Talk:The Lord of the Rings

archived discussions

Jackson movies

why dont you slag on the jackson movies? your treatment is a bit brief. what more do the critics say than 'deviated from the story' and that the 'tone' is different? any examples?

but really this is a great article, thanks.

The primary reason that the treatment of the movies is brief is that this article is not about the movies. For that, see The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (movie), The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (movie), and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (movie). Hope this helps. --Paul A 07:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings is a work that will stand for all time; as long as Chaucer or Shakespeare or Dante; I'm not being sarcastic. There have been several film adaptations of "Beowulf". Thus, should the wiki article on Beowulf center on one of these films that was made in, say, the 1950's? No. Over the period of decades if not a hundred years, there is a good possibility there will be new LOTR movie adaptations. That's not to say that the current adaptation isn't stellar in its quality. However, the movies still have more the feel of an interpretation than a definative adaptation. There are various changes in mood and pacing that could have been made which really don't affect the story at all, but stylistically could alter things quite a bit. We will see differently styled adaptations of this story over the years, and the movie adaptations cannot compare to the books.--- Ricimer 2:56, Sept 27 (EST)

Category:Birmingham, England?

What has the Category:Birmingham, England to do with the Lord of the Rings? That category shouldn't be in there just because Tolkien was inspired by some places there. Please don't overcategorize. --Conti|✉ 14:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The category has very little to do with LotR; LotR, on the other hand, has a lot to do with Birmingham. That's why LotR is being categorised as "Birmingham related", and not vice versa. Please don't under-categorise. Andy Mabbett 14:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Lord of the Ring is related to a ton of things (and categories), and not all of them should be added to the article (as a category), that's what I mean with overcategorization. It is worth mentioning that Tolkien was inspired by some things in Birmingham, but the category itself is unnecessary. --Conti|✉ 15:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The category is not being added to the article; the article is being added to the category. Andy Mabbett 15:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neither does the category belong to the article, nor does the article belong to the category, I explained above why. --Conti|✉ 16:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course the article belongs to the category (I haven't claimed vice versa); your assertion otherwise is fallacious. Andy Mabbett 16:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does this article belong to the category? In my opinion, the reason that Tolkien was inspired by some places in Birmingham is not enough. The article does not belong to the Category:Constructed languages either, although there are many constructed langauges in The Lord of the Rings and it is said that Tolkien wrote the book just because of his invented languages. Only articles that directly relate to Birmingham should be added to Category:Birmingham, England. --Conti|✉ 17:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree - this article doesn't belong in Category:Birmingham, England. Ausir 19:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would you have a problem if I added a link to this page from list of topics related to Birmingham, England? Well, we have a category instead of that page. Andy Mabbett 21:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would have a problem if you would link from The Lord of the Rings to list of topics related to Birmingham, England tho, and that's exactly what the category does, as a category links from category to article and from article to category. This article has a link to Birmingham anyways. --Conti|✉ 21:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So complain to the coders that you don't like how Categories work. Andy Mabbett 22:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The category system works just fine, it just has to be used correctly. The Lord of the Rings is not directly related to Birmingham and therefore does not belong to that category. Maybe we should get some other opinions on this to clarify things. --Conti|✉ 22:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings is not directly related to Birmingham - You present that opinion as though it were fact. Andy Mabbett 22:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is just my opinion. If you disagree, give me a reasons why you do. --Conti|✉ 22:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Both adding LotR to the Birmingham category and adding Birmingham to Category:Middle-earth places would be overcategorization. Ausir 09:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But then, no-one is suggesting doing both. Andy Mabbett 09:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, but one is comparable ot the other. We could add many categories regarding other stuff that inspired Tolkien - Category:Languages, Category:Medieval history, Category:Norse mythology, Category:Christianity, Category:World War I, Category:World War II, but it would be overcategorization, because they are not relevant enough to the article to add it to those categories. Ausir 09:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum. Andy Mabbett 09:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify on this old thread (since it's still here), reductio ad absurdum is a LOGICAL way of proving things. The word absdurd refers to the use of extremes to prove a point, not that the argument itself is absurd. As the page you linked states, it is one of logic and maths finest weapons ;) --Sketchee 06:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, for me medieval literature, medieval history, and Norse mythology were much more important inspirations than Birmingham. Ausir 11:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My opinion: LOTR does not belong to the category of Birmingham. Purely hypotehtically, if the category were named something like "Category: Literature inspired by Birmingham", it *might* be applicable. However, there is no direct relation between LOTR and the category of Birmingham. Although Andy dismisses Ausir's overcategorization as reducio ad absurdum, precisely the same argument can be made that LOTR has some tangential relation to these things (and arguably a more direct relation than Birmingham). It is very dead-on that if LOTR is included in the category of Birmingham, then there is no end of tangential categories in which it could be included. I say stop the slippery slope now--an article should ONLY be included in a category if A) the subject is explicitly a member of the said category; or B) bears a direct and significant relation to both the category in general and the other members of the category. older≠wiser 15:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Birmingham, England, there are other articles (Black Sabbath, Wizzard, The Archers) that do not really belong in that category as well.. --Conti|✉ 16:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They all belong there. Andy Mabbett 16:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would similarly hate to see everything concerning Sindarin under some such category as Welsh language because the phonology of Sindarin is greatly based on Welsh, or everything concerning Quenya marked by some such category as Finnish language because Quenya's phonology is much influenced by Finnish. I would not explect most of the Sherlock Holmes stories to appear under the category "London" because they take place in (at least in part) in London. In any case, I am unaware that Tolkien was inspired in any way by the Birmingham of his day (except perhaps in part in his depiction of Mordor?). The Shire was partly inspired by Sarehole which was not part of Birmingham at the time and the rural Sarehole that inspired Tolkien has long gone. The Lord of the Rings does not even belong under some supposed category "Sarehole". An article about the Shire which documented how it was partly based on Tolkien's youth in Sarehole might reasonably be placed under a category of "Sarehole" because of that mention. But that should be as far as one should go. Jallan 16:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In any case, I am unaware that Tolkien was inspired in any way by the Birmingham of his day; You may be unaware, but I can see the Two Towers from my (Birmingham) office window. Besides, Sarehole is/now/ in Birmingham. Andy Mabbett 16:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Patent nonsense! The Sarehole that inspired Tolkien was not in Birmingham (though I understand the mill still survives). As to the "Two Towers", see Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter 140:

The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 and 4; and can be left ambiguous – it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dûr, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol.

Tolkien only came up with the expression "Two Towers" when his publisher decided to split the book into three volumes and he needed a title for each volume. Until then there were no "Two Towers" and he himself wasn't sure then which towers were meant.

From letter 143:

I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading.

I am quite aware you are not seeing either of those towers from your office window, unless you are hallucinating. Stop indulging civic vanity. Let a Birmingham category have to do directly with Birmingham.

The Daily Planet newspaper in the Superman comic book was originally based called the Daily Star, the name based on a Toronto newpaperpaper called the Evening Star, later to become the Toronto Star. (See When Superman worked at the Star.) But that would not be sufficient reason to list the Wikipedia Daily Planet article under a "Toronto" category, much less list Superman under a "Toronto" category. You are far overstretching the category Birmingham. Jallan 22:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So the last sentence in the lead paragraph ("Several locations and characters were inspired by Tolkien's childhood in Birmingham - The Two Towers stand behind his old school, for instance.") should be removed as well? Was Tolkien inspired by Birmingham at all or is just the Two Towers example false? --Conti|✉ 23:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Shire was partly inspired by his childhood in Sarehole, which is now part of Birmingham, but was not by then. Ausir 23:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I moved the sentence down and shortenend it now. --Conti|✉ 23:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with ContiE that there is a great deal of bad categorization in Category:Birmingham, England. Some content, like LOTR, is very tangential in it's connection at best. Others could arguably belong in a subcategory, such as "Music of Birmingham" or such like that which conveys some semantic indication as to why the subject belongs to the category. older≠wiser 17:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I still see no real argument why the category should be on this article, but everyone removing the catgeory is getting reverted. What to do with such a case? --Conti|✉ 21:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting the article to add this category. As you can see, the consensus is not to add it. Ausir 21:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I came here from RFC and agree that the category should be removed, as mentioned abouve if you're not going to add directly-related categories you can add alot of things like Category:Languages, Category:Medieval history, Category:Norse mythology, Category:Christianity, Category:World War I, Category:World War II, Category:Iceland, Category:Monsters,Catgory:Vampiers,Category:Midgets etc.-- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:07, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Category:Literature from Birmingham, England

User:Pigsonthewing persists in adding this article to the category "Literature from Birmingham, England". It has been pointed out on the user talk page that LOTR was not written in Birmingham, England and simply adding a note to the category saying that the cateogry is about "Literature written in, about, or influenced by Birmingham, England." is not acceptable. the name of the category should unambiguously indicate the contents of the category. Despite being the ONLY person insisting that the article belongs in said category, POTW says there is no consensus to remove LOTR from the category. Simply put, IMO this is a prime example of bad categorization. What connection there is with Birmingham is mentioned in the article and categorization should be reserved for making more widely applicable classifications. older≠wiser 14:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By the way, User:Pigsonthewing has a long history of edit conflicts, see also Wikipedia:RFC on this article and WindowsXP, as well as this archived RFC. I am hoping this vote will prevent the need for more drastic dispute resolution. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 14:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's put it to a vote. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 14:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There are various other near identical discussions along the same line. Notably: Category:British painters, Category:Birmingham, England generally, and an identical issue with The Two Towers. There are also fragments at User_talk:Pigsonthewing. Possibly this debate could be consolidated somehow? PMcM 14:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nodoby is claiming that LotR was written in Birmingham. Andy Mabbett 15:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not where the LotR was written, but if the category belongs to the article at all. Consensus is not, as the vote clearly shows. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 15:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course the category does not belong to the article: the article belongs to teh category. Nobody has shown - nor even attempted to show - otherwise. Consensus does not require votes; nor have thsoe voting suggested any form of compromise. Andy Mabbett 17:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could you please define what "consensus" is in your opinion? --Conti|✉ 17:30, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

