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.

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

Actually, in Tolkien's world, Middle-Earth (the name of the place) is the name of a middle-earth (as you have defined it). He has titled it that. It is actually a region within Arda. So, as Tolkien has defined it, the story is set in the middle-earth of Middle-Earth, just as if you lived in a city called "City." Does this help? =David^{( talk)}_{( contribs)} 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Middle-earth. Carcharoth 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

David, I don't understand what you're saying - how is the story set in a middle-earth of Middle-earth? But I do recognise that it is a difficult definition to nail down, especially since Aman was originally geographically part of the same physical world as the lands of Middle-earth, but when Aman (and the Lands to the East?) was removed from the spheres of the world only Middle-earth remained in the mortal world, and it is this Middle-earth from Tolkien's fictional pre-history that has become the Earth we know and live on now. Additionally, since this is after all the introduction to an article about The Lord Of The Rings, I think we ought not to be too finicky in our explanation of all this, as it is simply not the place.

So perhaps 'world' is too troublesome a word to use here, but I strongly feel that referring to Middle-earth as simply a 'continent' is wrong. As a compromise, how about 'realm'? Although realm is a bit wishy-washy. Or we could eliminate a category altogether, and just say: "The Lord of the Rings is set in a fictional Earth of pre-history, called Middle-earth." How would that be? Genedecanter 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be wrong. The Earth is not called Middle-earth in Tolkien's mythology, but Ambar. ( Arda is the name of the entire system local to the Earth, including Sun, Moon, etc., and not that of the Earth per se, although its often used that way.)

David is a little confused, so it's not surprising you don't understand him. He's laboring under the misapprehension that Tolkien came up with something new here, which wasn't his intention. You were right the first time. "Middle-earth" is just Tolkien's modernization of an Old English word with the same meaning as Midgard. It's sometimes called a continent, but that's mainly because it appears to be a continuous landmass and all the other continents he mentioned were not part of Middle-earth by its old meaning; i.e. they were not inhabited by men.

It's more accurate to say that the story is part of a fictional history of the real Earth, which is what Tolkien always said it was. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify then, what is the difference between Ambar and Middle-earth?

Middle-earth is strictly a continent in Ambar (Earth), which is part of Arda (Earth and "everying in the skies around it"), but Tolkien himself used it more loosely. See Middle-earth cosmology. Uthanc 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think we need make any reference to Tolkien's story being set in a fictional pre-history of our own world in this introduction, as it is unnecessarily detailed information. How about an essential reversion to an earlier form of the paragraph: "The Lord of the Rings is set in Middle-earth, a fictional land populated by Men (humans) and other humanoid races: Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs." Any thoughts on 'land' to replace 'world' here? I think it compromises quite nicely, since it is generic enough to be more than purely geographical, but is less than world-encompassing. Genedecanter 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now it's phrased "set in a alternate prehistoric Earth, specifically in the continent called Middle-earth". I think the reason why it keeps getting fine-tuned is to avoid misconceptions - Middle-earth's not a different planet (unlike Tatooine), and it is (part of a version of) our Earth (unlike Narnia). Yours is less cumbersome, but we need an invisible note to stop it being changed to "world" or even "planet". Uthanc 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been changed again and, while the current version is factually accurate, it is also much too long and unwieldy for this introduction section. If we must have this depth of information in the article, can I suggest we move it to the first paragraph of the Background section, or possibly even drop it into the Influences section (since this construct is fairly analogous with the pre-histories of real European mythologies)? But I'd like to know if there's some consensus on this first. Genedecanter 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the phrasing used on the JRR Tolkien entry: "an imagined world called Arda, and Middle-earth (derived from an Anglicized form of Old Norse Miðgarðr, the land inhabited by humans in Germanic paganism) in particular, loosely identified as an "alternative" remote past of our own world."? Solicitr 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While that is a relatively efficient way to sum up a precise definition, again that wording is, in my opinion, much too long and unnecessarily detailed for the introduction to this article. Furthermore, Arda as a name is never actually used in LOTR (am I right in saying this?), so it seems inappropriate to use it here.

As a general observation, it seems that the introduction section has been steadily ballooning in the past few months. Most of it has been in the second paragraph (ie: the paragraph in question here). I just think a bit of perspective on the scope of this present article is needed. Genedecanter 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks. I think it's fixed now. Carcharoth 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On the same note, the link about translations doesn't work anymore. The question can nowadays be found here: http://www.tolkien.co.uk/faq3.aspx Ansku ( talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

• Having cut it to 70 KB, I really do not see where all the additions are. Most of it is similar. I think Influences could use a trimming but I'm not really sure what needs to do. Besides that and the earlier mentioned synopsis, I'm not really sure where to cut from. Any input is welcome. SorryGuy 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this point. I think long sections can be fine if they're appropriate and relevant, but I feel that parts of this article go into unnecessary and often irrelevant detail. I've done a few trims in the intro section and in parts of the Back story and Synopsis - nothing too radical yet, just a steady pruning operation. :) Genedecanter 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the size can be tackled the following way:

• Trim and condense the lead section. Details like the high cost of paper in the war can be left to the main article. It's difficult, because the lead section is quite nice at the moment, but some trimming is needed there.
• The background section really needs vicious pruning and merging into the synopsis section.
• The synopsis itself should be much shorter and leave details to the three "main articles" linked at the top of the section.
• Create four new subarticles to cover (1) the writing history; (2) the publication history; (3) the influences; and (4) the critical responses. Leave shorter, summary style sections behind.

Hopefully that will make the article more readable, allowing some people to read the whole article in a reasonable amount of time, while others read through the subarticles. Carcharoth 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I'm not sure I agree with you about creating new, separate articles for dealing in more depth with the writing history, publication history etc. I don't think they are, as individual topics, notable enough to warrant their own articles. Furthermore, they are precisely the things that this articles should be focused on, rather than extended synopses or lists of rock bands who took their names from LOTR.

Regarding the 'Back story' section, upon reading through it and considering the content, it occurs to me that this can surely be deleted entirely as a section, with perhaps only one or two details from it to be preserved and merged into the Synopsis section. After all, who cares about the exploits of the Ring in Numenor? - most of this is not essential to one's basic understanding of the outline of the LOTR story. Besides, being an online resource, anyone can simply click on "One Ring", or "Numenor" or whatever other link to find out more. That is precisely the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work.

So my question is this: what information from the Back Story section do you think is fundamentally important and needs to be kept and included in the Synopsis section once the Back Story section has been deleted? Genedecanter 04:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are up to cutting the backstory and merging it, please go ahead and do so. I think we should retain at least a paragraph of the back story from now in length, but those cuts sounds fine. I am up for sectionalizing this article further though. I really do think it is the only way to ensure readiblity. I went ahead and made The Lord of the Rings influences recently. That can be incorporated if anyone wants to cut that section. I may if I have time soon. I will do the others in due time as well. SorryGuy 08:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the back story bit needs cutting. It has been unnecessary ever since it appeared. I think the article should start with the "writing" section, and only have a synopsis later. Or start with a very short synopsis and point people towards other articles for more lengthy synopses. The subarticles issue is not to do with notability, but to do with article size and readability. If there is enough verifiable and reliable material out there, we can do these subarticles. The current subarticles, in my opinon, are: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien, Themes of The Lord of the Rings, and The Lord of the Rings influences. Carcharoth 11:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Publishing history is a much better title. Carcharoth 10:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and went ahead and made the change. SorryGuy 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Keep them as separate subsections, I think, but put them in an umbrella section - "Legacy" or something. Carcharoth 10:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would side with Carcharoth on this one. I think merging them would be rather difficult but putting them over the same heading is fine with me. Legacy sounds exactly right to me as well. SorryGuy 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with that, and the two sections make more sense now under a common heading. Genedecanter 10:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Hmm, that's an interesting point, and one that's never occurred to me before. However, I suspect that the Gollum and Bilbo/Frodo birthdays on which those events fell were chosen by Tolkien more for reasons of immediate storytelling and character reasons, rather than for any grander scheme. In any case, if Tolkien himself never remarked upon it then it must be considered original research, and therefore beyond the scope of this (or indeed any) Wikipedia article. Genedecanter ( talk) 05:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, it was not Bilbo's birthday when he acquired the Ring. In fact, in The Hobbit, Bilbo's birthday occurred when he transported the Dwarves by barrel. Eric119 ( talk) 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually, looking at the article, it would seem Orcs are not alone in this regard. Dwarfs, elves, and hobbits are also inconsistent. It is my inclination to go without the capitalization, unless there is consistency in the text for the others. SorryGuy 05:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone check these if they have the text onhand, which I do not? If not, that is fine, I will see if the WikiProject can help us out. Some sort of response would be useful though. SorryGuy  Talk  06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Orcs are indeed spelled with a capital 'O' in the same way that Tolkien capitalizes Elves, Dwarvs, Uruk-hai, etc. Grey Maiden ^talk 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I checked the LOTR text before posting the original comment, and found instances of both capitalised and non-capitalised "orcs" ("The Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapter, for example). Anyone got any idea which form is more commonly used in the text? Whichever it is, I would suggest we go with that. Genedecanter ( talk) 08:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have several editions of the books and checked this out after reading the comment here. I found that the usage is inconsistent in the books, but the majority of the instances I found were Orcs, rather than orcs. That matches all the other types of beings. Tolkien capitalized many words in the text, for example "Quest", and "Edain", and especially, "Elves", "Men", "Hobbit"... though I did find a few "hobbit" examples too.

However, - this is kind of funny - WP:MOS specifies not to capitalize them, and lists Tolkien as an example, from WP:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents:

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

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

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

So, it appears to be up in the air. My recommendation is to use upper case, because that's the way it's written in the Tolkien books most (but not all) of the time. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 09:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not inconsistent, please read WP:MeS General rules, Capital letters, 2. If the reference is to the race as a whole then use caps, e.g. "During the Third Age Orcs grew in number" otherwise use lowercase, "Boromir slew two orcs hiding behind a tree". Thu ( talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh for crying out loud. I just looked up the quote in the original source and it isn't even correct as given in this article. Dyson probably didn't even use the f-word, according to Prof. Diana Glyer (discussed below). We can probably never know the actual quote since it was heresay, told by Christopher Tolkien to who-knows-whom before it finally came down to us and was recorded. And as far as we know Christopher never told anybody that he was giving it as an exact quote -- it was just a story that was re-told and then recorded not as an actual quote (as explained below). There are numerous versions of the quote existing, today, perhaps because Christopher has told the story to several other people, as well.

Here are some of the versions of the so-called quote that exist today:

Oh no, another f***ing elf!

Oh no, not another f***ing elf!

Oh f***, not another elf!

Oh G*d, no more elves!

Oh no, not another elf!

Oh no, another bloody elf!

This wiki article uses a version that has no basis in fact. It gets the quote from a newspaper article that was discussing an earlier newspaper article in which it was C.S. Lewis who supposedly said the quote. The writer of the later of these two newspaper articles, A.N. Wilson, says of the earlier article, "This story is not true, though it is a garbled version of a truth." He says that the true story originally "came from Christopher [Tolkien] himself and I put it in my biography of Lewis. It was not CS Lewis who made this unmannerly interruption, but Hugo Dyson..."

Sadly, this wiki article copied the garbled version of the quote rather than going back to Wilson's book to get his un-garbled version of it. We find Wilson's version on pp. 217-218 of C.S. Lewis: A Biography (1990):

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

Reading this, I think it is clear Wilson is not attempting to give an exact quotation but rather is characterizing Wilson's typical complaint, since the immediately preceding verbs are all given as present participles, lying, snorting, grunting, exhaling. These signify on-going action, not a single event. There is no preterite (past tense) verb "Dyson said..." to signify that this was an actual quotation. So this quotation may represent an on-going series of complaints and not any one particular statement, or it may be a characterization of what Dyson said and not his exact statement. Either way, it is heresay and Wilson makes no claims of accuracy.

Another version of the story has Christopher Tolkien quoted as saying that Dyson was, "lying on the couch, and lolling and shouting and saying, ‘Oh God, no more Elves’" [1]. This version is found in a book review of The Company They Keep: C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien as Writers in Community (2007) by Prof. Diana Pavlac Glyer. I will see if I can find a copy of that book to see if the quote given by the book reviewer came from the book itself rather than directly from Christopher, and to see if the book has it in this form.

We can also find it in in a newspaper article as this version, "Oh no! Not another elf!" although there is no source given for that version. I found the several other versions, listed above, too.

Finally, here is an interview with Prof. Glyer [2]:

<Hyarion> One thing I hear a lot is Hugo Dyson's "Not another f-ing elf" comment when Tolkien read The Lord of the Rings, is there evidence of this?

<BerenLazarus> I know Tolkien and Lewis planned to colloborate, but that never happened on a major scale. Did that happen at all?

<BerenLazarus> oh, answer the f-ing elf question please. =)

<Hyarion> For those just joining us we are having a Question and Answer session with Professor Glyer, author of The Company They Keep

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

<Hyarion> heh, if only walls could talk, I'm sure we've lost a lot of what went on during those meetings.

So here is what I conclude: we don't possess the actual quote of Dyson, and therefore the quote should be removed from the article in the interest of accuracy. What we have right now is an urban legend with some basis in truth, but we don't know the actual truth. And since we have no conclusive evidence that Dyson ever used the f-word, we should not be putting that word into his mouth in Wikipedia.

