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.

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect There taking the hobbits to isengard. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#There taking the hobbits to isengard until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect They taking the hobbits to isengard. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#They taking the hobbits to isengard until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Cohobbits,

The title Lord of the Rings does not seem to make sense. The books are about the Ring Bearer Frodo and his mission for the common good, an inverted medieval quest, this time to get rid of a mythical object. Sauron loses out and is only a character in the deep background. Can someone explain (perhaps even the Tolkien heirs?) and put the clarification in the article? Thanks, Hansmuller ( talk) 19:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this is NOT just a vapid Forum question, but a factual matter: how to rationalise the name of the subject of an article (e.g., in elementary particle physics the Higgs boson is NOT named after its other theoretical discoverers Brout and Englert as would have been logical (say Brout-Englert-Higgs or BEH boson), this is mentioned in the article).

The first of the translations of LOTR solved this problem: (Dutch, 1956) In de ban van de Ring (translation: In thrall of the Ring) with a better representation of the content, while removing the unwarranted focus on the evil bit-player S.. However, the later translations in other languages copied the original illogical (?) title, for instance Italian Il signore degli annelli (yes, this means "the lord of the rings"). Tolkien must have pondered and rejected alternatives such as Chronicle of the War of the Rings (his words in the synopsis at the end of part I), The quest of the ring(-bearer), etcetera. (By the way correction: Tolkien's spelling is "Ring-bearer" with a hyphen.) Please do not vandalise valid discussions, thank you. Hansmuller ( talk) 07:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "Lord of the Rings" is only used once in the book, where it is used by the other hobbits to describe Frodo. There is a parallel drawn between nine-fingered Frodo and Sauron, who also has nine fingers. I don't know if there is a source that says this.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

An author can name his work whatever he wants. Unless there is some independent discussion regarding the appropriateness of the title, it is WP:OR and should not be mentioned in the article. (Besides, what should it be called, Oops! Enjoy the Ride and Ignore the Big Plot Hole?) Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland @Clarityfiend Thank you both. "The phrase "Lord of the Rings" is only used once in the book", where exactly? Then there we have a source. WP:OR is irrelevant for the time being, we're still exploring. Of course an author can do as (s)he pleases - although often (always?) the publisher decides - but there might be explicit reasons, say some literary analogy dear to Tolkien? Hansmuller ( talk) 08:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Lord of the Ring" is used by Pippin about Frodo in "Many Meetings", and Gandalf corrects him, saying it is Sauron who is the Lord of the Ring. It is notable that characters often say that Sauron shouldn't mentioned etc, but the book itself is named after him...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This has never bothered me (though I agree it is a trifle odd), and I think it only need be treated in the article if there is evidence that it has previously been discussed to a notable degree. A few points: ● the meaning of the title "The Lord of the Rings" does not become clear to the reader for some time; ● the title is not the name "Sauron", so it is not exactly named after him; ● in Gondor they may not like to name/mention him, but I do not feel that characters often show this reluctance; ● perhaps Tolkien discussed this with his publishers (he was initially presumably in a relatively weak position); ● ¿other works named after antagonist?; ● Sauron as main antagonist is not just "in the deep background" even if he does not make a personal appearance.

The Lord of the Rings is mentioned a few times in the books. Before, during and after the Council of Elrond various characters refer to Sauron as the Lord of the Rings, and Frodo’s internal title of the book is “THE DOWNFALL OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS AND THE RETURN OF THE KING”. GimliDotNet ( talk) 16:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also a link to the poem in "The Shadow of the Past" — "One Ring to rule them all". Though it doesn't call Sauron "Lord of the Rings", it explains why he would be called that.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland @GimliDotNet Thanks Jack and dear Dwarf! The quote Jack found is (the hobbit Pippin greeting Frodo at Elrond's in Rivendell):