You don't know? Andy Mabbett 20:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether the category belongs to the article or the article to the category is petty semantics--everyone understands exactly what is meant. How esle would you propose to determine consensus besides voting? I think you are mistaken if you are saying that is not a method for determining consensus on Wikipedia. As for compromise--whatever connection there may be with Birmingham is mentioned in the article. There is no need for it to be in any Birmingham-related category. older≠wiser 17:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Votes do not determine consensus. HTH. Andy Mabbett 20:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest any alternative method of reaching consensus? Since the voting on the issue currently stands at five to nil (not five to one, as might be expected), personally, I think it is a reasonable sample of opinion on this particular issue. Arguing about the exact phrasing of the voting options is at best pedantic when their intent is quite clear.

It's not five-to-one, because I understand the differece between voting and achieving consensus. Andy Mabbett 20:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the spirit of olive branches; how about a list (or lists) of whatever you want, rather than a category, then link to those from Birmingham? Or an independent external Birmingham; Centre of the World web site, where you could exercise the quirky editorial whim you seem to possess, free from the regular annoyance of having anybody else dare to change or question anything you decide? (Only one of these suggestions is serious. I'm guessing most will be able to decide which.) PMcM 17:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How sad, that you feel the need to stoop to such depths. Andy Mabbett 20:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your insolent and uncooperative comments indicate that perhaps you really have no interest in consensus at all. FWIW, voting is indeed VERY COMMONLY used in Wikipedia to determine consensus. Whether or not that comports with your personal understanding of consensus is irrelevent. older≠wiser 20:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Worse the Category:Literature from Birmingham, England is irrelevant and not useful. I'll add it at WP:CFD -- Solipsist 00:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the category should go in the article.

(i.e., The Category:Birmingham, England or Category:Literature from Birmingham, England categories should appear at the foot of the LotR article.)

No, The category does not belong here

(i.e., The Category:Birmingham, England or Category:Literature from Birmingham, England categories should not appear at the foot of the LotR article.)

1. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 14:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. older≠wiser 14:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. PMcM 14:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Conti|✉ 14:54, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
5. Jallan 16:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) any more that it belongs in Literature of South Africa.
7. Sean Curtin 22:00, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
8. ··gracefool |☺ 22:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Solipsist 00:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. Postdlf 01:17, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
11. Mike 07:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
12. Ausir 09:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13. Impi 20:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) Good point Clayworth, Tolkien was said to be influenced by parts of SA (ie Hogsback) as well.
14. Maastrictian16:39, 26 Aug 2004 (EDT)
15. Jwrosenzweig 15:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If this is not a consensus, I don't know what it is... Ausir 20:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Too true. Now are we all going to go over to Rip van Winkle and sort out the same mis-categorization there, or nix the category at WP:CFD? I've got a list of twenty similar cases. -- Solipsist 21:43, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see no real purpose to the category -- I think literature about Birmingham would be reasonable, but not the too-expansive category that now exists. WP:CFD is a reasonable action, I think. Jwrosenzweig 15:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The poll should be closed, as the category in question was deleted per CfD a while ago. --Conti|✉ 08:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Title derivation?

I question the opening;

The story's name is derived from the Dark Lord Sauron of Mordor, the primary villain of the work, who created the Ruling Ring and is thus the "Lord of the Rings" that the title refers to. However, he is but the servant of an earlier Dark Lord, Morgoth (Melkor), who is prominent in Tolkien's The Silmarillion.

Is this an assumption or a fact? The "Lord of the Rings" I have always beleived to be the "one ring to rule them all" in other words, the object. I remain to be convinced otherwise.Dainamo 20:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is actually a quote in Fellowship. Gandalf refers to "the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings" in Book II, "Many Meetings". I think it comes up again later, but I can't find the passage at the moment. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's this:

  'Hurray!' cried Pippin, springing up. 'Here is our noble cousin! Make way for the Lord of the Ring!'

  'Hush!' said Gandalf from the shadows at the back of the porch. '... The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, ...'

Oddly, it's "Ring", not "Rings".

—wwoods 22:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's this from "The Council of Elrond", in the discussion about sending the ring to Tom Bombadil:

'But in any case,' said Glorfindel, 'to send the Ring to him would only postpone the day of evil. He is far away. We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone?'

Jallan 23:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The Lord of the Rings" could be applied to two entities, Sauron, creator and forger of the One Ring, and the One Ring itself, which was forged to control all of the other Rings of Power. Sauron forged the One Ring in secret to create a means to control the other Rings of Power, and to thus dominate the races who used their Rings. The One Ring could influece all of the other Rings, thus the moiniker 'the Lord of the Rings'. However, it is more commonly applied in reference to Sauron, the creator of the One Ring and the only one who could control the Ring fully. The people who held the Ring asides from Sauron, ie. Isildur, Deagol, Smeagol, Bilbo Baggins, Frodo Baggins, and Samwise Gamgee, were more or less subject to the Rings desires, and could only resist its temptations to the best of their abilities. So while Sauron was the Lord of the Ring, the One Ring, that is, through the One Ring Sauron could also control all of the Rings of Power, thus enabling the Book to refer to him as "the Lord of the Rings'

  The Return of the King, Chpt. IX, The Grey Havens'.

 Here Bilbo's hand ended and Frodo had written:

 THE DOWNFALL OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS AND THE RETURN OF THE KING

Arguably this refers to the defeat of Sauron, not the unmaking of the One Ring. Thus:

 Lord of the Ring- Sauron, the one who could control the One Ring.

 Lord of the Rings- the One ring, with it power over the Rings of Power, or Sauron, who by proxy could contol the Rings of Power throught the One Ring.

Raivein 02:13, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism"?

I don't want to remove it outright, but this section is awfully one-sided:

The book has been accused by many for containing racistic and elitistic elements. The main concept is the Free Peoples (who can be identified as Europeans) against the slaves of Sauron who are Easterlings and Southrons. Also, many speculate that the Orcs represent blacks or Mongols having some of their distinct features.

There is no mention whatsoever of counters to this argument (or of the notion of whether we should impose our modern sensibilities on someone who wrote in the 1940s).

Does anyone know of a good source for fair discussion of the topic? (Should this even go in this articles?) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen criticism like this until now, but parts of it do seem valid. It seems implied that the Easterlings are equivalent to Arabs, who are largely Muslim. Since the Easterlings are controlled by Sauron, who can be viewed as equivalent to the Devil, maybe Tolkein is trying to say he thinks Islam is influenced by the Devil, though this seems to be quite a stretch. As for orcs representing blacks and Mongols, this doesn't really make any sense, though the orcs do tend to have traits similar to the barbarians of the Dark Ages, which whould've included the Huns. It is interesting to note that all the the races and people on the "good" side are white. Just speculating. Xunflash 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed this is nothing more than wild speculation. Tolkien has repeatedly stated that allegory of any kind with our worldly problems is not the message he was trying to portray in his books. Many people have problems with that obviously, as they continue to search for one-to-one connections between Arda and modern Earth. Following that logic, even the Bible can be considered chauvinistic, nationalist or racist. This is not the sort of opinions we want to have in this article.

On the other hand we could list 'criticism' like that as a grandious example of misinterpretation. Tolkien's world is just what it appears to be. A fantasy world. There are no Muslims, Hitler, Mongols, Huns or radioactive decay, and thank Tolkien for that. Denis Kasak 07:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I was reading a biography on tolkien, and it said that he didn't base anything in his books on anything in real life. He made it ALL up. - Abhorsen123 02:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Criticism

I removed the "Answer to Criticism" because the information provided by 130.64.153.13 was better, and because this paragraph looks rather speculative and inaccurate (and not a very good defence is any case). (Isn't Melkor a better fit for the Devil? Doesn't Tolkien dislike allegory? Where does it say Easterlings are athiests? etc.)

(Answer to criticism) John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was a Catholic which would make a difference Sauron is portrayed as the Devil, Satan, the orcs would not be blacks but demons, and the Easterlings and Southrons are atheists or nonbelievers those who aren't of the elect, the chosen people of God who will get saved are the heroes. The heroes defend what they believe, the villains fight against it. The Ring would be the temptations of the world, and As seen in the book, Frodo is tempted to put it on, be in the world.

Eric119 22:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I feel like we could probably do better with this entire section (perhaps making it a separate article), but I'm not up to the amount of work it would require at the moment. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An edit

Can someone verify the legitimacy of this edit? The summary is "typo" which seems suspicious given the change. Eric119 05:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Principal photography lasted for over fourteen months (from 11 October 1999 to 22 December 2000; [1], [2]). Peter Jackson says (in the appendices of the RotK DVD, extended edition) that the last fill-in shot for the DVD was filmed early in 2004, so in that sense the edit isn't completely wrong. Avenue 12:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's Not an Allegory

JRR Tolkien hated allegory and in Humphrey Carpenter's biography he quoted him saying just that.

Tolkien's writing stems from his forbidden love with Edith Bratt early in his life. Through this turmoil he came up with the first basic ideas for his mythos. --Sveden 20:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien's writing "stems" from many things indeed! To say it's one thing or another is extremely over-simplistic. It may or may not be considered an allegory. However, Tolkien stated categorically in his foreword and in his letters that he didn't want it considered so. "Many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’" Eriathwen 22:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Negative Criticism?

Has there been any positive criticism?  :-)

Yes. This needs a lot more stuff about the initial reaction to the book, and how they became a college cult, and the random pop culture references to it could do with splitting out. (and what should we do with the random refernece to Warwickshire? The scenery of the shire was certainly inspired by that - but over half the book is set elsehwere!) It reads more like a collection of trivia than an article at the moment. Morwen - Talk 09:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's more on Wikipedia written about Lord of the Rings cumulatively then Abraham Lincoln or the French Revolution. Tsk tsk I say, tsk tsk. Orangetuesday 05:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It matters more to the editors of Wikipedia, evidently. Eriathwen 12:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Musical?

Reuters today said that there will be a musical version opening in Toronto and then moving to London. Can anyone verify this and add it in? Eriathwen 18:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's definitely true. It'll be at the Princess of Wales theater in Toronto, opening I think sometime next fall, although I'm really not sure as to that. But as to the existance of the musical: yes, I know for a fact that it exists. There are ads all over Toronto! Oracleoftruth 23:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

It’s opening in Toronto next February. I think London is getting its own production eight months later and New York is getting one eight months after that. They are really going all out for it, I’ve read that the Toronto version will the most expensive play ever made anywhere. If no one else adds the musical to the article, I will tomorow. -Arctic.gnome 02:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

what I think of the film

The Lord of the rings films I feel even though they don't follow as close as I would like the story line of the books are an incredible achievment and they show just how far movie and computer graphics have come since the starting days of film. The city if Minas Tirith was the most amazing graphics of the whole fim I feel. Thomas

I agree. it leaves out a whole lot from the books. een the part about tom Bombadil. Another thing about it is that they even alter some scenes from the book in the movie, such as weathertop.

Article size

This article is about 38 KB long, which would not usually be considered to be extremely long. However, it does seem that this article could do with a little summarizing and splitting; as of this writing, no sections have main articles and most of them go extremely in-depth. Where should I start? Wikiacc 21:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings Wikicity

Just to advertise LOTR WIKICITY which is being set up right now. Anyone who is interested in writing Middle-Earth articles head over there now! (My user page is under the name of Darth Mantus) --81.77.190.25 17:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Gandalf Computer

I remember an 8 bit microcomputer kit from the 1970s that was sold by "Gandalf Computer," a California (Silicon Valley?) company. Only saw a few of these in the days before the Apple ][ became popular. Googling "Gandalf Computer" didn't help. Anyone know of it?

Trilogy

The book is sometimes wrongly described as a trilogy. The three films are also often described this way. I think it is wrong (and will remove it in the article), but is it possible for the films to be a trilogy even if the book is not? Does, for example, the second film constitute a "complete" story? Jørgen 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, it's possible. I don't see any problem with describing the movies as a trilogy. Eric119 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well, the books are kind of trilogys. unless you mean that half way through the fellowship of the ring it says book two. then again, its kind of like the second part.

Eru interpreation

I have reverted the article to remove the following paragraph, posted by an anonymous user on 18:15, 4 July 2005. It can, perhaps, be re-inserted in a more appropriate manner, as outlined below.

Another interpreation of the title is that the actual "Lord of the Rings" is Eru, the creator of Middle-Earth as mentioned in "The Silmarillion." The reason this is believed by some is because of the speech Gandalf gives to Frodo while in the mines of Moria, in which he says their are greater powers than the ring at work, and that Frodo was "meant to have the ring." Also, it is eventually Eru's will that wins out, as the ring is destroyed and Sauron defeated. This is evidence that Eru is the true "Lord of the Ring" as it is his will being enacted throughout the story.

My reasons for reverting are as follows:

• This content is analysis, which does not belong in the opening of the article. It could, perhaps be included later in the body, however.
• There is not much "interpreation" to this issue: Tolkien himself recognizes Sauron as the "Lord" in question.
• Eru is at best a minor element in Lord of the Rings. Certainly scholarship should recognize the role The Silmarillion plays on this cycle, but it is too small a role for the introduction of an encyclopedia article.
• Any analysis that brings up a question about who the Lord of the rings is should not be limited to Sauron and Eru, but recognize that there are a variety of other interpretations (several much more prominant than Eru). The trilogy is about a variety of people involved in a struggle to become "Lord of the rings" -- those who would use the ring (Boromir, Denethor, Gollum, Frodo) and those tempted who turned it away (Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel). The Eru content seems to come out of left field, introducing a second text into the discussion, without recognizing the internal textual interpretations. ~CS 5 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

• The correct answer, of course, is that the Lord of the Rings is Sauron (as stated in the book). Hence the paragraph is bogus and rightfully excised. Eric119 5 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Copyright question

If one scans the map of Middle Earth and postes it in this article would that be a copyright violation? Mekong Bluesman 06:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, any form of copying is a copyright violation. "All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced by any means, electronical, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher" puts it nicely. The exception would be if you make one yourself.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I had thought so but just wanted to be sure. "May the Force be with you" in a The Lord of the Rings context? I'll admit that I fail to see the connection. 216.239.65.29 06:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say it would depend on the resolution, fair use would apply to a reasonably low res version. Rich Farmbrough 13:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

File:Middleearth.jpg

A map of the Northwestern part of Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age, courtesy of the Encyclopedia of Arda.

However see:

Rich Farmbrough 21:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

if you put the illustrator of the map's name on the post clearly visible, its alloud, im guessing

Negative Critiism

I have removed " New York Times critic Judith Shulevitz said that its prose is so bad that it represents "death to literature itself" [3]. "

The original article can be seen at this site, which, to my mind, des not support the excised section as written. Rich Farmbrough 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean so bad. This book was good although it was confusing sometimes.--Halomania 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Cultural Impact during the '60's

I'd like to see some more info about the impact LOTR has made on our culture, especially when it really caught on in the 1960s, at the height of the hippie movement. You know, when "Gandalf for President" pins were omnipresent on college campuses and "Frodo Lives" was scrawled on subway train walls. Not to mention how the hippies interpreted the books as being pro-marijuana, among other allegories. --Marcg106 05:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

->You would probably be pleased to see www.Tolkiwiki.org, which is Buffalo State College's wiki for their seminar on The Lord of the Rings in Folklore and Popular Culture. It might be interesting to you. Brown 21 November 2005 at 20:32 PM

The Bakshi version

The Bakshi version is, in fact, widely regarded by Tolkien fans as something of a flop. (And when I say "Tolkien fans" I do not by any means include "movie groupies", i.e. teenaged girls who think Orlando Bloom is hot and never read the books). The complaints mentioned in the relevant section are actually pretty fair, I think—at least they are the most famous and widely discussed. (For example, the abrupt ending is often cited.) For a lot while after the "early efforts", it was generally believed that a successful film adaptation would be practically impossible.

Anyway, I removed these revisions because my overall impression was that they are from a Bakshi fan point of view. (And I don't think that point of view represents a significant portion of the fan community.) I am open to disagreement, but I thought it would be worth discussing. (In particular, why was the information about the box-off and technical success of the Jackson films removed? Both of those are significant.) If the current version isn't fair to that particular perspective, how can we make it more balanced? -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted a similar set of revisions. Segments like like "United Artists were stubborn. Wrongly believing the film to be a flop..." are a bit too POV for my tastes. (Who are we to declare that they were wrong to believe the film was a flop? Or that they did believe the film was a flop? Sources?) Were they necessarily being stubborn, or just exercising good business sense? (Or maybe just ignorance?) Generally, the Bakshi version is just not viewed as positively as these edits seem to imply. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The facts about the Bakshi version

A $8 million film that makes $30 million is NOT a flop. Also, the film was distributed as "The Lord of the Rings Part 1," so the ending wasn't so abrupt back in 1978. When it was released on DVD, Warner Brothers altered the original ending narration so it would look like it was always intended to be a single film and not a two-part feature as Bakshi had originally intended to make it. (Ibaranoff24 00:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

More on "criticism" section

Although it is much less random than the original section, the material is still rather one-sided. I'm growing less and less content with letting, for example, the racism charges just sit there without any kind of a response. For one thing, there's some ignorance of the situation and of Tolkien's own occasionally vehement comments on racism that shouldn't be allowed to just slip in as if it were fact.

Are there any good sources for responses to these "criticisms"? I've been looking up some material in Letters, but I haven't found any direct responses to criticism yet, just passing references in other contexts.

If we're going to have such a large section listing criticisms, then NPOV policy seems to require that we allow some space for a response. (At least, NPOV seems not to be satified by simply stating "some people think the books are racist" without also sayig in some way "and a whole lot of people don't".) I must admit I'm not entirely sure what is the best way of going about this. I have a hard time thinking about this from a neutral perspective. (Attempts to actually use Tolkien's work to promote racism particularly infuriate me.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• without commenting on the basis for racial criticisms of Tolkein, I can remove the following account:

"In January 2004, on its Tolerance.org website, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) attacked The Lord of the Rings as white supremacist hate. This view has also been endorsed by racialist groups.[4]"

This is simply not factual. The SPLC's magazine reprinted a movie review [5] written by San Francisco morning radio host Andrea Lewis in which she compared her own response to the LOTR trilogy to the Matrix trilogy and found that "on a personal level, I was much more satisfied with the conclusion of "The Matrix" series." Ms. Lewis is writing a personal account and frames her criticism of Tolkein's "patriarchal" narrative in the context of her own race and gender. In no way has the SPLC "attacked The Lord of the Rings as white supremacist hate. ". Dystopos 00:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• • The SPLC has responded to letters about Lewis' essay: "We published the essay not because Tolerance.org endorsed or supported every point made by Lewis in the essay, but because we support critical review of popular culture" [6]. They held an IM "roundtable" to discuss reactions to the essay among their staff. Dystopos 00:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I heard this story and I can't verify it that when Tolkien turned up to the Inklings meeting with an early draft of LoTR and began reading the first few lines, CS Lewis exclaimed over his beer "Not another f**king elf!". Does anyone know if this is true?--203.11.225.5 06:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not. The source of this story is probably A N Wilson's biography of C S Lewis, in which he suggests that Hugo Dyson interrupted Tolkien at an Inklings evening, saying "Oh fuck, not another elf!". It's unreferenced in the biography, but elsewhere Wilson says he heard it from Christopher Tolkien. Matthew Woodcraft

request

I don't know if this is a proper place to ask, but can anyone include Billy Crystal's spoof "My Favorite Things" in the parody section? -- EE.

Characters' finances

What do the main characters actually live on? I am not saying that the book should have had an economic tract included, but some background information would have been interesting - Frodo, Pippin and Merry will need money to buy in food and furnishings etc - Sam Gamgee and father probably live off market gardening.

Excellent point. In 'The Trillion Year Spree' Brian Aldis says the appeal of fantasy to adolescents is in large part due to an absence of constraint in the imagined worlds-including money. Grand deeds done at the behest of mystical impulse are a wonderful excuse for not doing your homework. Lord of the Rings is a silly book, and slightly sinister, imo.

Most likely Merry and Pip, as young characters, would be apprenticed to their father's work, like Sam to his old gaffer. Market gardening is probably not their business. They would most likely live off the accounts of Bag End, supplemented by their domestic production. The Baggins fortune was enhanced by Bilbo's adventures and Frodo probably only worked as a valet to Bilbo. When travelling, letters of recommendation or the general hospitality toward travelers would keep them fed and sheltered in society, while those who travel outside those bounds lived off the land or by robbery. Hobbiton appears to have been a very fertile region, and shirkers like Merry & Pip could supplement their appetites by taking crops without too much fear of retribution. As is typical in the pre-industrial age, the livelihood of individuals is sublimated to the survival of the household, clan, or village. Dystopos 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Editions

I notice that the existance of two different editions is mentioned in the article, but there is no reference to the difference between the two. What were the changes? - SoM 17:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings in art

I've created a new section under the "in film", "in radio", etc. sections, entitled "The Lord of the Rings in art". I think it's incredibly important that folks like Ted Nasmith and The Tolkien Ensemble, whose entire careers are focused around their interpretations of Tolkien, do not get shuffled down among mere "pop culture references" (putting them below a reference to an episode of Friends is absolutely insulting). For example, to me, if a band has one or two Tolkien-related songs, put 'em under "pop culture references" -- if they have a whole album based on Tolkien, then we should put them under this "...in art" section. Mecandes 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings and Love

I was wondering if there has been any recent criticism on Tolkien's presentation of love in The Lord of the Rings. I am currently exploring this issue and plan to write on it very soon. It is my current observation that the standard in the text is courtly love, although only so long as the Ring survives, for it is the Ring that "draws all desire unto itself" and causes fufillment of a love relationship to become impossible. However, once the Ring is destroyed, the barrier to love is broken and three marriages occur. This breaks the standard of courtly love. I was curious as to the viability of this thesis in the minds of others well-versed in Tolkien's epic. [| My topic on Tolkiwiki] S. Brown November 21, 2005, at 01:47 PM

I am not sure what you are proposing in regards to this article (which is the sole topic of this discussion page). Depending on your source material, this sounds like original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. (WP:NOR). Stepping aside from that, I see little direct connection between the ring and the course of love and any notion of "fulfillment" arising from love. Indirectly, the lust for power embodied in the ring would certainly interfere with the selflessness exhibited by the Fellowship, whose love for each other is developed much more by Tolkein than any of the relationships that end in marriage. Dystopos 05:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate article for pop culture references?

• This section, which contributes only trivia to the subject at hand, has gotten rather long enough that I would support moving it to a separate article with only a brief introduction about the phenomenon remaining here. Any support or disagreement? Dystopos 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Move it to a seperate page. It's too long. (Ibaranoff24 00:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

Early efforts

On my last edit, I added the part about Walt Disney trying to make a film of LOTR. I don't know why this fact wasn't included in the "early efforts" section of the article. (Ibaranoff24 02:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

Soundtrack

Is anyone familiar with the title of the song from the soundtrack wherein a large choir sings what sounds to be the Lord's Prayer?

TfD nomination of Template:Middle-earth portal

Template:Middle-earth portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Middle-earth portal. Thank you. --Qirex 01:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Publication / Publication history

These two sections seem to be mixed up. Details of the original publication are poor, and mixed up with later details. Also, a couple of undistinguished editions get disproportionate coverage. I suspect the original author of that section was refering to the books in front of him. Can the publication history be cleaned up, without stealing unduly from the "Note on the Text" in the 1994 edition? A complete publishing history would need an entire book in itself - we need to hit the high points. Special bindings and presentations only need a brief mention. ::Didactylos 18:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Magnum opus?

Tolkien did not consider LOTR to be his magnum opus; he bestowed that honour upon The Silmarillion (as the J. R. R. Tolkien article states, "he regarded it as the most important of his works"). However, most people would probably consider LOTR to be his greatest work, and it is almost certainly the most popular. How do we stand here? I would follow the author: LOTR is a (fairly) simple story, whereas The Silmarillion is an entire legendarium. Adding {{dubious}}. Hairy Dude 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Silmarillion - that is also the one that he devoted most time for. Tolkien's word should be what we base this article on. However, the simplicity of the story should not be a factor in this. (As the Silmarillion was published after his death, surely it is a 'Post Mortem Magnum Opus'?) Ck lostsword 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, poor choice of words. I meant something like "mere", rather than "simple" in the sense of "not complex". I mean LOTR is purely a literary work, whereas The Silmarillion is a linguistic and "historical" work too. Hairy Dude 07:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken - possible revision: Whilst LotR is the most popular of his works, JRR Tolkien did not consider it to be his magnum opus; he bestowed that honour upon the Silmarillion. Whilst LotR could be considered as a mere story and a literary venture, the Silmarillion is an entire legendarium, which provides the historical and linguistic context for the more popular work. Ck lostsword 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

General copyedit

Just made a number of improvements, including:

• "Delays in producing appendices and maps" - indexes were probably the most important factor in delaying RotK. Added.
• Merged the two paragraphs on translation and added some more comments.
• Merged the first two paragraphs on religious influences and turned the list of references to a proper bullet list.
• Rearranged the paragraph on allegory to flow better and especially to remove the repetition of "however", and also added that Tolkien stated explicitly that LOTR is not an allegory.
• "Ash nazg durbatulûk" etc. is not "phonetic" in any meaningful sense, it's just a transcription in the Latin script. Reworded.
• Turned references using [external link notation] into refs with footnotes.
• Just after Ralph Bakshi film image: removed "which was a precursor..." as redundant.
• "Although some have criticized..." reworded to make it sound less like WP agrees.
• Removed "that Director Peter Jackson chose for the adaption of Tolkien's epic trilogy" as redundant.
• Added {{future}} to The Lord of the Rings on stage. The preview performances may have started but it is still written in the future tense. Also added {{Unreferencedsect}} since no sources are given for this information.
• Changed the converted cost in Canadian dollars (which was in sterling) to US dollars. I think this is generally the "moneta franca" to use (ISTR even the British edition of the Guinness Book of Records uses US dollars to convert currencies that aren't in Sterling).
• Removed content-free clause "the subsequent productions ... greatest fantasy trilogies ever written" which is also full of bias. The resulting text is not very satisfactory and seems to give an overall negative impression, which isn't really intended.
• "a professional company, which still produces work today" - redundant and may become invalid. I mean no offence to the company, but as far as I know theatre companies go bust prematurely just as often as other startups. In any case this information is hardly encyclopaedic.
• "atomic weapons had not been deployed at the time the book was written" - to the inattentive (or stupid :) reader the article seems to contradict itself here as it states FotR was published in 1954-1955. Reworded.
• Miscellaneous copyediting, including removing peacock terms in many places.

Some odd things I noted, without changing:

• "The development of a specially bred Orc army ... [has] modern resonances." Is someone breeding Orcs then? and if so, can we verify this? :)
• 1956 BBC version: "It is a very faithful adaptation" is ambiguous as to whether "it" refers to The Hobbit or LOTR. I couldn't fix this as I haven't heard them so I don't know which is "very faithful".
• "It has made movie history as the largest Wednesday opening ever." "Largest" meaning what? That the film went on to gross more than any other film that opened on a Weds? This sounds like a reasonably interesting and encyclopaedic fact, if only we can substantiate it.
• Please provide sources for information about the Toronto stage adaptation.

Hairy Dude 03:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Orc army

• "The development of a specially bred Orc army ... [has] modern resonances." Is someone breeding Orcs then? and if so, can we verify this?" Hairy Dude

I see what you mean, but this is meant in a figurative sense; my interpretation is that it represents the creation of a typefied culture following the ideas of one individual. It could refer to any of the mid-20th Century dictatorships (Nazi Germany; Communist Russia, etc.). However, if it is used in the figurative sense, it is not entirely encyclopedaic. Ck lostsword 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)