I will wait a couple days to see if anybody can find new evidence for the original version of the quotation. If there is no evidence forthcoming, then I will delete the quotation from the article and replace it with a general characterization of Dyson's attitudes toward Tolkien. Or, please go ahead and make the change now if we have consensus. Sanddune777 ( talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that no matter how much anyone likes that quote, your argument is quite good, because the source is feeble. BUT Diana Glyer over Christopher Tolkien+ Andrew Norman Wilson? she is admitting that this probably happened in that interview:

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

If you say that the Telegraph source is no good because it doesn't accurately quote Wilson, you are right, because thanks to your research we now know that Wilson actually wrote "Oh fuck, not another elf!", and, in the end, this is the strongest source of all because Wilson says Ch. Tolkien told him about this. Anyone that claims that Dyson said: "Oh no, not another elf!" or "Oh no, another bloody elf!" probably doesn't have a source as reliable as Wilson's, because Ch. Tolkien is as close as you can get today to the Inklings. If anyone cares this fucking thing has already been weakly discussed on April 2006 and again on November 2006.-- Yamanbaiia^{( free hugs!)} 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Three comments:

1. Wilson's article in the Telegraph doesn't claim to have gotten either the story or the supposed quotation directly from Christopher. It only claims that the story originally came from Christopher. For all we know Wilson got it from somebody else who got it from Christopher, and for all we know either Wilson or Christopher (or an intermediary) was paraphrasing, not quoting. The passage in Wilson's book reads like a paraphrase, not a quote.

2. I'm trying to get Diana Glyer's book about Tolkien's and Lewis' relationship. This elf-cursing story plays into that relationship since Lewis tried to counteract the effect Dyson had upon Tolkien. As far as we know so far, by interviewing Christopher for her book she may have become a better authority on the elf-cursing than Wilson. It's clear that she doesn't think Wilson gave the exact quote since she disputes it, and I don't know that a scholar would dispute another scholar on a quotation without some cause. If she thought Wilson had the exact quote, then why question it? So let me get her book and we can see what she wrote.

3. Ch.Tolkien was himself a member of the Inklings, and furthermore it was he --- not his father --- who was reading the LOTR material at the time Dyson cursed the elves. So he heard it with his own ears and it is possible to write a letter to ask him directly for what happened.

Best regards, Sanddune777 ( talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to contact me if I can be of further help. As a scholar and

teacher, I would like to thank you for working so hard to get the facts

right.

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

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

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

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

You can't delete, because redirects will be needed for people searching under those names, but I agree that some reorganisation may be needed here. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea - these were the way the novels were originally and most significantly published. There is some need for article improvement. Particularly on the "out of universe" material but that applies to many articles here. What could more beneficially be done is to trim the plot elements in this article and point those after more to the three individual articles. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd (somehow) forgotten the "published separately" bit. That doesn't preclude a single article covering all three, but I agree that your approach above sounds best. Some of the plot summary here has needed trimming for a long time. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevinalewis sounds like the best idea to me, and having been advocating cutting down on the plot section for awhile now, I think it effectively kills two birds with one stone. SorryGuy  Talk  16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly am interested in any plan which will contribute to a trimming of the plot section in this article, so this makes sense to me. I mean, I'm not in principle opposed to the individual volume articles existing, but still, no one has answered for me what the actual point of the articles is, in terms of contributing anything useful beyond this LOTR article. But it's no big deal. On the plot-trimming point, I don't think farming out superfluous plot details to these subsidiary articles solves the problem of what to do with the Background section material though, since it doesn't really belong in any one of them. Anyway, I think probably the main issue here is that the volume articles have simply not been getting much editing attention, and so suffer by comparison with this article. Genedecanter ( talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I'm afraid you're mistaken:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoroastrianism has had indirct influence (by influencing the Roman catholicism ) on the books !! Does anybody have any idea how to add this to the article ? Persianknight ( talk) 11:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Collect a list of references that back up your 'fact' and add them to the article. Thu ( talk) 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tolkien had already completed most of the book, including the ending in its entirety, before the first nuclear bombs were made known to the world at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945."

My problem with the above is that Tolkien might have finished his book before the first functional nuclear bombs were created, but keep in mind that the possibility of a nuclear bomb was known much earlier than 1945.

Say, for instance, that the ring is an allegory for a nuclear bomb: it works in the sense that neither of them shall, "fall in the wrong hands."

Thanks. Seth Arlington ( talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One slight problem; Tolkien himself wrote that the book was "neither allegorical nor topical." (Foreword to the Second Edition) So you can't say "the ring equals nuclear weapons" because it doesn't. It can be representative of nuclear weapons or allusions could be drawn, but Tolkien himself denied any sort of direct allegorical content in his books. Alinnisawest ( talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien wanted his myth to be "applicable" rather than allegorical or topical., i.e., applicable to the situation in which readers found themselves. However he did believe his work was fundamentally Catholic--to what extent, I don't recall. I believe he speaks more about this in his Letters and in the Tolkien Reader.

Kona1611 ( talk) 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I was discussing (and defending) the removal of the above-text from the article. What it suggests is that, "no working nuclear bomb is evidence the ring is not an allegory." In other words, much like yourselves, I think there are better ways to come to this conclusion -- Tolkien's denial, for instance. Saying that, "something doesn't (physically) exist is proof that it's irrelevant," is illogical. Seth Arlington ( talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's very doubtful whether Tolkien, a scholar with a serious abhorrence of science and technology, would have been aware of any theoretical possibilities of nuclear bombs. Remember that the first instance of nuclear fission only took place in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin in 1938 and even then it wasn't realised immediately what had happened. It took Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch until XMas of that year to demonstrate conclusively that that was indeed what had happened in the experiment in question. From there to a bomb requires to make Leo Szilard's concept of the chain reaction to be put into practice and that was done by Szilard himself together with Enrico Fermi in 1939 in Chicago. However, all this was kept totally secret and most lay-people only woke up to the possibility of nuclear fission, chain reactions and nuclear bombs on 6 August 1945 when the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Until then, most people had always assumed that atoms were exactly what their Greek name implied, un-splittable. Tolkien certainly would have, if he ever considered the issue at all, which is highly doubtful. -- Recoloniser ( talk) 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are little to no documented legends of European origin in Lord of the Rings. However, Lord of the Rings is rife with legends, myths and hisotries of eastern people. For example, the Greeks have documented exstensively about the formidable Ethiopian bowmen with their supernatural abilities who also happened to live 'forever'. Sound familiar? Tolkein himself once stated that the story of the Lord of the Rings is his gift to Europe, as it lacks such mythology of its own. The rip off continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.195.252 ( talk) 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No legends of European origin? Ever heard of Der Ring des Nibelungen? Not to mention elves, dwarves, dragons, ... The whole thing is totally European in outlook and by heritage! You must be joking! -- Recoloniser ( talk) 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid revision 194533591 by 65.78.108.234 because I think it is misleading in its present form and does not present the true state of God or gods appearing in LOTR. First, Tolkien's desire was to put the Germanic polytheism into a monotheistic framework and so he invented the Ainur, who are the Valar and the Maiar. Tolkien, in his 1951 letter to Milton Waldman, said Valar are "powers: Anglished as gods," and "On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted---well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity." Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman, and Radagast (all appearing or mentioned in LOTR) are Maiar, who serve the Valar as the next lower level in the hierarchy. In ancient mythologies these would commonly be the second tier of 'gods'. So it does not really do the Tolkien's intentions justice to say that "no gods are present" (as it says in the change that I undid). Furthermore, Gandalf says specifically, in his confrontation with the Balrog, "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, Wielder of the Flame of Anor, You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun. Go Back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." Tolkien explained this as referring to God (see Secret Fire). So again, it is not really presenting the true picture to say "no gods are...even mentioned." Furthermore, the LOTR is not a standalone trilogy, but is part of a series including the Hobbit and the Silmarillion. In the latter, Eru Ilúvatar (God) appears predominantly, as do the gods the Valar and the lesser gods the Maiar. The stories of the Silmarillion are mentioned repeatedly in the LOTR in songs or other references, and so the Silmarillion with its overt creation account and overt discussion of God's relationship with the gods are organically a part of the LOTR. So again, the statement that I deleted did not produce a fair assessment of Tolkien's mythology as we find in in LOTR. Finally, there has been much speculation about the nature of Tom Bombadil, and many hold him to be an incarnation of Eru Ilúvatar (God). Many feel this is the only way to understand Tom's special powers, characteristics and history within the Tolkien universe, and so again it is not presenting the whole picture to say that "no gods are present" as though there hasn't been much serious discussion on this question. So if this topic of whether "gods" appear in the story is to be added into the article, then a more complete and balanced discussion would be required. My opinion is that "gods" are found throughout the story, because the wizards and Sauron and even balrogs are clearly "gods" in the real meaning of the word, as well as in the framework setup by Tolkien, and so in fact the story is rife with gods and not just with religious motifs. However, it is important to keep the article from growing, and I do not think it would be useful to add such a long discussion and it is therefore better kept out entirely. Sanddune777 ( talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Eru appears as "the One" in an appendix but this may not be a clear reference to a monotheistic God (in my opinion) unless the reader has read The Silmarillion. Uthanc ( talk) 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The only explicit reference to a god is in a description of Theoden - "...like a god of old". The reference to "the One" is certainly a reference to a supernatural entity a magnitude of power above anything else in LoTR (including the Valar), but not specifically a "god". Can anyone give some good references for the ideas that Gandalf or Saruman or Tom Bombadil are gods or even Maiar whilst writing the Lord of the Rings? That would be good article content. However, I suspect was this something he retconned into the Sil. -- Davémon ( talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He wanted the Silmarillion to be published at the same time as Lord of the Rings; I don't think he reworked who Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, etc., were when he published the Silmarillion; his writings show that he developed and planned the history of his world quite carefully. Technically, Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast the Brown, Curumo, etc., are properly titled Istari ("Wizard") but they are Maiar. It is hard to distinguish a story set in a history from the history itself; if nothing else, one must accept that Tolkien eventually came to a conclusion, regardless of whether or not he originally thought of it.

Tolkien certainly did not plan his world carefully, rather he rewrote and revised major sections of it over and over, inserting bits here and there and leaving whole swathes of it unfinished and unreconciled. This article is about The Lord of the Rings if Tolkien / Allen & Unwin didn't publish that Gandalf was a "God" or Maiar in The Lord of the Rings, then it doesn't really belong in this article. -- Davémon ( talk) 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I think this section is a valuable addition to the article, it seems silly to only list US editions of what is originally a UK-published book. Does anyone have the relevant information for current HarperCollins editions? Genedecanter ( talk) 06:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added.

Kona1611 ( talk) 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarities drawn between two things do not strictly imply an influence. This entire section is riddled with this kind of basic logical fallacy, everything from Wagner to Beowulf to Odin is an interpretation of Tolkiens work and not evidence of an influence upon him. I've no doubt Tolkiens writings in the Lord of the Rings was actually influenced by some of these things, but they should be sourced and referenced properly. -- Davémon ( talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a couple months since the above comment, but I concur there are original research issues in the influences section. Some of it is verifiable, but much is not. The text is interesting, and may be correct, but we need reliable sources to support the content or it should be pared down.

Another consideration is that there already is a separate influences article. If that article is kept separate, then the section in this article should be much shorter and most of the information should be merged to the other article. Or, the other article could be merged into this one. But keeping the long influences section in this article, plus also a separate article, is excessive duplication.

I noticed there is a merge discussion on that article. Please enter comments at Talk:The Lord of the Rings influences#Merge?.-- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 06:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it is silly to try prove that any one piece of literature is completely original, it is even more silly to argue influences of one work to the next with no basis other than artistic similarities. Though if you think about it, the influence section could be trimmed quite a bit because wikipedia is for a place of recording information. Some random nobody's literary analysis may not even be worth recording. Quotes of authors on oft-talked about arguments (LotR vs D&D for example) could probably stay as they are recording of factual statements, but the rest of the analysis might not. Ssh83 ( talk) 22:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the previous discussion above, most of the influences content was merged and moved to the separate article. Currently, in this article it's only a few paragraphs and most of the sentences have references. After reading the above comment, I added a couple fact-tags to seek references for the unsourced sentences. Since the section is short, and referenced, it seems appropriate to me to keep it in the article. The separate article at J. R. R. Tolkien's influences on the other hand, for sure needs more sources; there are some sections of that page that are well-sourced, but there's a way to go to fill in the rest. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The article grossly misrepresented Eisen, Durwood & Co. v. Christopher R. Tolkien et alii. That decision was reached in '93, based upon copyright law in the wake of 1992 amendments to the Copyright Act of 1976. The 1992 amendments restored copyrights lost by such failures to include notices. Wolheim's theory was valid for the law as it stood from some time before he produced it until those 1992 amemdments went into effect. — SlamDiego _←T 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to take issue with the FA status of this article and it's qualification as one of the best articles written by the Wikipedia community. I should hope that as a community we can do rather better than this. For one thing it is not even error-free in its introduction. Sauron did not create the Rings of Power, he assisted Celebrimbor, the Elven-smith of Eregion, in their making. Celebrimbor was descended from Feanor, the Noldo who created the Silmarils. From Celembrimbor Sauron learned the craft of making Rings of Power and he made the One Ring for himself. When he first put it on his finger and spoke the famous words "One Ring to find them ...", Celebrimbor was aware of him and how he had been deceived and hid the other Rings of Power from him, but Sauron, over a process of years, managed to acquire all of them one by one, the Seven Rings given to the Dwarf-lords and the Nine given to Men. Only the Three given to the Elves remained hidden from him and he never acquired them, nor was he able to establish the dominance of the One over them. Obviously, I don't want this whole story in the article, but to say that Sauron created the Rings of Power is incorrect. Let's change the sentence somwehat.

Writing in the past tense makes for an abomination of a synopsis. Synopses in literary reviews are always written in the presence tense and seeing this one it is easy to see why.

There are several grammatical errors, such as "Harper Collins published seven-volume box set the 'Millenium Edition'," which sounds as if having been written by a Russian. Also, the interpunction needs looking at in various places.

The FA status and the statement that it is one of the best articles in Wikipedia make me somewhat hesitant to undertake a revision. Does this require vetting by editors at this stage or can I just go ahead? -- Recoloniser ( talk) 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Recoloniser. Firstly, I will emphatically restate the Wikipedia mantra, "Be bold!" I encourage you to go ahead and fix up any things that you see can be improved or streamlined, especially factual inaccuracies, grammatical errors, typos, and general copyediting.

It is only upon the larger and/or more contentious issues that you should discuss them here on the Talk Page first of all. The matter of tense in the synopsis is a good example of this. I agree with you entirely on this point, and have argued here a few times in favour of putting the section into present tense, under the arguments that a) it is the understood and accepted tense convention for a plot synopsis, and b) present tense would aid clarity of readability of the section. Perhaps we should re-invigorate this debate. (?)

I have taken the liberty of effecting a couple of the changes you've suggested, especially concerning precisely which rings (ie: just one) Sauron made. Genedecanter ( talk) 11:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, be bold! Please dive in and make any changes you see fit. I recently removed a huge chunk of text (an overlong plot summary, detailing events from "Silmarillion" and the Appendicies) and nobody seems to have complained. The problems are more fundamental than just the grammatical style and some minor plot-points. The lack of representation of significant critical and academic viewpoints makes this article way below-par for an FA. There is no discussion of the style or themes of the work (both recommended by the Novel wikiproject). If it were taken to review it probably wouldn't be an FA any more. The synopsis should be shorter, and definitely be in the present tense.

Perhaps taking the article to FA-review would encourage more editors to actively work on and improve the article? -- Davémon ( talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this section really necessary? It would have to be updated constantly, which seems like a lot of work for no particular purpose. Anyone who wants a copy can walk into any bookstore or order one from any online bookseller, they don't need the ISBN of a particular edition. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{( talk / cont)} 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What would make an edition "current" anyway? Still in print? I bet there are more editions than those listed in print. The book is widely avalible, I see no reason for inclusion. Black ngold29 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One reason is that there are a lot of editions. And I mean a lot. I agree, though, that this information is not really needed. We should have somewhere the date of the latest editions. The changes made between the first and latest editions might be worthy of note somewhere, as might the existence of various anniversary editions (not just limited to the 50th anniversary ones listed there - they did one in 1992 for example, the centenary of Tolkien's birth). Carcharoth ( talk) 07:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

we need a list of notable editions. Compare Homer#Editions. -- dab (𒁳) 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'm going to remove the list of current editions in the meantime. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{( talk / cont)} 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the notes of text in my version of the LoTR book, it states that Dwarfs(mistaken as dwarves), Elfish (Elvish) and Elfin (Elven) (and assuming Elfs [Elves]) are the correct spelling, and in appendix E, '"f" represents f, unless at the end of the word, where it is used to represent the sound of "v"' -- Yellow Onion ( talk) 15:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what your edition of the book is, as it is stating incorrect information. Tolkien was very specific on this point, because proofreaders were constantly reverting his spellings. Dwarfs, elfs, etc. are/were the accepted English plurals for those creatures in folk mythology; however Tolkien deliberately altered his spellings to show that his creations are in no way related to the fairy creatures that live at the bottom of the garden. Genedecanter ( talk) 01:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a casual Wikipedia user and casual LOR fan, so will not impose my edits, but rather respectfully suggest that the following sentence from the 3rd para be revised:

"From quiet beginnings in the Shire, a hobbit land which is not unlike the English countryside, the story ranges across Middle-earth following the course of the War of the Ring through the eyes of its characters, most notably the hobbits, Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee (Sam), Meriadoc Brandybuck (Merry) and Peregrin Took (Pippin)."

Neither subjects of this run-on sentence, "hobbit land" nor "the story," are "from quiet beginnings."

I am not sure what is supposed to be quiet -- the beginning of the story or the Shire -- but either way, you're probably better off starting with the subject: "The story, beginning quietly in the Shire" or "The story, beginning in the quiet Shire" are two possibilities. You could then follow that with "ranges across Middle-earth..."

Perhaps more interestingly, the subject could be the heroes themselves. "Lord of the Rings tells the journey of hobbits Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee (Sam), Meriadoc Brandybuck (Merry) and Peregrin Took (Pippin), as they travel from their peaceful Shire, across Middle-earth, in the midst of the War of the Ring, to the center of evil in Mordor."

Or something like that.  : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrsic ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 August 2008

I'm not the first person to say this, but I think the issue should be dealt with on this page. I seem to remember there used to be a paragraph or two about it, but perhaps it got deleted.

I used to be a huge fan of Tolkien when I was eight or so, but the older I get, the more his narrative looks like racialist fantasizing, the kind of story intended to sustain the narrative promoted by both Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa in order to garner more domestic support for their repressive/imperialist policies.

Just read this plot synopsis:

Evil, scheming, manipulative [ ] control vast hordes of intrinsically inferior, stupid, violent [ ] and plan to conquer white people's beautiful lands with beautiful white women, who the white men must protect with their lives.

What would you put there?

Would be it be "dark lords" controlling armies of "orcs and ogres"?

Or would it be that familiar old racial narrative - "Jewish Bolsheviks" manipulating armies of Slavs or blacks to take over Berlin or Pretoria?

They seem pretty interchangeable to me. What do you think? 144.89.186.134 ( talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This sort of commentary really has no place in this article, unless you can reference published secondary sources and can demonstrate that the racism claims are a notable part of the academic discourse, and not just the sensationalist assertions of a few.

