Earth (the name of the place) is the name of a middle-earth (as you have defined it). He has titled it that. It is actually a region within Arda. So, as Tolkien has defined it, the story is set in the middle-earth of Middle-Earth, just as if you lived in a city called "City." Does this help? =David(talk)(contribs) 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
See also Middle-earth. Carcharoth 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
David, I don't understand what you're saying - how is the story set in a middle-earth of Middle-earth? But I do recognise that it is a difficult definition to nail down, especially since Aman was originally geographically part of the same physical world as the lands of Middle-earth, but when Aman (and the Lands to the East?) was removed from the spheres of the world only Middle-earth remained in the mortal world, and it is this Middle-earth from Tolkien's fictional pre-history that has become the Earth we know and live on now. Additionally, since this is after all the introduction to an article about The Lord Of The Rings, I think we ought not to be too finicky in our explanation of all this, as it is simply not the place.
So perhaps 'world' is too troublesome a word to use here, but I strongly feel that referring to Middle-earth as simply a 'continent' is wrong. As a compromise, how about 'realm'? Although realm is a bit wishy-washy. Or we could eliminate a category altogether, and just say: "The Lord of the Rings is set in a fictional Earth of pre-history, called Middle-earth." How would that be? Genedecanter 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be wrong. The Earth is not called Middle-earth in Tolkien's mythology, but Ambar. (Arda is the name of the entire system local to the Earth, including Sun, Moon, etc., and not that of the Earth per se, although its often used that way.)
David is a little confused, so it's not surprising you don't understand him. He's laboring under the misapprehension that Tolkien came up with something new here, which wasn't his intention. You were right the first time. "Middle-earth" is just Tolkien's modernization of an Old English word with the same meaning as Midgard. It's sometimes called a continent, but that's mainly because it appears to be a continuous landmass and all the other continents he mentioned were not part of Middle-earth by its old meaning; i.e. they were not inhabited by men.
It's more accurate to say that the story is part of a fictional history of the real Earth, which is what Tolkien always said it was. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
To clarify then, what is the difference between Ambar and Middle-earth?
Middle-earth is strictly a continent in Ambar (Earth), which is part of Arda (Earth and "everying in the skies around it"), but Tolkien himself used it more loosely. See Middle-earth cosmology. Uthanc 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think we need make any reference to Tolkien's story being set in a fictional pre-history of our own world in this introduction, as it is unnecessarily detailed information. How about an essential reversion to an earlier form of the paragraph: "The Lord of the Rings is set in Middle-earth, a fictional land populated by Men (humans) and other humanoid races: Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs." Any thoughts on 'land' to replace 'world' here? I think it compromises quite nicely, since it is generic enough to be more than purely geographical, but is less than world-encompassing. Genedecanter 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Right now it's phrased "set in a alternate prehistoric Earth, specifically in the continent called Middle-earth". I think the reason why it keeps getting fine-tuned is to avoid misconceptions - Middle-earth's not a different planet (unlike Tatooine), and it is (part of a version of) our Earth (unlike Narnia). Yours is less cumbersome, but we need an invisible note to stop it being changed to "world" or even "planet". Uthanc 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been changed again and, while the current version is factually accurate, it is also much too long and unwieldy for this introduction section. If we must have this depth of information in the article, can I suggest we move it to the first paragraph of the Background section, or possibly even drop it into the Influences section (since this construct is fairly analogous with the pre-histories of real European mythologies)? But I'd like to know if there's some consensus on this first. Genedecanter 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the phrasing used on the JRR Tolkien entry: "an imagined world called Arda, and Middle-earth (derived from an Anglicized form of Old Norse Miðgarðr, the land inhabited by humans in Germanic paganism) in particular, loosely identified as an "alternative" remote past of our own world."? Solicitr 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
While that is a relatively efficient way to sum up a precise definition, again that wording is, in my opinion, much too long and unnecessarily detailed for the introduction to this article. Furthermore, Arda as a name is never actually used in LOTR (am I right in saying this?), so it seems inappropriate to use it here.
As a general observation, it seems that the introduction section has been steadily ballooning in the past few months. Most of it has been in the second paragraph (ie: the paragraph in question here). I just think a bit of perspective on the scope of this present article is needed. Genedecanter 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I don't know if anyone noticed, but reference number 10 coded as <ref name="letters" /> has been missing since this edit in April. --Squids'and'Chips 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's fixed now. Carcharoth 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
On the same note, the link about translations doesn't work anymore. The question can nowadays be found here: http://www.tolkien.co.uk/faq3.aspx Ansku (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article size

