| Revision as of 21:01, 6 January 2024 editHarryboyles (talk | contribs)Administrators159,114 editsm →top: fixing listas parameter in {{WikiProject Children's literature}}Tag: AWB← 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, Rollbackers297,176 edits →"Although often mistakenly called a trilogy...": ok |
| (26 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) |
| Line 50: |
Line 50: |
|
|otd2date=2022-07-29|otd2oldid=1101065632 |
|
|otd2date=2022-07-29|otd2oldid=1101065632 |
|
|otd3date=2023-07-29|otd3oldid=1167415846 |
|
|otd3date=2023-07-29|otd3oldid=1167415846 |
|
|
|otd4date=2024-07-29|otd4oldid=1237292463 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Lord of the Rings, The|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top |listas=Lord of the Rings, The}} |
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top }} |
|
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Popular Culture|importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject Popular culture|importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=High }} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 79: |
Line 80: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=="Although often mistakenly called a trilogy..."== |
|
== Inaccurate Reference Attribution == |
|
|
|
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) |
|
Under the section "Concept and Creation", in the "Writing" subsection, the first paragraph ends with: |
|
|
<blockquote>As the story progressed, he brought in elements from The Silmarillion mythology.</blockquote> |
|
|
The reference for the above statement is as follows: |
|
|
<p>Rérolle, Raphaëlle (5 December 2012). . '']/Worldcrunch''. Archived from on 10 February 2013.</p> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: 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) |
|
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: |
|
|
|
:: 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". |
|
<blockquote>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 '']''. 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.''</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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. |
|
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.''". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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) |
|
I think it would be better to remove that sentence completely. There is a cleaner lead to the next paragraph without it anyway. ] (]) 07:23, 10 February 2023 (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) |
|
:: Thanks for this. The relationship between the two "books" is far more complex than this, as Tolkien had been working on ] (''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 ]. Clearly the citation is not ideal to convey this concept. I'll look out something better. ] (]) 09:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::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...'' |
|
::: 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 ], Sam Gamgee's allusions to the ] and the Iron Crown" ]], Elrond's account of ], and dozens more." In short, "elements from The Silmarillion mythology" which Tolkien "brought in". ] (]) 09:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: 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) |
|
== The Ring of the Nibelung & Wagner get no mention? == |
|
|
|
::::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) |
|
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. ] (]) 04:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::: OK, the sentence is clear enough without it. ] (]) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (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. ] here, necessarily brief, has a "Main" link to "]" which discusses your topic in more detail; the section actually does mentions mythology and German heroic legend, too. ] (]) 09:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
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.
