| Revision as of 14:40, 25 October 2022 editWolfquack (talk | contribs)385 edits →Maybe put in Christian Novels category: ReplyTag: Reply← 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, Rollbackers297,206 edits →"Although often mistakenly called a trilogy...": ok |
| (52 intermediate revisions by 23 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 50: |
Line 49: |
|
|otd1date=2021-07-29|otd1oldid=1036086190 |
|
|otd1date=2021-07-29|otd1oldid=1036086190 |
|
|otd2date=2022-07-29|otd2oldid=1101065632 |
|
|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 64: |
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 79: |
Line 80: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
=="Although often mistakenly called a trilogy..."== |
|
== Set in prehistory, really? == |
|
|
|
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) |
|
{{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) |
|
: 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. |
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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) |
|
::: 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. — ] (]) 04:18, 10 May 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) |
|
:::: Ah, we're all going wrong here by arguing within the domain and by analogy, i.e. we're falling foul of ], stating our own opinions (]) 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. ] (]) 07:38, 10 May 2022 (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...'' |
|
:::::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?] (]) 08:40, 10 May 2022 (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) |
| ⚫ |
:::::: Ah, of course. Impeccable. ] (]) 14:42, 10 May 2022 (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) |
|
== The Last Ringbearer == |
|
|
⚫ |
:::::: OK, the sentence is clear enough without it. ] (]) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (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. ] (]) 20:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Gandalf proves that Frodo's Ring is..." == |
|
|
|
|
|
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? ] (]) 23:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've removed the text, which was added . 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 ]" is really bizarre though, but maybe there's some consensus or rationale for that which I'm sure I'm unaware of. - ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 03:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Maybe put in Christian Novels category == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree. I think that would cause controversy and confusion.--] (]) 02:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Eh ok, since the consensus seems no I guess I’ll leave it at that. ] (]) 14:40, 25 October 2022 (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.
