| Revision as of 19:26, 19 July 2002 editOrtolan88 (talk | contribs)10,369 editsm *three tildes for name, four tildes name and date← 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 |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
The correct abbreviations for the booksar RotK, LotR, and so on. Note lowercase t. --samth |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{British English Oxford spelling|date=September 2010}} |
|
Cleaned up this page by removing resolved discussion of the books as dubbed "The Trilogy." -- ] |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
Just heard on a radio programme that Tolkein sent new chapters to his son Christopher when Christopher was fighting in WWII (source was an interview with Christopher)-- how does that fit into the bedtime story thing? |
|
|
|
|action1date=09:00, 16 January 2006 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=35379762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
:Tolkien did take a long time writing the whole works, and perhaps was creating the stories to his children long before he started writing them down for publication. But it's worth looking into. --DGJ |
|
|
|
|action2date=17:41, 17 April 2006 |
|
|
|action2result=not listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=48858272 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=PR |
|
: I've done some looking. Tolkien's prologue to LotR mentions sending the the chapters describing Frodo's journey to Moria to his son Christopher (then about 20 and with the RAIF) in 1944. According to a random Tolkien chronology I found on the Internet, Tolkien's youngest child was born in 1929 (around the time he finished Sh, and so would have been 15 or so. Too old for bedtime stories perhaps, but this was some seven or eight years after Tolkien had begun writing LotR; the fact that he sent chapters to Christopher overseas may suggest how important it was to Tolkien to continue to share the creative process with his son. But the "telling stories to his children" thing ought perhaps to be moved to a general Tolkien article (if there's not something there already). --DGJ |
|
|
|
|action3date=13:50, 29 April 2006 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings/archive2 |
|
If you don't agree with the default wikification of ISBN's on Misplaced Pages, don't nowiki them, just take it up with the coders. I believe it's being changed in Magnus's script. |
|
|
|
|action3result=reviewed |
|
--TheCunctator |
|
|
|
|action3oldid=50736069 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
'''Re: bedtime stories''' |
|
|
|
|action4date=13:48, 18 June 2006 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Lord of the Rings |
|
|
|action4result=promoted |
|
|
|action4oldid=59272610 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAR |
|
I agree that the bedtime stuff is misleading at best. Really, it was Tom Bombadil stories, the Father Christmas Letters, and maybe The Hobbit that were for his kids when they were little. |
|
|
|
|action5date=07:03, 29 September 2008 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings/archive1 |
|
|
|action5result=removed |
|
|
|action5oldid=241714041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=PR |
|
:Misleading at worst, I think... --DGJ |
|
|
|
|action6date=06:22, 26 December 2009 |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings/archive3 |
|
|
|action6result=reviewed |
|
|
|action6oldid=334048696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=GAN |
|
moreover, this entire paragraph ... |
|
|
|
|action7date=16:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|action7link=Talk:The Lord of the Rings/GA1 |
|
|
|action7result=listed |
|
|
|action7oldid=976000607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|maindate=October 5, 2006 |
|
:This remarkable work by the mid-1960s had become, especially in its appeal to young people, a sociocultural phenomenon. Whatever life Middle Earth has taken on for itself in the mind of the public, Tolkien himself -- a devout Catholic -- thought of his fantasy works (originally begun as bedtime stories to amuse his children) as ways to teach religious truths to people who would ordinarily not be interested in moral instruction. |
|
|
|
|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 |
|
...in my opinion has NPOV issues (such as the word "remarkable") -- and the religious motivations need attribution. Moreover, this content deserves its own page, such as ] to describe his incredibly heavy influence on modern fantasy fiction, gaming, and Christian thought (especially viv-a-vis ] and ]). The pop-culture references would go here too. Hmmm. Note to self: put this on to do list! -- ] |
|
|
|
| title = MPs Misplaced Pages pages 'changed from inside Parliament' |
|
|
| author = Furness, Hannah |
|
|
| year = 2012 |
|
|
| 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..."== |
|
:I do have quotations from Tolkien's letters to his sons describing his moral/religous aims. It's also fair to note that the passge quoted above does not claim that Tolkien *only* thought of his work in such overtly religious terms. I'll make a few changes to that section, but you're right -- a page on Tolkien's impact would be a better place to explore this issue. -- DGJ |
|
|
|
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'll be working on such a page shortly. I look forward to your comments and collaboration! -- ]'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: 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 Lord of the Rings' is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism." (from a letter in 1953 to Robert Murray, a Jesuit priest, in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1981) |
|
|
|
:: 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. |
|
:I don't know enough about Tolkien to know whether he had a habit of telling Catholic priests that LotR was fundamentally Catholic, chefs that it was fundamentally about food, and cartographers that it was fundamentally about geography. Nevertheless, there's some support to the religous claims. Joseph Pearce has written much on Tolkien as a Catholic, and has done a lot of interviews lately; one might also cite him. (I've only heard Pearce in radio interviews, though he's on my "to read" list.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Frankly, we need an "Impact" page to talk about pop cultire and influences and a "religion" page to talk about the role/influences of Christianity on Tolkein's work. Hmmmm. Note to self ... -- ]'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Another follow up on "bedtime stories". Here's a quote regarding the first draft of The Hobbit: "He tried it out on his 10-year old son Rayner, who wrote an approving report, and it was published as The Hobbit in 1937." -- http://www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/biog_frame.html I don't happen to have any recent biographies of Tolkien, but it does appear that the "bedtime stories" comments are better applied to Tolkien in general, rather than LotR in particular. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Actually, this note is misleading. The "He" in the quote refers to Sir Stanley Unwin, JRRT's publisher, Allen and Unwin. Sir Stanley tried out The Hobbit on his son Rayner, who liked it. (For more on this topic, see "Letters.") If I recall correctly, JRRT had three children, John, Michael, and Priscilla. -- ]'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:I happen to have a copy of "Tolkein: A Look at the Lord of the Rings" (Lin Carter, 1969). Probably not the best source... nevertheless: "For some years -- as early as 1935, perhaps -- he had found himself amusing his children by telling them tales of the imaginary world he had invented." (p. 11... and this world is indeed identified as "Middle-earth"). Since LotR is the sequel to the Hobbit, and since Carter associates the Hobbit with stories told for his children's amusement, it's fair to make some connection between LotR and the bedtime stories (which, admittedly, might have been breakfast time or teatime stories -- I don't have a citation for that.) Note, also, how the first chapters of book 1 focus on Frodo's upbringing, and are so very different in tone than the chapters he wrote later (after the outbreak of WWII). Yet on page 17, Carter quotes excerpts from 2 C.S. Lewis letters, referring to the embryonic LotR as "the new Hobbit book". |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''On the jacket flap of the first printing of The Hobbit, someone at Allen and Unwin wrote that The Hobbit was "read aloud in nursery days" to JRRT's kids. JRRT wrote back that he never had a nursery, and read to his kids in his study. He also said, "My eldest boy was thirteen when he first heard the serial . It did not appeal to the younger ones who had to grow up to it successively." (from "Letters," Letter No. 15)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''I think the "bedtime stories" reference is misleading because it was read in a study, not a bedroom, and to a 13-year old -- not exactly the age at which one reads bedtime stories. If a "bedtime story" reference should be made, it should be in ] entry, I think, not ]. -- ]'' |
|
|
---- |
|
|
The LOTR movie is #61 on the www.imdb.com list of top-grossing movies in America. I expect it to finish in the top 10 or 20. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Whatever life Middle Earth has taken on for itself in the mind of the public, Tolkien himself -- a devout ] -- thought of his fantasy works (originally begun as bedtime stories to amuse his children) as ways to teach religious truths to people who would ordinarily not be interested in moral instruction. |
|
|
|
|
|
The comment 'originally begun'... is just false as it stands; his fantasy works were begun before he had children. |
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that he thought of his works as ways to _teach_ religious truths is new to me. I find no reference to it in the Carpenter biography nor in his collected letters. I'd like to see a reference for this if it's to stand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Where shall we put information about ] movies? Shall we create a ] or shall we just add that information to the ] page? The information I'm thinking of is stuff like actors and awards the movie won and so on. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say a separate page. Otherwise it becomes difficult to talk about the actual events in the story without getting tied up in knots in cases where the stories differ. It doesn't need to be a subpage; ] seems like a fine page title to me. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Reading this LotR entry, I wondered why there was such a long piece about ]... then I find the SAME (to teh word almost?) rant on the B5 entry. This duplication is unescessary, but I don't feel qualified to make the call on which entry it should exist on. Am thinking B5 should get the rant, since B5 cans are likely to care about it, but LotR fans are, on average, not. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
I think I recall reading that when LoTR was published, it won the Hugo award for "science fiction" or "science fiction/fantasy", in a year when many thought the award should go to Isaac Asimov for his ''Foundation'' series. Can anyone verify this? (now to go see if there's an entry for the '']'' series... oughtta be... mumble mumble...) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
It was the other way around; Asimov beat out Tolkien. In 1966 a Hugo was given for best all-time science fiction series; the nominees were LOTR, Foundation, Simak's "City", Smith's "Lensman" and Heinlein's "Future History". Asimov won. (In Asimov's autobiographies, he says that he felt the intent was to give it to LOTR but that the voting surprised everyone.) ] |
|
|
----------- |
|
|
Hi, I was thinking to move ] (as well as add the plot summaries for the other two volumes, under the ] warning, naturally) to the main page ]. What do you think of it? --] |
|
|
|
|
|
Hum, I don't know. Yes, it is true that, as of today, the story ''The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring'' is most commonly known simply as ''The Lord of the Rings'' (maninly due to the movie). But the term ''The Lord of the Rings'' refers to the entire three part saga so there is an ambiguity issue that then arrises. This is similar to the ambiguity between ''Star Wars'' the movie vs ] the the series of movies. In cases like these we should find valid alternate names for the lessor of the two usages, such as naming the movie most commonly called simply ''Star Wars'', to ] -- which is part of the official title and is therefore a valid alternative (can't use colons becasue the software does't allow it). I vote for keeping the content separate and if any move is made it should be from ] to simply ] -- in the same way as the ] movies now are (all the blasted / pages there have been killed). --] |
|
|
|
|
|
: That would hold true, were The Lord of the Rings a ] - but it's not. The book constitutes a single, inseparable work of art - even if printing (or screening) constraints meant it had to be bundled in three separate volumes. So the analogy to Star Wars does not hold --] |
|
|
|
|
|
I see your point -- there really is not real beginning, middle or end to each of the volumes. However, I for one would still tend to go for keeping it chopped-up and having ''detailed'' descriptions on the pages for each volume and a general plot synopsis at simply ]. ] is already beginning to be longish for wikipedia articles and combining it with ], expanding that section, and ''then'' latter adding material from the other two volumes will make ] article monstrously huge. Lets see what other people have to say. --] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
On the other hand, there is almost nothing about the books (three or six or whatever) in this article. Here is the entire description of the plot: |
|
|
:The hobbits of Tolkien's earlier tale become embroiled in great events that threaten their entire world, as Sauron, the embodiment of evil, attempts to regain the lost One Ring which will restore him to full potency. |
|
|
This hardly seems to do the books justice, particularly when so much space is given to peripheral matters such as the matter of Ace books and the copyright. (And even that does not quote Tolkein's eloquent blurb about "courtesy to living authors".) The ] article is fairly complete, but surely there ought to be something about it in this "main" article, and the other two books have not been written about at all, either here or in separate articles. ], Friday, July 19, 2002 |
|
|
---- |
|
|
'''Tolkien designed a complete mythology for his realm of Middle Earth, including genealogies of characters, languages, runes, calendars and histories.''' |
|
|
:From what I've read, he didn't design the languages for Middle Earth, but rather created Middle Earth and its races in order to have a ground for the languages he liked to create...anybody else read something similar? ] (how do you put the date also?) Three tildes for name, four tildes gets date too.], Friday, July 19, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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) |
|
|
:::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) |
|
|
::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...'' |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
::::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) |
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.
