Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

criticism

after reading the section on the reception of lotr, i feel that you are all digging just a bit. i mean sexism racism blah blah blah blah. this is a literary masterpiece. very few have had the command over the english language that tolkien possessed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.20.87 (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

yo copyright

Could someone please post the date that the copyright will expire?

Under current US, UK and Berne Convention law, copyright extends until the end of the calendar year 70 years after the death of the author, so the Lord of the Rings will enter the public domain on 1/1/2044 (barring future changes in the law).Solicitr 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about Synopsis

"The hobbits also learned that Sauron's forces can only be resisted if Aragorn took up his inheritance and fulfilled an ancient prophecy by wielding the sword Andúril, which had been forged anew from the shards of Narsil, the sword that cut the Ring from Sauron's finger in the Second Age."

Before I edit this part of the synopsis, I would first like to understand others' perception. To me it seems more influenced by the movie triology's interpolation of Aragorn than by that of the book (i.e. 'Sauron's forces can ONLY be resisted' evokes more the Aragorn-centric angst of the movie, than the stoic persistence of the book). In the book, the reforging of Narsil is not so much Aragorn taking up his inheritance as the next step in the realisation of his destiny. Therefore, as the book is the subject of this article it might be more appropriate to speak of the dream that prompted Boromir to travel to Rivendell, which Aragorn viewed as a summons to Minas Tirith.

Is this others' perception? BDB79 08:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, slice and dice it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens when people enter the Undying Lands?

It's definitely in Return of the King that states Sam must pass over the water because he was a ring bearer. I think Gandalf tells him directly.

it symbolizes death and going to heaven.

They undy. MarkThomas 19:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say it directly symbolizes heaven (not so much as Mandos may represent purgatory) in that only Elves (as well as the ring-bearers) can go there, but in Christianity, any good person can go to heaven, though probably after purgatory. Tolkien wouldn't consider men and dwarves to necessarily be bad, its just that their fëar are more temporary. I think Tolkien did intend a connection between heaven and Aman, though.

I also don't think that they "undy" when they go there. For example, Frodo, Galadriel, and Elrond, never really die, even symbolically, though Frodo is literally and figuratively hurt and burdened. Also, it was never directly stated that when Frodo and Sam, and later Gimli go to Valinor they become immortal; in fact, it probably isn't so. --queso man 22:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This comment reflects a distorted perception of Christianity. There is no purgatory, and being a "good person" (whatever that means) doesn't cut it. You have to repent of your sins and follow Jesus. Eric119 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Frodo does not become immortal. Tolkien not only never implies it, he says so directly in one of his letters. Frodo went there to be healed before he died. Galadriel and Elrond are immortal by nature, and so do not die no matter where they are living. (That is, their lives are bound with that of Arda itself, and they will not truly die until it does.)

Aman had nothing to do with heaven. The fate of Men after their deaths was unknown to both Elves and Men in Tolkien's world. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, The fate of men is certain, they go to Aman after they die (Aman has nothing to do with heaven though, that's true). What is uncertain is the destiny of elves after they die, they don't have the advantage of knowing that because they are innmortal by nature. That's the way it was decided by Eru, if you read the Silmarillion you will understand what i mean. The destiny of men was revealed by the gods to keep the balance and peace between both humans and elves, and to give courage to the great race of high men, because they die too soon.Nitro4ce 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You have it completely backwards. Eric119 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the place to discuss the author's or any editors' religious beliefs. Uthanc 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The real earth

194.60.106.5 12:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Is Middle-Earth actually China, as the country in Chinese has 'Middle' as part of the name? And think of all the wars and invasions of the West from the East, from the Huns to the Mongols. 5 Oct 06

Except for the fact that much of the culture is anglo-saxon and norse and stuff. And does it matter?-Randalllin 17:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ps Tolkien even says its not or in fact says that middle-earth is something else in letters.-Randalllin 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he says exactly the opposite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle-earth is specifically this world- just a modernization of Old English Middangeard, Middle English Middel-erd, Middel-erthe (cognate with Norse Midgard): the world of men.Solicitr 15:13, 17 October 2007 (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)

Yeah, I was just wondering that. In particular, the giving of rings is important in Beowulf. It would be great if a someone could find a ref in literature about LotR. However, some of the "Influences" section does seem to just state similarities between myths, without explicit refs (tho these could be in the overall ref sources, I can't check), eg the characteristics of berserkers. Would it be out of order to simply state that Beowulf, which we know Tolkien would have studied and taught, contains this theme? JackyR | Talk 14:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

yes beowulf was a very great influence should include Randalllin 18:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Does Lin Carter discuss in his book on Tolkien's influences? I think he does... Charles T. Betz 02:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Appendices of Peter Jackson film (DVD Extended version) quote various people that Rohan is "Beowulf with horses". Will watch again to check exactly who is saying/being quoted in this, and add to article. Not as convenient a ref as a book, perhaps, but this is a published source... JackyR | Talk 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We'd be better off citing Shippey or someone like that directly. The movies and commentary on them aren't reliable sources for the books. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the Tolkien article that Tolkien studied and taught Beowulf and nothing more, unless there is a specific source that says it influenced it. However, I do recall reading about Beowulf influencing Tolkien's works a long time ago (read, more than 10 years ago, when I was a Tolkien fanatic), but I wouldn't be able to tell you where. Find it if you want to include it. --Wirbelwind 22:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Theoden is based on the Beowulf character. Both lived through exciting youths to be killed by dragons later on. Actually, Theoden was killed by a nazgul mounted on a dragon, but it all amounts to about the same thing.--Rob01

Fell beasts aren't dragons. Uthanc 04:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Uthanc is right! The nazgul's mounts are not dragons. ( I don't like calling 'em fell beasts, because thats not really a name, its a description, but that is beside the point) Zantaggerung 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wot we've got (so far)

Right. Start at The Hobbit#Similarities to Beowulf and Talk:The_Hobbit#Beowulf. These compare the actual contents, which may or not be an act of WP:OR (different people take different stands), and debate the question – but importantly state that the annotated Hobbit includes Tolkien's own word on the matter. Surely someone on this page has a copy?

Then the "talking heads" documentaries on Tolkien in the PJ film appendices. Herewith the transcribed the sequence:

• Tom Shippey: "We should remember that Tolkien's job for most of his life was actually to be a professor of Anglo-Saxon, which is the same as Old English, so that was what he spent his days thinking about, you might say. So that it's only natural that this spills over into the writing, once he found a place to put it. But that gave Tolkien a great deal of material, especially in the surviving Anglo-Saxon poetry, of which Beowulf is the best-known example."
• Jude Fisher: "And so in creating Rohan, he goes back to the Anglo-Saxon tradition and creates for us a very recognisable ninth and tenth century aura in the hall of Meduseld, which is actually the same name as Beowulf's own hall."
• John Howe: "It's a typical element of Anglo-Saxon culture of that time and a grand hall is absolutely essential. It's Beowulf with horses added, basically."

[Ref for all this: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Special Extended DVD Edition). , "J. R. R. Tolkien: Origins of Middle-earth" ("Appendices Part 3: The Journey Continues...") New Line Home Entertainment Inc (2003)]

I'd rather others made the final judgement on which of these are sufficiently authoritative to be quoted, but I'd say it's more a problem of how to phrase and reference this than with the authority of the first two. Presumably a convenient chunk from Shippey's written publications would trump this, if someone has it. But it's clear it should be pursued. Job for someone with far too much Tolkien material...? JackyR | Talk 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And already I've found Jude Fisher is astray re Meduseld, since of course Beowulf's hall is Heorot (I knew dat!). However I also accidentally found the line: ""Wes þū Hrōðgār hāl!" in Beowulf. Like I say, it's all terribly familiar ("Westu Theoden hal") but not conclusive on it's own... Work to do... JackyR | Talk 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't actually wrong. Heorot was King Hrothgar's hall. Meduseld just means "mead-hall", and of course as king of the Geats Beowulf had one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. But this shows that Anglo-Saxon is an influence, rather than specifically Beowulf. However, the more I look at this (I was just passing when I first contributed), the more clear it is that we need to mention Anglo-Saxon, rather than just the current mention of "Norse and Celtic". JackyR | Talk 11:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of The Annotated Hobbit. Nag me horrendously and I may find the time to look up what you need. :-) Carcharoth 12:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Legolas says a line from Beowulf (can't remember what exactly, just that it's in The Two Towers). theoden (or þēoden rather) is a word and Eomer (not Éomer) is a historical king mentioned by name in Beowulf.

'fortham Offa waes geoflim ond guthum garcene man wide geweorthod wisdome heold ethel sinne thonon Eomer woc haelethum to helpe... ' (2) (Emphases mine))

Which Alexander (see bibliography) translates thus:)

'So it was that Offa [i.e. king of the continental Angles], brave with the spear, was spoken of abroad for his wars and his gifts; he governed with wisdom the land of his birth. To him was born Eomer, helper of the heroes...' (3)

[1] Uthanc 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's when he's describing Edoras from far off. "The light of it shines far over the land," translating line 311 of Beowulf. [2] (link to Google cache since I can't get to the article directly.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From JRR Tolkien, Author of the Century – by Tom Shippey HarperCollins 2001 paperback edition, page 94. The Riders of the Mark are then a reconstruction from many sources, like so much in Tolkien, a blend of ancient and modern, the strange and the familiar, the learned (like *éored) and the absolutely matter of fact (like the place name Emneth). The underlying model for much of what they do and how they behave is furthermore perfectly obviously the Old English epic Beowulf, which Tolkien knew so well. Théoden’s hall is called Meduseld; so is Beowulf’s. The courts around it are called Edoras; see again Beowulf, line 1037. In the chapter “The King of the Golden Hall”, the etiquette of arrival and reception corresponds to that of Beowulf point for point. Hobson 02:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Slightly away from the topic, but why does the article claim Tolkien was influenced by Celtic mythology? Nothing I have read suggests he was, and indeed Patrick Curry in his book Defending Middle Earth, Tokkein Myth and Modernity suggests Tolkien was trying to construct "an English epic tradition" and felt the Arthurian legends did not fit the bill because they were too Celtic. In other words, he was deliberately creating something which was not Celtic. Hobson 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as there have been no views on the above I have gone ahead and included a mention that Beowulf was a specific influence. Shippey emphasises this many times in his book, and there seems to be agreement that Shippey is an authoritative source. The sentence I have added is short, and perhaps doesn't give Beowulf the prominence it should have (compared to Wagner's Ring Cycle, for example), but the section on influences is already very long in my opinion. I have also deleted the reference to Celtic mythology, as I have never seen anything to justify this (although Tolkien was influenced by the Welsh *language*) and it seems to contradict some sources (as well as Curry, who I mention above, Shippey says Tolkien was trying to reconstruct an imaginary world which he believed did exist, as an imaginary world, in the past. Ie, he was not influenced by different traditions - it was a northern European mythology that he was trying to recreate). It goes without saying that there may be a source who does see Celtic influences whom I have not read, but perhaps if someone reinstates the reference to Celtic influences they could include a citation? Hobson 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To reinforce the Beowulf-influence on Rohan: in the early drafts of The King of the Golden Hall, the guards at Edoras challenge our heroes: "Abidath cuman uncuthe! Hwaet sindon ge, lathe oththe leofe, the thus seldlice gwerede ridan cwomon to thisse burg gatum? No her inn gan moton ne waedla ne waepned mon, nefne we his naman witan. Nu ge feorren-cumene gecythath us on ofste: hu hatton ge? hwaet sindon eower aerende to Theoden urum hlaforde?"

Compare Beowulf lines 237-57:

"Hwæt syndon ge searohæbbendra,

byrnum werede, þe þus brontne ceol

ofer lagustræte lædan cwomon,

hider ofer holmas?....Nu ic eower sceal

frumcyn witan, ær ge fyr heonan,

leassceaweras, on land Dena

furþur feran." etcetera.

The reception by Hama at Meduseld's doors and the disarming of the visitors is also a clear parallel, especially "Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom. I believe you are friends and folk worthy of honour, who have no evil purpose;" compare Beowulf's coast-guard: "The keen-souled thane must be skilled to sever and sunder duly words and works, if he well intends. I gather, this band is graciously bent to the Scyldings' master." And Grima's insulting reception is very much like Unferth's.Solicitr 15:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FA?

The characters section needs a lead-in for the main article and so far it's got three citation needed tags, and I'm seeing a few sentences that look like they're uncited as well. Is the article really going down hill this fast from when it was promoted? The Filmaker 01:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I found five actually, but I'm hoping soon afterward someone with a copy of Letters will fill some in. But to be honest, the article is still very top level. Wiki-newbie 15:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed three. I have refs for the other three, but will have to do tomorrow. Sorry. Didn't realise this article was going to be on the Main Page today! Carcharoth 02:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually really surprised to see it too. I haven't had the time to be around to look at this either but I will do my best to do so. SorryGuy 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This article averages a couple dozen edits per day. Significant changes since it was featured four months ago are thus not surprising. This diff shows changes from when the featured article star was added to the current version as of this posting... obviously they have been extensive. For the most part it is still a clean article, but with people adding / moving / rewriting that much stuff all the time it just isn't realistic to expect there to be no flaws on any given day. --CBD 10:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

FA with original research

Why does a featured article have a paragraph (on absolute power) that looks like original research and is spewed with {{fact}} tags. Can't this be nuked at least for today? Thatcher131 04:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism. —Cuiviénen 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Back Story

When I moved to revert a small piece of vandalism on this article, I saw a message concerning the length of the article. To address this problem, I think the Back Story section is the prime candidate for massive cuts. Whilst a bit of background to Sauron is necessary for a story synopsis of LOTR, what is not needed in this article is a full story synopsis of events outside the LOTR books themselves. That is, story synopses of the First and Second Ages should be kept in separate articles about Tolkien's legendarium. Darcyj 04:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

indeed, this is all covered elsewhere. this article should focus on the books and their publication/reception, not regurgitate the entire legendarium :) dab (ᛏ) 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. Though parts of the summary are quite nice. Maybe it should be moved to Tolkien's legendarium? That does need to be written at some point. Carcharoth 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer I also agree. I made a few stylstic tweaks but the whole section seems a bit overdone.Charles T. Betz 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just gone through and done a few more tweaks and trimmings of the Back Story section - we do not, for instance, need to know that it was Smeagol's maternal grandmother who banished him. But really, as Charles T. Betz says, the whole section suffers from wild indulgence, and I wonder if it is indeed necessary at all. Also, the map of Numenor seems completely irrelevant to the thrust of the (back)story. Genedecanter 05:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BACKSTORY

THE BACKSTORY IS KINDA STRANGE, SO IS THE EDIT ON THE BACKSTORY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.53.90 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 October 2006

Minor q. re. "Influences on the Fantasy Genre"

I'm a bit loath to cut them out without soliciting opinion first, but since the LotR/D&D relationship is established earlier in this section, surely we don't need to include all the video games based on D&D in the list? Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights are D&D role-playing games, so they're "influenced by LotR" by third-generation associations at this point. --MattShepherd 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the entire video game section would be better off removed, even more so because the listed games have really no or barely anything to do with Tolkien's work. Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter nights are Forgotten Realm games, so thier relationship to LoTR is as you said rather faint. Betrayal at Krondor is based on Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar series, The Elderscrolls, the Ultima games and EverQuest really doesn't have any likeliness to LoTR aside from all being fantasy stories..and as far as I know, the only relationship LoTR and Warcraft has is names of races and a few units that parody LoTR characters. To be blunt, I think whoever wrote the game references were talking out of thier hat. Atzel 12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien pretty much invented Orcs and Halflings, which were much imitated... Uthanc 16:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. While halflings and hobbits does have a lot in common, "orcs" have become a sort of general brutish fantasy monster. The Elderscroll's orcs, the orcs in Warcraft and the orcs in DnD has very little in common with each other, aside from being big and green... and even less in common with the LoTR orcs, since they were neither big or green. The stereotypical orc or ork as we see it today (being big and green) is likely due to thier representation in Warhammer Fantasy by GWS. Only the name is really carried over from LoTR because it sounds brutish.. and even that was not an "invention" by Tolkien, it's just an old celtic word that roughly means 'monster'. Atzel 11:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Tokien's orcs varied in color and size, but yes, none of them were said to be green (never mind the films). He got "Orc" from Old English. But basically all fantasy orcs are just humanoid warriors, regardless of religion, color, size, etc., so his orcs are the prototypes of the race in fantasy. "Inspired many" is the better phrase. Uthanc 03:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Need more vandal fighters

We need more vandal fighters watching this article. I've been trying to keep up with it but my connection is slow, and often more vandalism happens when I'm fixing other vandalism. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this page protected from anonymous edits? Grimhelm 15:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Usually the featured article of the day is not protected in order to encourage (positive) anon editors. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire Synopsis has been removed. I can't sort this out right now. Please someone fix this. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! Like half the page is messed up! There's random stuff everywhere huge parts deleted, and example images this is ugly! Man, I wish these stupid vandals would leave. Caleb09 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh good it's fixed now :) Caleb09 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism thing is horrible. Orcs and Beavers at the Council of Elrond? -- Tg81182 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected now

Wiki-newbie 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Grimhelm 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. The article hasn't been protected, and shouldn't be anyway. What Wiki-newbie did was add Template:Sprotected to the page. If you read the instrutions at that page, you'll see the following: "Adding this template to an article does not protect it. Protection can only be applied by administrators.". We will just have to work hard to clean up vandalism. Currently nearly 250 edits made to the article today. Still over 6 hours to go. I'll do my best to help when I have time. Carcharoth 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Although, maybe the template might discourage vandals? Seriously though, its going to be time consuming for editors to monitor all the edits to this article without a semi-protect. Grimhelm 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

See User:Raul654/protection for a full explanation. Carcharoth 15:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it still needs some protecting!

