Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Lord of the Rings: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:46, 26 October 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits →Article size: suggestions← 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 
(938 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{British English Oxford spelling|date=September 2010}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR |action1=PR
Line 13: Line 16:
|action3=PR |action3=PR
|action3date=13:50, 29 April 2006 |action3date=13:50, 29 April 2006
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings/archive2
|action3result=reviewed |action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=50736069 |action3oldid=50736069
Line 22: Line 25:
|action4result=promoted |action4result=promoted
|action4oldid=59272610 |action4oldid=59272610

|action5=FAR
|action5date=07:03, 29 September 2008
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings/archive1
|action5result=removed
|action5oldid=241714041

|action6=PR
|action6date=06:22, 26 December 2009
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings/archive3
|action6result=reviewed
|action6oldid=334048696

|action7=GAN
|action7date=16:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
|action7link=Talk:The Lord of the Rings/GA1
|action7result=listed
|action7oldid=976000607


|maindate=October 5, 2006 |maindate=October 5, 2006
|currentstatus=FA |currentstatus=GA
|topic=Literature
|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|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Lord of the Rings, The|1=
{{WikiProject Middle-earth|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Books}}
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=Top |fantasy-task-force=yes |fantasy-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Popular culture|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=High }}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{tan}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


{{Online source
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
| title = MPs Misplaced Pages pages 'changed from inside Parliament'
{{ME-project|class=FA|importance=Top |nested=yes}}
| author = Furness, Hannah
{{WPBooks|class=FA |nested=yes}}
| year = 2012
{{NovelsWikiProject|class=FA|importance=Top|fantasy-task-force=yes |nested=yes}}
| monthday = 9 March
| url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9132758/MPs-Misplaced Pages-pages-changed-from-inside-Parliament.html
| org = The Daily Telegraph
| accessdate = 14 March 2012
}} }}


=="Although often mistakenly called a trilogy..."==
{{todo|1|small=yes}}
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?
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Langlit|small=yes}}

{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|(])|]|small=yes}}

*] ? – August 2004
*] August 2004 – December 2005
*] December 2005 – September 2006
*] September 2006 - October 2007

==What exactly is Middle-earth?==

Hi guys, just wanted to clarify the categorical definition of what Middle-earth is, as is relevant to its mention at the beginning of the second paragraph of the introduction. In the article it was previously the "fictional region of Middle-earth", but this doesn't really work because Middle-earth isn't simply some geographical area in Tolkien's world, or at least if it once was it is not any more (at the time of LOTR). To call it a continent doesn't help much either, for the same reasons. I mean, am I correct in saying that the name and concept derive from equivalents in several European mythologies, for example Midgard of Norse Mythology, which is the mortal world below the world of the gods and above the underworld of the dead? And if this is true, is it not then reasonable to simply refer to this story as being set in the fictional "world" of Middle-earth, the same way we call the real Earth the world, and don't mean to include such metaphysicals as "heaven"? ] 03:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, in Tolkien's world, ''Middle-Earth'' (the name of the place) is the name of '''a middle-earth''' (as you have defined it). He has titled it that. It is actually a region within ]. So, as Tolkien has defined it, the story is set in the middle-earth of Middle-Earth, just as if you lived in a city called "City." Does this help? ]<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

::See also ]. ] 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

:::David, I don't understand what you're saying - how is the story set in a middle-earth of Middle-earth? But I do recognise that it is a difficult definition to nail down, especially since Aman was originally geographically part of the same physical world as the lands of Middle-earth, but when Aman (and the Lands to the East?) was removed from the spheres of the world only Middle-earth remained in the mortal world, and it is this Middle-earth from Tolkien's fictional pre-history that has become the Earth we know and live on now. Additionally, since this is after all the introduction to an article about The Lord Of The Rings, I think we ought not to be too finicky in our explanation of all this, as it is simply not the place.

:::So perhaps 'world' is too troublesome a word to use here, but I strongly feel that referring to Middle-earth as simply a 'continent' is wrong. As a compromise, how about 'realm'? Although realm is a bit wishy-washy. Or we could eliminate a category altogether, and just say: "The Lord of the Rings is set in a fictional Earth of pre-history, called Middle-earth." How would that be? ] 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

::::It would be wrong. The Earth is not called Middle-earth in Tolkien's mythology, but Ambar. (] is the name of the entire system local to the Earth, including Sun, Moon, etc., and not that of the Earth ''per se'', although its often used that way.)

::::David is a little confused, so it's not surprising you don't understand him. He's laboring under the misapprehension that Tolkien came up with something new here, which wasn't his intention. You were right the first time. "Middle-earth" is just Tolkien's modernization of an Old English word with the same meaning as Midgard. It's sometimes called a continent, but that's mainly because it appears to be a continuous landmass and all the other continents he mentioned were not part of Middle-earth by its old meaning; i.e. they were ''not'' inhabited by men.

::::It's more accurate to say that the story is part of a fictional history of the real Earth, which is what Tolkien always said it was. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 23:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::To clarify then, what is the difference between Ambar and Middle-earth?
::::::Middle-earth is strictly a continent in Ambar (Earth), which is part of Arda (Earth and "everying in the skies around it"), but Tolkien himself used it more loosely. See ]. ] 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::To be honest, I don't think we need make any reference to Tolkien's story being set in a fictional pre-history of our own world in this introduction, as it is unnecessarily detailed information. How about an essential reversion to an earlier form of the paragraph: "The Lord of the Rings is set in Middle-earth, a fictional land populated by Men (humans) and other humanoid races: Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs." Any thoughts on 'land' to replace 'world' here? I think it compromises quite nicely, since it is generic enough to be more than purely geographical, but is less than world-encompassing. ] 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:Right now it's phrased "set in a alternate prehistoric Earth, specifically in the continent called Middle-earth". I think the reason why it keeps getting fine-tuned is to avoid misconceptions - Middle-earth's not a different planet (unlike ]), and it ''is'' (part of a version of) our Earth (unlike ]). Yours is less cumbersome, but we need an invisible note to stop it being changed to "world" or even "planet". ] 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

::It's been changed again and, while the current version is factually accurate, it is also much too long and unwieldy for this introduction section. If we must have this depth of information in the article, can I suggest we move it to the first paragraph of the Background section, or possibly even drop it into the Influences section (since this construct is fairly analogous with the pre-histories of real European mythologies)? But I'd like to know if there's some consensus on this first. ] 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

:::What's wrong with the phrasing used on the JRR Tolkien entry: "an imagined world called Arda, and Middle-earth (derived from an Anglicized form of Old Norse Miðgarðr, the land inhabited by humans in Germanic paganism) in particular, loosely identified as an "alternative" remote past of our own world."? ] 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

::::While that is a relatively efficient way to sum up a precise definition, again that wording is, in my opinion, much too long and unnecessarily detailed for the introduction to this article. Furthermore, Arda as a name is never actually used in LOTR (am I right in saying this?), so it seems inappropriate to use it here.

::::As a general observation, it seems that the introduction section has been steadily ballooning in the past few months. Most of it has been in the second paragraph (ie: the paragraph in question here). I just think a bit of perspective on the scope of this present article is needed. ] 23:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== References ==

I don't know if anyone noticed, but ] coded as <nowiki><ref name="letters" /></nowiki> has been missing since in April. --'''''<font color="007575">]</font>'<font color="black">]</font>'<font color="FF7700">]</font>''''' 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks. I think it's fixed now. ] 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 13:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
== Article size ==


: 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)
To be short, this article has become far too long. When it was promoted to FA it was less than 50 KB. It is now 73 KB. After such a fight for its size, I think that is is a shame that it has ballooned to the levels it is at. At any rate, I can already see some of the areas it has increased in size. If someone would be willing to attack the backstory and synopsis, I think I could get the rest. I'm just not great at plot recollection and writing. At any rate, any assistance in this task is welcome. ] 02:37, 26 October 2007 (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".
*Having cut it to 70 KB, I really do not see where all the additions are. Most of it is similar. I think Influences could use a trimming but I'm not really sure what needs to do. Besides that and the earlier mentioned synopsis, I'm not really sure where to cut from. Any input is welcome. ] 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


::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.
:I tend to agree with you on this point. I think long sections can be fine if they're appropriate and relevant, but I feel that parts of this article go into unnecessary and often irrelevant detail. I've done a few trims in the intro section and in parts of the Back story and Synopsis - nothing too radical yet, just a steady pruning operation. :) ] 12:27, 26 October 2007 (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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 13:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:I think that the size can be tackled the following way:
:::There are any number of critical and scholarly sources saying the same thing, e.g. . ] (]) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:*Trim and condense the lead section. Details like the high cost of paper in the war can be left to the main article. It's difficult, because the lead section is quite nice at the moment, but some trimming is needed there.
:::: 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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:*The background section really needs vicious pruning and merging into the synopsis section.
::Note also that Tolkien pointedly objected to describing this works as a novel (]). The current article begins
:*The synopsis itself should be much shorter and leave details to the three "main articles" linked at the top of the section.
:::''This article is about the novel... The Lord of the Rings is an epic high fantasy novel...''
:*Create four new subarticles to cover (1) the writing history; (2) the publication history; (3) the influences; and (4) the critical responses. Leave shorter, ] sections behind.
::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.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 14:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:Hopefully that will make the article more readable, allowing some people to read the whole article in a reasonable amount of time, while others read through the subarticles. ] 12:46, 26 October 2007 (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)
:::::: OK, the sentence is clear enough without it. ] (]) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:59, 22 September 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Lord of the Rings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleThe Lord of the Rings is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleThe Lord of the Rings has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 5, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 17, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 18, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
September 29, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
December 26, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 31, 2020Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 29, 2021, July 29, 2022, July 29, 2023, and July 29, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMiddle-earth Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
WikiProject iconBooks
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
WikiProject iconNovels: Fantasy Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconChildren's literature Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Things you can do edit
WikiProject iconMedia franchises Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPopular culture (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture
WikiProject iconCulture High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Although often mistakenly called a trilogy..."

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)

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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 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.
In any case, the wording as it stands is incredibly WP:POVy. See Archive 7 for how it used to be more sensibly worded based on the same sources. — LlywelynII 13:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
There are any number of critical and scholarly sources saying the same thing, e.g. Robert T. Tally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 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. Ngram bears that out, showing the balance of scholarship and actual use isn't on the side of using the word "mistakenly" here. — LlywelynII 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note also that Tolkien pointedly objected to describing this works as a novel (Archive 3). The current article begins
This article is about the novel... The Lord of the Rings is an epic high fantasy novel...
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. — LlywelynII 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 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. Scribolt (talk) 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 Strangefeatures (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
OK, the sentence is clear enough without it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: