Talk:The Lord of the Rings

An evil tree who controls much of the forest?

Is he really evil and does he control much of the forest?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"it may come as something of a shock to be reminded that the first real villain to be met in LR is a tree. ... we know more than enough about Old Man Willow. Huge, hostile, malicious, his trapping of Merry and Pippin in his willowy toils, his attempt to drown Frodo, give the hobbits their first major setback, and come uncomfortably close to ending their journey before it has properly started."

"But none were more dangerous than the Great Willow: his heart was rotten, but his strength was green; and he was cunning, and a master of winds, and his song and thought ran through the woods on both sides of the river. His grey thirsty spirit drew power out of the earth and spread like fine root-threads in the ground, and invisible twig-fingers in the air, till it had under its dominion nearly all the trees of the Forest from the Hedge to the Downs." (LR, book 1, ch. 7, "In the House of Tom Bombadil")

Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Black Riders aren't villains?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead

From quiet beginnings in the Shire, a hobbit land not unlike the English countryside, the story ranges across Middle-earth, following the course of the War of the Ring through the eyes of the hobbits Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin.

Firstly, I'm not sure the long-expected party with its fireworks and the disappearance of Bilbo should be described as quiet. Then in "The Shadow of the Past", Gandalf drops a bombshell, and the Black Riders appear in "Three in Company". Perhaps "homely" would be a better word. Secondly, the Shire is really not like the English countryside that has ever existed. It has medieval elements and Edwardian elements mixed together, and of course it is inhabited by hobbits. Perhaps "reminiscent" would be a better word. Thirdly, do we need to use the term "War of the Ring"? It's ambiguous and rarely used in the book. Fourthly, it's not true the story is told through the eyes of the four hobbits. There is a strand of the story from "The Departure of Boromir" to "Flotsam and Jetsam" where no hobbits appear.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Tweaked. Said 'mainly' for the hobbits as they get 99% of the narrative; and recall that T. said that the tale of Aragorn and Arwen had to be in appendices as the main story was told by hobbits... Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Filmmakers who considered it

This isn't an article on Middle-earth in film, containing as is proper only a short summary covering 'the main points'. The mention of filmmakers who considered the project is meant only to give an indication that they were many and famous; it is not, and should not attempt to be, a full list, though perhaps such a thing would be appropriate for the more detailed article (or in the case of people who only thought about it momentarily, perhaps not). I've therefore removed the mention of Henson (and omitted several other such passing players). The attention here is rightly on the book, with a film section essentially as an aside. Hope this is fine with everybody. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Germanic heroic legend

Dear Chiswick Chap,

1. I'm not sure how adding a link to a demonstrable influence on Tolkien is "spamming across multiple articles", this is a huge subject that until just today was not properly covered in one place on Wikipedia and has been, as it is here, incorrectly called "mythology" in most places. My only interest is connecting the new article to all appropriate pages.
2. The notion that the addition is unsourced does really add up when an example of Germanic heroic legend, the Völsunga saga, is cited immediately after where I added the link. Other Tolkien influences such as Hervarar saga and Beowulf are also examples of Germanic heroic legend - you can have a look at Germanic heroic legend#Post-World War 2 for additional sources, should you want them, that have been assembled by Berig there. --Ermenrich (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, the link seems fine down there, though the myth/legend distinction is a pretty fine one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Balrog

Can't we just say balrog?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think a succinct and accurate description of what they are/referred to as is justified and not unreasonable, especially as it is lifted directly from the page. I looked for 'fire wizzard' in the index, couldn't find it.Halbared (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I find these discussions of the nature of Tolkien's creatures tedious. They are fictional creations.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Good for you, feller!Halbared (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You are in the wrong place. 24.4.136.172 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

Is there a citation to say this means Sauron? It could mean the One Ring itself, lord of all the other rings. 24.4.136.172 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)