Yes. By us! Not by slapping protection on it. Carcharoth 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

hey, what wag replaced 'Tolkien' with 'Childers'? right down to linking at bottom to official website www.childers.co.uk. sheez

Unsourced Statements?

I noticed the first category at the bottom of this article is "Articles with unsourced statements". Considering this is a featured article, it may be wise to give references for any unsourced statements that have been overlooked. Grimhelm 15:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the "citation needed" tags have been added today. Those will be dealt with once the article is off the front page and not featured (currently reverting vandalism takes up the time of most people watching the page). I'd favour a method of moving the citation tags to the talk page while the article is featured, and then dealing with them later. Carcharoth 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that explains it. Grimhelm 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements list

This is a list of unsourced statements tagged with "citation needed" tags. These have been temporarily removed while the article is featured on the main page (though the judgment of this editor is that the statements are essentially correct and not misleading, so do not need removing completely. References will be added in a day or two. Carcharoth 15:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Some also say that there is clear evidence that one of the main subtexts of the story — the passing of a mythical "Golden Age" — was influenced not only by Arthurian legend but also by Tolkien's contemporary anxieties about the growing encroachment of urbanisation and industrialisation into the "traditional" English lifestyle and countryside."
• "The enormous popularity of Tolkien's epic saga greatly expanded the demand for fantasy fiction. Largely thanks to The Lord of the Rings, the genre flowered throughout the 1960s. Many other books in a broadly similar vein were published (including the Earthsea books of Ursula K. Le Guin, the Thomas Covenant novels of Stephen R. Donaldson), and in the case of the Gormenghast books by Mervyn Peake, and The Worm Ouroboros by E. R. Eddison, rediscovered."

Didn't Tolkien reject Arthurian legends as a possible British "mythology", since they were too Christianized? Uthanc 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical influences cont'd (Paradise Lost)

I don't have a reference, but it seems clear that "Paradise Lost" was a fundamental source for much of Tolkien's material. Although their common debt to Christian theology and tradition may cloud the case for influence, there do seem to be specific correspondences in terms of content, style and theme. Milton's Satan is the model for Melkor; Milton's cosmology the model for Ea; his account of angelic war is very similar to Tolkien's; Milton's appropriation of Greek myth into the Judeo-Christian mythology is the same technique Tolkien adopts for incorporating all the various myths and mythological systems he uses; and, thematically, the idea of the fortunate fall (that in the course of the deity's larger plan good will always come of evil) pervades Tolkien's story as thoroughly as it does Milton's.

I have a copy of Paradise Lost, with illustrations by Gustave Dore, and in the introduction they say that Milton's work did indeed strongly influence Tolkien, comparing the battle between Heaven and Hell, and Mordor against the free peoples. I can reference this book, but of course it would merely be someone's opinion rather than a comment by Tolkien. Looking at the influences listed on the page however makes me think that Paradise Lost does indeed belong in the influences section. I will write a short stub that hopefully someone else can expand on later. Desdinova 23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Paradise Lost thing - until we have something from the man himself (Letters?) it stays here. Uthanc 23:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Another deeply Christian text that influenced Tolkien was John Milton's epic poem, Paradise Lost. Milton's depiction of the fallen angel Lucifer was a direct influence on Tolkien's creation of Sauron.

Navboxes/Templates

I've just edited the templates at the bottom of the page, but is it really necessary to have two? The first is quite big for its kind anyway, and they are automatically hidden when there are two or more on a page, which kind of defeats the object of having them in the first place (i.e. to provide easy linkages to related articles). I propose that the second, smaller one (Template:Middle-earth) be removed, as everything contained in there is also on the first one. I also agree with Carcharoth above that they are in an inaccessible position within the page; the vast majority of people will not read the whole article due to its length, and even if someone does, they will almost certainly not scroll past the references. Comments? Time3000 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the templates being hidden automatically. Is this the show/hide bit? I thought that was coded into the individual templates, rather than being a "if two or more" thing, which sounds difficult to do anyway. I don't agree with the show/hide thing in general, but I do have a long-term plan to reduce the template bloat and replace them with a series of smaller templates to navigate between different areas. The large, bloated templates are, in my opinion, better on Portal:Middle-earth. But that will take time and I will have to try and get consensus first. Carcharoth 09:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "hidden automatically" is the show/hide thing. Re-thinking it, it might actually be better to remove the larger template, as the small one (Template:Middle-earth) has all the significant books, and links to lists of characters, places, etc., and almost everything that Template:Lotr has (except the films).

With this in mind, I've created another version of Template:middle-earth which is designed to go down the right-hand side of an article, at the top. It is at User:Time3000/Sandbox. I'm conscious that putting it on the article pages could be controversial (especially in such a high-visibility place in a relatively high-visibility article) so any comments or suggestions for improvement are welcome. I've also posted this at Template_talk:Middle-earth. Time3000 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

High exposure as Today's featured article

On 5th October 2006, this article was featured at Main Page as the featured article for that day. During the course of the day, the article received a high level of exposure, with 453 edits. Mostly vandalism that was soon reverted, but the difference between the beginning and the end of the day (between non-vandalised versions) can be seen here. It's a bit confusing, as the diff algorithm doesn't get it quite right, but it gives you and idea of what changed. Carcharoth 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

453 edits on the day it's featured - I do believe that's a new record. Raul654 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed - the previous record holder - cheese - got 410 edits the day it was featured. Raul654 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I wonder if anyone has ever analysed the ratio of vandalism to useful edits? (Vandalism plus reverts would in general double the amount of edits). I know some articles improve a lot after being on the front page. I don't think this article improved that much, but then the changes over one day tend to be minor tweaks. Maybe this says something about either the demographics of Wikipedia's readership, the popularity of LotR, or the effect of those movies? Carcharoth 09:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Errors in backstory

Maybe I am misremembering the Silmarillion, but I am fairly certain there are a few errors in the backstory.

-Annatar gave the rings out before he forged the One Ring and revealed he was Sauron, triggering the war. The story here gets it backwards and claims he had to take the rings through conquest before distributing them.

-The elvish rings were not independent of the One Ring. All the rings were subject to the influence of it, which is why the elves dreaded Sauron recovering the ring- he would have been able to effortlessly undo everything they had done since the One Ring was lost.

I suspect there are other errors. I have to dig the Silmarillion out of my boxes. Beerslurpy 03:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are misremembering the backstory. The forging of the Rings of Power was done by the Elves, mostly with Sauron's assistance, before Sauron forged the One. He captured the Seven and the Nine in the war that followed. So he could not possibly have given them out before the war, since they weren't in his possession at that point.

The article does not say that the other Rings were independent of the One. It actually doesn't go much into the relationship at all. This is in any event a plot point and should be treated in the synopsis section, if at all. But since I'm opposed to lengthy synopsis sections such as we see here I'd not suggest any extension of it, and such details belong either in Rings of Power or One Ring, IMO. The One Ring article in particular does not bring this out as explicitly as it should. TCC (talk) (contribs)

Spelling

I note that several times correct English spellings have been changed to American, at least once with the blunt summary "rv poor spelling". Since this is about a book originally published in the UK, by an English author, is it Wikipedia custom to use English or American spellings of words such as dramatisation/dramatization? Cactus Wren 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

English spelling throughout. Please change any examples you find. Carcharoth 09:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thank you. Cactus Wren 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That was my edit. My apologies, I did not know you wanted Wikipedia to be so Eurocentric. L0b0t 14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are right in using English spellings for this - it is an English book etc. It is hardly fair to call it 'eurocentrism' in this case: might it not be 'Americocentric' (no idea what the correct term is) to change to American English spellings? Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 14:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

just to nit pick i believe that the hobbit was actually written after the lord of the rings, and only published first. And to be even more nit picky both were written after parts of the silmarillion, though that book was only finished and assembled after both the hobbit and LOTR were published.

OK, nope. The Silmarillion was a combination of various stories published posthumously. The Hobbit was written before LotR. Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the OP above is confusing The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings and The Lord of the Rings with The Silmarillion. It is more correct to say "LotR was actually written after The Silmarillion, and only published first". The sequence goes: (1) Between 1919 and 1937, Tolkien writes lots of stuff that was partially published in 1977 as The Silmarillion (though lots of it remained unpublished until the History of Middle-earth series). (2) In 1937, The Hobbit is published, though the story had been developed over several years previously. (3) Between 1937 and 1949, Tolkien wrote LotR. LotR was published from 1954-55. (4) At times between 1949 and 1972, Tolkien worked some more on the 'Silmarillion' material, but didn't complete this work before he died. (5) Christopher Tolkien (as his father's literary executor) then published lots of this finished and unfinished material, in: The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth. Carcharoth 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Languages

A disappointingly inadequate amount of attention is given in this article to the languages in the Lord of the Rings. See "Language-making was Tolkien's hobby for most of his life. He is known to have constructed his first languages (Animalic and Nevbosh) at a little over thirteen and he continued to ponder upon his creations up until his death more than sixty-five years later. Language invention had always been tightly connected to the mythology that Tolkien developed, as he found that a language could not be complete without the history of the people who spoke it, just as these people could never be fully realistic if imagined only through the English and as speaking English. Tolkien therefore took the stance of a translator and adaptor rather than that of the original author of his works..." from Languages of Arda.

And from the author's own pen: "The making of language and mythology are related functions. Your language construction will breed a mythology" (MC:210-211).

And again: "The invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. To me a name comes first and the story follows... [LotR] is to me...largely an essay in 'linguistic aesthetic', as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what is it all about?' " (Letters:219-220)

And even complained: Few people took this explanation seriously. "Nobody believes me when I say that my long book is an attempt to create a world in which a form of language agreeable to my personal aesthetic might seem real, but it is true." - Letters:264.

To the author, it seems, the language superceded the books in importance, yet here they are barely mentioned...--Josh Rocchio 17:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but equally this page is about the book, not other aspects of Tolkien's creation. You have cited the Languages of Arda page, and that is where this information belongs. Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 18:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean that this page should focus on the languages, but as I said, if it weren't for the languages, the book wouldn't exist. There certainly could be a section on this page about it, with a "from main article : languages of arda" heading. It doesn't do the author's vision of the project justice not to mention them here.--Josh Rocchio 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps we could include a

See main article: Languages of Arda,

along with a short section commenting on the importance of the languages as an influence? Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 19:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't want to mess with your opus, or I would undertake it myself. I think the article would be improved with it's inclusion, and I think the insight into the motivation of its author would be insightful for the reader.--Josh Rocchio 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Odd date parsing

The first paragraph in The Lord of the Rings#Publication has a list of three dates for each of the books. At least to me wikimedia is parsing the dates strangely. The wikicode is:

on [[21 July]] [[1954]], [[11 November]] [[1954]] and [[20 October]] [[1955]] respectively

and is printing as

on July 21, November 11, 1954, 1954 and October 20, 1955 respectively

Anyone else seeing that? I fiddled with it a little bit and couldn't fix it. Any ideas how to fix?

—Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the comma is messing things up. Does the 'and' I put in there fix things? I'd raise this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) as well, so see if they can fix it there. Carcharoth 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Expletives

I came across this sentence in the "critical response" section:

Even within Tolkien's social group, The Inklings, reviews were mixed. Hugo Dyson was famously recorded as saying, during one of Tolkien's readings to the group, "Oh no! Not another fucking elf!"[31]

I think the point of the sentence is important to the article, so its meaning should be kept; but, although I'm cetainly no fan myself of censorship (in any form), what is Wikipedia's policy on expletives? --Todeswalzer|Talk 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Regardless, this is a quote and should not be altered in any way from the original. Cheers. L0b0t 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The pertinent guideline, part of the Manual of Style, is here: Wikipedia:Profanity. I would expect that consensus is that Dyson's complaint is central to making a point about the reception of this work among Tolkein's peers. --Dystopos 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the quote be removed or modified in some way in order to please the easily-offended; I was simply somewhat surprised to come across it on Wikipedia. As I pointed out in my previous comment, the thrust of the quote is important to the article and, having read the policy page mentioned by Dystopos, it seems pretty clear that there is no need to modify the passage. The clarificaiton is appreciated. --Todeswalzer|Talk 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the "spoiler" warning

Quite embarrassing for an encyclopedia to sport "spoiler" warnings. It should be quite obvious that an article like this will "give away" plot details. Morningmusic 13:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it. Most articles on books or films have these warnings. Wiki-newbie 13:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a site primarily for US-citizens, but come on. "Spoiler" warnings belong at one extreme end of pop-/fan-culture... totally ridiculous. And the policy isn't even consistently applied, take this article for example of a pretty famous book with narrative content. No spoiler warnings there. Morningmusic 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's been arguements before on the spoiler template page too. But keep them. Wiki-newbie 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But can you tell me that every single English speaking person knows the plots and details? I would say Star Wars is on the extreme end of pop-culture too, but even though I've seen a lot and heard a lot, I've never actually seen Star Wars episodes 2, 3, 5, and 6, just to list an example why spoiler tags should be there. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Readability of Article

I have recommended the Wikipedia website to my students, who are aged 16-19, for research purposes, however they have struggled to understand some of the articles. This is mainly due to the complexity of the language used. The readability score of the article is 10.73, which is the years of education needed to be able to understand this article on the first reading. The article could be improved by reducing the length of the sentences, reducing the length of the paragraphs and replacing difficult words with more commonly used ones which would make the article more accessible to a wider and perhaps younger audience. Would any of the editors be prepared to review the article to make it easier to read and thus more accessible to more users? Sarahhcfe 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a special version of wikipedia written for those whose grasp of english is shaky. The articles are much easier to read, relying on simple vocabulary and grammatical constructs. Go to "simple.wikipedia.org". yandman 17:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, they're 16-19 and don't get it? Wiki-newbie 17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope they're studying english as a foreign language... yandman 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't 16 year olds have about 10 years of education? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in here, but I think that this is a very fine article. The article on literary reception to the Lord of the Rings is particularly well written. If 16 to 19 year olds find this difficult...ugh. As an educator I find the idea depressing. Dumbing it down is categorically not the solution to that problem. Asking 16 to 19 year olds to step up to the plate is the solution. --Ggbroad 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not aimed at children with limited reading comprehension. And as Tolkien himself once pointed out, children do not learn by reading books that are "appropriate" for them, but by reading books that are a little beyond them.

But I share Ggbroad's dismay that this article apparently is beyond students in this age range. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not beyond em! I am 14 (first time I have said this on wikipedia, hope my opinions don't get trashed because of this) , I am no spectacular genius, and it is quite readable. QUITE READABLE! If any english speaking 16 year old can't read this article, I must say he probably has flunked every grade/class that he has been in- starting with kindergarten. I don't like the modern trend of making everything dummed down, easy to read and "appropriate" for someone- yopu can't progress that way. Sorry if this post seems a bit to scathing. Zantaggerung 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-authoritative quote

I've removed this statement.

Tolkien's largest influences in the creation of his world were his Catholic faith and the Bible.<ref>{{cite web|author= Steven D. Greydanus| url=http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/articles/2559|title="Faith and Fantasy: Tolkien the Catholic, The Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson’s Film Trilogy"|accessdate=4 June |accessyear=2006}}</ref>

To say that Tolkien's largest influences, as opposed to just influences (as described in the opening line of The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Influences), were Catholic is an extremely strong statement which isn't supported by a Tolkien quote. The ref given is for the Decent Films Guide, "a site of film appreciation, information, and criticism informed by Christian faith."[3] So it's neither objective generally, nor authoritative in respect of Tolkien.

Obviously if someone finds Tolkien saying that his faith was his number one influence, the assertion can go back in - but in that case it will use a Tolkien quote not this website anyway. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 12:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall Tolkien being very religious in his letters, but I have only skimmed a few. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read them all. There are religious quotes there, including some correspondence with practicing Catholics and other Christians on matters of his books and his faith. Carcharoth 23:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, didn't mean to start a hare. I was just trying to justify removing that particular sentence in case anyone got touchy, as it involves religion. The existing religious refs are probably enough, and there's already a good one from Tolkien's letters. C, sorry to distract you from that Annotated Hobbit... ;-) JackyR | Talk 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Gah! I forgot. Again! This weekend, I promise... Carcharoth 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There are quite some ‘authorized’ biographies on Tolkien and books about LotR, but none of them claim ‘the largest influences in the creation of his world were his Catholic faith and the Bible’. Such a claim is simply preposterous. People as Shippey clearly point out that almost everything about the world of Middle-Earth is in some way or another derived from Norse, Germanic, Finnish and other mythologies (even the name of Tolkiens world Middle-Earth is derived from Midgard, Middangeard, etc.), from mere words and English (place) names, from great tales of old, etc. In this all Tolkiens interest in philology plays a leading role. Tolkiens Christian beliefs however strongly influenced him regarding the underlying motives or themes in the story. But that is of course something else than the creation of the world itself. Averroes 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Novel or Trilogy

Would we refer to LOTR as a novel or as a trilogy? Would it be considered one book or three (or six)? Valley2city 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The current lead deals with it perfectly. Thanks/wangi 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The single book of The Lord of the Rings tends to be published in 3 volumes each containing 2 of the 6 parts that make up the story. Zantaggerung 13:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ring Goes South

The article The Ring Goes South redirects here, but the article does not explain why and does not use that phrase. I thought that this was Tolkien's own title for book two (of six) and was hoping for confirmation. If the title redirects here, the article should explain it. -- Dominus 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It would better redirect to The Fellowship of the Ring, so I've changed it to there. (It confirms that your thought was correct.) I believe the redirect target dated from a time before the article was split and the 3 volumes treated separately. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the others correspondingly. The Treason of Isengard was something of a special case, as it is ambiguous. The War of the Ring was similarly ambiguous, but someone had already made a disambiguation page for it. -- Dominus 14:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Phallic symbolism

"Other critics, such as Brenda Partridge, have claimed that the books incorporate excessive phallic symbolism, which they believe creates a misogynistic tone. These critics point to the emphasis on swords, towers, staffs, and similarly-shaped objects."

Oh please. I know this isn't a forum, but this just seems silly. It's fantasy, and much of the genre contains swords, towers, and other such objects. If you're going to criticize The Lord of the Rings for it, why not other fantasy works like the Harry Potter series? Does the use of wands by its female characters represent penis envy? How about Arthurian legends? If one wants to look for sexual symbolism there, Arthur pulls a sword out of something (pretty obvious), and breaks it (erectile dysfunction), but his power is restored when he gets a new one (Viagra?). And aren't the naming and reverence for swords borrowed from Germanic culture?

The stuff is cited, but should it stay? Of course, one shouldn't leave out what some people think if it's true that they think that way and if it's notable, but is it? I'm making the text invisible for now, until we get this settled. Uthanc 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Having read the various Tolkien biographies and knowing a little about the academic middle classes of the prewar period, I would be surprised personally if JRRT even knew what a phallus was, or if he was aware of it, would accept it's use in a literary context other than in Greek classical theatre. :-) MarkThomas 10:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because there are lunatics out there obsessed with phallic symbols does not mean that their extreme minority POV need inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Although the claim is certainly sensational, it is also preposterous and slanderous, and thus does not belong in this article. And I agree that were it to be included, then similar statements should be included for King Arthur, Harry Potter, Star Wars, the Washington Monument, the Taipei Tower, the Titanic, and anything else that's longer than it is wide. Kudos for spotting and excising it. LotR 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Macbeth original research

Another possible source may be Shakespeare's Macbeth. Within the tragedy set in medieval Scotland lie many symbols also found in Tolkien's (an English professor) epic. Among them 'the cracks of doom', the moving forests, the rebellious dead rising, a 10,000 strong army signalling doom, a speech by Lady MacDuff that is echoed in the words of Eowyn (that though a woman may not commit harm by the sword, she may yet have harm done upon her) and MacBeth's cursing of the sun similarly to Gollum's. The continuing theme of the temptation for power (represented in both the golden ring and the golden crown) even in the hearts of the true and noble men, is especially found in a speech given by Prince Malcolm. The inheritance of the throne is the driving force behind both plots, as is the consulting of dark forces to foretell the future of the land - the three witches for MacBeth and Galadriel's Mirror for Middle Earth.

Well, at least the "crack of doom" and the moving forest are right. No mention of the Witch-king's man/Man and Macbeth's Caesarean section prophecies. (Added these three in the article.) Interesting, though. Uthanc 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Caesarean section bit is fulfilled several times in the book, for example, by things being "vomited out of the earth" at various points in Mordor. QED. Let's rewrite the whole article as one long series of allegories. Jokingly, Mark. MarkThomas 10:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

At least the moving trees connection is worth noting. Tolkien explicitly mentioned in one of his letters that he always thought Shakespeare cheated there, which inspired him to do it in a way he felt was more fitting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is getting long

In my view, the lead and plot sections are far too long. The lead definitely needs more focus on the book rather than Tolkien's whole mythology, and the Plot seemingly dwadles. Anyone got any agreements before I start some clean-up? Wiki-newbie 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the synopsis with an older version (the current one was too detailed with FotR). Sorry if that was too drastic. Either way, notice that all the main Rohirrim, Faramir and Denethor aren't in it - the backstory is more detailed than the treatment of TTT or RotK(!) I'm working on a more detailed yet still (relatively) concise synopsis in my personal sandbox, though this might not be the best route- after all, there are the volume articles.

Are there sections which deserve their own articles, like the "adaptations" and "pop culture" sections? Maybe the "influences" one, but we'd have to cite everything new. Uthanc 09:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More pictures

Alex Lamb 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) I think we should get more pictures to show more detail about The Lord of the Rings.Alex Lamb 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need more fair use images than nessessary. Wiki-newbie 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

LotR Wiki?

Is there a LotR Wikipedia? If so post it on my talk page and here because I will not have this page on my watchlist. Eiyuu Kou 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

External Link Spam

User:Redpointist has continually been adding a link to the external links section. A number of people here have been reverting the addition, citing 'spam' as the reason, but Redpointist has continually been putting the link back in. This has happened five times in the last 20 hours, a clear violation of the three-revert rule. I advised Redpointist on their user talk page that in order to avoid an edit war, s/he should seek consensus on this discussion page. S/he removed my suggestion. Redpointist has also received the first three spam warnings on their talk page. I would appreciate it if someone else here could help to explain why the link in question is spam, and also help out with any next steps that might need to be taken. -- Macduff 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

>>>If you can show me that the link provided does not meet the requirements for a welcome external link I will stop re adding it. I have looked and it meets all requirements. You've done nothing besides blindly lable it as spam. The link contains resources valuable to the topic, but not content with should be added into the body of the article itself. I welcome your response.

It's quite simple. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. From WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." The link is being added to benefit the external site, not Wikipedia. The only way WP readers can benefit from the link is by visiting the site (ergo benefiting the linked URLs). Blatantly going around adding the same link to twenty different articles is spam regardless of whether it's promoting a LOTR fansite or an online Viagra store. Can you imagine what these articles would look like if every LOTR nutjob started promoting their site? Kill it before it breeds, and if the user in question fails to understand the rules of Wikipedia, that's his problem. I'll take it to WP:3RR, get him blocked, and then get rid of the links. --DeLarge 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article as of 09:35, 11 September 2006 had a lot of links, but they were all removed, except for the official site, with the very next edit. Some of these might be valid to include, particularly the publication history links, but probably not fan sites. Otherwise we can always use their info here on Wikipedia, which is probably the best way to go to comply with WP:SPAM:

Official sites

• The official Tolkien website

Wikis and encyclopedias

• The Lord of the Rings, an external wiki
• The Tolkien Wiki Community
• Tolkien Gateway - Tolkien encyclopedia with over 5,000 articles (wiki).
• The Encyclopedia of Arda - Mark Fisher's tribute site to the works of Tolkien
• Annals of Arda: Specific General Informations
• Middle-Earth Universe

(I guess Lord of the Rings Library isn't too different from these)

News and fan sites

• Council of Elrond - a fan site featuring news and scholarship
• The One Ring.net - Fan and news site relating to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and books.
• The One Ring.com - Fan and news site relating to Tolkien's works, the New Line films and related matters; not to be confused with the above.
• Tolkien News - News relating to The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's other works.
• Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza - online Tolkien fan community with role-playing games, lore discussions, debates, and much more
• Ringbearer - Tolkien fan site with all the latest Tolkien related news, book and movie discussions, and an active fan community.

Scholarship and analysis

• A biblical perspective
• Textual sources of the Lord of the Rings at sacred-texts.com; includes full etexts of the Kalevala, Norse Sagas, Welsh Mabinogion and The Worm Ouroboros.
• The web site of the Tolkien Society Tolkien materials and studies
• J R R Tolkien, CS Lewis - and the power of the myth by Tony Pearce

Publication History. Detailed information on editions, impressions and covers.

• UK Tolkien Bibliography
• Guide to currently available US editions of the books of J.R.R. Tolkien

Informational

• On the 1997-poll which placed Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as "best novel of the 20th century". Uthanc 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't see why that collection of links would be harmfull. Anyone searching the topic would find them relevant, and to include all of their relevant content into the article itself would make the article obscenely and excessively long. I think they should be added back. While Wikipedia is not MERELY a collection of external links, of all the things that it is, that is one of those things...and rightly so. Quick accessability to information is a valuable asset.

It's one of the things that makes wikipedia different (and so much better!) from a written encyclopedia, afterall. Redpointist 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia in general. I think linking sparingly and incorporating info from other sites here is still probably the best route. Uthanc 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:SPAM:

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?

For what it's worth, part of the Wikiproject Middle-earth Standards:

Do not cite secondary sources or tertiary sources; this includes the Encyclopedia of Arda, The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, and A Tolkien Bestiary. Instead use primary sources (reliable sources) such as published texts by Tolkien or secondary source of The History of Middle-earth edited by Christopher Tolkien.

Remember that the External links serves as further reading, not advertisement. Wikipedia is not a link farm nor a web directory. Do not link to ten or more sites. There are exceptions to this case, but a vast quantity of external links are usually frowned upon. Three to four links are usually enough.

The following sites should be linked: Official sites (that majorly relate to the topic), articles about the subject of article on other encyclopedias or vast resources (e.g. Encyclopedia of Arda, The Thain's Book, Annals of Arda, The TolkienWiki), and sites that contain neutral and accurate information that has not been mentioned in the article. On controversial articles that contain multiple POV, have at least equal amount of sites presenting each POV with a detailed explanation.

The following sites that are occasionally acceptable: professional reviews reviewing books, movies, etc. (e.g. IMDB), ONE very informative fansite about the subject of article, web directory full of informative fansites.

The following should be avoided and are generally not acceptable: fanlistings (because they are not generally informative), multiple fansites, web directories (for exceptions, see above).

Uthanc 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Redpointist, I have two questions:

• 1 - are you the webmaster for The Tolkien Library;
• 2 - why do you want to add a link to it? What specifically does it contribute to the Lord of the Rings article here at Wikipedia?

-- Macduff 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)\

• 1 - No.
• 2 - There are a multitudle of articles contained within that would be valuable resource for futher reading for anyone trying to learn about the Lord of the Rings, and anything related. For example, I search "Sauron", and of 27 pertanant articles returned, here are the first 10..

1. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: Maia Sauron Description: A page describing the Maia Sauron

2. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: Sauron returns to Mordor Description: This page details the events preceding Saurons reappearance in Mordor, from his inhabitation of Dol Guldur, to his fleeing after being attacked by the White Council

3. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: Sauron Invades Eriador Description: A description of the maneuvers of Sauron once he decided to invade Eriador and the outcome of his attacks.

4. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: The Siege of Barad-dûr and the Defeat of Sauron Description: The long tale of the seven bitter years spent laying siege upon Barad-dûr until Sauron was finally defeated.

5. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: The End of the Story Description: This page trails the moments of Aragorn’s and Arwen’s relationship from the Fall of Sauron and the following of their footsteps until they both passed away. .

6. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: Major Timeline of the Second Age Description: This page takes a look at the events of the Second Age and features the rise and fall of Sauron.

7. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: Last Alliance Description: This page tells of the battle of Dagorlad, in which the armies of the Last Alliance defeat Sauron, and then go their seperate ways.

8. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: Battle of Dagorlad Description: This page tells of the battle of Dagorlad, in which the armies of the Last Alliance defeat Sauron, and then go their seperate ways.

9. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: Fields of Cormallen Description: This page describes the celebration at the Fields of Cormallen, after Sauron is defeated, as told in chapter 4 of Return of the King, book 2

10. The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Library: Elrond During the Second Age Description: The life of Elrond up to the taking of the One Ring by Isildur from Sauron.

These articles refer to specific events, ideas, and interactions that are beyond the scope of anything that should be directly included on the page.

Redpointist 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eragon/Paolini, et al.

Removed "A good deal of the book Eragon, by Christopher Paolini, was also heavily inspired by The Lord of the Rings." not because I think it's false, but because it would look better if we mentioned more authors who acknowledge LOTR as an influence (properly cited). Or perhaps this sort of thing would better on Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien? (I looked and Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien already mentions this book/author.) Uthanc 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In-universe perspective

Large sections of this article are written in an in-universe perspective, contradicting the Wikipedia manual of style (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29). Am I wrong? If not, is there a reason for this? Hobson 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See Archive 03#In universe style. LOTR is a fictional history, and Tolkien deliberately wrote it that way; "Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well" (Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles). It's also the WikiProject policy. Uthanc 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the previous debate. A few points: There is more to being written in an "in universe" style than the use of the past tense, although that is probably the main factor. I don't agree with the arguments used in the previous debate that (if I understood them correctly) a "Wikipedia Middle Earth" article need not follow Wikipedia style. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and perhaps it is standard practice for projects to adopt their own style, but I wasn't aware of it. I understand that it is also argued this article *does* follow Wikipedia style as it uses the past tense for "fictional history", but the guideline stating fictional history should be in the past tense makes no sense to me. I will of course ask for clarification on the correct talk page. I won't pursue this - clearly there is a consensus among editors of this page already! But I wanted to express my own thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobson (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Publishing history paper

If anyone wants to add more on the publishing history, a few snippets could be used and cited from this article. Just some of the facts and figures would be good. Carcharoth 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Influences

What about Slavic mythology influence? Boromir is pure Slavic name; Moria is one of the names of goddess in Slavic mythology (Mora, Morana, goddess of winter and death). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.148.97.79 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

This is just a game of "sounds alike", although I'm at a loss to know what "pure Slavic" name you might have in mind. There are no detectable similarities to Slavic myths that aren't shared by most Indo-European mythologies. Both words have impeccable etymologies in Tolkien's invented languages (Sindarin, I believe) which were not based on anything Slavic. Its phonology is based on Welsh and its vocabulary is invented. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morana

In Tolkien, mor means "dark", "black", while gurth is "death". Since linguists have been studying his languages for some time now, I believe we would have known any attested Slavic influences by now. Uthanc 05:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

By "pure Slavic name" I was referring to Boromir, which was so called by the OP. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism

Well its certainly true, but perhaps a citation?Sultangris 00:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont think you should have removed that peice in the Lord of the Rings article, yes it did need some citations but it wasn't nonfactual, the observations made were completely correct and taken directly from the books. In my opinion there was not enough straight opinion or speculation to warrant an outright removal. Sultangris 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who brought it to my user talk page, and we did discuss it there. As I said in part: 1) It's factually incorrect in numerous particulars; 2) It's unreferenced and this is a featured article. You degrade its quality by adding an unreferenced section; 3) Even if you find cites, they're only someone's opinion and should be presented as such and not as fact, especially since there's good reason to read things otherwise; 4) Presented as it was it's original research since you speculate on motives and moral judgments that are explicitly stated nowhere in the book; and 5) I did say why I was reverting in the edit summary.

You've mentioned numerous times that it's factually inaccurate, but you've yet to say how, or where. Especially since this seems to be the major basis for your removing the information, please state how it is factually inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ntchwaidumela (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

This messed-up version of the article can only have come about by performing the reversion incorrectly. See Help:Reverting for the correct method. And be aware of WP:3RR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this isn't supposed to be a forum, one can only dissect these so far:

• The only Men construed as "good" in the Lord of the Rings novels are white men, from the three Edain houses of Hador, Haleth, and Beor, respectively.

There are some men of mixed ancestry, darker-skinned than than the typical Dúnadan at least, who help defend Minas Tirith - see Lossarnach, Forlong the Fat. Also, Hador, Haleth and Beor are from The Silmarillion, and LOTR is only one novel or "heroic romance" if you follow Tolkien to the letter.

• The "goodness" of other Men is generally inversely proportional to their relation to these houses. For example, the Dunelandings in Isengard are distantly related to the House of Haleth, however their relation is impure and diluted due to years of intermarriage with the "lesser" races. This causes them to side with the forces of evil, however, their small relation to the Edain causes it to merely be Saruman, the lesser of two evils.

Besides misspellings, this is contradicted by the prominent evil Númenoreans, some of whom wanted blood purity (see Castamir, Kin-strife). The lesser blood itself couldn't have caused them to side with Saruman, it was the Rohirrim's ancestors taking over their territory. Anyway it's not as simple as your text makes it to be. The evil men weren't evil by themselves, they were corrupted and (for the Haradrim/Easterlings) scarred by tyrannical Númenorean rulers (whereas in contrast early contact was friendly and beneficial).

• The Rohirrim, more closely related to the House of Hador, are at first represented as bad, with their king under the spell of Saruman and Grima Wormtongue. However, their closer relation to the Edain than the Dunelandings causes them to turn their backs on him, and eventually defeat him, instead of siding with him.

Not "bad" at all. Only Théoden was misled, and it seems this is derived from Peter Jackson (which is already over-interpreting what he showed).

• The Easterlings are only represented as good once, when some of them decide not to betray Maedhros (the rest do, however.)

These are different Easterlings from The Silmarillion. Besides, they were likely duped/enslaved/etc. (see below), and Aragorn made peace with them, though fighting with some tribes/nations continued in the Fourth Age.

• The Haradrim are never represented in terms other than evil.

"He [Sam] wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil at heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really have rather stayed there in peace."

- from The Two Towers

Aragorn made peace with them too, though fighting with some tribes/nations continued in the Fourth Age.

• The Pukel men, under Ghan-Buri-Ghan help the white Edain, but are still shown as backward savages.

Missing the point IMO; aren't they Tolkien's Ewoks, sort of? I believe he wrote in Unfinished Tales or somewhere else that they were the only race of Men who weren't corrupted at all.

There used to be a whole article called Tolkien and racism but it was judged as one big example of original research (like what I'm writing right now). If we bring up this point, let's put what critics of all sides have said, not what _we_ have -, but let's give priority to "real" scholars like Tom Shippey who typically would understand the man and his writings better (though there's the possibility that we may see things that critics don't, and that's a drag). Again, it's not that simple as the editor would have it. Anyway, he didn't like apartheid, and called it horrifying. Uthanc 04:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uthanc hits the nail on the head pretty well. There's a lot more that can be said here -- there are other errors -- but as he pointed out, this isn't a discussion forum.

But really, since it's unreferenced, the correct response to a deletion of the material on factual grounds is to provide citations showing that it's correct. For example, you'd have to show something from the book itself that attributed Theoden's bewitchment by Saruman to his racial background. (You can't because there isn't. It's just an example.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics don't see it becaues everything can be seen as "racism". If the good guys were darker and the bad guys light-skinned, it's "racism". If everyone's light-skinned or dark-skinned, it's "racism". For example, Jesus was from the Middle East (or something), so it's racism! Spiderman and Superman and Batman are white, it must be racism! All main characters in Harry Potter are white, it must be racism! There always has to be a black power ranger, so it's racism! Good reason why critics don't go there. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics might not go there, but there are newspaper articles and papers on the topic (hard to find) and far-right websites (not hard to find, unfortunately). The Tolkien and racism article was deleted, and I agree the title is bad even if the content might have been rescuable. We do currently have Minority criticisms of The Lord of the Rings (which frankly is pretty poor). We also have Middle Men, which is probably relevant as well. There are definite themes here, but they need to be presented and sourced with care. This article is not really the place for them. Carcharoth 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly racism present in LotR, so it may be worth treating the subject if a genuinely balanced set of sources could be found. Yes the book deals with racism because there are multiple races involved, and it would be artificial for racism to not be present. The basic problem is that, because literary tend to see the story in black-and-white terms (in the moral sense) even though it was not really written that way, they naturally see every act on the protagonists' side being portrayed as "good". By that standard, you have no choice but to call the book racist. But many "good" characters are in fact morally ambiguous, and racism is never portrayed in a good light. The effects of the Kinslaying in Gondor, brought about in the name of racial purity, and the disastrous effects of Helm Hammerhand's killing of Freca -- which was due to an incident provoked by the Rohirrim's treatment of the indigenous peoples -- are just the clearest examples of how he shows racism's effects. Others are more subtle. Consider the views of Denethor and Boromir on Gondor's role in the resistance to Sauron. In the light of Faramir's explanation of the Gondorian view of the races, it looks as if that role was seen as theirs by right and duty as the "High" race; a very condescending noblesse oblige which, as Faramir points out, is hardly justifiable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

you guys could say more about the plot and actors and....well everything!!!........

p.s. i like peter jacksons work!

fourth book

What's this about a fourth book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.134.143 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Never mind the fourth, where did you hear about the second and third? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Succession box for "The Big Read"

I just removed an addition of a succession box for the Big Read poll. This poll really deserves only a brief mention in the article. A succession box gives it too much prominence, and readers should be directed to the article Big Read if they want information like this. Carcharoth 10:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not enough destinction

The story summary of this article is good, but the biggest flaw is that it doesn't distinguish well between elves and men.

By the way this is also one of my biggest problems with the movie trilogy, it gives the idea that elves are basically superior humans. Zantaggerung 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

synopsis in past tense

Conventionally, a synopsis in English is in the present tense, reserving the past tense for events that took place before the action of the story. The use of the past tense throughout the synopsis in this article creates unnecessary confusion. I'd change it myself, but it's been years since I read the book and I wouldn't want to make any mistakes.--Ibis3 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Middle-earth uses present tense, supposedly due to Tolkien's writing style. Alientraveller 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean past tense Alientraveller? If so, to use past tense when speaking about the action of a present novel is illogical, no matter who the writer. Just take a look at this paragraph I pulled out at random:

Later, much of the story's exposition is given during a high council, attended by representatives of the major races of Middle-earth; Elves, Dwarves, and Men and presided over by Elrond. Gandalf told them of the emerging threat of Saruman, the leader of the Order of Wizards, who wanted the Ring for himself and had imprisoned him for a time. In order to fulfil an ancient prophecy about the return of the King of Gondor and Arnor, Aragorn was going to war against Sauron, armed with the royal sword Narsil, which had cut the Ring from Sauron's finger. After pondering several choices, the Council decided that the only course of action that could save Middle-earth was to destroy the Ring by taking it to Mordor and casting it into Mount Doom, where it was forged.

Okay, it starts off all right. There *is* a high council, but Gandalf *told* them of the emerging threat. When? Before the council (maybe before the action of the book). Saruman wanted the Ring for himself before the council (so it was emerging some time in the ancient past?); Aragorn was going to war sometime before that--maybe right after the Ring being cut. And if I didn't know that the Ring was forged long before any of these events, I'd be totally confused by the last sentence. In fact, the only reason I can follow this at all is because I've already read the book (& watched the movies). If a person were coming here to get a lucid summary of the book, they'd have to cross their eyes and hope for a bolt of lightning to straighten things out. --Ibis3 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion for an explanation. We can always improve the writing without changing the tense. Uthanc 00:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ibis3, there is absolutely no reason that I can see why this synopsis should not be in the present tense, as it is with any other work of fiction. After all, why should The Lord of the Rings be held separate from other epic works of imaginative fiction, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, His Dark Materials, or Le Guin's Earthsea series, to name but a few off the top of my head? All of these have extensive secondary worlds, and I know that plenty of other fantasy books and series are even more extensive in their worlds and fictional histories. (The Star Wars articles are probably a relevant point of reference also, in terms of the breadth of their secondary world).

What's more, even the Tolkien pages are not internally consistent. This synopsis is already inconsistent by using a combination of past and present tense, which is just plain confusing. But then look at the synopses in the articles for FotR, TTT and RotK. They are written in present tense, as are a number of articles on other writings of Tolkien's in the legendarium (the Ainulindale and Valaquenta, for example).

So, 1) whatever is decided, let it be consistent, and 2) I strongly argue that present tense is the appropriate tense to use here. This encyclopedia should be consistent in style throughout. And consider: this article isn't written for hardcore Tolkien scholars, it is written for any casual reader interested in learning about this book, and for this reason it should be in keeping with the style of any other article on Wikipedia. It may be a fictional narrative that is attached to an imaginary historical legendarium, but it is still just a fictional narrative. Genedecanter 04:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you already looked at the links? Uthanc 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at the linked discussions, and frankly most of the arguments put forth are not compelling. Some don't make much sense at all - why, for instance, should present tense only be used for works of fiction that cover a timeframe of only a few months? How is a narrative that spans a millennium categorically different? (And of course, beyond the first few chapters LotR covers barely more than a year.)

This article is not in-universe, but rather an article about the substance, history and impact of a real-world publication. That the subject matter of the story is (fictional-)historical is quite beside the point. The article War of the Ring is perhaps the closest to a parallel with this article in-universe, and that article quite properly accounts the same events in the past tense. The two should not be confused. Consider for example the difference between the article on Julius Caesar and the plot synopsis of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (play). Or perhaps even better, compare these two articles: Mary Boleyn, and The Other Boleyn Girl. One is an account of an historical person, the other an article about a real-world publication that deals with that history. (I'm sure I could find some better examples if I thought hard enough about it.)

Well, I have plenty more to say, but that's enough for now. Suffice it to say that I think that the arguments for past tense are mostly poor, and further discussion needs to be had on this subject. Genedecanter 11:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please reply to this discussion? I am currently working on improvements to the flow and simplicity of the Synopsis section, but no matter what I do the tense issue cannot be escaped. I will not change the tense without discussion because I respect the process here, but please give me some counter-argument - none of the arguments I've read thus far are convincing. In places the writing is just plain unreadable, with certain paragraphs featuring no less than three tenses (present, simple past, perfect past). The very fact that editors have deemed it necessary to include a Notice at the head of the text regarding reversion back to present tense is in itself an indication that many people have arrived at this article and immediately felt that the tense choice is wrong.

I believe the (inconsistent) use of past tense in the synopsis section brings the overall quality of this article down considerably, which is very much a shame since the article is otherwise well written. Genedecanter 22:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"...brings the overall quality of this article down considerably..." - This is subjective. Whether there is quality or not has to do with the quality of the writing, regardless of what the "tense" is.

As for why past tense is preferrable for the articles about Middle-earth, consider that the "tense" of the entire series is "past tense", in general. Yes, there are segments written "in the moment", but even those are describing events that have already happened. The author is writing as if he is the translator of some ancient book (per both the series' introduction, and the appendices after The Return of the King).

This is simply a case where it is appropriate to ignore the guideline, and use what is appropriate. - jc37 09:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps speaking of the tense choice affecting quality is subjective. However, I believe it is demonstrable that the tense choice adversely affects readability. And readability is important to the usefulness, indeed the encyclopedic quality, of this article.

I'll say it again: this article is not cast within the scope of the fictional history concerning the legendarium. It is about a real-world book that happens to relate a story from that legendarium. There is a difference. I don't understand your emphasis on 'events that have already happened', as if this were unusual - any story written in past tense is relating events that have already happened. You say the author is writing as if he is the translator of some ancient book, and this is true, but plenty of other writers do similar things - it's called making things up. Tolkien simply understood very well the mechanics of good mythology building. But these are still just stories. It is no grounds for special treatment.

Do you at least acknowledge that there is a problem with this sample passage?

Book I in The Fellowship of the Ring begins with Bilbo's hundred-and-eleventh birthday party, about 60 years after the end of The Hobbit, and his subsequent disappearance using his magic ring. Leaving to journey once more, he left many of his belongings, including the ring, to his cousin and adoptive heir Frodo Baggins.

Every time the synopsis refers to a volume title or Book number of the story, the account reverts to present tense, then after a sentence or two slips back into past tense. Present tense is the accepted mode for such a synopsis; past tense is the accepted mode for history. The two are not interchangeable within a single section, let alone a single paragraph. Genedecanter 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of tense in your selection above, makes it very clear when talking about the book, rather than "in-universe", and vice-versa, which I presume is a "good thing". There is nothing wrong with a sentence showing more than one tense (particularly compound, complex, or compound-complex sentences). Just diagram the sentence, if you're in doubt. - jc37 13:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course sentences can contain more than one tense happily; a present tense synopsis would for instance use a form of past tense for things that have already happened before the current action. And because this happens, switching between modes of tense within the synopsis gives rise to potential ambiguity. My example wasn't perhaps the best, as there wasn't much information in it; the one Ibis3 gives above is better. And the example Ibis3 highlights ("Gandalf told them of the emerging threat...") demonstrates this potential for ambiguity.

Consider the first part of Mary Had A Little Lamb, as a simple four line story. Past tense: Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was white as snow, and everywhere that Mary went the lamb was sure to go. Present tense: Mary has a little lamb, its fleece is white as snow, and everywhere that Mary goes the lamb is sure to [also] go. Each of these is internally consistent, and reads fine. But now, if we attempt a combination we run into trouble: Mary has a little lamb, its fleece was white as snow, and everywhere that Mary goes, the lamb was sure to go. At best, there is ambiguity; but more likely, the inferred meaning has changed.

As far as I'm concerned this is an issue of unambiguity, readability, and clarity. Genedecanter 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines and examples on how to use both present and past tense together when discussing fictional works are provided at WP:TENSE. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

T-dot, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Because the guidelines at WP:TENSE and WP:WAF appear to concur with my arguments here. Now I know that people will say that guidelines are just guidelines nothing more, and not binding rules, but they are I believe sensible guidelines and relevant to this article. Genedecanter 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As this debate seems to be at somewhat of an impasse, I'm thinking I might put out a Request for Comment, so that I can elicit a broader range of opinions on this. If someone objects to my doing this please let me know, but as far as I can see it would be the best way to proceed. Genedecanter 11:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LOTR: Before "our science"?

"The action in The Lord of the Rings is set in what the author conceived to be the lands of the real Earth, inhabited by humanity but placed in a fictional past, before our science but after the fall of his version of Atlantis, which he calls Númenor." -- I think that this can be phrased better, and I have boldly made the change. "Our science" is generally considered to have begun circa 1580-1700 with such figures as Galileo, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. -- Writtenonsand 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good change, Writtenonsand. I agree, science really has nothing to do with it. It's a mythological prehistory, so what you've written I think neatly sums that up. Genedecanter 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Synopsis section is in the wrong place

The first two paragraphs of the synopsis feel like they should be elsewhere in the article, most likely in the Publication and Publication History sections. Perhaps parts of the first paragraph could remain, for clarification of the division of the story into its sections, but the second paragraph has no bearing on the synopsis being told. Anyone got thoughts about this? Genedecanter 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tense

Why is the synopsis written in past tense, as opposed to present tense as indicated in WP:WAF#Presentation of fictional material? — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see there's more than enough discussion of the topic above. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Publication and Publication history should be conflated

I don't understand the difference between these two sections, and if no one objects I would like to conflate them into one, probably called Publication history. Genedecanter 07:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page

This is a great artical requesting protection please —Preceding unsigned comment added by AragornSonOfArathorn (talk • contribs)

Synops

Needs fixing, as if the first book ends with the fellowship's coming to Rivendell

References of questionable worth

I've reworded the sentence from the opening paragraph of the intro, the one concerning Tolkien being annoyed at the book being published in three volumes. There was a reference to this URL: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0866058/bio, which contained this text: Was extremely annoyed when 'The Lord of the Rings' was published in the mid-50s as three different stories, because he had never intended the tale to become a trilogy. First of all, I don't think we should be referencing user-written 'biographies' from imdb.com, hardly an authoritative source. Secondly, I believe that the information here is fundamentally misleading, and Tolkien well understood the situation of the postwar paper shortage and other related difficulties, which made publishing a volume the size of LOTR a troublesome proposition, and he accepted the three volume idea as an imperfect but workable compromise. Genedecanter 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the work done to bring this to FA was done by scouring websites for quotes and opinions. Many of these can be traced back to more reliable sources, such as The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien and J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography. If this needs doing urgently, drop me a note. Carcharoth 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts and ideas for improving the article

Hello, I've got a bunch of ideas about things that ought to be changed around or altered to improve the quality and readability of the article, so I figured I'd just list them all here for easy perusal:

• Back story: 1) is it necessary at all? 2) definitely needs to be shortened, to perhaps half the length it currently is. 3) the map of Numenor really has very little to do with the story and ought to be replaced/removed.
• Back story and Synopsis: I know this has been discussed somewhat, but I still strongly feel that these need to be in present tense, primarily for reasons of readability to the casual Wikipedia user.
• Books: this umbrella section doesn't really make any sense - why not just have the sections from Writing to Critical response as they are. This is after all an article about a book, and a section dealing for example with the critical response to the book is, well, critical to such an article.
• Writing, Publication and Publication History: these three sections are formatively troublesome. I think that possibly they might happily be conflated into two sections, perhaps titled Writing and Publication, and Publication History, but probably not a perfect solution though.
• Influences on the fantasy genre: some unnecessary detail here. The listing of the video games is rather gratuitous, and the sci-fi paragraph at the end feels a bit tacked on.
• Impact on popular culture: I strongly feel that this section should be a general overview only, not a haphazard list of interesting trivia about obscure rock bands that have borrowed lines from Tolkien. Most of this specific stuff should (if indeed it belongs anywhere at all) be shifted to the Works inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien article.

Well, that's a few things for starters anyway. Please reply with any comments, additions or disagreements. Cheers, Genedecanter 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, with the caveat that the past tense makes a great deal of sense in some cases. What really needs to be distinguished is talking about events in the book's present, and events in the book's past. ie. "After seventeen years of investigating, their old friend Gandalf the Grey revealed that the ring was in fact the One Ring, the instrument of Sauron's power, for which the Dark Lord had been searching for most of the Third Age, and which corrupted others with desire for it and the power it held." would become "The opening chapters to the book reveal that after seventeen years of investigating, their old friend Gandalf the Grey has discovered that the ring is in fact the One Ring, the instrument of Sauron's power, for which the Dark Lord had been searching for most of the Third Age, and which corrupts others with desire for it and the power it holds." (tense changes marked in bold). In other words, it is not purely past or present tense, but a careful mix of lots of tenses, depending on what you are talking about.

As regards the popular culture stuff, the best way to tackle these is to demand verification (put stuff you can't verify on the talk page), provide a source for verification, and a source for notability (my standard here is that you have to either link to a non-stubby Wikipedia article, or to an independent source talking about the popular culture example), find a date for each example (stuff that is not well-documented normally proves dificult to date), and then re-organise into a timeline sorted by genre. ie. make it a history of the reaction to the book, from publication to the present day. Overview material can be sourced to books like Brian Rosebury's Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon. Carcharoth 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to labour the discussion on tense here, but there are two separate issues as I see it: 1) an accurate use of relative tense, and 2) the choice of absolute tense for, say, the present action of the narrative. On the first issue I think everyone ought to agree, and it's just a case of going through and tidying up the writing, in the manner that you've demonstrated above. The second issue is clearly more of a sticking point, but I'll happily shelve it until the first one is sorted out. (And just to clarify, when I say "present tense", I really mean using present tense for the present action of the narrative, and of course using other relative tenses where appropriate.)

With the popular culture stuff, I don't see that the issue of verification is that important - they might all be accurate facts, but are they important enough to include in this section? I feel in particular that the two long paragraphs cataloguing an assortment of music groups' allusions to Tolkien is overkill - one reasonably-sized paragraph ought to be enough to cover all this ground, especially when compared with the economy of the first paragraph in the section. I also wonder if there is some other area of the impact on popular culture that has been completely missed here. Is global popular culture worth mentioning somehow? I mean, it is after all one of the most translated books in the world, that's got to count for something. Genedecanter 03:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot to say that (as part of a general clear out of "in popular culture" (IPC) articles), some of the more reasonable, or "has potential" IPC articles got deleted. Middle-earth in popular culture was one of them. There is a copy in my user space, see User:Carcharoth/Middle-earth in popular culture. As you can see, a mess that needs sorting out and ruthless trimming (see the talk page for some stuff I've already removed). The translation point you make is good. It should probably be mentioned in the "popular culture" thing, but the details of translations are mostly covered already elsewhere in the article. Carcharoth 01:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, did two things: tried to get the Synopsis section tense-consistent throughout, which I've hopefully achieved (though I'm bound to have missed something); and I've also had a first parse at tidying up the IPC section. With the IPC, the main goal was to identify the overall trends of the information listed, such as rock bands of the 1970s and (Northern European) metal bands of the 80s and 90s, etc. The more I think about it, I realise that a band taking its name from Tolkien is not really an impact on popular culture at all, it's just a minor piece of trivia. Do you think it would be worth mentioning the major role that LOTR played in making fantasy such a force in popular culture in the 60s, cos I reckon that's really the sort of thing that this section should be about. Anyway, rather than completely rewriting it in one go, I'm just slowly chipping away, so no one gets too offended too quickly... Genedecanter 10:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but I say we vote this Genedecanter bozo outta here for good. C'mon, boyz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.114.187.72 (talk) 03:43, August 24, 2007 (UTC)