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.

I put this at A-class for the Middle-earth WikiProject, and B-class for the others. People are welcome to do a GA nomination if they wish. I think the better approach is to work on the issues raised at the Featured Article Review and then resubmit it for FA in a month or so, but only if the work has been done. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It has multiple citation needed tags. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, just to inform those who are interested in editing, reference #22 returns HTTP 404.

Öncel Acar ( talk) 02:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the synopsis, I was wondering if it should be rewritten to show the events happening as they did in the books. For example, you might move the opening paragraph lower down (since this information isn't revealed right away). Mario777Zelda ( talk) 02:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The synopsis is intended to explain the story rather than re-tell it. A readers experience of the synopsis doesn't have to replicate that of reading the books. We're not trying to replace the books. I've been thinking that we should remove the individual book divisions from the synopsis, and treat the narrative as one story, working in some of Appendicies stories - a sentence on what Aragorn was doing at the begining, Sam becoming leader of the shire etc. -- Davémon ( talk) 08:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article makes a cursory mention of one article that criticized the movies as "dumbing down" Tolkien and creating a barrier to Tolkien studies. This is a really myopic representation of the field of Tolkien studies, which is expanding rapidly and contributing to the transformation of academia's understanding of LotR. See the Tolkien Studies journal, for one: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tolkien_studies/toc/tks1.1.html

If someone who has the time and inclination to research Tolkien Studies could do some more work on this, it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencimusprime ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the addition of "(often abbreviated LotR)". If you doubt the validity of the claim, feel free to discuss it here, but I think you'll have a hard time arguing against 3,000,000 Google hits for " lord of the rings +lotr", the existence of an Lotr redirect since 2004, the consistent use of the abbreviation on this discussion page, and its frequent use on fan sites and in academic literature. DES ( talk) 09:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the users contesting the addition. I don't think anyone doubts that the abbreviation is verifiably often used, rather the issue is a stylistic one with mentioning it in the opening sentence - it reads as rather fansitey to me. We don't tend to mention similar common abbreviations for other texts e.g. As You Like It. CIreland ( talk) 09:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because AYLI is more commonly used in other, non-Shakespearean contexts? The bard gets only three out of the first ten Google hits for AYLI. For LotR, I gave up looking for non-Tolkien hits after ten pages. DES ( talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that you could have the "(often abbreviated LotR)" somewhere else in the article - having it in the first paragraph makes no sense. Fans of The Lord of the Rings will already know that it is abbreviated to that, and people who are interested in reading a Wikipedia article about it (or at least the first paragraph) won't want to know what's its abbreviated to. So, I would suggest moving it somewhere else on the article. Darth Newdar ( talk) 14:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is wp:Trivial, and has no place in an encyclopedia, least of all in the first line of the lede. If it was significant, the abbreviation would be cited in reliable sources who would say something interesting about it. -- Davémon ( talk) 11:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing how a commonly used abbreviation has no place in a encyclopedia? HP, F1 etc, there are lots of... for reliable sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I could go on. — CHAN DLER ^#10 — 11:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not important to the subject of "The Lord of the Rings" that its title gets abbreviated. HP or F1 or VAT or IRS or FBI or MI6 are a totally different case, they are more commonly known by their abbreviated version than their full names. A more relevant (in dealing with fiction) example would be STTNG which is nearly always abbreviated in certain circles, still the article does not need to mention the abbreviation. Without an actual citation to reliable source, then it doesn't belong here anyway. If you can find a source that says something interesting about the abbreviation, perhaps it's use in marketing, merchandising or fandom or somesuch, then it might deserve inclusion somewhere in the sections that deal with these topics. -- Davémon ( talk) 19:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, have it your way. I've had my fill. It seems you're more interested in picking semantic nits than in writing an encyclopedia. DES ( talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article (I think) should not be in Category:Trilogies. According to the article on Trilogy, it is not a trilogy, though it is often referred to as such. Does being "often referred to as such" warrant it being in Category:Trilogies? I don't think so. So, if you approve, I'll remove it from that category. Darth Newdar ( talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a novel published in three volumes rather than a sequence of three novels. I don't see how it can be considered a trilogy. Thu ( talk) 09:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed Category:Trilogies. Darth Newdar (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed misinformation about Nightwish:

The Finnish symphonic power metal group Nightwish take much inspiration for their music from Tolkien's works, including the entire Wishmaster album, and many of their songs on later albums, including the cover of Gary Moore's "Over The Hills And Far Away".

Not a single word of truth. Wishmaster is not a concept album, and features only one song at least to mention a Tolkien's character. It is not even Tolkien-themed, as there are references to Dragonlance series, and other fantasy fiction. Over the Hills and Far Away is a song about a man tried for a roberry he didn't commit. It has no reference to Tolkien themes. Of all Nightwish songs, hardly two or three are Tolkien-inspired.-- Garret Beaumain ( talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

More to the point it wasn't cited and is trivial. -- Davémon ( talk) 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't imagine that this is particularly notable, but there were at least two British publishing houses for 8-bit computer programs that took their names (possibly indirectly) from LotR: the games publisher M.C. Lothlorien and the Amstrad publisher Arnor. Loganberry ( Talk) 01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! I should think that it counts. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In czech LOTR means rogue / scoundrel / villain / varlet ... In czech FOTR means gaffer or pops. It originated from german Vater and sometimes it's rude to say it. You can be sure people noticed it. It might be enough just to let it here. Because it might be interesting trivia for some. 86.61.232.26 ( talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

LotR has been the abbreviation of the book's title since it came out in the fifties. It's an abbreviation of English words, why should the English Wikipedia care what other languages may interpret into the letters? We cannot check any combination of letters for its possible meanings in other languages. Cush ( talk) 19:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the use of the word "sentient" in the introduction. When describing science fiction and fantasy, people often use the word "sentient" when what they actually mean is "sapient." Sentience refers to the ability to perceive, while sapience refers to human-like, advanced intelligence. Should the word be changed in the introduction, or should it be left alone considering its usual usage as a misnomer in literary parlance? I vote for changing it. -- n-k, 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

People's Exhibit A (the sentence in question): The lands of Middle-earth are populated by Men (humans) and other humanoid races (Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs), as well as many other sentient creatures good and evil, such as Ents, Wargs, Balrogs, Trolls.