Apart from this, if you do actually feel that LOTR is a racist text, then I think that you are fundamentally missing the point. The link between Middle-earth and Nazi Germany is that both were informed by and inspired by the cultural/social/political/etc. traditions and attitudes of historical Europe. The connection begins and ends there. Your fill-in-the-blanks example could just as easily apply to just about any war propaganda, true or made up, throughout history. Genedecanter ( talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. A cursory Google search reveals (as it often does, hint hint) that there is a position held by academics and critics alike, arguing that the similarities go far beyond ordinary "us vs. them" propaganda and that the works contain explicitly racial overtones.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jan/08lord.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/dec/02/jrrtolkien.lordoftherings

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277166.shtml

http://www.mcall.com/features/chi-030112epringsrace,0,371390.story

I quote from another article:

"Frankly, the image of a mail-clad group of warriors making their last stand against a rabble of subhumans with the cry “Men of the West, stand firm!” is enough to give anyone pause for thought."

And another:

"Percentage of protagonists in Fellowship who are white: 100. Meanwhile the black-skinned antagonists and their black crow spies and their black glass seeing ball inhabit their black towers and perform black magic. One would have to be blind to miss the symbolism."

And another:

"Interestingly enough, after each battle the Humans and Elves never take any prisoners. They make a point to slaughter every last Goblin. Because they believe that no one can transcend their race. Essentially, the heroes in LOTR are on a genocidal campaign. "

Frankly, the response of many Tolkien fans to allegations of racism reminds one of Churchill's admirers when confronted with evidence of his anti-Semitism: "You just made it up!"

I'm not saying that Tolkien was a Nazi or that I have the best idea regarding the best way to integrate this obviously important perspective on his immensely popular material into the article. But it should probably be there, and a scholarly review of connotations and popular interpretations should neither be dismissed as "sensationalist" nor excluded from the article. 144.89.186.134 ( talk) 07:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That Tolkien fans would say that it was made-up doesn't mean that part of it wasn't made up. So: 1. The antagonist Saruman isn't black-skinned, the antagonist Sauron hadn't been either before his skin was burnt (as it were), the skin-color of the Orcs is never commented upon - according to the in-universe "corrupted Elves" theory they would rather be white -, and the Haradrim are black-skinned but not so really antagonists. 2. It is quite true that it is Human and Elf policy not to take Orc prisoners; Orcs are to be hunted down. However, the sentence become quite false once you leave the word "Orc" out of it. They do make a point to slaughter the last Goblin; but only Goblin. And that is proof not for their believing noone can transcend their race, but if anything that noone can transcend their species; a rather different matter (all the difference between a racist who wants to punish what he calls "miscegenation" and a decent man who wants to punish the ghastly crime of bestiality); and then, this species is in-universe described as, for all practical matters (leaving out in-universe theological discussions), helplessly evil. On the other hand, they do not make a policy to slaughter any other prisoners; Haradrim (abused by the real villains) are taken prisoners, lauded for their bravery, and get a peace settlement.-- 2001:A61:20FD:6F01:2D4B:F257:210A:A110 ( talk) 15:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please be bold! and add this woefully absent material to the article. I don't think "indymedia" is a very good source, but the Guardian certainly is, and there are many, many other good sources for the material out there. A Rearicks "Why is the only good orc a dead orc?" ([www.lib.washington.edu/subject/history/bi/honors251c/tol.pdf]) should be useful not only in and of itself but it points to many of the debates. The Reception section is probably the best place for discussing reader-responses to the book, so suggest it goes there. As you rightly point out the tone must be kept as neutral as possible. Davémon ( talk) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the links out (along with the copy-and-pasted quotes) and all they amount to are accusations viewed through the narrow lens of a handful of individuals. I suppose these may justify a single sentence under the "Receptions" section, but no more than that. Fact remains that there is no hard evidence here that Tolkien was racist (to the contrary, I would submit), whether or not some people perceive racial undertones in his imagery. LotR ( talk) 13:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether Tolkien was a racist or whether The Lord of the Rings has been perceived as racist are two entirely different propositions. The latter is well documented and must be properly covered in the article. Davémon ( talk) 13:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really -- if The LOTR is racist (as accused) then it must follow that its author was racist. Just because there are accusations that are "well documented" doesn't mean they deserve acknowledgment in a introductory encyclopedia article. I'm not saying it can't be mentioned (as stated above), but only a single sentence or two should suffice, perhaps along the lines of: "LOTR has been perceived as racist by some individuals based upon imagery Tolkien used for forces of good and evil [ref], even though Tolkien himself was never known to be racist."). LotR ( talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Readers may perceive all sorts of things that weren't intended by authors, there doesn't have to be a cause and effect. Reader responses are valid interpretations of the text - whatever the author may have said their intentions were. I like your first draft on the opening sentence, but would make minor amends and expand for clarity: "The Lord of the Rings has been perceived as racist by critics such as Dr Stephen Shapiro, John Yatt [Guardian], David Tjader[see Tolkien and the Invention of Myth ed. Jane Chance p.113] and these arguments are often based upon the imagery depicting forces of good and evil and the theme of race as determining characters behavior.[ref] Scholars such as Anderson Rearick and Sandra Ballif Straubhaar have refuted these arguments by pointing out the omission of relevant evidence and the influence of imagery from adaptations rather than the work itself, alongside citing the absence of evidence of racist attitudes or events in the authors personal life.[ref Rearick]". I don't think we need to go into lengthly specifics of the arguments, Tolkiens attitudes towards anti-semetism or his descriptions of orcs as "mongolian", but just acknowledge the debate properly. Davémon ( talk) 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable enough to me. The references below, assuming they verify, would be OK to cite as well, although again, we should not get too carried away on this tangent. Your draft with some small copyedits: "The Lord of the Rings has been perceived as racist by critics such as Dr Stephen Shapiro, John Yatt [Guardian], David Tjader [see Tolkien and the Invention of Myth ed. Jane Chance p.113], and these arguments are often based upon the imagery depicting forces of good and evil and the theme of race (e.g., Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, Man, Orc) as determining characters' behavior.[ref] Scholars such as Anderson Rearick and Sandra Ballif Straubhaar have refuted these arguments by pointing out the omission of relevant evidence and the influence of imagery from adaptations rather than the work itself, alongside citing the absence of evidence of racist attitudes or events in the author's personal life.[ref Rearick]". LotR ( talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the material (again minor adjustments). I think it does a good job of being neutral. No doubt there will be other opinions! -- Davémon ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd post a few articles from the past several years that I found that seem to address this topic (though I don't have copies of them, sorry!). Namely:

• Two discussions of Tolkien's racial sensitivity in his work: McFadden, Brian. "Fear of Difference, Fear of Death: The Sigelwara, Tolkien's Swertings, and Racial Difference." In Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages, eds. Jane Chance and Alfred K. Siewers. [New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005] 155-69. and Chance, Jane. "Tolkien and the Other: Race and Gender in the Middle Earth.” In Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages, eds. Jane Chance and Alfred K. Siewers. [New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005] 171-86.
• An argument for Tolkien being a Nazi in all but German-ness: Werber, Niels "Geo- and Biopolitics of Middle-earth: A German Reading of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings" New Literary History 36: 227-46
• An argument against Anti-Semitism charges against Tolkien:Bird, Craig. “Do Anti-Semitism Charges Against Tolkien Ring True?” NJ Jewish News, 29 Nov 2001, reprinted in Chesterton Review 28: 284-286
• An article discussing Tolkien's response to Nazism (as contrasted to Wagner and Nazi theorist Arthur Rosenberg): Chism, Christine. "Middle-earth, the Middle Ages, and the Aryan Nation: Myth and History in World War II." In Tolkien The Medievalist, ed. Jane Chance. [New York: Routledge, 2003] p. 63-92.