(To be finnicky: Frodo is proposed and rejected as Lord of the Ring, of a single ring, not of the rings (plural).) Jack, you mention this in the article? I had forgotten about this. It is your find, thanks, Hansmuller ( talk) 07:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If we say anything it must be sourced, so if there are no sources we can say nothing (¡Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen!). I have looked at these materials:

• The lectures notes(?) mentioned in the article on how Tolkien ‘discovered’ the plot
• The question asked on Stack Exchange as Why was “The Lord of the Rings” named as such?, with one answer (as of 2020-08-01)
• The discussion on Quora
• A tantalising Huffington Post post, J.R.R. Tolkien Reveals TRUE Meaning Of ‘The Lord Of The Rings’ In Unearthed Audio Recording, with a dead link (for me, at any rate) to Tolkien’s speech to some dinner guests in Rotterdam. (But I think they mean the meaning of the book, not the title.)
  • But here are 31 seconds of it: elsewhere on You Tube! (Saving edit while I listen)
• The first 100 results in a Google search for why is the lord of the rings named after the antagonist (skimmed a bit), also DuckDuckGo

None of these treats the question of how Tolkien and/or Allen and Unwin chose the title, though they explain that Sauron (or the One Ring) is the LotR and quote the title of the Red Book. Some people claim, spuriously I believe, the title of the Red Book as evidence that that was the title Tolkien wanted. Can anyone find any original evidence in a reliable source? Perhaps someone can check his correspondence? If nothing comes up, we should let it rest. Incidentally, to call Sauron a “bit-player” and “symbolic” is a highly subjective judgement, with which I disagree, seeing him as an ominous presence throughout. And here is a list showing that antagonist titles are not rare. PJTraill ( talk) 21:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Just a minor quibble, do we really need all those citations for the plot elements? The MOS for novels says they're unnecessary for the narrative and it's not common elsewhere. I personally find them somewhat distracting. The article looks great though otherwise. Scribolt ( talk) 15:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words. Well, it's interesting to get a suggestion for fewer citations here on Wikipedia, doesn't happen every day, and I'm sorry they're in your way. However, they both support the text and make it much easier to verify (as even an editor who knows the work well can attest), and of course readers can use them to navigate the work also. I can think of some more advantages but that's probably enough to be going on with! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, no big deal. Just wanted to point out it's going in slightly different direction than other articles. Scribolt ( talk) 16:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, will think if it can be done better. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

From quiet beginnings in the Shire, a hobbit land not unlike the English countryside, the story ranges across Middle-earth, following the course of the War of the Ring through the eyes of the hobbits Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin.

Firstly, I'm not sure the long-expected party with its fireworks and the disappearance of Bilbo should be described as quiet. Then in "The Shadow of the Past", Gandalf drops a bombshell, and the Black Riders appear in "Three in Company". Perhaps "homely" would be a better word. Secondly, the Shire is really not like the English countryside that has ever existed. It has medieval elements and Edwardian elements mixed together, and of course it is inhabited by hobbits. Perhaps "reminiscent" would be a better word. Thirdly, do we need to use the term "War of the Ring"? It's ambiguous and rarely used in the book. Fourthly, it's not true the story is told through the eyes of the four hobbits. There is a strand of the story from "The Departure of Boromir" to "Flotsam and Jetsam" where no hobbits appear.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Tweaked. Said 'mainly' for the hobbits as they get 99% of the narrative; and recall that T. said that the tale of Aragorn and Arwen had to be in appendices as the main story was told by hobbits... Chiswick Chap ( talk) 04:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an article on Middle-earth in film, containing as is proper only a short summary covering 'the main points'. The mention of filmmakers who considered the project is meant only to give an indication that they were many and famous; it is not, and should not attempt to be, a full list, though perhaps such a thing would be appropriate for the more detailed article (or in the case of people who only thought about it momentarily, perhaps not). I've therefore removed the mention of Henson (and omitted several other such passing players). The attention here is rightly on the book, with a film section essentially as an aside. Hope this is fine with everybody. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Is he really evil and does he control much of the forest?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"it may come as something of a shock to be reminded that the first real villain to be met in LR is a tree. ... we know more than enough about Old Man Willow. Huge, hostile, malicious, his trapping of Merry and Pippin in his willowy toils, his attempt to drown Frodo, give the hobbits their first major setback, and come uncomfortably close to ending their journey before it has properly started." ^[1]