Yes, sentient is the wrong word. But this whole sentence is pretty bad. The structure is awful. And are not Ents and Trolls also humanoid? Are Balrogs "creatures"? Can we rewrite this in such a way that it doesn't end up being such a catalog, but reflects rather that many of the non-human animals of Middle-earth are capable of rational speech? Elphion ( talk) 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: The lands of Middle-earth are inhabited by humans, a variety of humanoid species, and many non-human animals capable of rational speech. Elphion ( talk) 02:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Elphion, and I like your suggestion. n-k, 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Elphion ( talk) 17:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"many non-human animals capable of rational speech." This is wrong, there isn't a single talking animal in The Lord of the Rings, although there is a fox which thinks in English, he hardly counts as 'many'. -- Davémon ( talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "many" may be is a bit enthusiastic; but it says "the lands of Middle-earth", not "The Lord of the Rings". There are at least the Eagles, the Wargs, and the Ravens; and the Eagles do speak in LotR. Also, the constant suspicion that the animals (especially the birds) are spying on them entails at least the belief that they could communicate. Elphion ( talk) 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just think that to a reader unfamiliar with the text, the phrase "many non-human animals capable of rational speech" means the book is something like Doctor Dolittle, which is a bit misleading. This article is about The Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit (which has talking Spiders, Ravens, Wargs and purses too). I forgot Gwaihir! he talks - so I count 2 actual 'talking' animals in the book, and Bill the Pony could almost talk, according to Sam.

Suggestion: The lands of Middle-earth are inhabited a variety of peoples with their own distinct physiologies and cultures. -- Davémon ( talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That goes too far the other way. It could be a book by Margaret Mead!

Suggestion: The lands of Middle-earth are inhabited by a variety of human and non-human peoples. Elphion ( talk) 04:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it. -- Davémon ( talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that, according to Middle-earth WikiProject, it should be written in past tense. By the way, considering Elphion made the suggestion on 27 May, is somebody actually going to change it? I like Elphion's last suggestion (apart from changing the tense). Darth Newdar (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According to wp:novel we should use present continuous tense (or whatever it's called) - the wp:me "let's put everything in past-tense because Tolkien used a narrative device whereby his stories are a feigned history" idea isn't currently upheld. -- Davémon ( talk) 18:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add it, but the sentence really doesn't belong in that paragraph at all -- it reads like it's just tacked on. So instead of changing it, I just removed it altogether. About tense: I'm not aware the project ever decided to switch to narrative present, and for consistency's sake there would now be an awful lot of text to change. Elphion ( talk) 06:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This synopsis, and especially its opening lines, follow the story of Peter Jackson's film, not JRR Tolien's trilogy. FOTR does not begin with scenes of Sauron forging the ring, nor with the story of Izildur, but with Bilbo's birthday... There's a problem there, I think. I will not edit for now - what do the others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.143.100.253 ( talk) 10:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is providing a synopsis of the plot rather than trying to recreate the dramatic form Tolkien created. If that is causing confusion then we need to address that issue. Other than the similarity to various adaptations (Peter Jackson, Ralph Bashki and Brian Sibley each begin with the forging of the Ring) is there a problem with the synopsis? -- Davémon ( talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article's synopsis' first paragraph is a backstory, to explain to the person who does not know what happens in LOTR what's going on. And the second paragraph does say "The novel begins in the Shire, as Frodo Baggins inherits the ring from Bilbo...". Maybe the first paragraph could be re-phrased slightly to make the point that it is backstory? Darth Newdar (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That part of the article used to specify that it was the backstory. I don't know when that was changed or why, but it should be there. I've added it. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So what's the difference between:

"In the backstory, prior to the start of the novel, Sauron forges the Ruling Ring of Power in Mordor."

and

"Prior to the start of the novel, Sauron forges the Ruling Ring of Power in Mordor."

(apart from the use of the script-writer's term "backstory", an ugly word that is out of place in discussing literary works)? Is your childhood a backstory? Does something have to be scripted for the screen before it becomes real?
Elphion ( talk) 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not particularly attached to the use of the term "backstory" (though I also don't see it as a problem). But it does seem important to point out that although the incidents that came before form the basis of the story, they are not known to the characters as the story unfolds. Also, Tolkien did use previously written material as backstory (or whatever term you prefer); he had already written those other stories prior to writing the novel, and he drew from them as the novel took form.-- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made some changes and removed the "backstory" term. Does this work better?

The story takes place in the context of historical events in Middle-earth. In those histories, prior to the start of the novel and not known to the main characters, Sauron forges the Ruling Ring of Power in Mordor.

-- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found some more info on this, in the Return of the Shadow, one of the Christopher Tolkien books tracing the history of the Lord of the Rings and how it was written. It turns out that JRR Tolkien had not written the earlier history of the forging of the Rings prior to writing LOTR, that history was worked out during the writing of the main novel and changed as the novel was written. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That latest suggestion is excellent. Darth Newdar (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the characters know most of the earlier history of the ring (in fact the only thing that Gandalf, Aragorn and Saruman, don't know is that Bilbo's ring is the One Ring). The seems to be putting a lot of emphasis on something that is reasonably trivial to the plot.

Suggestion "Long years before the story begins, Sauron forged the One Ring etc."

Also do we need to include the forging of the 9 and the 3 in order to to explain the nazgul and the threat to the elves, or is this just too much detail which isn't really significant to the plot? -- Davémon ( talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points. The thing I was trying to get across is that the hobbits (rather than the other characters) don't know about the Ring and its history at the start of the story. Although Gandalf and Aragorn are important characters, Frodo is the main protagonist, along with the other hobbits - they are the characters through which we see the story unfold. So it seems we should describe what those main characters know, so that their actions can be understood- that's how I would do it, then again, maybe it's not needed, or maybe it's not clear which are the main characters and we might need a reliable source to interpret that for us, if we want to address that properly.

As far as adding more detail, I like that idea. I think this synopsis was longer a while ago and has been made shorter over time. It seems too compressed to me, as it is now. There are also plot summaries in the articles about the individual volumes, but those are in even more detail, so maybe there can be a good middle ground here. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 22:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I heavily re-edited the synopsis because it was far too long, and overly detailed, which was one of the reasons the article failed it's FA review, so the current version is largely my fault. I'm not trying to own it in any way, but will encourage brevity and linearity (not following the order of events as they are revealed in the novel) and inclusivity (integrating the Appendicies into the whole). The 'problem' created by the linear retelling of the plot is that people familiar with the work expect the summary to follow the structure of the work, so this in some way needs to be explained to them, in as simple a way as possible. That different characters know different things isn't really significant to the main plot (although it does cause Gandalfs imprisonment in Orthanc).

The level of detail just needs to be that the reader can make sense of the plot, we don't mention the Barrow-wights or the Woses (for example) because while they add depth and texture to the narrative they are incidental to the main thrust. I think that is the best measure of what to include in the synopsis and what to leave out. Why the One Ring has power and must be destroyed I think is significant for explaining the motives of all the main characters.

Also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate suggests a characters section, which could take a lot of the information burden out of the synopsis and keep it succinct. -- Davémon ( talk) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In this article, the Nazgûl are consistently referred to as the Ringwraiths. Is this correct? I would of thought Nazgûl is the correct title for them. Darth Newdar (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nazgûl is the more commonly used word in the story, but Ringwraith is more descriptive for the novice reader, in my opinion. -- Davémon ( talk) 18:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Several of the current references are to a PDF from the Web (actually from the Web Archive) with no provenance, not even an author:

cite web|url= http://web.archive.org/web/20080227101341/http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/jkoeberl/Courses/Tolkien/l_04_genesis.pdf%7C title=The Lord of the Rings: Genesis|accessdate=2006-06-14|format=PDF

I'm not judging the information therein, but it would be nice to replace this with something more authoritative.
Elphion ( talk) 06:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's encyclopedic to be introducing information from Unfinished Tales, The Hobbit or the Silmarillion into the description of the Lord of the Rings. I think the purpose of the Synopisis and Character summary is to cover the information given in the published work, rather than present an intertextual overview of various draft pieces and marginalia. Perhaps a separate section on what was edited out of LoTR for space reasons which was eventually published in UT would be good. Or am I being over-zealous? -- Davémon ( talk) 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but put it in the scope of other types of published works. Let's pick Star Trek. Now each series, and movie, is a separate published work. But if I was writing a description for the characters in Deep Space Nine, I would be remiss if I did not include information about Worf from TNG, despite it being a separate "published work."

In other words, a character who appears over multiple works evolves from each separate work to the next, and such information needs to be given to fully understand that character. Of course, it should be phrased so it is apparent that the specific information is not from LotR, but actually from The Hobbit or The Silmarillion.

The same with the story. The entire story of LotR would not occur without The Hobbit, so obviously some mention of it needs to be made. The same with The Silmarillion, some parts of LotR are obscure, even after several readings, and can explained with The Silmarillion.

All that being said, I find no reference to anything but LotR itself in the Synopsis or Characters sections anyway, so I see no problem with the article.

BAPACop ( converse) 01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't find any because I removed references to Gandalf and Sauron being Maiar, which is in Unfinished Tales, from the "Main characters" section. But I added that in myself as well, since they were previously described as Maiar without elaboration. Uthanc ( talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Several other novels of this size on Wikipedia have not only a major character list, but a minor character list. Could we get one? It's much easier to find a random character if they have a name on the main page. I'm not talking about links to their own personal pages, but just a list of some of the more important minor characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.104.70 ( talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a list hidden in the navbox at the bottom. I pointed this out in the main article. De728631 ( talk) 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(I'm surprised that no one has noticed yet, but...)

This article is labelled as being written in British English, yet it is written in American English.

The "Lord of the Rings" originated in Britain and therefore bears strong cultural ties to the country. It is even exemplified as such under the Wikipedia Manual of Style ( See WP:BrE ) as "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation."

On these grounds I'm going to attempt to rectify the spelling variations within the article to British English standards. ( When I have time, that is.)

This is also my first post/attempt at editing on Wikipedia so if I mess up, sorry in advance. Gilly of III ( talk) 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For -ise vs -ize read American and British English spelling differences#-ise.2C -ize. -ise isn't particularly British (being French in origin). I think when I last looked my British editions preferred -ize but they're not to hand at present. Thu ( talk) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Oxford English Dictionary specify -ize as the correct British spelling. Strange but true. -- Spanglej ( talk) 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the spelling changes as the top of the article clearly states "This article uses British English with Oxford Spelling". See MOS:SPELLING for further information. BabelStone ( talk) 22:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I wasn't aware of the whole "Oxford English" spelling situation, sorry about that. I guess I got a little edit-happy. Next time I edit I'll wait for a reply in the discussion page first. Sorry guys. I guess on the bright-side, I learnt something new today :D. Gilly of III ( talk) 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikpedia encourages contributors to boldly make changes. If they're incorrect it's easy to revert them. Please continue to both learn and make changes. Thu ( talk) 08:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering this article is meant to be written in Oxford English, shouldn't the word be "mass-commercialization" rather than "mass-commercialisation"? I won't edit anything without any feedback, though. (I've embarrassed myself enough as it is. :p ) "Mass-commercialisation" is used under Reception, and the word "Industrialision" is used under the Influences section. Regards, Gilly of III ( talk) 08:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, please do fix them. Thu ( talk) 08:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This might seem a little convoluted/unnecessary, but, under the section Impact on Popular Culture the word "authorised" is used within quotation marks without specifically mentioning where it is quoted from. And even if it is quoted from a reputable source, it would seem unnecessary to include two forms of the word "authorised" within the same article without any apparent need. Without citation, and unless it forms part of a more substantial quote, I suggest the quotation marks be removed and the spelling be adjusted. (Using the word authorised without quotation is not plagiarism). I think I have confused myself. Anyway, sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes, but I actually like people correcting me, so feel free to if you want. Oh, and thanks for the feedback, Thu. Regards, Gilly of III ( talk) 08:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of LotR handy? A British edition, just to be sure. See whether Tolkien uses "ise" or "ize" etc. and use that form in the article. My own impression is that "ize" is very much going out of fashion in the UK, but would have been far more likely to have been used in the 1950s, when Tolkien was writing. The question is, did he? ðarkun coll 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

All my books are still in boxes following a move. The first I came to is the one volume Guild Publishing 2nd edition HB.

