| Revision as of 06:43, 8 May 2022 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,948 editsm Signing comment by 109.105.39.22 - ""Tag: Reverted← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:59, 22 September 2024 edit undoChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,184 edits →"Although often mistakenly called a trilogy...": ok |
| (70 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Arts|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{British English Oxford spelling|date=September 2010}} |
|
{{British English Oxford spelling|date=September 2010}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
| Line 49: |
Line 48: |
|
|topic=Literature |
|
|topic=Literature |
|
|otd1date=2021-07-29|otd1oldid=1036086190 |
|
|otd1date=2021-07-29|otd1oldid=1036086190 |
|
|
|otd2date=2022-07-29|otd2oldid=1101065632 |
|
|
|otd3date=2023-07-29|otd3oldid=1167415846 |
|
|
|otd4date=2024-07-29|otd4oldid=1237292463 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Lord of the Rings, The|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Middle-earth |class=GA |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books |class=GA |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
{{WikiProject Novels |class=GA |importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature |class=GA |importance=Top |list as=Lord of the Rings, The}} |
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top }} |
|
{{WikiProject Media franchises |class=GA |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Popular culture|importance=High }} |
|
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=GA |category=Langlit}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Popular Culture |importance=High |class=GA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=High }} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 63: |
Line 65: |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive %(counter)d |
| Line 78: |
Line 80: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=="Although often mistakenly called a trilogy..."== |
|
== Tree Herders (Ents) == |
|
|
|
Even if Tolkien hadn't himself called it a trilogy (which he did), this is slightly unhinged / {{sc|]}}y wording for something that{{mdash}}regardless of original intent{{mdash}}was in fact published and has continually been republished as a trilogy, innit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who call it a trilogy aren't mistaken in any sense, although there are historical / resurrection-of-the-author reasons not to consider it a mistake to refer to it as a single book or a hexalogy either. — ] 13:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I ran across a couple of articles on the ] 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
: Thanks for your thoughts. However, the statement is not an editorial Point-of-View as you imply: it is reliably cited both to one of Tolkien's letters, and to the Tolkien Society, so we have it on extremely good authority. ] (]) 13:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Except those ''aren't'' authorities, any more than the guy who tried to get everyone else to change how they talk by putting up a sign that "GIF is pronounced JIF, not GIF". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Trilogy has a straightforward meaning, is widely used for this work, and original authorial preference for how the work ''wasn't'' published has no bearing. Leaving aside that you've got a separate source for Tolkien himself calling it one, not that it especially matters. |
|
: 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). ] (]) 09:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::In any case, the wording as it stands is incredibly {{sc|]}}y. See ] for how it used to be more sensibly worded based on the same sources. — ] 13:51, 17 September 2024 (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. -- ] (]) 18:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::There are any number of critical and scholarly sources saying the same thing, e.g. . ] (]) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Your source admits in his opening sentences that everyone but the people involved in the process of publication (and a minority of fans) considers it a trilogy. , showing the balance of scholarship and actual use ''isn't'' on the side of using the word "mistakenly" here. — ] 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Images == |
|
|
|
::Note also that Tolkien pointedly objected to describing this works as a novel (]). The current article begins |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''This article is about the novel... The Lord of the Rings is an epic high fantasy novel...'' |
|
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
::Any particular reason you're devoted to following the guy's opinion on one term but not the other? If anything, it's certainly a 3-volume work and only questionably a novel, unless you're going by the definition that ''any'' long piece of prose is automatically one. — ] 14:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:: {{ping|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. ] (]) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
::: You are very argumentative. I'm aware of what Tally says, and we are not relying on him alone, you won't get anywhere by picking and choosing among the evidence. As you have already been told, there are multiple RS of which I've told you about 3 so far, there are others: the matter is reliably cited and not in doubt. Tally makes quite clear that folks think it's a trilogy but, and the emphasis is on the but. The weight of sources is more than sufficient for the statement. ] (]) 14:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I would tend to agree that 'mistaken' is too strong to be written in wiki voice. Whether the 3 published works are a trilogy or not is not an objective fact that one can be wrong or right about, it's a descriptor applied to the work by sources. If we're going to say that it's 'mistaken' to be described as a trilogy without in text attributation, the bar isn't that there are sources that support mistaken, it's that any that don't are so outnumbered or discredited that they're basically fringe. I'm not seeing that. Britinaica refers to it both as a novel and also the Fellowship as being the first of the trilogy, which I think is reasonable; both descriptors are valid. I'm fine with the top of the lead describing it as a novel, but would support removing the word mistakenly, which would have added advantage of being in line with the body text in the publication history section. ] (]) 16:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::This sounds pretty reasonable to me. The vast majority of people who have read the work did so in three volume form. In the common meaning of "trilogy" this is a pretty apt fit so to call the majority of people's reasonable common sense interpretation "mistaken" on the basis of some letters from Tolkien definitely seems like it is a Point of View. Removing the word makes it substantially more neutral and conveys the same intent ] (]) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Set in prehistory, really? == |
|
|
⚫ |
:::::: OK, the sentence is clear enough without it. ] (]) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
{{ping|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. — ] (]) 14:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
:: Fictional history, maybe, but long before any real writing system was invented anywhere in the world. ] (]) 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.] (]) 15:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
TjgnruivnfruivnfehivnfehinvhfiebvfrhibvfrhibvfehivhifencfenchdeinccjdkwncjfidnvfrjibvhfeihfinvhigrnhivntrhnvuinvjfiencfjievbghuvnfhivnfjviGnvhignvhignvuitnfutivnghuigznuinvhggihuthfughtufihfihenxjiwdnx-:€’elmcjovfrji vnihgvnhivfbnfehicnhincihfnv <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Even if Tolkien hadn't himself called it a trilogy (which he did), this is slightly unhinged / WP:POVy wording for something that—regardless of original intent—was in fact published and has continually been republished as a trilogy, innit?
People who call it a trilogy aren't mistaken in any sense, although there are historical / resurrection-of-the-author reasons not to consider it a mistake to refer to it as a single book or a hexalogy either. — LlywelynII 13:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
