![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | The Lord of the Rings/Archive 2 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
(See Wikipedia:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings/archive2.)
why dont you slag on the jackson movies? your treatment is a bit brief. what more do the critics say than 'deviated from the story' and that the 'tone' is different? any examples?
but really this is a great article, thanks.
What has the Category:Birmingham, England to do with the Lord of the Rings? That category shouldn't be in there just because Tolkien was inspired by some places there. Please don't overcategorize. -- Conti| ✉ 14:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree - this article doesn't belong in Category:Birmingham, England. Ausir 19:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not at all, for me medieval literature, medieval history, and Norse mythology were much more important inspirations than Birmingham. Ausir 11:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Birmingham, England, there are other articles ( Black Sabbath, Wizzard, The Archers) that do not really belong in that category as well.. -- Conti| ✉ 16:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 and 4; and can be left ambiguous – it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dûr, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol.
I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading.
I agree with ContiE that there is a great deal of bad categorization in Category:Birmingham, England. Some content, like LOTR, is very tangential in it's connection at best. Others could arguably belong in a subcategory, such as "Music of Birmingham" or such like that which conveys some semantic indication as to why the subject belongs to the category. older≠ wiser 17:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I still see no real argument why the category should be on this article, but everyone removing the catgeory is getting reverted. What to do with such a case? -- Conti| ✉ 21:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing persists in adding this article to the category "Literature from Birmingham, England". It has been pointed out on the user talk page that LOTR was not written in Birmingham, England and simply adding a note to the category saying that the cateogry is about "Literature written in, about, or influenced by Birmingham, England." is not acceptable. the name of the category should unambiguously indicate the contents of the category. Despite being the ONLY person insisting that the article belongs in said category, POTW says there is no consensus to remove LOTR from the category. Simply put, IMO this is a prime example of bad categorization. What connection there is with Birmingham is mentioned in the article and categorization should be reserved for making more widely applicable classifications. older≠ wiser 14:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(i.e., The Category:Birmingham, England or Category:Literature from Birmingham, England categories should appear at the foot of the LotR article.)
(i.e., The Category:Birmingham, England or Category:Literature from Birmingham, England categories should not appear at the foot of the LotR article.)
If this is not a consensus, I don't know what it is... Ausir 20:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The poll should be closed, as the category in question was deleted per CfD a while ago. -- Conti| ✉ 08:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
I question the opening;
Is this an assumption or a fact? The "Lord of the Rings" I have always beleived to be the "one ring to rule them all" in other words, the object. I remain to be convinced otherwise. Dainamo 20:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'But in any case,' said Glorfindel, 'to send the Ring to him would only postpone the day of evil. He is far away. We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone?'
Arguably this refers to the defeat of Sauron, not the unmaking of the One Ring. Thus:
Raivein 02:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to remove it outright, but this section is awfully one-sided:
The book has been accused by many for containing racistic and elitistic elements. The main concept is the Free Peoples (who can be identified as Europeans) against the slaves of Sauron who are Easterlings and Southrons. Also, many speculate that the Orcs represent blacks or Mongols having some of their distinct features.
There is no mention whatsoever of counters to this argument (or of the notion of whether we should impose our modern sensibilities on someone who wrote in the 1940s).
Does anyone know of a good source for fair discussion of the topic? (Should this even go in this articles?) [[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 18:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen criticism like this until now, but parts of it do seem valid. It seems implied that the Easterlings are equivalent to Arabs, who are largely Muslim. Since the Easterlings are controlled by Sauron, who can be viewed as equivalent to the Devil, maybe Tolkein is trying to say he thinks Islam is influenced by the Devil, though this seems to be quite a stretch. As for orcs representing blacks and Mongols, this doesn't really make any sense, though the orcs do tend to have traits similar to the barbarians of the Dark Ages, which whould've included the Huns. It is interesting to note that all the the races and people on the "good" side are white. Just speculating. Xunflash 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I was reading a biography on tolkien, and it said that he didn't base anything in his books on anything in real life. He made it ALL up. - Abhorsen123 02:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "Answer to Criticism" because the information provided by 130.64.153.13 was better, and because this paragraph looks rather speculative and inaccurate (and not a very good defence is any case). (Isn't Melkor a better fit for the Devil? Doesn't Tolkien dislike allegory? Where does it say Easterlings are athiests? etc.)
Eric119 22:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can someone verify the legitimacy of this edit? The summary is "typo" which seems suspicious given the change. Eric119 05:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
JRR Tolkien hated allegory and in Humphrey Carpenter's biography he quoted him saying just that.
