Jump to content

Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Should Elrond be removed as a major character?

I see him as no more important than Galadriel:

  1. He is a major influence in only one place: the feast and council at Rivendell, just as Galadriel is really important only in Lothlorien.
  2. By himself, he does not do anything more important than forge a sword and hold a council, just as Galadriel gives gifts, and gives a place of rest for the Fellowship (and later Gandalf).
  3. He is the father of another minor character, but Galadriel is the primary female ancestor of her (maternal grandmother).

I see no real reason to include him, but exclude her, and in the interests of really keeping this list exclusive to characters with significant impact, I believe Elrond should be removed.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpbjoel (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they have roughly the same importance. Whether to include them as "major characters" is more a matter of taste than anything. I guess I would include both, as pivotal not only to the plot of the book but also to its underlying mythology. -- Elphion (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
From the internal perspective, Elrond and Galadriel are both major characters. They are ringbearers (such as Gandalf). Elrond is in all but title the successor of the both the Noldorian and the Beleriand kingships (except of course that Beleriand is under the waves); it is his authority that selects the Nine Companions, and it is on his authority that the whole quest is performed. Galadriel, on the other hand, in wisdom, influence, honor and some secret sort of power even surpasses Elrond. The Hobbit Part One was not totally inaccurate in having Elrond submit himself to her, and see also the frequent practice of "praying" or so for Galadriels "intercession" or so which frequently results in fulfilment (drop of water, bit of light, changing of wind, sending of the Grey Company, etc. etc.).--93.135.101.150 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Cirdan's the one I have trouble with. A main character? He barely gets a mention or two, and has no significant part in the festivities. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Influence on Arthur C. Clarke and Frank Herbert

The article says "The work also had an influence upon such science fiction authors as Frank Herbert and Arthur C. Clarke[74] and filmmakers such as George Lucas."

But all the reference says is; "Do you remember [...] The Lord of the Rings? [...] Well, Io is Mordor [...] There's a passage about "rivers of molten rock that wound their way ... until they cooled and lay like dragon-shapes vomited from the tortured earth." That's a perfect description: how did Tolkien know, a quarter of a century before anyone saw a picture of Io? Talk about Nature imitating Art." (Arthur C. Clarke, 2010: Odyssey Two, Chapter 16 'Private Line')

If this is all there is, how exactly can this be called an influence? 84.210.10.52 (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, comparing Io (moon) to Mordor is not exactly an influence. I'm going to remove this part. De728631 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Mythopoeia

The opening section says Tolkien described the work as a Mythopoeia, that is not in the citation. I'm not sure if this is just a case of the reference being at the wrong place? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference is there to support the claim of WW I having influenced Tolkien, which is made in the sentence after 'mythopoeia'. If you question the mythopoeia part you should perhaps tag it with "citation needed". I do think though that the early concept of Tolkien's mythology, i.e. the building of a fictional world around Quenya should be referred to in the article if we mention the larger epic Tolkien had worked on since 1917 in the introduction. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems I missed the actual reference link you are referring to: Who Was Tolkien?. This does in fact not mention Mythopoeia. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

boromir isn't just a man...he's a leader

I don't care what we call him, but we need to call him more than just a "man" from Gondor. It says Aragorn is a Ranger, it says the elf is a prince, and the dwarf a warrior. And then for Boromir it just says "man", like he's some random dude from Gondor who happened to be there. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The title most parallel to "Ranger" for Aragorn would be "Dúnadan" for Boromir. That's probably the right choice. His office (according to Faramir) was "Captain-General of Gondor", though "Captain" would work too. I cavil over the current wording for Aragorn: "a human Ranger" sounds very awkward. We could say something like "two men, Aragorn (a Ranger of the North) and Boromir (a Captain of Gondor)". -- Elphion (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Following our discussion, an editor purged the list of characters from the lede. I think this is in error, and the fact that it repeats info from the plot summary is not something you can hold against it; by definition, the lede will repeat material from the rest of the article. But the lede is supposed to be readable as a standalone section...in this light, it is helpful to have a sense of the major characters (e.g., a wizard, a dwarf, an elven prince)....it helps the reader get a sense of the character types and story.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've modified the sentence to specify Boromir's species, his being the only one that wasn't explicitly stated. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good. -- Elphion (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Review from The Walrus

Hi, I added in a few sentences from a 2013 article by Emily Landau in The Walrus (magazine), a notable magazine in my country, Canada. She was reviewing the LOTR as part of a general article on the fantasy genre. Editor GimliDotNet deleted the content shortly after I posting it, calling the review non-notable. Maybe he/she is not familiar with this magazine, but it is a well-respected publication in Canada. Here is the content I added:

In 2013, reviewer Emily Landau commented that for Tolkien, "[t]he medieval era provided a blank slate for [his] romantic vision, untainted by industrialization and scientific reckonings." Landau holds that "Tolkien used the Lord of the Rings to return to a time of simplicity, civility, and moral absolutism."[1]

References

  1. ^ Landau, Emily. "Slaying Dragons" In .The Walrus. June 2013. Toronto.
As I pointed out on your talk page, the review adds nothing to the article, and the Author clearly doesn't understand the work fully, referring to Frodo and Sam as possible lovers at one point. It's not like there aren't enough quality references in the article already. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Landau's remarks are the most awful platitudes. They may have been worth including in the article if the review had been published soon after LOTR came out, but nearly 60 years later they add nothing to the reader's understanding of the book. BabelStone (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Landau's comments are 60 years after LOTR does not disqualify them. In fact, from the point of view of reception of the work, it is of interest that the reception changes over time. The points raised by Landau are not there to aid the reader's understanding of LOTR, they are there to show the change in Tolkien's reception over time. Whether you disagree with Ms. Landau is not pertinent; we are merely anonymous WP editors, and she is a reviewer who has had her review published in a major magazine. I ask for a WP policy rationale for excluding the two short excerpts from her review. The section has enough space for 2 more sentences, particularly one that makes points not made elsewhere. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
No, the fact that she thinks Frodo and Sam are lovers, because she clearly doesn't understand the context of the Author means she's not very reliable as a source. That and the fact the comments add nothing to the article that is not already discussed, examples of which can be seen at Themes of The Lord of the Rings#Technophobia GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Psssh, what the heck does a walrus know about childrens fiction? I vote that it be left out of the article. 98.174.171.43 (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Omit "The"?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. No prejudice to propose renaming the disambiguation page. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

– The guideline WP:THE would allow "The" for published works, like this, especially because the current title is the official name. However, the policy WP:AT would overcome the guideline in some cases. Per WP:CRITERIA, anybody can recognize the title without "The", and both the proposed and the current title are indistinguishable. Per WP:COMMONNAMES, a page name may be commonly recognizable and may not have to be official. Also, many sources include "The", and many other sources omit "The". If that's the case, this would affect other "The Lord of the Rings" pages that begin with "The". Nevertheless, this case may not affect other pages that do not begin with "The", unless I'm wrong... George Ho (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not sure I understand the rationale for moving the page. Like you said, the guideline WP:THE allows the "The" for titles of works or publications, e.g. The Old Man and the Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braincricket (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 September 2013‎
    Yes, the guidelines say that "The" should be used for mostly works. However, numerous sources omit "The", as I said before. WP:COMMONNAMES prohibits commonly used inaccurate or ambiguous names. "Lord of the Rings" is neither ambiguous nor inaccurate. Also, I said that a policy might triump a guideline. It is recognizable, concise, and accurate, even when not the exact title. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, a guideline can be most often followed, yet can be disregarded in some cases. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the second condition of WP:THE, and since I don't see a strong rationale for exempting this particular article. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article's subject is The Lord of the Rings, not Lord of the Rings. Even if WP:THE is disregarded solely in favor of WP:COMMONNAME, that some sources omit the definite article doesn't appear to create a lack of WP:COMMONNAME for the appropriate title. When the policy and the guideline are taken into context together, it makes perfect sense to use The Lord of the Rings as the article's title, especially when WP:COMMONSENSE is applied; that we could technically remove the definite article from the article's title doesn't mean we should or that there would be any benefit in doing so. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 04:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Hmm... sometimes, a policy and a guideline can contradict each other, which is strictly discouraged by WP:PG. --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in WP:COMMONNAME is contradicting WP:THE or vice versa, and when there is no case for Lord of the Rings being the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:THE only strengthens the rationale for keeping it at the current title. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 04:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Google News: [1][2] --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That highlights the problem with using generic Google searches to justify changing an article's title. Do you know how many of those articles which used Lord of the Rings were about this article's subject? I looked through the first few pages and saw plenty about "Lord of the Rings Online" and even a few about the films, but I didn't see a single hit about the novel. I don't know what you were trying to convey by simply linking a couple of Google News searches, but a few news pieces using Lord of the Rings to describe a video game has no bearing on what reliable sources use to refer to the novel, which is what this article is about. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 04:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope my search is better: added (book OR novel);using "The" in another search. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Still the same problem, most of those results are about everything except this article's subject. Looking at the latest search result you linked, this one is from the comment section, not the actual article, this is about the video game, this is about the film, and that's just from the very first few links. That's the problem with using Google in this way, using a different search isn't likely to change that, and just going "by the numbers" from a Google search isn't evidence of anything at all. Nothing has been provided to suggest that Lord of the Rings is in any way the WP:COMMONNAME for the article's subject, and as such I still very strongly oppose the move because there's no basis for doing so. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 05:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The is a fundamental part of the title. It refers to the exact novel title, a specific character and that characters position as the definitive Lord of the Rings. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the silliest move request I've seen in some time. The titles of our articles about novels always correspond (literally, not stylistically) to what's printed on the title pages of the works themselves. That expressions like "Dickens's Christmas Carol" and "Tolkien's Lord of the Rings" (or attributive uses like "a Lord of the Rings fan") are frequently encountered in running prose has nothing to do with the matter. Deor (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I usually support getting rid of the definite article in article titles, titles of works are (and should remain) an explicit exception to WP:THE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The book title is "The Lord of the Rings", and the Wikipedia article should not modify the book title. BabelStone (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Not that my input seems needed to sway the argument one way or the other, but: Oppose. If anyone wants to search it by Lord of the Rings rather than The Lord of the Rings, well, that's what redirect pages are for. BPK (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not scared to be the one. This seems to me that to be a textbook case of WP:THE. Red Slash 01:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Even the OP admits this article doesn't fall under WP:THE. Please re-read the guideline, paying special attention to this section GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The Lord of the Rings is specifically mentioned. That's why it's pertinent. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Influences of the Ring of Gyges

H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man has as its basis a retelling of the tale of the Ring of Gyges.[3]

The Ring of Gyges is referenced by Alexandre Dumas in his book The Count of Monte Cristo.[citation needed]

J. R. R. Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings describes a ring with some similarities to Plato's metaphor: it is found in a cave and makes its bearer invisible. Unlike Plato's ring, however, Tolkien's exerts an active malevolent force that necessarily destroys the morality of the wearer.[4]

One story arc in the comic book series The Spectre features a giant Ring of Gyges.[5]


The One Ring from J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings grants invisibility to its wearer but corrupts its owner. Although there is speculation[6] that Tolkien was influenced by Plato's story, a search on "Gyges" and "Plato" in his letters and biography provides no evidence that such an influence actually existed." But there are similarities and therefore may still have had an influence on Tolkien.124.186.100.125 (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a minor point. It is already mentioned in the article J. R. R. Tolkien's influences, and slightly deeper at Ring of Gyges. Tolkien might have had Plato's story in mind when he worked out the idea of the One Ring, but the analogy is not a close one: in Plato, people merely use the ring to further their already existing dishonesty; in Tolkien, the ring actively corrupts people. Yes, there is some similarity. But any two things can be made to be similar if you try hard enough. -- Elphion (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why Couldn't The Eagles Carry the Damn Ring

Hello. Everyone always wonders why the Eagles couldn't have just carried the ring to Mount Doom. Shouldn't the article have a section that explains this? Because I, for one, put the book down and never touched it again once I discovered this plot hole. Perhaps we could lie in the article and say "Hey, Gandalf tried that in the Unfinished Tales and the flying Cat Men of Sauron killed most of the eagles, so now they won't go near the damned mountain". Or maybe we can say that Manwe forbad the eagles (his pets) from flying the Ringbearer all the way to Mount Doom, because it was up to the people of Middle-earth (and not the eagles) to stem the tide of evil. Anyways, thanks for reading this. 98.174.171.43 (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a plot hole. The eagles are a deliberate deus ex machina to get the Hobbits away from Modor quickly, because the return journey is not as interesting as the quest to mount doom. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If they would have flown there, they would have attracted attention... -- Billybob2002 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And attention means, Sauron's attention (which includes all the darkest things that existed on middle earth under his command). GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Frodo is far from the most obvious solution to the problem of destroying the ring. This article is not really about discussing the improbability of the plot or lying about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Two Suggestions

First: The 'plot summary' is fronted by an abstract describing the events that happened prior to the start of the novel. While the abstract is well written and comprehensive, it might better serve as a sub-subsection of "Fellowship" describing the discussion and explication occurring during the 'Council of Elrond'. Tales within the tale, so to speak. If it was strictly up to me, I'd move it, more or less wholesale, to within the subsection. I'm curious, however, to hear what others might think.

Secondly: The list of major characters is missing Tom Bombadil. While he only appears in 'Fellowship', his role is pivotal and certainly no less important or impactful than that of Galadrial or Celeborn. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the historical retrospective works well where it is. It combines material from passages beyond the Council of Elrond, notably from "The Shadow of the Past". One could duplicate the revelation of the past in pieces as Tolkien does, but it would make the synopsis longer and harder to follow. Tom Bombadil is not really a major character: the entire episode could be omitted without affecting the story much. I grant that Celeborn is not a strong character, but he goes hand in hand with Galadriel, whose contribution to the story is essential. -- Elphion (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I completely disagree about Bombadil. The story would absolutely be different without the 'episode' in place... especially, if as you contend, Galadriel has a potent contribution to the story: Bombadil represents power beyond the ring and, in essence, is the very antitheses of Sauron. Where Galadriel is 'tempted' and passes the test of how she deals with something stronger than herself Bombadil is not and show that power over the ring is possible: the presence of Bombadil in the novel makes the entire destruction of the ring plausible. Absent the episode with Bombadil I don't see how Frodo can even imagine making the journey to Mordor. Bombadil is pivotal. How much more essential than that can you get? TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Bombadil is absent from the majority of adaptations shows that his section and the episode in the old forest are not really vital to the plot, and as Tolkien say's through Gandalf, Bombadil does not have power over the ring, rather the ring has no power over him. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 20:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not an article about the majority of adaptations. This is an article about the original. And Gandalf has every right to be wrong (indeed, the character of Saruman would be untenable if wizards can never be wrong) because Bombadil displays a clear power over the ring when HE makes IT disappear. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia though, and the fact that the majority of adaptations ignore the character, and the fact that the books themselves say he has no power over the rings trumps any opinion you may hold. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Almost Every character in the book has no power over the rings. If not having power over the rings is what makes a character a major character (which is what is at discussion here...) then no character in the book is a major character. That is not my opinion. That is the clear reading of the book. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

In other words: if you think Bombadil should be treated as a major character, find a reliable source that says that and use that as a reference. WP is not about what you think or what I think; it's about what is verifiable from reliable sources. (Obviously what we think will guide what we want to include, but when challenged, you need to provide a source.) In the case of the Ring, I read the incident quite differently than you do; but *our* opinions cannot settle this. Tolkien's letters suggest that Tom's power, whatever it is, would not stand up against Sauron's. -- Elphion (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Insofar as we are treating with a self contained fiction, that is to say the imaginings of one mans mind, then a straight summary of the plot and of the major characters need only refer to the book itself and nothing else. No outside source will do. No comparison between 'adaptions' will do. For better or ill, we have to decide the importance of Bombadil based upon the reading of the book and no other thing. The author has already stated, in the source "letter 144", and in other places, that he doesn't know why he placed the character in the story. While he freely admits to an ambivalence (and ambivalence is not indifference...) to whether Bombabil furthers the narrative, he is not silent on the thematic implications of Bombadil: Tolkien states quite clearly that Bombadil is part of the very framework of the book and clearly is one end of the dualtty of the struggle of good and evil and represents a clear repudiation of lordship or dominion of any kind. In a book that pits Mordor against Gondor, Minas Tirith against Minas Morgul, Gandalf against Saruman, The nine walkers against the nine riders... in a book where the name "Denethor" is very nearly a complete reshuffling of the name "Theoden"... and in which Theoden and Denethor are faced with the exact same despair... and from which they emerge different men... In short, a book that explores opposites and opposition, power, dominion, choice and will, the one character who provides the clearest counterpoint to Sauron, who's only purpose is dominion, is a major character. Both Galadriel and Gandalf, later revealed to be ringbearers themselves, fear to so much as touch the one ring, afraid of there own desires to control. Tom Bombadil desires no dominion, no control. His power is of a completely different kind. In a book where character after character is given the same choice: take the ring and rule, or forgo power and fade, the one character for whom this is not a test is, I contend, an important character. If for nothing else, the trial of Bilbo, of Frodo, of Boromir, or Gandalf, of Galadriel and of Faramir, each of whom was faced with the choice, must need be highlighted by the character who allows the reader to believe that emerging from such an trial and such a choice whole is, first, possible, and second, desirable. Absent Bombadils clear demonstration of the ring NOT being the most powerful thing ever, there really is no way for the reader to understand that that the choice can even be made. Absent Bombadil there is no hope and Frodo's decision to take the ring to Mordor makes no sense. So, I think, too, that Bombadil does, in that respect, advance the narrative.
Also, for the record, the notion that Tom's power, whatever it is, would not stand up against Saurons power, is not a persuasive argument against Bombabild as a major character in the novel . By that argument, neither Gandalf, Galadriel, Frodo nor Aragorn are major characters. The whole book is not predicated on the notion that major characters are the only ones able to stand, directly, against Saurons power. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned the scope of Tom's power simply to answer your perception that he has power over the Ring and that this contributes to his being a major character. Your counter-argument could be made with equal force about Eru and the Valar, who -- far more than Bombadil -- frequently serve as sources of inspiration, but are hardly "major characters". At the critical moment in Rivendell when Frodo accepts the Quest, there is no indication whatsoever that Frodo is influenced -- let alone persuaded -- by his experience of Bombadil. Indeed, Bombadil hardly appears after the Council of Elrond, in contrast, say, to Galadriel, who is invoked on many a dark occasion in the sequel. It is not the example of being unaffected by the Ring that inspires Frodo and Sam, but the example of rejecting it.

But as I indicated above, this really is irrelevant. You need to read WP:OR and particularly WP:SYNTH.

-- Elphion (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say Bombadil is a major character in that he has a whole chapter named after him in which he is dominant. However, he doesn't play an important role in the narrative. Tolkien created him separately and inserted him into the story, which is why adaptations generally leave him out.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncle, not Cousin

In the list of main characters it says that Bilbo is Frodo's cousin, not his uncle, which, I believe, is the correct title. Please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.224.241 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

See explanation here. Bilbo and Frodo were in fact cousins ("... Bilbo, a lifelong bachelor, adopted Frodo, the orphaned son of his first cousin Primula Brandybuck and his second cousin Drogo Baggins, and made him his heir ... Frodo was actually "his first and second cousin once removed either way"... )", but due to the difference in ages they behaved as uncle and nephew. Tolkien made this clear. Dwpaul Talk 17:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The question seems like one by a non-native English speaker who read the English original and, despite having a good grasp of English (obviously), is not familiar with the English remote-family-naming-system. So, a cousin is a cousin (is a cousin); but once you add "removed" to it, it becomes an uncle, not only colloquially but actually ("twice-removed" a great-uncle, and so on), only with a bit more distance in the relation. So, they would obviously call each other uncle, only if the relation is to be stated with more precision, it would be "cousin, once removed", etc. What we Germans call an "uncle of the second degree" (with imprecision because there are also "degrees of relation" and an uncle in the second degree would be related in the fifth or third degree depending on the counting, not the second) or an "uncle around one corner" is, in English, a "first cousin once removed".--2001:A61:20FD:6F01:2D4B:F257:210A:A110 (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Tolkien and Vikings

I was told by my History teacher that Tolkien took many ideas for the Lord of the Rings and Middle-Earth from Norse mythology. Use this section to discuss this — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemSpike (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Something that a teacher says is not a reliable source. Can you provide any reliable sources to warrant a discussion? Johnny338 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Plot: Party Edit

@GimliDotNet: (et. al.) How about the following?

The story begins in the Shire on Bilbo Baggins' birthday, where the Hobbit Frodo Baggins inherits the ring from his cousin Bilbo.

The birthday party IS important considering the events that happen at the party, so I feel it is worth a mention. This edit keeps it tight and fixes some odd grammar and syntax (ie "Ring" should not be capitalized without the "One" in front of it and so on). HullIntegrity (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's important to the story.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction

From the lede: "The Lord of the Rings is the second best-selling novel ever written, with over 150 million copies sold." - However, the article linked lists LotR as number one, the only book selling 150 million copies.-217.248.32.212 (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Deagol2 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Deagol2: There is still another contradiction in this article. This section states that A Tale of Two Cities has sold more copies than The Lord of the Rings. Jarble (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess it depends if you include or exclude books without reliable sales figures. Perhaps better to adjust wording to state "one of the best-selling" and avoid stating that any one book is the best-selling novel ever written? Deagol2 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Article amended in two places to remove the contraction. Deagol2 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Lord of the Rings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Lord of the Rings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

List of characters

In the list of characters, the sentence "He is a Maia, an angelic being sent by the god-like Valar to fight Sauron." is used to describe Gandalf. Is this sentence necessary? In the Lord of the Rings Gandalf - and the narrarator keep his true identity secret. I thought this was strange, but wanted more opinions and didn't feel confident to edit such an important article. --Mornarben (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

His status as a Maia is indeed kept secret, that he was from the far west, supremely ancient and on a mission from God are not. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
From Appendix B, "The Third Age":

It was afterwards said that [the Istari] came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist him; ...

But who sent them, or what their nature was, is never mentioned; in the context of The Lord of the Rings (and even more so The Hobbit), these things are mysteries. The assertion that they are Maiar only appears in posthumously published writings, in particular "The Istari" in Unfinished Tales. Even that mentions that "none save perhaps Elrond, Círdan and Galadriel" learned what they were or where they came from. It seems that Tolkien himself may not have been entirely clear on the point. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed mention of the wizards (in particular Saruman) being Maiar from the cast list. I don't recall if Sauron's status as Maia is mentioned, so I've left it in for now. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I did a word search on the entire entry for "Shadowfax" and nothing came up. In my opinion, "Shadowfax" should be mentioned in an encyclopediac article about LoTR.199.168.151.168 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Shadowfax appears at List of Middle-earth animals. General Ization Talk 19:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Though Gandalf seems to make no secret that "his name was Olorin in the West", which the in-universe learned would be quick to draw conclusions from.--131.159.76.164 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Istari, Wizard in the tongue of Men were sent by the lords of the west. Lucifer & Viktor (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sauron is a Maiar. Gandalf (Mithrandir) is a one of the first two Istaris who came, along with Curunir (Saruman). Lucifer & Viktor (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Publisher is HarperCollins

I don't know when they took over, but they are definitely the current publisher of the Tolkien series.