Hope that helps, Astraflame ( talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize that it is tough to talk about these things to people who enjoy Tolkien's work; since the loaded term "racism" is universally accepted as "bad" or pejorative, then anything "good", like Tolkien, can't possibly be racist.

But that's not really the case. Was Wagner racist? It doesn't necessarily matter; Wagner's music has acquired strong Nazi connotations and these have to be addressed in his article. That doesn't mean that you can't play the Bridal March at your wedding, it just means people should know about popular, polarizing interpretations of art.

If you go to StormFront.org, probably the most popular neo-Nazi/"white nationalist" forum on the web, they have an entire board dedicated to LotR. I personally think you'd have to be daft to not see how Tolkien's work assists these types of people in constructing a narrative dealing with the "imminent threat" of "dark-skinned races" to "the West." Even the non-white humans - the Haradrim (Arabs) and Easterlings (Asians) work for Sauron, the dark lord.

To be fair, Tolkien's work has also been appropriated by Haight-Ashbury hippies; I believe this is already addressed in the article. Nobody's saying Tolkien wrote books to give racists ammunition, but what we are saying is that his work reflects a strongly race-oriented mentality common among affluent Europeans of his time and that this aspect of his work cannot be simply negated in our modern, multiracial society where his works are popular.

Basically, the reason that I did this before adding to the article is to get a productive discussion going before adding a paragraph that would be immediately removed by some irate Tolkien fan. I'll put something in soon. 144.89.186.134 ( talk) 20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite the appropriation of the text by neo-nazi groups to reliable third parties? or cite the argument that the racism seen in LoTR been seen as attributable to Tolkiens acceptance of the prevailing attitudes of the times? that would be useful. -- Davémon ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The important part of all this is that it must be based on reliable sources, not guesses. This is a useful discussion so far, but it's not completely clear yet.

It's also important to note several other aspects of the question: the imagery might be perceived as racists by some, but that does not mean that it was motivated by racist feelings on the part of the writer; there are also examples in the books of multiple races working together without prejudice: hobbits, elves, men, dwarves, eagles, and so on. Hobbits have hairy feet and leathery soles, dwarves have long dark beards and like to live and work in underground caverns; elves find men crude and annoying in many ways, etc. In addition, people of any culture, when expressing the feelings of an alien culture invading, would use descriptions of people who look different than they do. If Tolkien were Chinese, maybe the invaders would have been blond. That's not racism, it's just story-telling.

Regarding the "good" races treatment of the captives from "bad" races, ie, that Orcs are killed and no rehabilitation is attemtped; that's not racism, that's just practicality - Orcs, as fantasy creatures portrayed in the story, are evil and through and through. There would be no place for them in any society not ruled by the Dark Lord or one of his surrogates. Is it racist to refer the the Dark Lord as Dark? Darkness is an archetype of evil; would the story be the same if the Dark Lord was the Lord of Light? Lucifer has been described that way. But it would be a different story. When light is extinguished, darkness comes. Humans fear the dark for good reasons; humans don't see in the dark, but plenty of creepy creatures and predators do function well in the dark.

I'm not arguing that there is no racism in the story, my comment is to show that there are many ways to view those questions; it's not obvious one way or the other. The only way any of this can be addressed to research the sources and report them appropriately, with due weight - and that is very small relative to the huge scope of literary discussion of the topic so it should not use much space in the article. If there are direct comments on that question by Tolkien, those should be presented as well. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone of the Wikipedia:Talk guidelines. This isn't right place to debate your personal views. Thanks. -- Davémon ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Davémon I agree with your comment, but it's not clear if you meant it as a response to mine just above - or is it a response to others? I'm just asking, because I wasn't debating personal views in what I wrote, the whole point of my comment was to illustrate that the questions about imagery and relations have more than one way they can be interpreted; and interpreting is not our job. The only way to address this topic in the article is to use verifiable information, with due weight. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jack-A-Roe, it could have been phrased better - a general reminder to everyone (myself included) and a response to the previous two posts. Writing our own interpretations to illustrate a valid point, rather than citing interpretations from verifiable sources to do the same job, or just stating the point on its own, can create all sorts of straw-man responses - I was trying to pre-empt that. As you rightly say, the issue is really just ensuring wp:v wp:or and wp:due are met. Is the current racism paragraph ok, or does it need work? -- Davémon ( talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. Thanks for clarifying. About the paragraph as it is in the article currently, I don't see it as a problem, though the references regarding racism are marginal. If there are scholars who see racism in the story, it would be better if we could have the actual scholar sources rather than newspaper reports. Maybe after a while we can find those. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 05:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. On re-reading the paragraph again, it seemed to have some unneeded attribution, so I modified it. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 06:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine. People will change it as they see fit, but as long as it's been decided here that the subject warrants a mention, we can at least justify it to people who just delete it out of being offended by the possibility that non-white people could see the story in a totally different and possibly negative light than white people perceive it. (I think the issue deserves a link in the Table of Contents, but I'll compromise on that.)

"Is it racist to refer the the Dark Lord as Dark?"

You could find a lot of academics who would argue that it is; for example, Achebe's well-known critical piece on Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Not that this is a particularly encyclopedia-worthy source, but you could also read:

http://www.united-church.ca/intercultural/becoming/darkness

Just a thought. 144.89.186.134 ( talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

the racism question is duly addressed in the JRRT bio article (under "views"). -- dab (𒁳) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The amount of time these so-called "racism watchdogs" generally put into research about the man and his work is zilch. They all scrape the much-worn surface but fail to bring anything new, beacuse they can't. It's just rehash after rehash, and each one seasons his own hash. 222.127.90.98 ( talk) 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Republican does not seem to want to acknowledge that Battlelore and their music is 100% based off Tolkien's work, unless I provide evidence. So here it is:

"All of Battlelore's lyrics concern J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth."

- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlelore

"Numerous bands devote themselves to the literary works of British author J.R.R. Tolkien and pay homage to Middle Earth's diverse cultures and inhabitants. However, only a few bands live up to his extraordinary tales and are able to clad them into a fitting suit of armor. One of these bands is the Finnish formation BATTLELORE, who have enthralled countless fans with their unique blend of Epic Fantasy Metal. "

- http://www.napalmrecords.com/hp_promo.php?bioID=63&osCsid=1d0a23f224edf2865ff5546edb315a3f —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.115.243 ( talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This really belongs in Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien rather than this article - more space could be devoted to Battlelore there. In this article we need to stick to discussing only the most notable and strictly LoTR-based influences and summarising general influences. We already sum up the Tolkien influence on the Metal genre, which covers Battlelore. Incidently neither the record company nor wikipedia are independant reliable sources - maybe some magazine reviews of the new album would be better evidence. -- Davémon ( talk) 14:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As can be seen here (the reference which I put up in the article), Battlelore in fact happen to be entirely based on LotR. Read the discography and you'll see how they release one concept album after the other. De728631 ( talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the Lord of the Rings is important to Battlelore - but Battlelore aren't important to a general readers understanding of the cultural impact of Lord of the Rings - in a way that Led Zeppelin certainly are, and perhaps Enya and Burzum also. Battlelore reference Tolkiens other works - such as the Istari in "the Forgotten Wizards, parts I and II", which appear in the Unfinished Tales, and "Mark of the Bear" which references the Hobbit, rather than the LoTR itself. For these reasons I think Battlelore would be better dealt with in Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien. -- Davémon ( talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with you now. With so many other references to Tolkien's work in general, Battlelore should better be mentioned in Works inspired by JRRT. De728631 ( talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Edited music section to fit the one in Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien. It was obviously too black metal-centered, while there are lots of other metal bands that take influence from JRRT. Lacking Blind Guardian here seemed a crime against truth (they even heave a song called Lord of the Rings). Garret Beaumain ( talk) 16:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well in the Fellowship of the Ring in Moria, Frodo hears footsteps or he thinks he does. Then it says that it is not an echo because when the Fellowship stops it continues for a couple of seconds. Is that not an echo?-- Kangaroo2 ( talk) 18:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's Gollum following them hence the eyes that he sees when he's on watch. Thu ( talk) 10:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What does all this have to do with the article??-- Michael X the White ( talk) 10:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the recent edits made by Sam1w should be un-reverted and kept. The Orcs under Saruman's direct command are Uruk-Hai; there are, however, other Orcs assisting them with Merry and Pippin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario777Zelda ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the piece on the public reception of Ace Books' pirated edition did not quote any references, and unfortunately I can't quote any either, except to say that I remember reading such and such in one of Tolkien's early (unauthorised) biographies.

The current article says:

Tolkien took issue with this and quickly notified his fans of this objection.[citation needed] Grass-roots pressure from these fans became so great that Ace Books withdrew their edition and made a nominal payment to Tolkien, well below what he might have been due in an appropriate publication.[citation needed] However, this poor beginning was overshadowed when an authorized edition followed from Ballantine Books and Houghton Mifflin to tremendous commercial success.

My comments are:

1. The impression I got from the biography was that LOTR's success in the US was largely due to the pirated edition. It was the pirated edition that made LOTR popular in the US.

2. How would Tolkien "notify his fans"? Did he have a fanclub in those days? I doubt it. No, it is pure speculation that Tolkien put pressure on Ace Books, informally, through his fan base, to withdraw the pirated edition. I suggest the section quoted above be changed to:

Ace Books eventually paid Tolkien a token amount. An authorized edition was later published by Ballantine Books and Houghton Mifflin, and was a tremendous commercial success. -- leuce ( talk) 06:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm away from home right now, and therefore away from my books. I remember material in The Letters of JRR Tolkien, however, that discussed this. I do believe the Tolkien Society was already formed. Anyway, Tolkien did indeed write several letters informing people about the pirate book. There was also info in there about the resolution of the deal, but I don't remember the details...does anyone else have the Letters of JRRT? If not, I'll get back here in a month when I've got my book back. Nuidramdad ( talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

2. How would Tolkien "notify his fans"? Did he have a fanclub in those days? I doubt it. No, it is pure speculation that Tolkien put pressure on Ace Books, informally, through his fan base, to withdraw the pirated edition.

He made it clear to US fans that wrote letters to him and there was a message from him on the back of the Ballantine paperbacks (see Ballantine Books). Thu ( talk) 10:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• In the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #271 Tolkien says, "Incidentally, I am making a point of including a note in every answer or acknowledgement of 'fan' letters from the U.S.A. to the effect that the paperback edition of Ace Books is piratical and issued without the consent of my publishers or myself and of course without remuneration to us. Do you think that if this were done on a larger scale it might be useful?"

In letter number 279 he says, "My campaign in U.S.A. has gone well. 'Ace Books' are in quite a spot, and many institutions have banned all their products. They are selling their pirate edition quite well, but it is being discovered to be very badly and erroneously printed; and I am getting such an advt. from the rumpus that I expect my 'authorized' paper-back will in fact sell more copies than it would, if there had been no trouble or competition."

Then in letter number 284 he says, "May I intrude into this letter a note on Ace Books, since I have engaged to inform 'my correspondents' of the situation. They in the event sent me a courteous letter, and I signed an 'amicable agreement' with them to accept their voluntary offer under no legal obligation: to pay a royalty of 4 per cent. on all copies of their edition sold, and not to reprint it when it is exhausted (without my consent). The half of this which I shall retain after taxation will be welcome, but not yet great riches. . . . . ."

and that's all. :) incidentally, letter # 276 was his first letter to the Tolkien Society of America. ;) hope that's helpful... Nuidramdad ( talk) 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that Tolkien was born there, but his parents were English and Tolkien lived in England for the majority of his life. The article on Tolkien itself calls him an

"...English writer, poet, philologist, and university professor, best known as the author of the high fantasy classic works The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings."

Is there a source that states that Tolkien self-identified as South African? If not, I believe the introduction should refer to him as an English author. Or even a "South African-born English author", but that's a bit unnecessary.

I am changing the article for now, because this appears to be a recent edit without much reasoning behind it. If the person who made the edit in the first place wishes to come forward and explain it, that's fine. But to me it seems a simple case of mistaking Tolkien's place of birth as his cultural background. IceKeyHunter ( talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He was born in the Orange Free State...a British colony to English parents. He would not identify himself as South African. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.104.251 ( talk) 06:33, 2 January 2009 (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.

I'm just wondering, since the Lord of the Rings consists of Book 1 to 6 and a seperate book of Apendices, if it would réally be a "trilogy". This same discussion has also been brought up on the trilogy-page and last time I checked, people have settled with calling only the three movies a trilogy but naming the collection of lotr-books a 'series of novels'. Cyanid ( talk) 01:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a novel, sometimes published in one volume and sometimes in three or six (or seven if you count the Appendices). 91.107.167.142 ( talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So it should not be in Category:Trilogies then. Shall I remove it? Darth Newdar (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)