Tolkien's writing stems from his forbidden love with Edith Bratt early in his life. Through this turmoil he came up with the first basic ideas for his mythos. -- Sveden 20:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tolkien's writing "stems" from many things indeed! To say it's one thing or another is extremely over-simplistic. It may or may not be considered an allegory. However, Tolkien stated categorically in his foreword and in his letters that he didn't want it considered so. "Many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’" Eriathwen 22:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Has there been any positive criticism? :-)
There's more on Wikipedia written about Lord of the Rings cumulatively then Abraham Lincoln or the French Revolution. Tsk tsk I say, tsk tsk. Orangetuesday 05:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reuters today said that there will be a musical version opening in Toronto and then moving to London. Can anyone verify this and add it in? Eriathwen 18:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
That will be pretty good, for lord of the rings has AMAZING music.
The Lord of the rings films I feel even though they don't follow as close as I would like the story line of the books are an incredible achievment and they show just how far movie and computer graphics have come since the starting days of film. The city if Minas Tirith was the most amazing graphics of the whole fim I feel. Thomas
I agree. it leaves out a whole lot from the books. even the part about tom Bombadil. Another thing about it is that they even alter some scenes from the book in the movie, such as weathertop. - Abhorsen123 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Why can't any filmakers make any damn good films based on books!-- Anthony Orzel 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is about 38 KB long, which would not usually be considered to be extremely long. However, it does seem that this article could do with a little summarizing and splitting; as of this writing, no sections have main articles and most of them go extremely in-depth. Where should I start? Wikiacc 21:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Just to advertise LOTR WIKICITY which is being set up right now. Anyone who is interested in writing Middle-Earth articles head over there now! (My user page is under the name of Darth Mantus) -- 81.77.190.25 17:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I remember an 8 bit microcomputer kit from the 1970s that was sold by "Gandalf Computer," a California (Silicon Valley?) company. Only saw a few of these in the days before the Apple ][ became popular. Googling "Gandalf Computer" didn't help. Anyone know of it?
The book is sometimes wrongly described as a trilogy. The three films are also often described this way. I think it is wrong (and will remove it in the article), but is it possible for the films to be a trilogy even if the book is not? Does, for example, the second film constitute a "complete" story? Jørgen 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
well, the books are kind of trilogys. unless you mean that half way through the fellowship of the ring it says book two. then again, its kind of like the second part.
I have reverted the article to remove the following paragraph, posted by an anonymous user on 18:15, 4 July 2005. It can, perhaps, be re-inserted in a more appropriate manner, as outlined below.
My reasons for reverting are as follows:
If one scans the map of Middle Earth and postes it in this article would that be a copyright violation? Mekong Bluesman 06:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, any form of copying is a copyright violation. "All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means, electronical, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher" puts it nicely. The exception would be if you make one yourself.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
However see:
Rich Farmbrough 21:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
if you put the illustrator of the map's name on the post clearly visible, its alloud, im guessing
I have removed " New York Times critic Judith Shulevitz said that its prose is so bad that it represents "death to literature itself" [4]. "
The original article can be seen at this site, which, to my mind, des not support the excised section as written. Rich Farmbrough 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean so bad. This book was good although it was confusing sometimes.-- Halomania 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some more info about the impact LOTR has made on our culture, especially when it really caught on in the 1960s, at the height of the hippie movement. You know, when "Gandalf for President" pins were omnipresent on college campuses and "Frodo Lives" was scrawled on subway train walls. Not to mention how the hippies interpreted the books as being pro-marijuana, among other allegories. -- Marcg106 05:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
->You would probably be pleased to see www.Tolkiwiki.org, which is Buffalo State College's wiki for their seminar on The Lord of the Rings in Folklore and Popular Culture. It might be interesting to you. Brown 21 November 2005 at 20:32 PM
The Bakshi version is, in fact, widely regarded by Tolkien fans as something of a flop. (And when I say "Tolkien fans" I do not by any means include "movie groupies", i.e. teenaged girls who think Orlando Bloom is hot and never read the books). The complaints mentioned in the relevant section are actually pretty fair, I think—at least they are the most famous and widely discussed. (For example, the abrupt ending is often cited.) For a lot while after the "early efforts", it was generally believed that a successful film adaptation would be practically impossible.
Anyway, I removed these revisions because my overall impression was that they are from a Bakshi fan point of view. (And I don't think that point of view represents a significant portion of the fan community.) I am open to disagreement, but I thought it would be worth discussing. (In particular, why was the information about the box-off and technical success of the Jackson films removed? Both of those are significant.) If the current version isn't fair to that particular perspective, how can we make it more balanced? - Aranel ("Sarah") 02:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Although it is much less random than the original section, the material is still rather one-sided. I'm growing less and less content with letting, for example, the racism charges just sit there without any kind of a response. For one thing, there's some ignorance of the situation and of Tolkien's own occasionally vehement comments on racism that shouldn't be allowed to just slip in as if it were fact.
Are there any good sources for responses to these "criticisms"? I've been looking up some material in Letters, but I haven't found any direct responses to criticism yet, just passing references in other contexts.
If we're going to have such a large section listing criticisms, then NPOV policy seems to require that we allow some space for a response. (At least, NPOV seems not to be satified by simply stating "some people think the books are racist" without also sayig in some way "and a whole lot of people don't".) I must admit I'm not entirely sure what is the best way of going about this. I have a hard time thinking about this from a neutral perspective. (Attempts to actually use Tolkien's work to promote racism particularly infuriate me.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 15:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I heard this story and I can't verify it that when Tolkien turned up to the Inklings meeting with an early draft of LoTR and began reading the first few lines, CS Lewis exclaimed over his beer "Not another f**king elf!". Does anyone know if this is true?-- 203.11.225.5 06:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a proper place to ask, but can anyone include Billy Crystal's spoof "My Favorite Things" in the parody section? -- EE.
What do the main characters actually live on? I am not saying that the book should have had an economic tract included, but some background information would have been interesting - Frodo, Pippin and Merry will need money to buy in food and furnishings etc - Sam Gamgee and father probably live off market gardening.
Excellent point. In 'The Trillion Year Spree' Brian Aldis says the appeal of fantasy to adolescents is in large part due to an absence of constraint in the imagined worlds-including money. Grand deeds done at the behest of mystical impulse are a wonderful excuse for not doing your homework. Lord of the Rings is a silly book, and slightly sinister, imo.
Most likely Merry and Pip, as young characters, would be apprenticed to their father's work, like Sam to his old gaffer. Market gardening is probably not their business. They would most likely live off the accounts of Bag End, supplemented by their domestic production. The Baggins fortune was enhanced by Bilbo's adventures and Frodo probably only worked as a valet to Bilbo. When travelling, letters of recommendation or the general hospitality toward travelers would keep them fed and sheltered in society, while those who travel outside those bounds lived off the land or by robbery. Hobbiton appears to have been a very fertile region, and shirkers like Merry & Pip could supplement their appetites by taking crops without too much fear of retribution. As is typical in the pre-industrial age, the livelihood of individuals is sublimated to the survival of the household, clan, or village. Dystopos 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I notice that the existance of two different editions is mentioned in the article, but there is no reference to the difference between the two. What were the changes? - SoM 17:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I've created a new section under the "in film", "in radio", etc. sections, entitled "The Lord of the Rings in art". I think it's incredibly important that folks like Ted Nasmith and The Tolkien Ensemble, whose entire careers are focused around their interpretations of Tolkien, do not get shuffled down among mere "pop culture references" (putting them below a reference to an episode of Friends is absolutely insulting). For example, to me, if a band has one or two Tolkien-related songs, put 'em under "pop culture references" -- if they have a whole album based on Tolkien, then we should put them under this "...in art" section. Mecandes 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if there has been any recent criticism on Tolkien's presentation of love in The Lord of the Rings. I am currently exploring this issue and plan to write on it very soon. It is my current observation that the standard in the text is courtly love, although only so long as the Ring survives, for it is the Ring that "draws all desire unto itself" and causes fufillment of a love relationship to become impossible. However, once the Ring is destroyed, the barrier to love is broken and three marriages occur. This breaks the standard of courtly love. I was curious as to the viability of this thesis in the minds of others well-versed in Tolkien's epic. [ | My topic on Tolkiwiki] S. Brown November 21, 2005, at 01:47 PM
On my last edit, I added the part about Walt Disney trying to make a film of LOTR. I don't know why this fact wasn't included in the "early efforts" section of the article. ( Ibaranoff24 02:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC))
Is anyone familiar with the title of the song from the soundtrack wherein a large choir sings what sounds to be the Lord's Prayer?
... evenstar maybe...?