See http://www.tolkien.co.uk/index.html AND https://www.harpercollins.com/cr-104949/j-r-r-tolkien Peter K Burian (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I moved your addition to the section on publication history and added a date and references. Deagol2 (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"Taking the Hobbits" redirect ?

Came to wikipedia looking for information on the internet meme "They're taking the hobbits to Isengard", but that title redirects to here even though the meme isn't mentioned at all in the article. Surely that's not right? Better to come up with a not found/closest match rather than direct to another article with no relevant info? (No idea how to do anything about that, since I'm just a really casual and occasional user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.1.161 (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Knights of the Garter comparison comes from unreliable sources

The discussion should be taking place here, not back and forth on our personal talk pages.
Reposted from your talk page, Bill Stradling: Hello Bill,
Pages 101 and 102 of the self-published Maloney source list the similarities to which you refer in the article and on the post on my talk page. The claims on these pages (101-102) have no footnotes leading to other sources, so we have to take the author's word for it, but the source does not appear reliable (self-published, written by a non-scholar). Even if there were footnotes on those pages, the article should cite those (now hypothetical) reliable sources rather than Maloney, who is not RS.--MattMauler (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
In a talkpage comment and in one of your edit summaries, you question the definition that I (and others) were using for "reliable sources": JRR Tolkien passed away in 1973. Definition of reliable source in this context required before deleting this page edit - thanks. and What would be your definition of a reliable source in the context of explaining the meaning behind the book title of the 'Lord of the Rings'? As I pointed out earlier, Tolkien would be the only person who could truly answer this puzzle.. The definition of "reliable source" that is used on Wikipedia, in all articles, can be found in the Manual of Style. For this specific situation, see WP:RSSELF and WP:UNRELIABLE. This is what I and other editors are using when we say that self-published sources are generally unreliable. It's not just our opinion, it's a Wikipedia policy determined by a long consensus.--MattMauler (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Auden and the New York Times

W.H. Auden "famously reviewed the final volume in 1956" and the link points to the New York Times of 26 Jan 1956, "At the End of the Quest, Victory: BOOK REVIEW, "THE RETURN OF THE KING"". That's a dead link now, perhaps because the Times has moved its archives to the subscriber-only "Times Machine": TimesMachine: "At the End of the Quest, Victory". What's the WP policy on paywall links? By the way, Auden also reviewed The Fellowship of the Ring: The Hero Is A Hobbit SUNDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1954, P. 37, but I did not find an Auden review of The Two Towers. Whbjr (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Novel vs. Trilogy and the principle of least astonishment

Is LOTR a trilogy? This has been briefly discussed here several times (just search the archives for "trilogy"), and the consensus is "No, because Tolkien didn't think of it as a trilogy". See also this essay from the Tolkien Society, and this blog post. Okay, I can accept that (for the moment). But as a reader who was previously unaware of this, I found the current wording of the article a bit WP:ASTONISHing. I suspect most people familiar with LOTR think of it as a trilogy, rather than a single novel. And referring to LOTR as a trilogy of books is is very common in reliable sources - just try a google search for a phrase like "adaptation of The Lord of the Rings trilogy", or "author of The Lord of the Rings trilogy". You'll find results from NPR, The New York Times, USA Today, the Telegraph, BBC, The Guardian, etc.

So I think we should mention this. In earlier versions of the article, the first paragraph had a sentence beginning Although generally known to readers as a trilogy, Tolkien initially intended it as one volume of.... The "Publication" section also elaborated on this:

Because the three-volume binding was so widely distributed, the work is often referred to as the Lord of the Rings "trilogy". In a letter to the poet W. H. Auden (who famously reviewed the final volume in 1956[1]), Tolkien himself made use of the term "trilogy" for the work[2] though he did at other times consider this incorrect, as it was written and conceived as a single book.[3] It is also often called a novel; however, Tolkien also objected to this term as he viewed it as a romance.[4]

(See also this talk discussion which touched on Tolkien's use of "romance", and the Auden letter.)

Anyways, I'm going to WP:BOLDly restore some form of the text quoted above into the article, because I think it's beneficial to the reader (reducing WP:ASTONISHMENT), and also just relevant, encyclopedic information. Colin M (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's an interesting question whether the author's intention alone should determine how we refer to the work. And if not, at what point does RS usage outweigh the author's preference? I would be inclined to include LOTR in Category:Trilogies if it could be shown that a clear majority of RS refer to it as a trilogy rather than a single novel. An analogy would be Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill. Tarantino wanted to release it as one film, and originally delivered a single 4-hour film to the studio. But practical considerations and outside pressure forced him to re-edit it into two releases (which he called Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2). Like LOTR, it was later released in a single unified edition. But Volumes 1 and 2 are usually referred to as if they're separate films, because that's how they're typically understood by the public and referred to in RS. Colin M (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I think in literary terms, it is one novel because the three separate books do not stand alone. For example, Two Towers ends with "Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy". There's no sense that is the end of a story.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ W. H. AUDEN (January 26, 1956). "At the End of the Quest, Victory: BOOK REVIEW, "THE RETURN OF THE KING"". New York Times.
  2. ^ Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. (2023) [1981]. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Harper Collins. #163. ISBN 978-0-35-865298-4.
  3. ^ Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. (2023) [1981]. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Harper Collins. #149. ISBN 978-0-35-865298-4.
  4. ^ Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. (2023) [1981]. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Harper Collins. #329. ISBN 978-0-35-865298-4.

"Ambush at Ithilien" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ambush at Ithilien. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Redirect. Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I propose that War of the Ring be merged here. The "War of the Ring" is merely a plot summary of parts of the novel, told in an in-universe way, with no references.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Simply redirect here. The extra details aren't worth merging. Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien already incorporates the resulting games. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
That's probably a better idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
On second thoughts, maybe we should get rid of these redirects. War of the Ring and Quest of Mount Doom (and there might be others) are in-universe synonyms for Lord of the Rings. They shouldn't be used in articles: the article should refer directly to the novel. And I don't believe anyone who hadn't heard of LOTR would be searching using these terms.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
A useful search term for whom, Susmuffin?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The article receives approximately a hundred views each day. It appears that people are actively searching for this article. Meanwhile, it appears that barely anyone is looking for the Quest of Mount Doom. That redirect is probably useless. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Or were they searching for The Lord of the Rings: War of the Ring?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:MERGECLOSE, anyone can close this once a consensus has emerged, so you can be WP:BOLD and toss the One Article into the fiery maw of Mount Redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duplication, overlinking

The lists of protagonists and antagonists in the article duplicates (less well) the excellent summary of the plot just above it; it also WP:OVERLINKs all the names which are much better explained in context and linked in the summary. I hope no-one will be offended if I say that the article will be stronger without the lists; we could remove all the overlinks but that would leave the lists in an even worse state than they're now in, which is uncited and redundant: so, best gone. The short preceding paragraph will fit well in the discussion further down. I'll boldly go, but happy to discuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"Battle of Dale" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Battle of Dale. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fellowship of the Ring WanderingWanda (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Heads up!: while the first reactions there were Keep, some (including myself) are saying Merge here (& redirect), as the subdivisions are unimportant; others are saying Merge should be discussed here instead. PJTraill (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It's one deletion article to discuss all three books? Halbared (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. But they certainly won't be deleted now, it's more like a SNOWstorm the other way. A shame as a sober discussion with actual thought would have been better, and I seriously doubt if any of the snowboarders will ever do anything for the 3 articles; nor has anybody touched them at all seriously in the past ten years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"Battle of the Peak" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Battle of the Peak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Legendarium template to cover legendarium, LOTR template to cover LOTR

There is a discussion at Template talk:Middle-earth#Legendarium template to cover legendarium, LOTR template to cover LOTR on whether we should remove the overlap between these two templates. Editors are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings/Archive_7&oldid=1137237615"