To be short, this article has become far too long. When it was promoted to FA it was less than 50 KB. It is now 73 KB. After such a fight for its size, I think that is is a shame that it has ballooned to the levels it is at. At any rate, I can already see some of the areas it has increased in size. If someone would be willing to attack the backstory and synopsis, I think I could get the rest. I'm just not great at plot recollection and writing. At any rate, any assistance in this task is welcome. SorryGuy 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Having cut it to 70 KB, I really do not see where all the additions are. Most of it is similar. I think Influences could use a trimming but I'm not really sure what needs to do. Besides that and the earlier mentioned synopsis, I'm not really sure where to cut from. Any input is welcome. SorryGuy 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you on this point. I think long sections can be fine if they're appropriate and relevant, but I feel that parts of this article go into unnecessary and often irrelevant detail. I've done a few trims in the intro section and in parts of the Back story and Synopsis - nothing too radical yet, just a steady pruning operation. :) Genedecanter 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the size can be tackled the following way:
  • Trim and condense the lead section. Details like the high cost of paper in the war can be left to the main article. It's difficult, because the lead section is quite nice at the moment, but some trimming is needed there.
  • The background section really needs vicious pruning and merging into the synopsis section.
  • The synopsis itself should be much shorter and leave details to the three "main articles" linked at the top of the section.
  • Create four new subarticles to cover (1) the writing history; (2) the publication history; (3) the influences; and (4) the critical responses. Leave shorter, summary style sections behind.
Hopefully that will make the article more readable, allowing some people to read the whole article in a reasonable amount of time, while others read through the subarticles. Carcharoth 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I'm not sure I agree with you about creating new, separate articles for dealing in more depth with the writing history, publication history etc. I don't think they are, as individual topics, notable enough to warrant their own articles. Furthermore, they are precisely the things that this articles should be focused on, rather than extended synopses or lists of rock bands who took their names from LOTR.
Regarding the 'Back story' section, upon reading through it and considering the content, it occurs to me that this can surely be deleted entirely as a section, with perhaps only one or two details from it to be preserved and merged into the Synopsis section. After all, who cares about the exploits of the Ring in Numenor? - most of this is not essential to one's basic understanding of the outline of the LOTR story. Besides, being an online resource, anyone can simply click on "One Ring", or "Numenor" or whatever other link to find out more. That is precisely the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work.
So my question is this: what information from the Back Story section do you think is fundamentally important and needs to be kept and included in the Synopsis section once the Back Story section has been deleted? Genedecanter 04:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are up to cutting the backstory and merging it, please go ahead and do so. I think we should retain at least a paragraph of the back story from now in length, but those cuts sounds fine. I am up for sectionalizing this article further though. I really do think it is the only way to ensure readiblity. I went ahead and made The Lord of the Rings influences recently. That can be incorporated if anyone wants to cut that section. I may if I have time soon. I will do the others in due time as well. SorryGuy 08:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the back story bit needs cutting. It has been unnecessary ever since it appeared. I think the article should start with the "writing" section, and only have a synopsis later. Or start with a very short synopsis and point people towards other articles for more lengthy synopses. The subarticles issue is not to do with notability, but to do with article size and readability. If there is enough verifiable and reliable material out there, we can do these subarticles. The current subarticles, in my opinon, are: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien, Themes of The Lord of the Rings, and The Lord of the Rings influences. Carcharoth 11:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dumping Wanderer image

"the Wanderer"
"the Wanderer"

Just dumping this removed image on the talk page in case someone wants/needs it. 82.139.85.94 12:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Publishing history?

Would anyone have objections to me changing the name of the section from "Publication history" to "Publishing history"? It's just that it immediately follows the "Publication" section, and I think the distinction between the two is not entirely clear in the current titles. Furthermore, the term 'publication' seems to me to more strongly suggest the original printing and publishing events, whereas 'publishing' feels more generic. Genedecanter 06:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Publishing history is a much better title. Carcharoth 10:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree and went ahead and made the change. SorryGuy 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Influences/Impact?

The 'Influences on the fantasy genre' and 'Impact on popular culture' sections are a bit odd at the moment, and in places it's hard to figure out what the difference between them is. The paragraph concerning the term "Tolkienesque" and the spelling change from 'dwarfs' to 'dwarves', for example, could just as easily (arguably better) fit in the 'popular culture' section. So I'm wondering what people's thoughts are about perhaps merging these two sections together, maybe calling it something like "Impact on popular culture and the fantasy genre". Genedecanter 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep them as separate subsections, I think, but put them in an umbrella section - "Legacy" or something. Carcharoth 10:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would side with Carcharoth on this one. I think merging them would be rather difficult but putting them over the same heading is fine with me. Legacy sounds exactly right to me as well. SorryGuy 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy with that, and the two sections make more sense now under a common heading. Genedecanter 10:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Acquiring the One Ring

I'd like to note somewhere that there's a neat fact that I have never heard anyone comment about, but I don't know where to put it. Tolkien might have had some meaning behind it. Bilbo, Gollum, and Frodo, ALL THREE started their ownership of the One Ring exactly on their birthday. It was Gollum's birthday when he killed Déagol and got the Ring, it was Bilbo's birthday when he found it in the cave, and it was both Bilbo's and Frodo's birthday when he gave the Ring to Frodo. I wonder if it was Sauron's birthday when he made it and if it was Isildur's birthday when he cut it from Sauron's hand and grabbed it for himself. :) RayLast (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting point, and one that's never occurred to me before. However, I suspect that the Gollum and Bilbo/Frodo birthdays on which those events fell were chosen by Tolkien more for reasons of immediate storytelling and character reasons, rather than for any grander scheme. In any case, if Tolkien himself never remarked upon it then it must be considered original research, and therefore beyond the scope of this (or indeed any) Wikipedia article. Genedecanter (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, it was not Bilbo's birthday when he acquired the Ring. In fact, in The Hobbit, Bilbo's birthday occurred when he transported the Dwarves by barrel. Eric119 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Orcs": proper noun?

I noticed that someone has capitalised the 'O' on an instance of "orcs", and upon further investigation noticed that this "orcs"/"Orcs" is inconsistent through the article. What is correct here? A brief and cursory flip through the pages of LOTR reveals that the capitalisation is even inconsistent within that source text, so what should we do, any thoughts? Genedecanter (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article, it would seem Orcs are not alone in this regard. Dwarfs, elves, and hobbits are also inconsistent. It is my inclination to go without the capitalization, unless there is consistency in the text for the others. SorryGuy 05:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone check these if they have the text onhand, which I do not? If not, that is fine, I will see if the WikiProject can help us out. Some sort of response would be useful though. SorryGuy  Talk  06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Orcs are indeed spelled with a capital 'O' in the same way that Tolkien capitalizes Elves, Dwarvs, Uruk-hai, etc. Grey Maiden talk 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I checked the LOTR text before posting the original comment, and found instances of both capitalised and non-capitalised "orcs" ("The Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapter, for example). Anyone got any idea which form is more commonly used in the text? Whichever it is, I would suggest we go with that. Genedecanter (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I have several editions of the books and checked this out after reading the comment here. I found that the usage is inconsistent in the books, but the majority of the instances I found were Orcs, rather than orcs. That matches all the other types of beings. Tolkien capitalized many words in the text, for example "Quest", and "Edain", and especially, "Elves", "Men", "Hobbit"... though I did find a few "hobbit" examples too.
However, - this is kind of funny - WP:MOS specifies not to capitalize them, and lists Tolkien as an example, from WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents:

Broad categories of mythical or legendary creatures do not start with capital letters (elf, fairy, nymph, unicorn, angel), although in derived works of fantasy, such as the novels of J.R.R. Tolkien and realtime strategy video games, initial capitals are sometimes used to indicate that the beings are regarded as cultures or races in their fictional universes.

But in the same section, there is a link to another guideline that states the opposite, and also uses Tolkien as the example, here, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents:

Do not capitalize other groups of mythical creatures, such as elves, fairies, nymphs or genies. The exception is some works of fantasy, such as those of J.R.R. Tolkien, where the audience considers the mythical creatures an ethnicity and thus written with an initial capital.

So, it appears to be up in the air. My recommendation is to use upper case, because that's the way it's written in the Tolkien books most (but not all) of the time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not inconsistent, please read WP:MeS General rules, Capital letters, 2. If the reference is to the race as a whole then use caps, e.g. "During the Third Age Orcs grew in number" otherwise use lowercase, "Boromir slew two orcs hiding behind a tree". Thu (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Profanity policy (not censorship)

My (reverted) removal of a single word from a citation was not intended as censorship, but to improve the quality of the article in accordance with the profanity policy. The policy says that such strong words "should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader." In this case, the original citation as spoken by Dyson was indeed intended to shock his original audience, and it continues to shock readers when it is quoted. I think we can communicate Dyson's strong distaste for Tolkien and his desire to shock his listeners quite completely without resorting to shocking our own readers. As it currently appears, the citation detracts from the article because it pulls the reader's focus away from the literary critique of the LOTR and focuses it upon the humor, creativity, and/or shock effect of the citation itself. Humor by its nature is designed to attract attention to itself, and this citation does so to the detriment of the flow of thought in the article. In reading the article I came to full stop at this out-of-place word and found myself no longer thinking about LOTR. The profanity policy also says,

Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner

At times, strong language should be retained in the article exactly as sourced. However there are cases where the information can be characterized without loss of information, and the actual wording adds little to the article, and other cases where it can be footnoted if specificity is required. This is often useful in cases where the strong wording is relevant but not central to the statement.

The policy then gives an example of editing a citation in which the strong language was relevant but not central to the statement, and it was footnoted because specificity was required. In this case, too, the strong language is relevant but certainly not central to the topic, but here specificity is not really required. The particular adjective, or any other adjective, is not in itself a central part of Dyson's dislike of elf stories, and he could have used any of several words or phrases for the same exact effect. We can communicate his intended effect without including the shock effect within this article, thus avoiding the profanity. Remember, profanity policy says that we should avoid profanity. This is part of the intended style of Wikipedia.

Is this an article about the literary personalities in the Inklings and their famous statements, or is it an article about a popular story that has a very broad readership among all kinds of people? I think we can characterize Dyson's literary sentiments without giving the distracting citation in this context. If you disagree, let's please talk about it: why is this particular citation needed verbatim to provide a true range of understanding of the literary world's reactions to LOTR? Encyclopedic style does not usually allow for such strong statements in this type of article. I have never in my life read an encyclopedia article on this type of generally popular subject and found such words included in it. In my opinion, leaving the profanity in this article is a violation of the profanity policy for the reasons discussed above and the article should be improved by making this small style change at this point.

I admit that I didn't edit the profanity the best way in my first attempt. It would be much better to characterize the quotation rather than removing one word.

With best regards, Sanddune777 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because i reverted your edit, i feel obliged to comment. First of, there is no way to characterize the quotation, because then it would stop being a quote in the proper sense. Either we use it, or we don't, this:

"Oh no! Not another [1] elf!"
[1]fucking

...is not an option. Maybe it's an age or a culture thing, but i don't see the word fucking as a shocker. I wish Hugo Dyson had said something else like "Oh! come on now Johnny! enough with this plonker elfs!", but he didn't. So what you are asking here is Hugo Dyson's full quote to be removed, and it seems to be the only direct (negative) quote there is from the Inklings. I'm sorry but i think that the quote should be kept as it is, removing it and writing instead something like "Some of the Inlinks, such as Hugo Dyson, were not big admirers of Tolkien's work." could be a possibility, but i prefer the quote. It just seems less ambiguous and more... from the horse's mouth. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We have actually had this discussion before about this quote but I will just go ahead and agree with Yamanbaiia above. The quote is a direct quote and should be kept as such for the reasons cited. SorryGuy  Talk  21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Oh for crying out loud. I just looked up the quote in the original source and it isn't even correct as given in this article. Dyson probably didn't even use the f-word, according to Prof. Diana Glyer (discussed below). We can probably never know the actual quote since it was heresay, told by Christopher Tolkien to who-knows-whom before it finally came down to us and was recorded. And as far as we know Christopher never told anybody that he was giving it as an exact quote -- it was just a story that was re-told and then recorded not as an actual quote (as explained below). There are numerous versions of the quote existing, today, perhaps because Christopher has told the story to several other people, as well.
Here are some of the versions of the so-called quote that exist today:
Oh no, another f***ing elf!
Oh no, not another f***ing elf!
Oh f***, not another elf!
Oh G*d, no more elves!
Oh no, not another elf!
Oh no, another bloody elf!
This wiki article uses a version that has no basis in fact. It gets the quote from a newspaper article that was discussing an earlier newspaper article in which it was C.S. Lewis who supposedly said the quote. The writer of the later of these two newspaper articles, A.N. Wilson, says of the earlier article, "This story is not true, though it is a garbled version of a truth." He says that the true story originally "came from Christopher [Tolkien] himself and I put it in my biography of Lewis. It was not CS Lewis who made this unmannerly interruption, but Hugo Dyson..."
Sadly, this wiki article copied the garbled version of the quote rather than going back to Wilson's book to get his un-garbled version of it. We find Wilson's version on pp. 217-218 of C.S. Lewis: A Biography (1990):

Dyson, for example, who had been elected to a Fellowship at Merton after the war and now taught English there, felt a marked antipathy to Tolkien's writings, so that the readings of The Lord of the Rings -- always a high point of the better evenings -- were no longer a pleasure. Aware that some of his audience were unappreciative, J. R. R. Tolkien mumbled and read badly. Christopher, who was about to show himself one of the most eloquent lecturers Oxford has ever known, was brilliant at reading aloud, and took over the task. But he could not be sure that his readings would not be interrupted by Dyson, lying on the sofa with his foot in the air and a glass of whisky in his hand, snorting, grunting and exhaling -- 'Oh f***, not another elf!' In such an atmosphere, it was not surprising that the Tolkien readings were discontinued. [bowderlization mine]

Reading this, I think it is clear Wilson is not attempting to give an exact quotation but rather is characterizing Wilson's typical complaint, since the immediately preceding verbs are all given as present participles, lying, snorting, grunting, exhaling. These signify on-going action, not a single event. There is no preterite (past tense) verb "Dyson said..." to signify that this was an actual quotation. So this quotation may represent an on-going series of complaints and not any one particular statement, or it may be a characterization of what Dyson said and not his exact statement. Either way, it is heresay and Wilson makes no claims of accuracy.
Another version of the story has Christopher Tolkien quoted as saying that Dyson was, "lying on the couch, and lolling and shouting and saying, ‘Oh God, no more Elves’" [1]. This version is found in a book review of The Company They Keep: C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien as Writers in Community (2007) by Prof. Diana Pavlac Glyer. I will see if I can find a copy of that book to see if the quote given by the book reviewer came from the book itself rather than directly from Christopher, and to see if the book has it in this form.
We can also find it in in a newspaper article as this version, "Oh no! Not another elf!" although there is no source given for that version. I found the several other versions, listed above, too.
Finally, here is an interview with Prof. Glyer [2]:
<Hyarion> One thing I hear a lot is Hugo Dyson's "Not another f-ing elf" comment when Tolkien read The Lord of the Rings, is there evidence of this?
<BerenLazarus> I know Tolkien and Lewis planned to colloborate, but that never happened on a major scale. Did that happen at all?
<BerenLazarus> oh, answer the f-ing elf question please. =)
<Hyarion> For those just joining us we are having a Question and Answer session with Professor Glyer, author of The Company They Keep
<Diana> On Dyson: yes, there is evidence of this, tho probably he used the word "bloody," being British and all. Christopher has reported that it happened, and that Lewis tried to get Tolkien to continue after.
<Hyarion> heh, if only walls could talk, I'm sure we've lost a lot of what went on during those meetings.
So here is what I conclude: we don't possess the actual quote of Dyson, and therefore the quote should be removed from the article in the interest of accuracy. What we have right now is an urban legend with some basis in truth, but we don't know the actual truth. And since we have no conclusive evidence that Dyson ever used the f-word, we should not be putting that word into his mouth in Wikipedia.
I will wait a couple days to see if anybody can find new evidence for the original version of the quotation. If there is no evidence forthcoming, then I will delete the quotation from the article and replace it with a general characterization of Dyson's attitudes toward Tolkien. Or, please go ahead and make the change now if we have consensus. Sanddune777 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that no matter how much anyone likes that quote, your argument is quite good, because the source is feeble. BUT Diana Glyer over Christopher Tolkien+Andrew Norman Wilson? she is admitting that this probably happened in that interview:

<Diana> On Dyson: yes, there is evidence of this, tho probably he used the word "bloody," being British and all. Christopher has reported that it happened, and that Lewis tried to get Tolkien to continue after.

If you say that the Telegraph source is no good because it doesn't accurately quote Wilson, you are right, because thanks to your research we now know that Wilson actually wrote "Oh fuck, not another elf!", and, in the end, this is the strongest source of all because Wilson says Ch. Tolkien told him about this. Anyone that claims that Dyson said: "Oh no, not another elf!" or "Oh no, another bloody elf!" probably doesn't have a source as reliable as Wilson's, because Ch. Tolkien is as close as you can get today to the Inklings. If anyone cares this fucking thing has already been weakly discussed on April 2006 and again on November 2006.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Three comments:
1. Wilson's article in the Telegraph doesn't claim to have gotten either the story or the supposed quotation directly from Christopher. It only claims that the story originally came from Christopher. For all we know Wilson got it from somebody else who got it from Christopher, and for all we know either Wilson or Christopher (or an intermediary) was paraphrasing, not quoting. The passage in Wilson's book reads like a paraphrase, not a quote.
2. I'm trying to get Diana Glyer's book about Tolkien's and Lewis' relationship. This elf-cursing story plays into that relationship since Lewis tried to counteract the effect Dyson had upon Tolkien. As far as we know so far, by interviewing Christopher for her book she may have become a better authority on the elf-cursing than Wilson. It's clear that she doesn't think Wilson gave the exact quote since she disputes it, and I don't know that a scholar would dispute another scholar on a quotation without some cause. If she thought Wilson had the exact quote, then why question it? So let me get her book and we can see what she wrote.
3. Ch.Tolkien was himself a member of the Inklings, and furthermore it was he --- not his father --- who was reading the LOTR material at the time Dyson cursed the elves. So he heard it with his own ears and it is possible to write a letter to ask him directly for what happened.
Best regards,Sanddune777 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have a copy of this video: "A Film Portrait Of J.R.R. Tolkien" [3] starring Judi Dench? Someone commented on a bulletin board [4] that on this tape Christopher Tolkien himself told the story with Dyson's remark about elves and that there was no expletive included in Dyson's remark. As far as I have found, this video is the only place where it is an eyewitness documenting the story rather than someone repeating the story -- perhaps with embellishment -- 2nd or 3rd hand. It costs about 20 GBP for the only used copy available on UK Amazon but I'm hoping someone already has a copy. Sanddune777 (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, the evidence is in: there is no factual basis to say that Dyson used the "f-word" about elves or anything else. This quotation is an urban legend, which evolved into its present form from a much humbler beginning. I sent some questions about this topic to Diana Glyson (a scholar who specializes in studying the Inklings) and today I received this reply from her:

I must say, this is the most interesting question I've received in a long time....

Dyson's famous expletive has been an urban legend for some time. Dyson was loud and profane and opinionated. He complained about The Lord of the Rings repeatedly, so the idea that there was one single quotable occasion is already problematic. Part of the problem, though, is that while he may have used an expletive at the beginning of his complaint, and he may well have added an expletive as an adjective in the middle, there is no actual evidence that he ever used the f-word. I mean ever, and not just ever in this context. After studying the personal letters and diaries of these men for some 20 years, I haven't run across a single use of the f-word by any of them on any occasion. Which is exactly what you would expect: they are British and they are academics and they are living in the first half of the twentieth century. If they really wanted to use a shocking expletive, they would have used "bloody." And, occasionally, they did.

But what did Hugo Dyson say in this context? The closest thing we have to a first-hand account of all this is Christopher Tolkien's description from a 1992 documentary called "A Film Portrait of J. R. R. Tolkien. (Dir. Derek Bailey. Narr. Judi Dench. Visual Corporation, 1992.) Here is my transcription (as published on page 88 of The Company They Keep) of Christopher's account:

Well, I should mention the very important figure of Hugo Dyson, who was an English don, English Literature at Oxford. Brilliant, vastly entertaining man who didn't like The Lord of the Rings. I remember this very vividly, my father's pain, his shyness, which couldn't take Hugo's extremely rumbustious approach. Hugo wanted fun, jokes, witticisms, lots of drink. And Lewis, who I deeply admired and loved-he had a strong, a strong manner. And he would say "Shut up Hugo. [claps hands] Come on Tollers." And The Lord of the Rings would begin with Hugo lying on the couch, and lolling and shouting and saying, 'Oh God, no more Elves.' The Inklings was a bit like that.

I do believe that Christopher is giving an accurate report, that he remembers it correctly, and that he is not "softening" the language for the public. In contrast, I should note that Wilson's book has been consistently criticized for being weak on research and accuracy.

Feel free to contact me if I can be of further help. As a scholar and teacher, I would like to thank you for working so hard to get the facts right.

I think the evidence demands that we edit the article. I will go ahead and do so, describing Dyson's attitudes and regular complaints against the LOTR. Sanddune777 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Movement section

I notice that someone has recently added this section, but it is very vague and offers up no references. I think the point about the work's influence on this movement is probably significant, and can at least be worked into the legacy section somewhere, but unless someone feels otherwise I'm inclined to remove it as a separate section. Any thoughts? Genedecanter (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Remove. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to delete articles for the individual volumes

Can someone please explain the need for there to be separate articles for Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King? As far as I can tell, all these articles do is summarise the plot, then summarise the plot again in a 'chapter summary' form, then mention some adaptations, then some links. There is really no useful encyclopedic information in these articles that isn't already in this present Lord of the Rings article. I suggest we get rid of these articles and let the titles point to this one. Any compelling counter-arguments? Genedecanter (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't delete, because redirects will be needed for people searching under those names, but I agree that some reorganisation may be needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea - these were the way the novels were originally and most significantly published. There is some need for article improvement. Particularly on the "out of universe" material but that applies to many articles here. What could more beneficially be done is to trim the plot elements in this article and point those after more to the three individual articles. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd (somehow) forgotten the "published separately" bit. That doesn't preclude a single article covering all three, but I agree that your approach above sounds best. Some of the plot summary here has needed trimming for a long time. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kevinalewis sounds like the best idea to me, and having been advocating cutting down on the plot section for awhile now, I think it effectively kills two birds with one stone. SorryGuy  Talk  16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly am interested in any plan which will contribute to a trimming of the plot section in this article, so this makes sense to me. I mean, I'm not in principle opposed to the individual volume articles existing, but still, no one has answered for me what the actual point of the articles is, in terms of contributing anything useful beyond this LOTR article. But it's no big deal. On the plot-trimming point, I don't think farming out superfluous plot details to these subsidiary articles solves the problem of what to do with the Background section material though, since it doesn't really belong in any one of them. Anyway, I think probably the main issue here is that the volume articles have simply not been getting much editing attention, and so suffer by comparison with this article. Genedecanter (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fatty as Decoy

For whoever keeps adding the comment about Fatty Bolger staying behind to act as decoy, he did not. At the beginning of The Old Forest, Fatty escorted Frodo and the other hobbits to the tunnel through the Hedge, then returned to Crickhollow. At the beginning of A Knife in the Dark, he saw the Riders approach the house, and ran out the backdoor in fear. It was his panic that caused the alarm to be raised. But at no point did he remain behind as a decoy.

I think you're confusing this with the decoy at the Prancing Pony, when Strider took the hobbits from their room to keep them safe. Indeed, their room had been broken into. -FeralDruid (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken:

Fond as he was of Frodo, Fatty Bolger had no desire to leave the Shire, nor to see what lay outside it. His family came from the Eastfarthing, from Budgeford in Bridgefields in fact, but he had never been over the Brandywine Bridge. His task, according to the original plans of the conspirators, was to stay behind and deal with inquisitive folk, and to keep up as long as possible the pretence that Mr. Baggins was still living at Crickhollow. He had even brought along some old clothes of Frodo’s to help him in playing the part. They little thought how dangerous that part might prove.

(my emphasis) Thu (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, I concede that point. Difference in definitions. I think of a decoy as trying to lure someone in, as in a trap -- which isn't what Fatty was trying to do. Duck decoys, for example, to make it appear to ducks in flight that this pond is safe. -FeralDruid (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover lotr green gandalf.jpg

Image:Cover lotr green gandalf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


HI, can someone please explain to me in detail what is depicted on each of the three covers of LOTR that are shown in the main picture of this article. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.34.39 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2008 (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.