Template:Middle-earth portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Middle-earth portal. Thank you. -- Qirex 01:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | The Lord of the Rings/Archive 2 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
(See Wikipedia:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings/archive2.)
why dont you slag on the jackson movies? your treatment is a bit brief. what more do the critics say than 'deviated from the story' and that the 'tone' is different? any examples?
but really this is a great article, thanks.
What has the Category:Birmingham, England to do with the Lord of the Rings? That category shouldn't be in there just because Tolkien was inspired by some places there. Please don't overcategorize. -- Conti| ✉ 14:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree - this article doesn't belong in Category:Birmingham, England. Ausir 19:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not at all, for me medieval literature, medieval history, and Norse mythology were much more important inspirations than Birmingham. Ausir 11:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Birmingham, England, there are other articles ( Black Sabbath, Wizzard, The Archers) that do not really belong in that category as well.. -- Conti| ✉ 16:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 and 4; and can be left ambiguous – it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dûr, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol.
I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading.
I agree with ContiE that there is a great deal of bad categorization in Category:Birmingham, England. Some content, like LOTR, is very tangential in it's connection at best. Others could arguably belong in a subcategory, such as "Music of Birmingham" or such like that which conveys some semantic indication as to why the subject belongs to the category. older≠ wiser 17:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I still see no real argument why the category should be on this article, but everyone removing the catgeory is getting reverted. What to do with such a case? -- Conti| ✉ 21:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing persists in adding this article to the category "Literature from Birmingham, England". It has been pointed out on the user talk page that LOTR was not written in Birmingham, England and simply adding a note to the category saying that the cateogry is about "Literature written in, about, or influenced by Birmingham, England." is not acceptable. the name of the category should unambiguously indicate the contents of the category. Despite being the ONLY person insisting that the article belongs in said category, POTW says there is no consensus to remove LOTR from the category. Simply put, IMO this is a prime example of bad categorization. What connection there is with Birmingham is mentioned in the article and categorization should be reserved for making more widely applicable classifications. older≠ wiser 14:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(i.e., The Category:Birmingham, England or Category:Literature from Birmingham, England categories should appear at the foot of the LotR article.)
(i.e., The Category:Birmingham, England or Category:Literature from Birmingham, England categories should not appear at the foot of the LotR article.)
If this is not a consensus, I don't know what it is... Ausir 20:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The poll should be closed, as the category in question was deleted per CfD a while ago. -- Conti| ✉ 08:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
I question the opening;
Is this an assumption or a fact? The "Lord of the Rings" I have always beleived to be the "one ring to rule them all" in other words, the object. I remain to be convinced otherwise. Dainamo 20:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'But in any case,' said Glorfindel, 'to send the Ring to him would only postpone the day of evil. He is far away. We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone?'
Arguably this refers to the defeat of Sauron, not the unmaking of the One Ring. Thus:
Raivein 02:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to remove it outright, but this section is awfully one-sided:
The book has been accused by many for containing racistic and elitistic elements. The main concept is the Free Peoples (who can be identified as Europeans) against the slaves of Sauron who are Easterlings and Southrons. Also, many speculate that the Orcs represent blacks or Mongols having some of their distinct features.
There is no mention whatsoever of counters to this argument (or of the notion of whether we should impose our modern sensibilities on someone who wrote in the 1940s).
Does anyone know of a good source for fair discussion of the topic? (Should this even go in this articles?) [[User:Aranel| Aranel (" Sarah")]] 18:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen criticism like this until now, but parts of it do seem valid. It seems implied that the Easterlings are equivalent to Arabs, who are largely Muslim. Since the Easterlings are controlled by Sauron, who can be viewed as equivalent to the Devil, maybe Tolkein is trying to say he thinks Islam is influenced by the Devil, though this seems to be quite a stretch. As for orcs representing blacks and Mongols, this doesn't really make any sense, though the orcs do tend to have traits similar to the barbarians of the Dark Ages, which whould've included the Huns. It is interesting to note that all the the races and people on the "good" side are white. Just speculating. Xunflash 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I was reading a biography on tolkien, and it said that he didn't base anything in his books on anything in real life. He made it ALL up. - Abhorsen123 02:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "Answer to Criticism" because the information provided by 130.64.153.13 was better, and because this paragraph looks rather speculative and inaccurate (and not a very good defence is any case). (Isn't Melkor a better fit for the Devil? Doesn't Tolkien dislike allegory? Where does it say Easterlings are athiests? etc.)
Eric119 22:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can someone verify the legitimacy of this edit? The summary is "typo" which seems suspicious given the change. Eric119 05:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
JRR Tolkien hated allegory and in Humphrey Carpenter's biography he quoted him saying just that.