"But none were more dangerous than the Great Willow: his heart was rotten, but his strength was green; and he was cunning, and a master of winds, and his song and thought ran through the woods on both sides of the river. His grey thirsty spirit drew power out of the earth and spread like fine root-threads in the ground, and invisible twig-fingers in the air, till it had under its dominion nearly all the trees of the Forest from the Hedge to the Downs." (LR, book 1, ch. 7, "In the House of Tom Bombadil")

Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Black Riders aren't villains?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Chiswick Chap,

1. I'm not sure how adding a link to a demonstrable influence on Tolkien is "spamming across multiple articles", this is a huge subject that until just today was not properly covered in one place on Wikipedia and has been, as it is here, incorrectly called "mythology" in most places. My only interest is connecting the new article to all appropriate pages.
2. The notion that the addition is unsourced does really add up when an example of Germanic heroic legend, the Völsunga saga, is cited immediately after where I added the link. Other Tolkien influences such as Hervarar saga and Beowulf are also examples of Germanic heroic legend - you can have a look at Germanic heroic legend#Post-World War 2 for additional sources, should you want them, that have been assembled by Berig there. -- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, the link seems fine down there, though the myth/legend distinction is a pretty fine one. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a warning to User:Chiswick Chap and/or other users, that a hatnote is necessary and in accordance with Wikipedia:Hatnote#Ambiguous_term_that_redirects_to_an_unambiguously_named_article, that repeatedly removing valid content without any reason is vandalism, and that showing no sign of communication by themselves but accusing another user of editwarring straightaway is uncivil behaviour.

Reverts without any reason: [1] [2].

No discussion initiated on this page or on Talk:LOTR by these users.

Uncivil accusation: [3].

These users have not editted LOTR either, so it remains as a redirect to this page, which makes a hatnote necessary.-- RZuo ( talk) 11:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear RZuo, I am afraid you are mistaken or confused. You have three times attempted to add a redirect for the phrase "Leave outside the Immigration Rules" which one might expect to abbreviate to LOIR, were it to be abbreviated at all. A google search for "LOTR" does not turn up any page with that acronym and phrase in the first 10 lists of 10 pages; it turns up many pages of Lord of the Rings. There is no Wikipedia page named "Leave outside the Immigration Rules"; and the page you linked to, "Leave to enter", contains neither the words "Leave outside the Immigration Rules", nor the acronym LOTR, nor anything that would stand for that acronym. The gov.uk page on "Immigration Rules" cited in that article, needless to say, does not contain any of those three things either.

Further, you have accused me of incivility by placing a mildly-worded informal warning notice, above. It was not incivil in any way; indeed I could readily have placed a formal warning instead; and your action in accusing others of incivility is itself unhelpful. Further, the other editor reverted you properly. I do hope, given the amount of time it is now taking to deal with your case, that you will accept gracefully that your proposed hatnote may well not be justified in this instance, and that other editors have (all) acted in good faith. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Chiswick Chap; I see little justification for including the redirect. — Czello 13:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The hatnote is absolutely unnecessary, because the real point of contention here is that LOTR could also stand for "Leave outside the Immigration Rules" within a British legal context in addition to the more internationally known acronym for Lord of the Rings. So, undo the redirect, and turn LOTR into a disambiguation page. Except I notice that someone tried to do it back in January 2021, but that it appeared to have been reverted right away by another experienced editor. PS: The article for Leave to enter which the hatnote is supposed to point to is in a terrible state with little improvement over the last 15 years or so of its existence, so you might want to polish that up too. Haleth ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Well if that's so then that'll be the best answer. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would oppose changing LOTR to a disambiguation page without at least a few decent examples of people actually using the acronym to refer to this other subject. SamStrongTalks ( talk) 14:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/what-is-leave-outside-the-rules/ Free Movement.org.uk: What is Leave Outside the Rules?

ICS Legal: Leave Outside the Rules

HongKongWatch.org: Update: New advice from the Home Office for BNOs currently living in the UK

OTB Legal "They allowed BNO nationals to arrive in the UK and ask for ‘leave outside the rules’ or ‘LOTR’ on arrival." etc. etc. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

sigh it appears it is used in the official UK documentation. Carry on. SamStrongTalks ( talk) 15:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't we just say balrog?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think a succinct and accurate description of what they are/referred to as is justified and not unreasonable, especially as it is lifted directly from the page. I looked for 'fire wizzard' in the index, couldn't find it. Halbared ( talk) 12:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I find these discussions of the nature of Tolkien's creatures tedious. They are fictional creations.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Good for you, feller! Halbared ( talk) 08:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You are in the wrong place. 24.4.136.172 ( talk) 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You are in the wrong universe.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Why not remove the word “novel” (keeping the footnote), make “epic” the noun and call it a “high-fantasy epic”? Merry medievalist ( talk) 04:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure he thought 'epic' any better, but key point here is that a million IPs will add the word 'novel' straight back again as they 'know' that's the thing. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 05:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

At the moment, Chiswick Chap is on a crusade to purge all mentions of Magic: The Gathering from relevant sections of articles about things that influenced, or are featured in, that game. No rational reason for this has been given except "not a list". If Chiswick Chap wants to cut down on the number of listed games, that's fine, but let's start by cutting the ones that most people have never heard of. The Wikipedia article on MtG says it had 35 million players (current, not the total number of people who had ever played) in a fairly recent year. By contrast, the entire Ultima series put together had sold a whopping 2 million copies by 1997, the peak of its popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 ( talk) 10:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a mention of Magic The Gathering as one of the intellectual properties directly influenced by Tolkien's magnum opus on this article, but you need a better rationale then what basically comes down to "Magic The Gathering is super popular and it's influenced by D&D and D&D is influenced by Tolkien, so Tolkien's influence on Magic The Gathering is noteworthy and must be mentioned". That is inappropriate synthesis, and you need reliable sources which specifically connect the direct impact of LOTR to Magic the Gathering to justify the inclusion of a mention on this article. As for your argument about Ultima, or how important/popular Magic the Gathering is as an IP, it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As editors on Wikipedia, we don't take sales numbers or data taken from the other Wikipedia articles and use them to justify our preferences and support our arguments. Instead, we are supposed to find third party sources like this article about LOTR's influence on The Green Knight. PS: I removed Ultima after I spot checked the cited source, an IGN article, and discovered that it did not actually mention Ultima, although the other games were specifically discussed. Haleth ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a citation to say this means Sauron? It could mean the One Ring itself, lord of all the other rings. 24.4.136.172 ( talk) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 9 -- Elphion ( talk) 23:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Further to that discussion, there is a parallelism between Frodo and Sauron. Both are missing a finger — the story of Nine-fingered Frodo is how Sam terms it. And they both lose their finger in roughly the same place. The number 9 is emphasised, and this was before the Beatles. There are nine Black Riders, and nine members of the Fellowship. The word "nine" is related to the word "new" as a linguist like Tolkien would have known. The ring-cycle of rebirth. The Shire parallels Mordor, at opposite corners of Middle-earth. They are isolated communities. One is surrounded by a hedge; one is surrounded by mountains. Bag End parallels Bara-dur. Fill in the blanks. There is a seminal paper about this that my roommate hasn't published yet.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That is interesting, indeed. I will note that, in the case of the Fellowship, that their number of nine was explicitly stated by the attendees at the Council of Elrond that their number would be nine, to counter the nine nazgul. Also, do you happen to remember where it says that Isuldur cut off Sauron's finger to obtain the ring? Thx 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A8CB:964:7EDE:ED03 ( talk) 22:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems someone is not reading the text very closely. The Shire is not surrounded by a hedge. (The hedge follows only the land border of Buckland.) Indeed, it is precisely because the Shire is not isolated that it becomes such easy pickings for Sharkey's ruffians. The Shire and Mordor are not "at opposite corners of Middle-earth"; they are both in the north-western part of the continent, although Mordor is more centrally located. There is a ring-cycle of rebirth? Bag End parallels Barad-dur?? In what sense?? It is exactly this kind of meaningless "fill in the blanks" exercise that leads to the deluge of bad academic papers about Tolkien's writing. (And "nine" and "new" come from different IE roots; that they developed similar-looking forms in some languages appears to be mostly happenstance.)

To answer the question: Isildur's cutting the Ring from Sauron's hand is described by Elrond at the Council of Elrond in The Fellowship of the Ring. Elrond does not say that a finger was removed, but in "The Black Gate Is Closed" (The Two Towers), Frodo says that Isildur cut off the finger of the Enemy, and Gollum confirms that Sauron has only four fingers on the Black Hand.

-- Elphion ( talk) 00:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I ran across a couple of articles on the Battle of Droizy and was surprised to find that there was no page on the topic. I created the current one. That Battle, however, is apparently the earliest documentation of an army of 'trees.' That story quite likely inspired both Macbeth, and LOR. I think it would be of interest to readers, but I can't see how to logically work it into the page. BooksXYZ ( talk) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The only way is to find a scholar who suggests that, and cite their research from a reliable journal. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 04:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a good chance that Tolkien knew of this, given his academic field, and that he used it, since we can be quite certain he imbued LOTR with as much resonance with the broader mythology of Western Culture as he find room for. On a similar note, he gave one of the halflings the name Pippin which I think is a nod to the first Carolingian king, Pippin the Short (/ Pepin The Short, spellings vary). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FC12:1B23:F15A:CC28 ( talk) 09:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

While Shippey argues that Tolkien was certainly influenced by Macbeth (and sought to make better use of its mythology), I've seen no argument that he knew of Droizy. Or that Shakespeare did either. A reliable source would definitely help. -- Elphion ( talk) 18:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

One main area in which the article could be improved is by adding more pictures. There are very few pictures in what is quite a long article, and adding a few more would be beneficial, especially in the earlier sections about Tolkien's early drafts and writing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvelraj ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Hvelraj: Yes, it's quite plain. There are many more illustrations in the large family of subsidiary articles, both those about the characters and those on themes. Topics such as drafts and the writing process do not readily lend themselves to illustration, but suggestions for those sections would be welcome. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Chiswick Chap: "Prehistory" being defined as "before the existence of writing", neither The Hobbit nor The Lord of the Rings are set in prehistory, since Bilbo and later Frodo were writing a journal of their adventures, which ended up as the Red Book of Westmarch. Other written documents, and the writing on the Ring, are also essential to the intrigue. — Tonymec ( talk) 14:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Fictional history, maybe, but long before any real writing system was invented anywhere in the world. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

As CC says, the stories of Middle-Earth are set in a fictional pre-history before writing was reinvented to remember the old stories. Halbared ( talk) 15:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hm, within the LOTR universe, the author of the books we can read is supposed to have been able to lay hands on a copy of the Red Book, but also to have translated it into English. We aren't told how he could translate it, but what was written in it. Now my question is this: now that, thanks to the Rosetta stone, Egyptian hieroglyphs can be read, does the period they cover really qualify as "prehistory"? Similarly, Linear B was long an ununderstandable gobbledygook, until it was found that it was an archaic form of Greek, separated from Hesiod and Homer by a long period during which the Greeks had lost the knowledge of writing. I wouldn't call the time of Linear B "a pre-history before writing was reinvented". Rather, I would call both Egyptian hieroglyphs and Linear B as text writings making their periods "historic" even if the art of writing was later lost and then reinvented from a different source. Linear A, OTOH, seems to be text but we can't (yet) decipher it so whether to regard it as "history" depends on how we define "history". That's why I insisted above on JRRT's supposed role as "translator" of the Red Book. What I mean is that the LOTR stories are set in a universe which we call fictional, but which taken at face value (in its own so-we-say-fictional universe) was certainly historic and can be understood. When we ask what is the time (some novel) was set in, I understand at what time is the novel supposed to happen according to its internal time scale. — Tonymec ( talk) 04:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, we're all going wrong here by arguing within the domain and by analogy, i.e. we're falling foul of WP:NOTFORUM, stating our own opinions ( WP:OR) rather than going by the wealth of cited sources. I'll remove the word "prehistoric" now, and stick with the unarguable "distant past". Actually we have good scholarly authority for "pre-Christian" also, it would clarify things for many folks. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Is "'And All the Days of Her Life Are Forgotten': The Lord of the Rings as Mythic Prehistory" by John D. Rateliff a good enough source? Halbared ( talk) 08:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Impeccable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In “Legacy > Influence on fantasy” there is a minimal reference/link to The Last Ringbearer. I think there needs to be a short description of this book here (maybe 3-4 short sentences?), in part because it is easily the most original “alternate interpretation” of the LotR in existence, and in part because it was written in Russia by a Russian, which gives it a completely different flavor than Western adaptations. 84.212.81.79 ( talk) 20:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

JRR Tolkien said himself that The Lord of the Rings was a catholic/christian work, so should we maybe put “Christian Novels” in the category section? Thoughts. Wolfquack ( talk) 01:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

He did, but he never called it a novel, indeed he disliked the (real world) category; and the book is devoid of religion, on the surface. So, it's an awkward fit for the category at best. Maybe not go there. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 01:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think that would cause controversy and confusion.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Eh ok, since the consensus seems no I guess I’ll leave it at that. Wolfquack ( talk) 14:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The caption under the photo of the One Ring with its inscription glowing is so strange that I cannot figure out what the author was trying to say. If I could make sense of it, I'd clean it up. Perhaps someone who does understand it can do that? Jyg ( talk) 23:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the text, which was added by an IP on June 15. It made zero sense, and I can't for the life of me figure out why one relatively short sentence needed seven commas. I think the whole "this entire chunk of the article isn't in the article but is actually transcluded through a template" is really bizarre though, but maybe there's some consensus or rationale for that which I'm sure I'm unaware of. - Aoidh ( talk) 23:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The summary of the narrative is shared with the three articles on the individual volumes, which have their own, unshared, reception sections. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 03:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay. Not the way I'd personally do it, though I do see the merits. I can't really find fault with something just because its unusual to me though. If it works it works, though there is the slight downside of the templates likely being on fewer watchlists, letting unconstructive edits through, but I've put it on my watchlist too. Hopefully nobody will add sentences, where, there, are, so, many, commas, unnecessarily, again. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe I inspired this arrangement. I intended to do this as a waystation on the road to the amalgamation of the three volume articles into one article for the novel. Chiswick Chap agreed with me at the time, but has since reneged. If we are not to move to one article, I don't see the point of sharing the summary of the narrative. Just saying.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that The Lord is Sauron? What rules out that the One Ring is the Lord in the title? It would be a shame to lead the article with a statement that crushes a possibly intended ambiguity 82.152.203.16 ( talk) 14:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Sauron is explicitly named as the Lord of the Rings by Gandalf. There used to be a note on the article to clarify, but someone's taken it out. GimliDotNet ( talk) 15:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 6#Lord of the Rings referring to Sauron? for more on this GimliDotNet ( talk) 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Annotated, as clearly helpful. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Also see the poem, "One Ring to Rule Them All".-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Under the section "Concept and Creation", in the "Writing" subsection, the first paragraph ends with:

As the story progressed, he brought in elements from The Silmarillion mythology.

The reference for the above statement is as follows:

Rérolle, Raphaëlle (5 December 2012). "My Father's 'Eviscerated' Work – Son Of Hobbit Scribe J. R. R. Tolkien Finally Speaks Out". Le Monde/Worldcrunch. Archived from the original on 10 February 2013.

The claim "he brought in elements from The Silmarillion mythology" is not explicitly or even implicitly mentioned in the cited article. The closest related idea from the article is perhaps:

In 1937, as soon as it was published, The Hobbit immediately became a critical and popular success, to the point where its then publisher, Allen and Unwin, demanded a sequel urgently. Tolkien, though, did not wish to continue in the same vein. He had instead almost finished a narrative of the most ancient times of his universe, which he called The Silmarillion. Too difficult, decreed the publisher, who continued to harass him. The writer, a bit half-heartedly, accepted the project of writing a new story. In fact, he was about to set in place the first stone of what would become The Lord of the Rings.

But there is no indication that as the writing of the Lord of the Rings books progressed, the author leveraged more elements from the previously unfinished book. The article states the writer accepted the project of writing a new story, implying that work stopped on the previous project. No connection is stated between the contents of the previously unfinished work and the new project; it is only after stopping the old work and accepting the new project that the writer would "set in place the first stone of what would become The Lord of the Rings.".

I think it would be better to remove that sentence completely. There is a cleaner lead to the next paragraph without it anyway. Johnalexjay ( talk) 07:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The relationship between the two "books" is far more complex than this, as Tolkien had been working on his Legendarium (The Silmarillion writ large but unpublished, in thousands of partial drafts) since at least 1917, and built in many allusions to "Silmarillion" events in earlier ages to provide an impression of depth. Clearly the citation is not ideal to convey this concept. I'll look out something better. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the Le Monde ref as unhelpful, and added a citation (already in the article) to Tom Shippey's Road to Middle-earth. He writes that "The Lord of the Rings ... has in abundance ... the old Beowulfian 'impression of depth', created just as in the old epics by songs and digressions like Aragorn's song of Beren and Lúthien, Sam Gamgee's allusions to the Silmaril and the Iron Crown" [of Morgoth], Elrond's account of Celebrimbor, and dozens more." In short, "elements from The Silmarillion mythology" which Tolkien "brought in". Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As similar as The Lord of the Rings is to Wagner's works ergo The Ring of the Nibelung, I'd have thought there would have been some mention in this article. 73.214.121.179 ( talk) 04:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. However, this article is at the top of a hierarchy of over 100 articles, which discuss many aspects of the book and its influences. The "Influences" section here, necessarily brief, has a "Main" link to " J. R. R. Tolkien's influences" which discusses your topic in more detail; the section actually does mentions mythology and German heroic legend, too. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The Plot section of the article is way too long. It just gives the plot outlines from their respective pages verbatim. Inclusion of the Prologue is unnecessary here (as it's on the FOTR page) and the Appendices need not be so detailed here either. The plot of each of the volumes should be condensed and need not be split by book - this level of detail should be left for the individual volume pages. – Dyolf87 ( talk) 13:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit too long.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

All right, condensed. I do hope this doesn't start the fans editing the plot all over again: the #included plots did deter casual editing. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If necessary, you can still transclude the plot summaries from templates for that purpose. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 15:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, we possibly could, but folks object to single-target templates. Anyway, let's hope we don't need to go there. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Another source claims sales figures of 100 million prior to 2003. "Thanks partly to filmmaker Peter Jackson, the Tolkien brand has never been stronger. Fully one-third of the 150 million copies of The Lord of the Rings sold to date were purchased after the release of the first film in the series." https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/tolkien-proves-hes-still-the-king/article_80f1a604-79c8-505a-8ab3-9e0f9f3e67a4.html 149.76.165.40 ( talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, accurate figures are hard to come by, and what few mentions there are, including that one, tend to contradict each other, with no indication where they got their numbers. What we'd like is actual annual global sales, of course. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 04:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)