Talk:The Lord of the Rings.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Lord of the Rings article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Former featured article The 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 5, 2006.
This article is written in British English. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
To-do list for The Lord of the Rings:  · history · watch · refresh
  • Maintain at FA level, don't let the article grow too much or have unnecessary detail get slipped in.
  • Get a reference in Influences on Fantasy Genre section regarding Magic: The Gathering.
  • Citations needed regarding Milton's Lucifer for Sauron
  • check external links for spam
Priority 1 (top) 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

cisco_teen (talk) is currently recording or editing an audio version of this article.
See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

This notice is dated 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC) . If a significant amount of time has passed,
please check with cisco_teen (talk) to see if he or she is still working before removing this message.

Contents

South African author?

I am aware that Tolkien was born there, but his parents were English and Tolkien lived in England for the majority of his life. The article on Tolkien itself calls him an

"...English writer, poet, philologist, and university professor, best known as the author of the high fantasy classic works The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings."

Is there a source that states that Tolkien self-identified as South African? If not, I believe the introduction should refer to him as an English author. Or even a "South African-born English author", but that's a bit unnecessary.

I am changing the article for now, because this appears to be a recent edit without much reasoning behind it. If the person who made the edit in the first place wishes to come forward and explain it, that's fine. But to me it seems a simple case of mistaking Tolkien's place of birth as his cultural background. IceKeyHunter (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Influences

Zoroastrianism has had indirct influence (by influencing the Roman catholicism ) on the books !! Does anybody have any idea how to add this to the article ?Persianknight (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Collect a list of references that back up your 'fact' and add them to the article. Thu (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


"Tolkien had already completed most of the book, including the ending in its entirety, before the first nuclear bombs were made known to the world at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945."

My problem with the above is that Tolkien might have finished his book before the first functional nuclear bombs were created, but keep in mind that the possibility of a nuclear bomb was known much earlier than 1945.

Say, for instance, that the ring is an allegory for a nuclear bomb: it works in the sense that neither of them shall, "fall in the wrong hands."

Thanks. Seth Arlington (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One slight problem; Tolkien himself wrote that the book was "neither allegorical nor topical." (Foreword to the Second Edition) So you can't say "the ring equals nuclear weapons" because it doesn't. It can be representative of nuclear weapons or allusions could be drawn, but Tolkien himself denied any sort of direct allegorical content in his books. Alinnisawest (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Tolkien wanted his myth to be "applicable" rather than allegorical or topical., i.e., applicable to the situation in which readers found themselves. However he did believe his work was fundamentally Catholic--to what extent, I don't recall. I believe he speaks more about this in his Letters and in the Tolkien Reader.
Kona1611 (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: I was discussing (and defending) the removal of the above-text from the article. What it suggests is that, "no working nuclear bomb is evidence the ring is not an allegory." In other words, much like yourselves, I think there are better ways to come to this conclusion -- Tolkien's denial, for instance. Saying that, "something doesn't (physically) exist is proof that it's irrelevant," is illogical. Seth Arlington (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's very doubtful whether Tolkien, a scholar with a serious abhorrence of science and technology, would have been aware of any theoretical possibilities of nuclear bombs. Remember that the first instance of nuclear fission only took place in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin in 1938 and even then it wasn't realised immediately what had happened. It took Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch until XMas of that year to demonstrate conclusively that that was indeed what had happened in the experiment in question. From there to a bomb requires to make Leo Szilard's concept of the chain reaction to be put into practice and that was done by Szilard himself together with Enrico Fermi in 1939 in Chicago. However, all this was kept totally secret and most lay-people only woke up to the possibility of nuclear fission, chain reactions and nuclear bombs on 6 August 1945 when the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Until then, most people had always assumed that atoms were exactly what their Greek name implied, un-splittable. Tolkien certainly would have, if he ever considered the issue at all, which is highly doubtful. --Recoloniser (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are little to no documented legends of European origin in Lord of the Rings. However, Lord of the Rings is rife with legends, myths and hisotries of eastern people. For example, the Greeks have documented exstensively about the formidable Ethiopian bowmen with their supernatural abilities who also happened to live 'forever'. Sound familiar? Tolkein himself once stated that the story of the Lord of the Rings is his gift to Europe, as it lacks such mythology of its own. The rip off continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.195.252 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No legends of European origin? Ever heard of Der Ring des Nibelungen? Not to mention elves, dwarves, dragons, ... The whole thing is totally European in outlook and by heritage! You must be joking! --Recoloniser (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Presence of God or gods in the Lord of the Rings

I undid revision 194533591 by 65.78.108.234 because I think it is misleading in its present form and does not present the true state of God or gods appearing in LOTR. First, Tolkien's desire was to put the Germanic polytheism into a monotheistic framework and so he invented the Ainur, who are the Valar and the Maiar. Tolkien, in his 1951 letter to Milton Waldman, said Valar are "powers: Englished as gods," and "On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted---well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity." Gandalf, Sauron, Saurumen, and Radigast (all appearing or mentioned in LOTR) are Maiar, who serve the Valar as the next lower level in the heirarchy. In ancient mythologies these would commonly be the second tier of 'gods'. So it does not really do the Tolkien's intentions justice to say that "no gods are present" (as it says in the change that I undid). Furthermore, Gandalf says specifically, in his confrontation with the Balrog, "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, Wielder of the Flame of Anor, You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun. Go Back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." Tolkien explained this as referring to God (see Secret Fire). So again, it is not really presenting the true picture to say "no gods are...even mentioned." Furthermore, the LOTR is not a standalone trilogy, but is part of a series including the Hobbit and the Silmarillion. In the latter, Eru Ilúvatar (God) appears predominantly, as do the gods the Valar and the lesser gods the Maiar. The stories of the Silmarillion are mentioned repeatedly in the LOTR in songs or other references, and so the Silmarillion with its overt creation account and overt discussion of God's relationship with the gods are organically a part of the LOTR. So again, the statement that I deleted did not produce a fair assessment of Tolkien's mythology as we find in in LOTR. Finally, there has been much speculation about the nature of Tom Bombadil, and many hold him to be an incarnation of Eru Ilúvatar (God). Many feel this is the only way to understand Tom's special powers, characteristics and history within the Tolkien universe, and so again it is not presenting the whole picture to say that "no gods are present" as though there hasn't been much serious discussion on this question. So if this topic of whether "gods" appear in the story is to be added into the article, then a more complete and balanced discussion would be required. My opinion is that "gods" are found throughout the story, because the wizards and Sauron and even balrogs are clearly "gods" in the real meaning of the word, as well as in the framework setup by Tolkien, and so in fact the story is rife with gods and not just with religious motifs. However, it is important to keep the article from growing, and I do not think it would be useful to add such a long discussion and it is therefore better kept out entirely.Sanddune777 (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Eru appears as "the One" in an appendix but this may not be a clear reference to a monotheistic God (in my opinion) unless the reader has read The Silmarillion. Uthanc (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The only explicit reference to a god is in a description of Theoden - "...like a god of old". The reference to "the One" is certainly a reference to a supernatural entity a magnitude of power above anything else in LoTR (including the Valar), but not specifically a "god". Can anyone give some good references for the ideas that Gandalf or Saruman or Tom Bombadil are gods or even Maiar whilst writing the Lord of the Rings? That would be good article content. However, I suspect was this something he retconned into the Sil. --Davémon (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
He wanted the Silmarillion to be published at the same time as Lord of the Rings; I don't think he reworked who Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron, etc., were when he published the Silmarillion; his writings show that he developed and planned the history of his world quite carefully. Technically, Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast the Brown, Curumo, etc., are properly titled Istari ("Wizard") but they are Maiar. It is hard to distinguish a story set in a history from the history itself; if nothing else, one must accept that Tolkien eventually came to a conclusion, regardless of whether or not he originally thought of it.
Tolkien certainly did not plan his world carefully, rather he rewrote and revised major sections of it over and over, inserting bits here and there and leaving whole swathes of it unfinished and unreconciled. This article is about The Lord of the Rings if Tolkien / Allen & Unwin didn't publish that Gandalf was a "God" or Maiar in The Lord of the Rings, then it doesn't really belong in this article. --Davémon (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Section on current editions

While I think this section is a valuable addition to the article, it seems silly to only list US editions of what is originally a UK-published book. Does anyone have the relevant information for current HarperCollins editions? Genedecanter (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added.
Kona1611 (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Problems with the Influence section

Similarities drawn between two things do not strictly imply an influence. This entire section is riddled with this kind of basic logical fallacy, everything from Wagner to Beowulf to Odin is an interpretation of Tolkiens work and not evidence of an influence upon him. I've no doubt Tolkiens writings in the Lord of the Rings was actually influenced by some of these things, but they should be sourced and referenced properly. --Davémon (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a couple months since the above comment, but I concur there are original research issues in the influences section. Some of it is verifiable, but much is not. The text is interesting, and may be correct, but we need reliable sources to support the content or it should be pared down.
Another consideration is that there already is a separate influences article. If that article is kept separate, then the section in this article should be much shorter and most of the information should be merged to the other article. Or, the other article could be merged into this one. But keeping the long influences section in this article, plus also a separate article, is excessive duplication.
I noticed there is a merge discussion on that article. Please enter comments at Talk:The Lord of the Rings influences#Merge?.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO, it is silly to try prove that any one piece of literature is completely original, it is even more silly to argue influences of one work to the next with no basis other than artistic similarities. Though if you think about it, the influence section could be trimmed quite a bit because wikipedia is for a place of recording information. Some random nobody's literary analysis may not even be worth recording. Quotes of authors on oft-talked about arguments (LotR vs D&D for example) could probably stay as they are recording of factual statements, but the rest of the analysis might not. Ssh83 (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Since the previous discussion above, most of the influences content was merged and moved to the separate article. Currently, in this article it's only a few paragraphs and most of the sentences have references. After reading the above comment, I added a couple fact-tags to seek references for the unsourced sentences. Since the section is short, and referenced, it seems appropriate to me to keep it in the article. The separate article at J. R. R. Tolkien's influences on the other hand, for sure needs more sources; there are some sections of that page that are well-sourced, but there's a way to go to fill in the rest. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wolheim theory of LoTR copyright

The article grossly misrepresented Eisen, Durwood & Co. v. Christopher R. Tolkien et alii. That decision was reached in '93, based upon copyright law in the wake of 1992 amendments to the Copyright Act of 1976. The 1992 amendments restored copyrights lost by such failures to include notices. Wolheim's theory was valid for the law as it stood from some time before he produced it until those 1992 amemdments went into effect. —SlamDiego←T 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article?

I want to take issue with the FA status of this article and it's qualification as one of the best articles written by the Wikipedia community. I should hope that as a community we can do rather better than this. For one thing it is not even error-free in its introduction. Sauron did not create the Rings of Power, he assisted Celebrimbor, the Elven-smith of Eregion, in their making. Celebrimbor was descended from Feanor, the Noldo who created the Silmarils. From Celembrimbor Sauron learned the craft of making Rings of Power and he made the One Ring for himself. When he first put it on his finger and spoke the famous words "One Ring to find them ...", Celebrimbor was aware of him and how he had been deceived and hid the other Rings of Power from him, but Sauron, over a process of years, managed to acquire all of them one by one, the Seven Rings given to the Dwarf-lords and the Nine given to Men. Only the Three given to the Elves remained hidden from him and he never acquired them, nor was he able to establish the dominance of the One over them. Obviously, I don't want this whole story in the article, but to say that Sauron created the Rings of Power is incorrect. Let's change the sentence somwehat.

Writing in the past tense makes for an abomination of a synopsis. Synopses in literary reviews are always written in the presence tense and seeing this one it is easy to see why.

There are several grammatical errors, such as "Harper Collins published seven-volume box set the 'Millenium Edition'," which sounds as if having been written by a Russian. Also, the interpunction needs looking at in various places.

The FA status and the statement that it is one of the best articles in Wikipedia make me somewhat hesitant to undertake a revision. Does this require vetting by editors at this stage or can I just go ahead? --Recoloniser (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Recoloniser. Firstly, I will emphatically restate the Wikipedia mantra, "Be bold!" I encourage you to go ahead and fix up any things that you see can be improved or streamlined, especially factual inaccuracies, grammatical errors, typos, and general copyediting.
It is only upon the larger and/or more contentious issues that you should discuss them here on the Talk Page first of all. The matter of tense in the synopsis is a good example of this. I agree with you entirely on this point, and have argued here a few times in favour of putting the section into present tense, under the arguments that a) it is the understood and accepted tense convention for a plot synopsis, and b) present tense would aid clarity of readability of the section. Perhaps we should re-invigorate this debate. (?)
I have taken the liberty of effecting a couple of the changes you've suggested, especially concerning precisely which rings (ie: just one) Sauron made.Genedecanter (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, be bold! Please dive in and make any changes you see fit. I recently removed a huge chunk of text (an overlong plot summary, detailing events from "Silmarillion" and the Appendicies) and nobody seems to have complained. The problems are more fundamental than just the grammatical style and some minor plot-points. The lack of representation of significant critical and academic viewpoints makes this article way below-par for an FA. There is no discussion of the style or themes of the work (both recommended by the Novel wikiproject). If it were taken to review it probably wouldn't be an FA any more. The synopsis should be shorter, and definitely be in the present tense.
Perhaps taking the article to FA-review would encourage more editors to actively work on and improve the article? --Davémon (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Current editions

Is this section really necessary? It would have to be updated constantly, which seems like a lot of work for no particular purpose. Anyone who wants a copy can walk into any bookstore or order one from any online bookseller, they don't need the ISBN of a particular edition. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What would make an edition "current" anyway? Still in print? I bet there are more editions than those listed in print. The book is widely avalible, I see no reason for inclusion. Blackngold29 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
One reason is that there are a lot of editions. And I mean a lot. I agree, though, that this information is not really needed. We should have somewhere the date of the latest editions. The changes made between the first and latest editions might be worthy of note somewhere, as might the existence of various anniversary editions (not just limited to the 50th anniversary ones listed there - they did one in 1992 for example, the centenary of Tolkien's birth). Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

we need a list of notable editions. Compare Homer#Editions. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'm going to remove the list of current editions in the meantime. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes

According to the notes of text in my version of the LoTR book, it states that Dwarfs(mistaken as dwarves), Elfish (Elvish) and Elfin (Elven) (and assuming Elfs [Elves]) are the correct spelling, and in appendix E, '"f" represents f, unless at the end of the word, where it is used to represent the sound of "v"' --Yellow Onion (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what your edition of the book is, as it is stating incorrect information. Tolkien was very specific on this point, because proofreaders were constantly reverting his spellings. Dwarfs, elfs, etc. are/were the accepted English plurals for those creatures in folk mythology; however Tolkien deliberately altered his spellings to show that his creations are in no way related to the fairy creatures that live at the bottom of the garden. Genedecanter (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

grammar suggestion

I am a casual Wikipedia user and casual LOR fan, so will not impose my edits, but rather respectfully suggest that the following sentence from the 3rd para be revised:

"From quiet beginnings in the Shire, a hobbit land which is not unlike the English countryside, the story ranges across Middle-earth following the course of the War of the Ring through the eyes of its characters, most notably the hobbits, Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee (Sam), Meriadoc Brandybuck (Merry) and Peregrin Took (Pippin)."

Neither subjects of this run-on sentence, "hobbit land" nor "the story," are "from quiet beginnings."

I am not sure what is supposed to be quiet -- the beginning of the story or the Shire -- but either way, you're probably better off starting with the subject: "The story, beginning quietly in the Shire" or "The story, beginning in the quiet Shire" are two possibilities. You could then follow that with "ranges across Middle-earth..."

Perhaps more interestingly, the subject could be the heroes themselves. "Lord of the Rings tells the journey of hobbits Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee (Sam), Meriadoc Brandybuck (Merry) and Peregrin Took (Pippin), as they travel from their peaceful Shire, across Middle-earth, in the midst of the War of the Ring, to the center of evil in Mordor."

Or something like that.  : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrsic (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 August 2008

Racism?

I'm not the first person to say this, but I think the issue should be dealt with on this page. I seem to remember there used to be a paragraph or two about it, but perhaps it got deleted.

I used to be a huge fan of Tolkien when I was eight or so, but the older I get, the more his narrative looks like racialist fantasizing, the kind of story intended to sustain the narrative promoted by both Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa in order to garner more domestic support for their repressive/imperialist policies.

Just read this plot synopsis:

Evil, scheming, manipulative [ ] control vast hordes of intrinsically inferior, stupid, violent [ ] and plan to conquer white people's beautiful lands with beautiful white women, who the white men must protect with their lives.

What would you put there?

Would be it be "dark lords" controlling armies of "orcs and ogres"?

Or would it be that familiar old racial narrative - "Jewish Bolsheviks" manipulating armies of Slavs or blacks to take over Berlin or Pretoria?

They seem pretty interchangeable to me. What do you think? 144.89.186.134 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This sort of commentary really has no place in this article, unless you can reference published secondary sources and can demonstrate that the racism claims are a notable part of the academic discourse, and not just the sensationalist assertions of a few.
Apart from this, if you do actually feel that LOTR is a racist text, then I think that you are fundamentally missing the point. The link between Middle-earth and Nazi Germany is that both were informed by and inspired by the cultural/social/political/etc. traditions and attitudes of historical Europe. The connection begins and ends there. Your fill-in-the-blanks example could just as easily apply to just about any war propaganda, true or made up, throughout history. Genedecanter (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. A cursory Google search reveals (as it often does, hint hint) that there is a position held by academics and critics alike, arguing that the similarities go far beyond ordinary "us vs. them" propaganda and that the works contain explicitly racial overtones.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jan/08lord.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/dec/02/jrrtolkien.lordoftherings

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/277166.shtml

http://www.mcall.com/features/chi-030112epringsrace,0,371390.story

I quote from another article:

"Frankly, the image of a mail-clad group of warriors making their last stand against a rabble of subhumans with the cry “Men of the West, stand firm!” is enough to give anyone pause for thought."

And another:

"Percentage of protagonists in Fellowship who are white: 100. Meanwhile the black-skinned antagonists and their black crow spies and their black glass seeing ball inhabit their black towers and perform black magic. One would have to be blind to miss the symbolism."

And another:

"Interestingly enough, after each battle the Humans and Elves never take any prisoners. They make a point to slaughter every last Goblin. Because they believe that no one can transcend their race. Essentially, the heroes in LOTR are on a genocidal campaign. "

Frankly, the response of many Tolkien fans to allegations of racism reminds one of Churchill's admirers when confronted with evidence of his anti-Semitism: "You just made it up!"

I'm not saying that Tolkien was a Nazi or that I have the best idea regarding the best way to integrate this obviously important perspective on his immensely popular material into the article. But it should probably be there, and a scholarly review of connotations and popular interpretations should neither be dismissed as "sensationalist" nor excluded from the article. 144.89.186.134 (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be bold! and add this woefully absent material to the article. I don't think "indymedia" is a very good source, but the Guardian certainly is, and there are many, many other good sources for the material out there. A Rearicks "Why is the only good orc a dead orc?" ([www.lib.washington.edu/subject/history/bi/honors251c/tol.pdf]) should be useful not only in and of itself but it points to many of the debates. The Reception section is probably the best place for discussing reader-responses to the book, so suggest it goes there. As you rightly point out the tone must be kept as neutral as possible. Davémon (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I have checked the links out (along with the copy-and-pasted quotes) and all they amount to are accusations viewed through the narrow lens of a handful of individuals. I suppose these may justify a single sentence under the "Receptions" section, but no more than that. Fact remains that there is no hard evidence here that Tolkien was racist (to the contrary, I would submit), whether or not some people perceive racial undertones in his imagery. LotR (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether Tolkien was a racist or whether The Lord of the Rings has been perceived as racist are two entirely different propositions. The latter is well documented and must be properly covered in the article. Davémon (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really -- if The LOTR is racist (as accused) then it must follow that its author was racist. Just because there are accusations that are "well documented" doesn't mean they deserve acknowledgment in a introductory encyclopedia article. I'm not saying it can't be mentioned (as stated above), but only a single sentence or two should suffice, perhaps along the lines of: "LOTR has been perceived as racist by some individuals based upon imagery Tolkien used for forces of good and evil [ref], even though Tolkien himself was never known to be racist."). LotR (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Readers may perceive all sorts of things that weren't intended by authors, there doesn't have to be a cause and effect. Reader responses are valid interpretations of the text - whatever the author may have said their intentions were. I like your first draft on the opening sentence, but would make minor amends and expand for clarity: "The Lord of the Rings has been perceived as racist by critics such as Dr Stephen Shapiro, John Yatt [Guardian], David Tjader[see Tolkien and the Invention of Myth ed. Jane Chance p.113] and these arguments are often based upon the imagery depicting forces of good and evil and the theme of race as determining characters behavior.[ref] Scholars such as Anderson Rearick and Sandra Ballif Straubhaar have refuted these arguments by pointing out the omission of relevant evidence and the influence of imagery from adaptations rather than the work itself, alongside citing the absence of evidence of racist attitudes or events in the authors personal life.[ref Rearick]". I don't think we need to go into lengthly specifics of the arguments, Tolkiens attitudes towards anti-semetism or his descriptions of orcs as "mongolian", but just acknowledge the debate properly. Davémon (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems reasonable enough to me. The references below, assuming they verify, would be OK to cite as well, although again, we should not get too carried away on this tangent. Your draft with some small copyedits: "The Lord of the Rings has been perceived as racist by critics such as Dr Stephen Shapiro, John Yatt [Guardian], David Tjader [see Tolkien and the Invention of Myth ed. Jane Chance p.113], and these arguments are often based upon the imagery depicting forces of good and evil and the theme of race (e.g., Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, Man, Orc) as determining characters' behavior.[ref] Scholars such as Anderson Rearick and Sandra Ballif Straubhaar have refuted these arguments by pointing out the omission of relevant evidence and the influence of imagery from adaptations rather than the work itself, alongside citing the absence of evidence of racist attitudes or events in the author's personal life.[ref Rearick]". LotR (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added the material (again minor adjustments). I think it does a good job of being neutral. No doubt there will be other opinions! --Davémon (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd post a few articles from the past several years that I found that seem to address this topic (though I don't have copies of them, sorry!). Namely:

  • Two discussions of Tolkien's racial sensitivity in his work: McFadden, Brian. "Fear of Difference, Fear of Death: The Sigelwara, Tolkien's Swertings, and Racial Difference." In Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages, eds. Jane Chance and Alfred K. Siewers. [New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005] 155-69. and Chance, Jane. "Tolkien and the Other: Race and Gender in the Middle Earth.” In Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages, eds. Jane Chance and Alfred K. Siewers. [New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005] 171-86.
  • An argument for Tolkien being a Nazi in all but German-ness: Werber, Niels "Geo- and Biopolitics of Middle-earth: A German Reading of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings" New Literary History 36: 227-46
  • An argument against Anti-Semitism charges against Tolkien:Bird, Craig. “Do Anti-Semitism Charges Against Tolkien Ring True?” NJ Jewish News, 29 Nov 2001, reprinted in Chesterton Review 28: 284-286
  • An article discussing Tolkien's response to Nazism (as contrasted to Wagner and Nazi theorist Arthur Rosenberg): Chism, Christine. "Middle-earth, the Middle Ages, and the Aryan Nation: Myth and History in World War II." In Tolkien The Medievalist, ed. Jane Chance. [New York: Routledge, 2003] p. 63-92.

Hope that helps, Astraflame (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


I realize that it is tough to talk about these things to people who enjoy Tolkien's work; since the loaded term "racism" is universally accepted as "bad" or pejorative, then anything "good", like Tolkien, can't possibly be racist.

But that's not really the case. Was Wagner racist? It doesn't necessarily matter; Wagner's music has acquired strong Nazi connotations and these have to be addressed in his article. That doesn't mean that you can't play the Bridal March at your wedding, it just means people should know about popular, polarizing interpretations of art.

If you go to StormFront.org, probably the most popular neo-Nazi/"white nationalist" forum on the web, they have an entire board dedicated to LotR. I personally think you'd have to be daft to not see how Tolkien's work assists these types of people in constructing a narrative dealing with the "imminent threat" of "dark-skinned races" to "the West." Even the non-white humans - the Haradrim (Arabs) and Easterlings (Asians) work for Sauron, the dark lord.

To be fair, Tolkien's work has also been appropriated by Haight-Ashbury hippies; I believe this is already addressed in the article. Nobody's saying Tolkien wrote books to give racists ammunition, but what we are saying is that his work reflects a strongly race-oriented mentality common among affluent Europeans of his time and that this aspect of his work cannot be simply negated in our modern, multiracial society where his works are popular.

Basically, the reason that I did this before adding to the article is to get a productive discussion going before adding a paragraph that would be immediately removed by some irate Tolkien fan. I'll put something in soon. 144.89.186.134 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite the appropriation of the text by neo-nazi groups to reliable third parties? or cite the argument that the racism seen in LoTR been seen as attributable to Tolkiens acceptance of the prevailing attitudes of the times? that would be useful. --Davémon (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The important part of all this is that it must be based on reliable sources, not guesses. This is a useful discussion so far, but it's not completely clear yet.
It's also important to note several other aspects of the question: the imagery might be perceived as racists by some, but that does not mean that it was motivated by racist feelings on the part of the writer; there are also examples in the books of multiple races working together without prejudice: hobbits, elves, men, dwarves, eagles, and so on. Hobbits have hairy feet and leathery soles, dwarves have long dark beards and like to live and work in underground caverns; elves find men crude and annoying in many ways, etc. In addition, people of any culture, when expressing the feelings of an alien culture invading, would use descriptions of people who look different than they do. If Tolkien were Chinese, maybe the invaders would have been blond. That's not racism, it's just story-telling.
Regarding the "good" races treatment of the captives from "bad" races, ie, that Orcs are killed and no rehabilitation is attemtped; that's not racism, that's just practicality - Orcs, as fantasy creatures portrayed in the story, are evil and through and through. There would be no place for them in any society not ruled by the Dark Lord or one of his surrogates. Is it racist to refer the the Dark Lord as Dark? Darkness is an archetype of evil; would the story be the same if the Dark Lord was the Lord of Light? Lucifer has been described that way. But it would be a different story. When light is extinguished, darkness comes. Humans fear the dark for good reasons; humans don't see in the dark, but plenty of creepy creatures and predators do function well in the dark.
I'm not arguing that there is no racism in the story, my comment is to show that there are many ways to view those questions; it's not obvious one way or the other. The only way any of this can be addressed to research the sources and report them appropriately, with due weight - and that is very small relative to the huge scope of literary discussion of the topic so it should not use much space in the article. If there are direct comments on that question by Tolkien, those should be presented as well. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I remind everyone of the Wikipedia:Talk guidelines. This isn't right place to debate your personal views. Thanks. --Davémon (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Davémon I agree with your comment, but it's not clear if you meant it as a response to mine just above - or is it a response to others? I'm just asking, because I wasn't debating personal views in what I wrote, the whole point of my comment was to illustrate that the questions about imagery and relations have more than one way they can be interpreted; and interpreting is not our job. The only way to address this topic in the article is to use verifiable information, with due weight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Jack-A-Roe, it could have been phrased better - a general reminder to everyone (myself included) and a response to the previous two posts. Writing our own interpretations to illustrate a valid point, rather than citing interpretations from verifiable sources to do the same job, or just stating the point on its own, can create all sorts of straw-man responses - I was trying to pre-empt that. As you rightly say, the issue is really just ensuring wp:v wp:or and wp:due are met. Is the current racism paragraph ok, or does it need work? --Davémon (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. Thanks for clarifying. About the paragraph as it is in the article currently, I don't see it as a problem, though the references regarding racism are marginal. If there are scholars who see racism in the story, it would be better if we could have the actual scholar sources rather than newspaper reports. Maybe after a while we can find those. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. On re-reading the paragraph again, it seemed to have some unneeded attribution, so I modified it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fine. People will change it as they see fit, but as long as it's been decided here that the subject warrants a mention, we can at least justify it to people who just delete it out of being offended by the possibility that non-white people could see the story in a totally different and possibly negative light than white people perceive it. (I think the issue deserves a link in the Table of Contents, but I'll compromise on that.)
"Is it racist to refer the the Dark Lord as Dark?"
You could find a lot of academics who would argue that it is; for example, Achebe's well-known critical piece on Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Not that this is a particularly encyclopedia-worthy source, but you could also read:
http://www.united-church.ca/intercultural/becoming/darkness
Just a thought. 144.89.186.134 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

the racism question is duly addressed in the JRRT bio article (under "views"). --dab (𒁳) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The amount of time these so-called "racism watchdogs" generally put into research about the man and his work is zilch. They all scrape the much-worn surface but fail to bring anything new, beacuse they can't. It's just rehash after rehash, and each one seasons his own hash. 222.127.90.98 (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Battlelore

Republican does not seem to want to acknowledge that Battlelore and their music is 100% based off Tolkien's work, unless I provide evidence. So here it is:

"All of Battlelore's lyrics concern J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/en/Battlelore

"Numerous bands devote themselves to the literary works of British author J.R.R. Tolkien and pay homage to Middle Earth's diverse cultures and inhabitants. However, only a few bands live up to his extraordinary tales and are able to clad them into a fitting suit of armor. One of these bands is the Finnish formation BATTLELORE, who have enthralled countless fans with their unique blend of Epic Fantasy Metal. "

- http://www.napalmrecords.com/hp_promo.php?bioID=63&osCsid=1d0a23f224edf2865ff5546edb315a3f —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.115.243 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This really belongs in Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien rather than this article - more space could be devoted to Battlelore there. In this article we need to stick to discussing only the most notable and strictly LoTR-based influences and summarising general influences. We already sum up the Tolkien influence on the Metal genre, which covers Battlelore. Incidently neither the record company nor wikipedia are independant reliable sources - maybe some magazine reviews of the new album would be better evidence. --Davémon (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As can be seen here (the reference which I put up in the article), Battlelore in fact happen to be entirely based on LotR. Read the discography and you'll see how they release one concept album after the other. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, the Lord of the Rings is important to Battlelore - but Battlelore aren't important to a general readers understanding of the cultural impact of Lord of the Rings - in a way that Led Zepplin certainly are, and perhaps Enya and Burzum also. Battlelore reference Tolkiens other works - such as the Istari in "the Forgotten Wizards, parts I and II", which appear in the Unfinished Tales, and "Mark of the Bear" which references the Hobbit, rather than the LoTR itself. For these reasons I think Battlelore would be better dealt with in Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien. --Davémon (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I tend to agree with you now. With so many other references to Tolkien's work in general, Battlelore should better be mentioned in Works inspired by JRRT. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Article assessement

I put this at A-class for the Middle-earth WikiProject, and B-class for the others. People are welcome to do a GA nomination if they wish. I think the better approach is to work on the issues raised at the Featured Article Review and then resubmit it for FA in a month or so, but only if the work has been done. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Length

Does anyone know how long the book is, in terms of number of words? 91.107.180.179 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.