Ah yes, I recognized the name. I recollect the time when young Frodo Baggins was one of the worst young rascals of Buckland. (A Short Cut To Mushrooms)

one that was founded long before even the Brandywine was crossed and the Shire colonized. (At The Sign of the Prancing Pony)

Suddenly Frodo realized that it reminded him of Gandalf. (The Mirror of Gladriel)

I think that confirms the preferred suffix is -ize. Thu ( talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Every time I read the book or see the films there seems a glaring hole in the LoTR plot. Gandalf is imprisoned on the tower of Isengard by Saruman and eventually escapes via a giant eagle. Later the council meet and decide that the ring must be destroyed, Frodo will take it to Mordor and a fellowship will help him. At the end the eagles come to rescue Frodo and bring him off the collapsing Mount Doom. So why is it that the Council don't decide at the beginning to send Frodo and Sam (or others) by eagle to Mount Doom (a matter of hours, it would seem) and have done? Why the long and dangerous hoik by foot when quick, personal and quasi magical creatures await?

What d'you think? (Yes, with that plot it would be a very short and much duller book). -- Spanglej ( talk) 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the place for such questions, but to answer anyway it's because the skies to the east are infested with agents and spies of Sauron. I think it's even explicitly pointed out somewhere in the book. ðarkun coll 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien address this point in Letters 210 when identifying the faults in Zimmerman's adaption. Thu ( talk) 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a newbie, and have never made a Wikipedia comment, but I thought this was worthy of comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.78 ( talk) 14:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You were correct, but it was changed back to Tolkien just two minutes after it was changed to Rowling! Darth Newdar ^talk 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This page seems to return "cite error" when accessed. Im not sure as to why this might be happening - maybe a <ref> tag has been opened but not closed properly but I am notsure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye33 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous reversion left a dangling <gallery> tag in place. Fixed now. Elphion ( talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This article, overall, appears to be well-written, well-referenced, and comprehensive. What is keeping it from regaining Featured Article status? Or, to put it another way, if it was nominated for FA status, why would it fail? I don't think that it needs much work, and could perhaps be a FA by the end of the year. Mario777Zelda ( talk) 15:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some things I think the article needs: analysis of the fairy-tale and mythic sources Tolkien used, discussion of: literary themes, gender issues, the prose style, the use of poetry, use of invented languages, the books economic impact. A google scholar search [6], lazy research I know, but it does show there is a lot of writing out there, including commentaries from people like Ursula le Guin, which should be covered. Also more detail on the actual writing process Tolkien undertook (much of which can be sourced from the History of Middle Earth series). An editor with a cool mind, keen eye and steady hand needs to edit the synopsis, it is forever accruing detail and becoming overly long (at least in my opinion, and I think the opinion of the people who hang out at literature FAs). I'd love to see this article get to FA status. Davémon ( talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In the section Further reading is the title: David Day, "The World Tolkien: The Mythological Sources of The Lord of the Rings" (2004). Is this correct? Is it related to Tolkien's Ring? Wiki-uk ( talk) 15:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I found out that it should be "The World of Tolkien...". This has been corrected now. Wiki-uk ( talk) 05:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of what appears to be a mismatched set of the LoTR books? It doesn't seem to add anything to the article. Nave.notnilc ( talk) 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a mismatched set. As the caption says, those are JRRT's own original designs for the book covers. Elphion ( talk) 00:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nave might be referring to the second image (displayed at right). I'd agree that this image seems unnecessary. — Mrwojo ( talk) 00:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh -- Yes, I'm sure you're right. I'd agree that that image doesn't contribute much. Elphion ( talk) 02:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I say take it out. If we are going to have a picture of a set of the books, the volumes should at least match—and the picture should not include The Hobbit. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to reduce the 'Music' subsection of the 'Legacy' section to a single paragraph and merge it into the following 'Impact on popular culture' subsection, as a more detailed cataloguing of this information is already available on the 'Works inspired by...' page. Some of the other minor details in the Legacy section I think are unnecessary also, for the same reason. I will wait a few days for comment before I proceed with this. Genedecanter ( talk) 10:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything that reduces trivia is good IMO, and the music sub-section certainly does seem to be angling uncomfortably toward trivia. But we must be careful not to reduce the Legacy section too much, as LOTR has had a noteworthy effect on many fields of art and culture. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Davémon suggested above that some work should be done on the synopsis to move the article back toward FA status, and I agree. I was wondering what you all though of splitting it into three sub-sections, one for each volume of the novel? It could be a way to make it more visually appealing. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 23:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My own opinion is to keep it as a single synopsis (indeed I removed the book subheadings long ago). My main reason is that some elements from the appendicies should be placed in the beginning (we're not bound to Tolkiens narrative order - and it makes sense to explain the forging of the rings and a bit about Aragorn first). I think the problem about the lack of visual appeal is simply a symptom of the plot summary being too long. Also the 3 books structure is an accident of publication rather than authorial intention. Davémon ( talk) 19:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lately 82.14.7.18 has been fighting AVBOT to change "orc" to "Uruk-hai" in reference to the party that kidnap Merry and Pippin. AVBOT is mistaken: this is a good faith edit. However, I think the previous text is better. In the first place, the party was not composed only of Uruk-hai -- there were lesser breeds along as well. Secondly, 82.14.7.18 argues that the Uruk-hai are not orcs at all, but this clearly is not what Tolkien intended, as our own article Uruk-hai points out. "Orcs" says all that is really necessary in the scope of a synopsis, and it is not incorrect. -- Elphion ( talk) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you and have even reverted this as well in a previous edit. I only found the IP's struggle worthwhile because there were Uruk-hai involved after all. But as you said, "orcs" says it all. De728631 ( talk) 20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I just made this edit because I felt a distinction was needed between the two races as they are after all, different races. Although orcs where used in the creation of Uruk-hai they are not the same race as orcs. Uruk-hai are a hybreed of men and orcs and can differ from them in several ways, and although orcs do later join the Uruk-hai after the abduction of Merry and Pippin, it was primarily the Uruk-hai that carried out the capture discussed in the synopsis. I feel this distinction should be made between the two because Tolkien puts emphasis on their differences himself to emphasis the terror of the Uruk-hai compared to mere Orcs. Saying Uruk-hai are Orcs is like saying lions and the domesticated cat are the same thing. Sure one may have descended from the other but they are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity3Sixty ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have textual authority saying that they are "different races"? Tolkien consistently calls them all "orcs". There are different breeds, just as there are different breeds of dogs, but "orcs" covers the territory, and they were all pretty vicious (hardly like lions vs cats). It is not clear that the Uruk-hai are hybrids of orcs and men; while there is some hint that Saruman experimented with such breeding, Tolkien says the large uruks were bred in Mordor, first appearing in the 2400s, long before the War of the Ring, with no mention of human ancestry -- although indeed orcs themselves may have been bred from men, we don't really know. I agree that the lot from Orthanc were behind the kidnapping, but the distinction between general orcs and the Uruk-hai is not really important in the synopsis, and carrying it through to every occurrence of the word orc (especially without the explanation that would be necessary for the reader to make sense of the distinction you are trying to highlight) makes it read very awkwardly. "Orcs" works just fine here. -- Elphion ( talk) 21:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As said above, I agree with Elphion in that we don't need to distinguish Uruk-hai from "normal" orcs for the purpose of this article, even because the general reader will not likely know what Uruks are, and because there were also "lesser" Mordain orcs involved in the capture, ie lesser in the eyes of the Uruks. This becomes apparent in the story when Uglúk scolds the orcs from Mordor and boasts how he and his gang are the Uruk-hai who killed Boromir etc. De728631 ( talk) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In the cinematic movie of The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring, it begins with Suaron (wielding the one ring)fighting off the crusade on him. Since Suaron has the one ring on his finger shouldn't he be invisible, as in all the other times the ring is worn by others?

The Ring only makes those with less power invisible, as far as I can tell. For example, in the Fellowship of the Ring (the book), Tom Bombadil puts the Ring on, and it has no effect on him. Mario777Zelda ( talk) 01:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This may have already been dealt with, but it seems odd to me that under influences there is no mention of Wagner's Ring cycle. I appreciate that there are many ring myths, but the cycle was by far the most dominant in Tolkien's time and indeed was widely regarded as one of the greatest ever works of art. Given the huge similarities between the two stories, even Gollum and Alberich are strikingly alike, I find it inconceivable that Tolkein wasn't directly influenced by Wagner's epic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.220.108 ( talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it. In the first place JRRT would have been much more familiar with the tale from Nordic myth than from Wagner's libretto, and would not have appreciated the pseudo-Nietzschean philosophy behind Wagner's adaptations. He was contemptuous of the notion that there was any resemblance between the stories: "Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceases." (Letters, #229) Really, there are almost no points of resemblance, beyond the generally Nordic mythological elements that influenced both works. Unlike Gollum, Alberich made the Ring; he was not corrupted by it. Is Gandalf supposed to Wotan? Is Frodo supposed to be Siegfried?? Who are the Rhine Maidens??? -- Elphion ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While I understand that this may seem obvious to those unfamiliar with Germanic mythology, it's really a case of common inspiration among Morris, Wagner, and Tolkien. Although I have a hard time swallowing that Tolkien wasn't at all influenced by Wagner, Morris was clearly far more of an influence on him. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, rather than a specialist one, and there have been multiple, comparisons made between Tolkien and Wagners Rings at multiple times, might it not make sense to make some mention of it? even if to say that the comparisons are generally considered lazy by scholars and then direct the user to J._R._R._Tolkien's_influences#Wagnerian_influences for more detail? Whether we agree with the comparisons or not, the question of it is commonly raised by critics. Davémon ( talk) 18:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair - it was obviously mentioned enough in Tolkien's lifetime for him to get snappish about it, going by the frequently used quote above! Then it's clear that the topic has been considered. 4u1e ( talk) 18:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No objection to bringing it up to shoot it down. -- Elphion ( talk) 23:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Had you sat through Das Rheingold back in the 50's (which one should point out has no Nieztchean influence in it at all) and strode out of the theatre only to be handed a summary of a new book called Lord of the Rings, you would have rightly giggled at the suggestion that one of the world’s most famous operas, and the greatest dramatisation of Norse myth, had not crossed Tolkien’s mind. The engine of both stories is a ring that characters in the drama desire and are willing to kill for, that bestows it’s wearer with magical powers, but also pushes them into a megalomania that corrupts them. Tolkien’s claim is rather like me coming out with a poem called “I like this ring, but it makes me do the bad thing”, and when confronted with my thievery saying “Tolkien? Never heard of the guy, my muse was a 4th century Norseman called Althruf". And not to labour the point, but it is quite wrong to suggest that comparisons are generally considered lazy by academics; which 'academics' do you have in mind? The biggest gun on the wikipedia 'influences'page suggesting this is one David Harvey, a man of surely no literary relevance, and whose contribution has been to write an out of print book for Tolkien fans.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.220.108 ( talk) 9 and 10 July 2010

I've added the mention of Wagner to the influences here, as its absence did look like an oversight. Perhaps J._R._R._Tolkien's_influences#Wagnerian_influences could be better. Off the top of my head I know Jane Chance, Tom Shippey and Humphrey Carpenter have covered the issue, and there's a more recent article in the New Yorker that unfortunately focuses on some adaptation or other rather than Tolkiens work. If you have additional WP:reliable sources which discuss the relationship between Tolkien and Wagners works, then do add them to the influences article and use them to improve it. Davémon ( talk) 18:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And Davemon was not saying that academics regard all comparisons as lazy, simply this facile uncritical assumption that LotR and RdN look at all similar. Close examination shows that they differ in conception on nearly every point. Shippey (The Road to Middle-earth) has a good discussion of Tolkien's attitude toward Wagner, and Carpenter's Biography notes that he conceived this documented antipathy as a young man even before reaching university. Certainly Tolkien was "influenced" by Wagner, but only in the sense that he felt he could do a far better and more responsible job of forging new tales from the old myths — which, pace your analogy above, he was certainly familiar with from the ancient sources, even in the original languages (unlike Wagner).

Moreover, Wagner's treatment of the legends is hardly a mere "dramatisation of Norse myth" — his version of the stories already deviates significantly from the Eddic version and the Niebelungenlied; and he was indeed, even in Das Rheingold, influenced by Nietzsche. Rheingold was in fact conceived after he started on the later story, to lay the groundwork for showing how Alberich and Wotan failed at becoming Supermen where Siegfried succeeded. The only significant element common to both stories is the broken sword inherited by the hero; but even here Tolkien is careful to highlight the difference: Andúril is powerful precisely because it comes from God-fearing ancestors and is reforged by God-fearing elves. Nothung, by contrast, defeats divine authority through the innate strength of the Superman — a concept that devout Catholics like Tolkien would despise.

As for the Ring itself, Wagner's treatment owes much to the story of the sword Tyrfing: cursed by its maker when it was stolen, and bringing misfortune on all who possess it afterward. Tolkien's Ring was not cursed, it was evil and its evil infected any who made use of it. It's a far more Christian concept. Curiously, the legend of Tyrfing also shows up in Tolkien, transformed into the story of Túrin's sword Gurthang: prima facie evidence that Tolkien was getting these concepts from the sources, not from Wagner.

Don't get me wrong: I like Wagner, though the philosophical passages tend to bog down. But his operas are not universally appealing, and it is on record that Tolkien did not particularly like them — and justifiably bristled at the notion that his book in any sense derives from them.

Finally, it is the fate of most books, even good ones, especially academic one, to go out of print. That doesn't mean ipso facto that they have nothing of value to say — an argument bordering on ad hominem.

-- Elphion ( talk) 18:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As Davemon says, a number of Tolkien experts have indeed "covered the issue", but as far as I recall the upshot is that there was very little to cover, and the verdict is that while Tolkien had certainly seen performances of RdN, there is next to nothing to say in terms of detectable influence beyond what Tolkien himself had to say, "both rings were round and there the resemblance ceases". Imo, J._R._R._Tolkien's_influences#Wagnerian_influences severely and irresponsibly overstates things, apparently based not on actual literature by Tolkien experts but by some online journalism at newyorker.com.

It seems that the best discussion of the question, Tom Shippey's, is mostly delegated to a footnote, with the article airily claiming that "Shippey basically agrees with Haymes's position". This is bizarre. Shippey is among the most respected Tolkien experts, while Haymes is apparently some guy people have googled at some point (but the links to his articles are now partially dead). Shippey is aware that "Tolkien may have overstated the lack of influence", but he is also aware that the parallels are not a case of Wagner-to-Tolkien influence but one of much deeper connections in a century of philological study of the Eddaic stories accessible to both Tolkien and Wagner. -- dab (𒁳) 08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact while due weight is to be given to the "both rings were round, etc.", the particular suggestion that Gandalf should equal Wotan should not so lightly be ridiculed as above. The pictures, influences etc. and also, I believe, a statement by Tolkien himself clearly show that Gandalf does have Odinic traits.-- 2001:A61:20FD:6F01:2D4B:F257:210A:A110 ( talk) 15:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Just removed description of LOTR film trilogy by Jackson as one the greatest films, ever. The sources cited were not "film authoriative." The paragraph already describes success and critical acclaim. The oldest film was released 10 years ago. This encyclopedia doesn't exist to validates peoples' enthusiasms. My edit reflects this. I'll be vigilant w/ this. I enjoyed the films immensely, but that doesn't empower me, or anyone else to make sweeping, barely supported claims. Tapered ( talk) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"The title of the novel refers to the story's main antagonist, the Dark Lord Sauron, who had in an earlier age created the One Ring to rule the other Rings of Power as the ultimate weapon in his campaign to conquer and rule all of Middle-earth." => Is that really true, i.e. the only interpretation of the title? If I remember correctly there is a passage in the book which explains exactly this as well. However, there are more interpretations possible: One could say: The one who wears the ring is the Lord of the Rings as he has the most powerful of all the rings and he is able to control it (at least to a certain degree, but still...). So one could argue that Frodo is the Lord of the Rings as well or even Gollum. And what about the ring itself? It has some kind of own will - so couldn't one argue that even though Sauron made the ring it is still a thing on its own? I just think that the quote from the article is unecessary as it tries to answer a very delicate question: Who is the Lord of the Rings? Maybe the answer is that there are several answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.146 ( talk) 13:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think this passage in the article is fine, because it explains the standard interpretation of the title; you're welcome to have others, but this is by far the most widely accepted. Gandalf more or less says this in The Fellowship of the Ring. Mario777Zelda ( talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember whether there's much discussion of this in Letters or in any of the many volumes of criticism and commentary on the books, but if there is then by all means use it. Otherwise interpretations other than that clearly given in the book are just speculation and original research. 4u1e ( talk) 11:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Well I just wish someone would/could produce a source ([Professor Tom Shippey perhaps, or a forward to the JRRT/CT books, or an accepted general commentary on the subject) which made such a statement, so we are not left to speculate on our own. -- T-dot ( ^Talk/ contribs ) 20:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)one

The only one I recall is that in the book itself. Along the lines of Pippin: 'Hail Frodo, Lord of the Ring' Gandalf: 'That name should only be used of Sauron'. I paraphrase, obviously! It's while they're at Rivendell. Given the amount written on the topic, I'm sure there's something in one of the 'standard' texts. 4u1e ( talk) 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Kind of in-universe-y isn't it? Also that sounds like something out of the movies, as opposed to the books, although I would not want to start another "canonical" war. Anyway I was thinking something out-of-universe, such as the copious notes and explanations in the Forward(s) of the LR books or History of Middle Earth, or the Letters between JRRT and CT or Professor Shippey or CS Lewis, etc. -- T-dot ( ^Talk/ contribs ) 22:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with T-dot. BTW, here is the passage taken from the book (I can't give the page number as i copied from a .txt file) "`Hurray!' cried Pippin, springing up. `Here is our noble cousin! Make way for Frodo, Lord of the Ring!' 'Hush!' said Gandalf from the shadows at the back of the porch. `Evil things do not come into this valley; but all the same we should not name them. The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out over the world!" => Sure, Gandalf says that Sauron is the LotR but the fact that Pippin named Frodo the LotR as well. We can only speculate that Gandalfs interpretation is the correct one - maybe Pippin is right and his opinion is what Tolkien thought? Therefore an an out-of-universe source would be very helpful. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.146 ( talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Could this be a good reference? Wiki-uk ( talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As anon points out, the words are from the book, not the films, but I agree that we should use out-of-universe stuff. My point was really that in the absence of anything better, I saw no reason to speculate that LOTR meant anything other than what the book says, but it's a fair point that two points of view are given in that passage. The source Wiki-uk found looks OK, although it would be interesting to know what Tolkien himself said - I didn't find anything in a quick examination of Letters. Also have other commentators given other views? 4u1e ( talk) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just speculation, but maybe Sauron is Lord of the Ring (singular), and the One Ring itself is Lord of the Rings (plural). As the poem says "One Ring to rule them all..." Faolin42 ( talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As you say, speculation. Although in that vein, don't forget that the reason that the One Ring rules them all is that Sauron forged it for that purpose... Couldn't find anything in the Road to Middle earth either. 4u1e ( talk) 06:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but to establish some grounding for the OP's point, one possible interpretation that I had encountered referred to the line in which Gandalf refuses to wield the ring himself, stating that there is 'only one true Lord of the Rings.' The question of the will of the ring, the will of Sauron, the will of Frodo, the will of Gollum, and the will of Eru, is heavily debated in the scholarship. In his interactions with Frodo, Gollum swears to serve the 'master of the Precious,' which has numerous interpretations. When he falls with the ring into the fires, there is some vague discussion used by the narrator which suggests that the 'one true lord of the ring' is indeed Eru, not Sauron. I accept that this is in-universe and not the way it was presented in the movies, but I also think that the complex nature of the question and lack of certainty seem to indicate that an allegedly objective claim is in fact a misrepresentation of the facts. 74.109.214.27 ( talk) 07:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 25 is misattributed. The author's name is "Joseph Ripp." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.85.50 ( talk) 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to semi-protect this article for a while? Looking back over the past month or so, perhaps a total of three or four revisions have not been either vandalism or reversions of vandalism. Cactus Wren ( talk) 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is a long-time and fairly constant target of petty vandalism and good faith bad edits by IPs, and semi-protecting it for a while will not stop such edits from continuing after the page has been unprotected. There are enough watchers of this page to ensure vandalism and bad edits get reverted in a timely manner, so I would not support semi-protection at this time. BabelStone ( talk) 19:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right: looking back farther in the history, this seems to be just something that must be dealt with on an ongoing basis. Thanks. Cactus Wren ( talk) 01:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a former featured article, but perhaps we could shoot for GA first. Is there anything that needs to be done to meet that criteria? I know the dead links need to be fixed. -- Glimmer721 ^talk 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed some references. As to dead links, I think as long as we state authors, titles, dates etc. we don't even need a weblink. De728631 ( talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work, it looks like there are only 3. Everything seems formatted correctly. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs before the Synopsis are particularly weak. Compare it to " Tale of Two Cities", " Alice in Wonderland" or " Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". Those are succinct reviews that mention briefly plot, sales, awards, writing process. This one gets snarled in really rather inconsequential information about the publishing format, then an explanation of the meaning of the title, then a list of characters, then claptrap about how so many books and fan groups were created. Any of the three examples I gave are preferable -- and I simply picked those at random, as it were, as being major works where I figured Wikipedia editors had hashed out reasonable compromises. This opening is tedious and scents of wandering uncritical fandom adulation. 98.210.208.107 ( talk) 04:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you loose all credibility when you cite Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as a good article to compare to. Carl Sixsmith ( talk) 06:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's rather an odd comment Carl, given that HP&tehPS is a Good Article, and its lead is better organised than this one. 4u1e ( talk) 18:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah maybe I shouldn't edit talk pages after toddler induced lack of sleep. Carl Sixsmith ( talk) 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I can relate to that problem! 4u1e ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid to do a major edit, but as this is a bit different from articles which are always known as a single book, etc. How would you suggest we order it? I think the 3rd paragraph should have more plot. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) It might be an idea to work up a revised version in a sandbox, rather than 'live' if you're not sure of yourself. That way you get time to sleep on the result and get comment from others before committing to it! Remember that the lead needs to summarise the whole article, so you can do worse than following the structure of the article. I'd suggest something like

• First para (What is it? As current first para, but lose the bit about being written in stages and add the publication date from the current second para)
• Second para (Plot summary - current third para. I wouldn't expand unless you need to to support a specific point being made elsewhere in the lead)
• Third para (Concept and creation - there are bits in the current first and fourth paras, but this element is hardly covered and needs expanding)
• Fourth para (Critical reception & Themes - use current fourth para for Themes, but bizarrely there is almost nothing on criticism, particularly negative criticism, in the current lead. Definitely needs expanding. Much as I love the book, you can't deny that many critics hated it.
• Fifth para (Publication history - use current second para, but cut down detail on structure of book)
• Sixth para (Adaptations and legacy - use current fifth para)

You might find some of those paras can be combined. Six paras is too many, really. There are other ways of ordering them too - Publication history could go straight after Concept and creation, for example. Having said all of that, it might be wise to ensure that the rest of the article is up to standard before you spend too much time on the lead. 4u1e ( talk) 21:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The work I've done so far is found in my sandbox. I've done all except concept and creation, but what I have will certainly need tweaks. I was thinking that the listing of the fellowship could be separated by semicolons instead of commas to make it easier to read (mainly for Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli, Legolas, and Gandalf)Looking farther into the actual article, shouldn't the "Posthumous publication of drafts" section contain the Unfinished Tales and The Children of Hurin? Or perhaps these are later and I've missed them in my skim. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was looking through and found nothing again Leonard Nimoy's song 'Bilbo Baggins'. Should this not be included as it refers explicitly to a main character whereas some of the music included is only inspired. Zunraa ( talk) 20:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's about The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings, although the timing does suggest that the later book might have been the trigger. Bilbo's not a main character in LoTR. 4u1e ( talk) 06:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any mention in the article about The Lord of the Rings being banned because it's " santanic"? Listed at ALA and Yahoo. I'm not sure if it ever made the top 100 list, though. Where should it be in the article? Under "Reception"? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither ref says it was banned, only that it was burned outside a church on one occasion. Which could just be one individual or small group of people. Unless it's well known for being commonly banned (or burned), I doubt it's notable. 4u1e ( talk) 06:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with 4ule. Everytime I've read an article, it was a onsey-twosey kind of deal and my impression was that the piece was basically a "see how close-minded Christians are" article. Ckruschke ( talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'm surprised the article makes no reference to its influence (in it's Legacy section) on the 'Harry Potter' series - so many sub-plots in the Potter series seem to be inspired by this book. Off the top of my head, I can recount the 'Undead Army' and the incident where Potter and Dumbledore cross the lake with dead beings trying to pull them in - both of these appear in Lord of the Rings. Anyone has views on whether or not we should add that? wildT ( talk) 19:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Got any sources that back those theories up? DP76764 ( Talk) 19:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. This is just a case of both works being influenced by the same ancient folklore (see ignis fatuus). 2.25.135.134 ( talk) 18:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that's entirely correct - given that LOTR more or less created the modern fantasy market, which is much more widely read than Norse or Germanic mythology, it seems reasonable to suggest that LOTR had some influence on the Harry Potter books. It would hardly on the scale of the plot-photocopying carried out by Terry Brooks, though. However, supposed similarity of plot-points is not proof of influence - references would be required. I'd be slightly surprised if we couldn't find a reference somewhere in which Rowling said she was influenced (in some degree) by Tolkien. 4u1e ( talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A little googling produced an easy answer to this: Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues#The_Lord_of_the_Rings. Similarities are expressly denied (or confirmed) as 'superficial' by Rowling. DP76764 ( Talk) 03:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The author of the Inheritance Cycle, Christopher Paolini, mentioned influences by Tolkien.

The claim in the opening paragraphs is not supported by the source. I'll leave it in for now for others to check if they agree and remove it later in the week if there are no objections. Carl Sixsmith ( talk) 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a reasonable explanation/source on this article. DP76764 ( Talk) 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, the source on that page is 'estimated', think we need a stronger source. The one given in this article states that there are 150 million copies sold, but there is no reference to the sales of other books Carl Sixsmith ( talk) 17:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Which 'other books' do you mean? Here's a Houghton Miffin press release from 2003 indicating 25m copies sold between 2000-2003 here DP76764 ( Talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the books in first and third place for comparison. We shouldn't make claims based on speculatory (is that a word?) sources. Carl Sixsmith ( talk) 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, putting them in order, as they are in this article is legitimate (ie: not-OR); why not expand the sentence to include #1 and #3 and use the sources from that article for all 3? DP76764 ( Talk) 19:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Loving the change, reads much better. Carl Sixsmith ( talk) 08:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The change in tagging aside, I've now implemented the "real" change and have added a comparison of sales with references from the list article. That should work. De728631 ( talk) 14:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Lord of the Rings should have a link to the category: Fantasy Novel Trilogies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fantasy_novel_trilogies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.1.112 ( talk) 22:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But Tolkien rather emphatically did not consider it a trilogy (i.e., three separate but related books), rather a single book that for publishing convenience had been divided into three physical volumes. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Arwen is not a major character in the Lord of the Rings. She has a none speaking role at the feast before the council of Elrond, she has a very small appearance at the end of the book, and she appears in the appendixes, this is not indicative of a major role. GimliDotNet ( talk) 18:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it, I've removed Goldberry from the list too, as she is even further from being a main character than Arwen. Genedecanter ( talk) 09:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In the second paragraph the article says "The title of the novel refers to the story's main antagonist, the Dark Lord Sauron." I've always taken the title to refer to the One Ring itself, being the Lord of all the other rings (one ring to rule them all). And considering that the story revolves around the Ring to a much greater extent than it revolves around Sauron, I think this is the more likely meaning. And then at the end Frodo is writing The Lord of the Rings to help himself come to terms with himself after losing the influence of the Ring - not the influence of Sauron (Sauron and the will of the Ring are technically separate forces). Any thoughts? Canine virtuoso ( talk) 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings explicitly refers to Sauron, he is even referred by that title a few times in the book, specifically Gandalf just before the council of Elrond. GimliDotNet ( talk) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree, though it would be nice to get Tolkien himself making the equation. Gandalf's phrase is the Lord of the Ring (singular), not Rings plural. The closest association between Lord of the Rings and Sauron is made in the epigraph, which is given the title The Lord of the Rings and whose content is the Ring verse. But one could argue that this makes the association instead with the One Ring. It's a nice conceit, but not one supported in the critical literature (that I'm aware of). -- Elphion ( talk) 16:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The ringwraiths are at one point explicitly refereed to as 'the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings'. Sauron at his point does not hold the ring but they definitely serve him. I know he keeps the nine, but still this is explicit.

It is on the second page of the first chapter "Many Meetings" of Book Two of The Lord of the Rings where Gandalf says to Frodo: "Yes, I knew them. Indeed I spoke of them once to you; for the Black Riders are the Ringwraiths, the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings." 178.83.9.137 ( talk) 11:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Again at the council of Elrond, Glorfindel states 'But in any case, 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.". GimliDotNet ( talk) 17:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good quotes -- you should add refs to the article. -- Elphion ( talk) 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that Frodo's part of the Red Book is not titled "The Lord Of The Rings" but rather "The Downfall Of The Lord Of The Rings" (the films changed this detail). This title makes the matter fairly explicit I think. A ring cannot experience a downfall, but Sauron clearly does. Genedecanter ( talk) 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)