Tolkien's writing stems from his forbidden love with Edith Bratt early in his life. Through this turmoil he came up with the first basic ideas for his mythos. -- Sveden 20:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tolkien's writing "stems" from many things indeed! To say it's one thing or another is extremely over-simplistic. It may or may not be considered an allegory. However, Tolkien stated categorically in his foreword and in his letters that he didn't want it considered so. "Many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’" Eriathwen 22:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Has there been any positive criticism? :-)
There's more on Wikipedia written about Lord of the Rings cumulatively then Abraham Lincoln or the French Revolution. Tsk tsk I say, tsk tsk. Orangetuesday 05:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reuters today said that there will be a musical version opening in Toronto and then moving to London. Can anyone verify this and add it in? Eriathwen 18:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
That will be pretty good, for lord of the rings has AMAZING music.
The Lord of the rings films I feel even though they don't follow as close as I would like the story line of the books are an incredible achievment and they show just how far movie and computer graphics have come since the starting days of film. The city if Minas Tirith was the most amazing graphics of the whole fim I feel. Thomas
I agree. it leaves out a whole lot from the books. even the part about tom Bombadil. Another thing about it is that they even alter some scenes from the book in the movie, such as weathertop. - Abhorsen123 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Why can't any filmakers make any damn good films based on books!-- Anthony Orzel 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is about 38 KB long, which would not usually be considered to be extremely long. However, it does seem that this article could do with a little summarizing and splitting; as of this writing, no sections have main articles and most of them go extremely in-depth. Where should I start? Wikiacc 21:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Just to advertise LOTR WIKICITY which is being set up right now. Anyone who is interested in writing Middle-Earth articles head over there now! (My user page is under the name of Darth Mantus) -- 81.77.190.25 17:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I remember an 8 bit microcomputer kit from the 1970s that was sold by "Gandalf Computer," a California (Silicon Valley?) company. Only saw a few of these in the days before the Apple ][ became popular. Googling "Gandalf Computer" didn't help. Anyone know of it?
The book is sometimes wrongly described as a trilogy. The three films are also often described this way. I think it is wrong (and will remove it in the article), but is it possible for the films to be a trilogy even if the book is not? Does, for example, the second film constitute a "complete" story? Jørgen 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
well, the books are kind of trilogys. unless you mean that half way through the fellowship of the ring it says book two. then again, its kind of like the second part.
I have reverted the article to remove the following paragraph, posted by an anonymous user on 18:15, 4 July 2005. It can, perhaps, be re-inserted in a more appropriate manner, as outlined below.
My reasons for reverting are as follows:
If one scans the map of Middle Earth and postes it in this article would that be a copyright violation? Mekong Bluesman 06:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, any form of copying is a copyright violation. "All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means, electronical, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher" puts it nicely. The exception would be if you make one yourself.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
However see:
Rich Farmbrough 21:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
if you put the illustrator of the map's name on the post clearly visible, its alloud, im guessing
I have removed " New York Times critic Judith Shulevitz said that its prose is so bad that it represents "death to literature itself" [4]. "
The original article can be seen at this site, which, to my mind, des not support the excised section as written. Rich Farmbrough 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean so bad. This book was good although it was confusing sometimes.-- Halomania 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some more info about the impact LOTR has made on our culture, especially when it really caught on in the 1960s, at the height of the hippie movement. You know, when "Gandalf for President" pins were omnipresent on college campuses and "Frodo Lives" was scrawled on subway train walls. Not to mention how the hippies interpreted the books as being pro-marijuana, among other allegories. -- Marcg106 05:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
->You would probably be pleased to see www.Tolkiwiki.org, which is Buffalo State College's wiki for their seminar on The Lord of the Rings in Folklore and Popular Culture. It might be interesting to you. Brown 21 November 2005 at 20:32 PM
The Bakshi version is, in fact, widely regarded by Tolkien fans as something of a flop. (And when I say "Tolkien fans" I do not by any means include "movie groupies", i.e. teenaged girls who think Orlando Bloom is hot and never read the books). The complaints mentioned in the relevant section are actually pretty fair, I think—at least they are the most famous and widely discussed. (For example, the abrupt ending is often cited.) For a lot while after the "early efforts", it was generally believed that a successful film adaptation would be practically impossible.
Anyway, I removed these revisions because my overall impression was that they are from a Bakshi fan point of view. (And I don't think that point of view represents a significant portion of the fan community.) I am open to disagreement, but I thought it would be worth discussing. (In particular, why was the information about the box-off and technical success of the Jackson films removed? Both of those are significant.) If the current version isn't fair to that particular perspective, how can we make it more balanced? - Aranel ("Sarah") 02:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Although it is much less random than the original section, the material is still rather one-sided. I'm growing less and less content with letting, for example, the racism charges just sit there without any kind of a response. For one thing, there's some ignorance of the situation and of Tolkien's own occasionally vehement comments on racism that shouldn't be allowed to just slip in as if it were fact.
Are there any good sources for responses to these "criticisms"? I've been looking up some material in Letters, but I haven't found any direct responses to criticism yet, just passing references in other contexts.
If we're going to have such a large section listing criticisms, then NPOV policy seems to require that we allow some space for a response. (At least, NPOV seems not to be satified by simply stating "some people think the books are racist" without also sayig in some way "and a whole lot of people don't".) I must admit I'm not entirely sure what is the best way of going about this. I have a hard time thinking about this from a neutral perspective. (Attempts to actually use Tolkien's work to promote racism particularly infuriate me.) - Aranel ("Sarah") 15:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I heard this story and I can't verify it that when Tolkien turned up to the Inklings meeting with an early draft of LoTR and began reading the first few lines, CS Lewis exclaimed over his beer "Not another f**king elf!". Does anyone know if this is true?-- 203.11.225.5 06:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a proper place to ask, but can anyone include Billy Crystal's spoof "My Favorite Things" in the parody section? -- EE.
What do the main characters actually live on? I am not saying that the book should have had an economic tract included, but some background information would have been interesting - Frodo, Pippin and Merry will need money to buy in food and furnishings etc - Sam Gamgee and father probably live off market gardening.
Excellent point. In 'The Trillion Year Spree' Brian Aldis says the appeal of fantasy to adolescents is in large part due to an absence of constraint in the imagined worlds-including money. Grand deeds done at the behest of mystical impulse are a wonderful excuse for not doing your homework. Lord of the Rings is a silly book, and slightly sinister, imo.
Most likely Merry and Pip, as young characters, would be apprenticed to their father's work, like Sam to his old gaffer. Market gardening is probably not their business. They would most likely live off the accounts of Bag End, supplemented by their domestic production. The Baggins fortune was enhanced by Bilbo's adventures and Frodo probably only worked as a valet to Bilbo. When travelling, letters of recommendation or the general hospitality toward travelers would keep them fed and sheltered in society, while those who travel outside those bounds lived off the land or by robbery. Hobbiton appears to have been a very fertile region, and shirkers like Merry & Pip could supplement their appetites by taking crops without too much fear of retribution. As is typical in the pre-industrial age, the livelihood of individuals is sublimated to the survival of the household, clan, or village. Dystopos 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I notice that the existance of two different editions is mentioned in the article, but there is no reference to the difference between the two. What were the changes? - SoM 17:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I've created a new section under the "in film", "in radio", etc. sections, entitled "The Lord of the Rings in art". I think it's incredibly important that folks like Ted Nasmith and The Tolkien Ensemble, whose entire careers are focused around their interpretations of Tolkien, do not get shuffled down among mere "pop culture references" (putting them below a reference to an episode of Friends is absolutely insulting). For example, to me, if a band has one or two Tolkien-related songs, put 'em under "pop culture references" -- if they have a whole album based on Tolkien, then we should put them under this "...in art" section. Mecandes 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if there has been any recent criticism on Tolkien's presentation of love in The Lord of the Rings. I am currently exploring this issue and plan to write on it very soon. It is my current observation that the standard in the text is courtly love, although only so long as the Ring survives, for it is the Ring that "draws all desire unto itself" and causes fufillment of a love relationship to become impossible. However, once the Ring is destroyed, the barrier to love is broken and three marriages occur. This breaks the standard of courtly love. I was curious as to the viability of this thesis in the minds of others well-versed in Tolkien's epic. [ | My topic on Tolkiwiki] S. Brown November 21, 2005, at 01:47 PM
On my last edit, I added the part about Walt Disney trying to make a film of LOTR. I don't know why this fact wasn't included in the "early efforts" section of the article. ( Ibaranoff24 02:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC))
Is anyone familiar with the title of the song from the soundtrack wherein a large choir sings what sounds to be the Lord's Prayer?
... evenstar maybe...?
Template:Middle-earth portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Middle-earth portal. Thank you. -- Qirex 01:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |