| Revision as of 09:24, 10 February 2023 editChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,176 edits →top: fixed long ago← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:09, 20 February 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 9) (botNext edit → |
| Line 78: |
Line 78: |
|
| accessdate = 14 March 2012 |
|
| accessdate = 14 March 2012 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== "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) |
|
|
::I believe I inspired this arrangement. I intended to do this as a waystation on the road to the amalgamation of the three volume articles into one article for the novel. Chiswick Chap agreed with me at the time, but has since reneged. If we are not to move to one article, I don't see the point of sharing the summary of the narrative. Just saying.--] (]) 05:51, 20 January 2023 (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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The Lord? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Do we have evidence that The Lord is Sauron? What rules out that the One Ring is the Lord in the title? It would be a shame to lead the article with a statement that crushes a possibly intended ambiguity ] (]) 14:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: Sauron is explicitly named as the Lord of the Rings by Gandalf. There used to be a note on the article to clarify, but someone's taken it out. ] (]) 15:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: See ] for more on this ] (]) 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Annotated, as clearly helpful. ] (]) 16:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Also see the poem, "One Ring to Rule Them All".--] (]) 05:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Inaccurate Reference Attribution == |
|
== Inaccurate Reference Attribution == |
Under the section "Concept and Creation", in the "Writing" subsection, the first paragraph ends with:
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:
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 The Silmarillion. 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.
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.".
