Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Suggestions for maintaining FA status

Well, the article is worthy of FA. Something bugs me though: an unwiedly list of books he wrote and see also farm. I recommend some clean-up. WikiNew 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for a tidyup, but wiping the whole list of his bibliography 3 days later seems a little heavy handed (see edit here). Perhaps something like a "selected bibliography" would be preferable to losing the whole section. This approach seems to work well on the Isaac Asimov article, a writer with over 500 books to his credit. Any thoughts? --Oscarthecat 15:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Asimov article, which wouldn't pass at FA today, is discussing an author who wrote an enormous amount. Tolkien in contrast, was a University professor first and in terms of output was an incredibly talented amateur. In my view, sometimes going back to the drawing board is a good thing. WikiNew 15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Think we agree that the original list was unwieldly, how about breaking it down to just this? --Oscarthecat 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Selected bibliography

Fiction and poetry

• 1936 Songs for the Philologists, with E.V. Gordon et al.
• 1937 The Hobbit or There and Back Again, ISBN 0-618-00221-9 (HM).
• 1945 Leaf by Niggle (short story)
• 1945 The Lay of Aotrou and Itroun, published in Welsh Review
• 1949 Farmer Giles of Ham (medieval fable)
• 1953 The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son (a play written in alliterative verse), published with the accompanying essays Beorhtnoth's Death and Ofermod, in Essays and Studies by members of the English Association, volume 6.
• The Lord of the Rings
  • 1954 The Fellowship of the Ring: being the first part of The Lord of the Rings, ISBN 0-618-00222-7 (HM).
  • 1954 The Two Towers: being the second part of The Lord of the Rings, ISBN 0-618-00223-5 (HM).
  • 1955 The Return of the King: being the third part of The Lord of the Rings, ISBN 0-618-00224-3 (HM).
• 1962 The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and Other Verses from the Red Book
• 1964 Tree and Leaf (On Fairy-Stories and Leaf by Niggle in book form)
• 1966 The Tolkien Reader (The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son, On Fairy-Stories, Leaf by Niggle, Farmer Giles of Ham and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil)
• 1967 The Road Goes Ever On, with Donald Swann
• 1967 Smith of Wootton Major

Posthumous publications

• 1975 Translations of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl and Sir Orfeo
• 1976 The Father Christmas Letters
• 1977 The Silmarillion ISBN 0-618-12698-8 (HM).
• 1979 Pictures by J. R. R. Tolkien
• 1980 Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth ISBN 0-618-15405-1 (HM).

Audio recordings

• 1967 Poems and Songs of Middle-earth, Caedmon TC 1231
• 1975 JRR Tolkien Reads and Sings his The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings, Caedmon TC 1477, TC 1478 (based on an August, 1952 recording by George Sayer)

---

I see nothing wrong with the list, the article passed FAC with it, and I don't see why we should change it now... dab (𒁳) 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The posthumous works: rephrasing?

The article currently has 'Most of the posthumously published books were compiled from Tolkien's notes by his son Christopher Tolkien.' While this is perhaps not strictly inaccurate, it is highly misleading, and similar statements have given rise to the notion that CRT has done a Brian Herbert job on his father's legendarium. Perhaps a better statement would be, 'After his death, his son and literary executor Christopher Tolkien edited a coherent version of the Silmarillion from his father's many disparate texts. Christopher subsequently published the greater part of Tolkien's drafts and incomplete manuscripts in Unfinished Tales and the twelve-volume History of Middle-earth.' Solicitr 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than expand toward the explanation given later in the article, I shorten the sentence in the lead to "The posthumous books were edited by his son Christopher Tolkien". Do you think the explanation given further down the article is adequate? Carcharoth 11:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad, although I think I still prefer the phrase 'coherent version.' Perhaps HoME shouldn't be described as 'background material', though, but as a scholarly presentation of the original texts. Solicitr 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten that bit. Does it read any better now? Carcharoth 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lyndney Park

'He also assisted Sir Mortimer Wheeler in the unearthing of a Roman Asclepieion at Lydney Park, Gloucestershire, in 1928.'

This is simply incorrect. There's no evidence that Tolkien ever so much as visited the dig. The limit of his involvement was to write a philological note on the name Nodens (a Celtic deity), which was included in the excavation report as an appendix. The notion that Tolkien was somehow involved in the 'unearthing' has unfortunately been pushed recently by those taken with the idea that a Romano-British ring found at the site somehow inspired the One Ring, in defiance of all known facts. Solicitr 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed and tidied up. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography article

Someone started a fork at List of books by J. R. R. Tolkien. Apart from the fact that the bibliography is not all books (many are essays and poems), a title already exists waiting for such a spin-off article: Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien (currently a redirect to the section). The article is already out-of-sync with the section, so I propose putting the article up for deletion and keeping the bibliography as a section in the main article. It is not that long, and it is better for it to be comprehensive than a selected list with a slightly longer article including everything. In future, maybe an annotated list of his works might be an idea, but then so would a timeline. See what I did at User:Carcharoth/Tolkien timeline. If we are going to have a separate article for the bibliography, how about one for a timeline? Carcharoth 11:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Cover design for the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien" Picture

I've noticed that this seemingly innocent picture links to a picture of a somewhat chubby guy smoking a...cigar? I don't know how to revert it to its original picture, but I am praying that this isn't really the cover of the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings as published in Tolkien's lifetime...it doesn't do a lot to suggest what it is in the books themselves. I'm a little new here, so I'm uncertain of how to restore the original image. --Chirpish 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation

I noticed that there are many language versions for this article. i though that there could be a Quenya or Sindarin version to honour Tolkien's fictional languages. i don't know if it sound's stupid (and i hope not) or if there should be a separate section of the site (like en. wikipedia or gr.wikipedia...) but it is just a suggestion. - Jimmakos

Unfortunately, Quenya and especially Sindarin are not complete enough to translate his whole book into, or even this article. Also, the whole idea about language versions is that it links to another Wikipedia in the same language. For that to happen there would have to be a whole wiki in Quenya/Sindarin, which would certainly rely on someone or some people practically creating 2/3rds or more of the vocabulary. Sorry, but we appreciate your suggestions. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

South African-hood

Since his parents were both British (not South African; they just happened to live there when he was born), he is British. Similarly, Basil Rathbone (born only some months after Tolkien) was born in South Africa to British parents, but is British. Is Category: South African emigrants justified for Tolkien? Rathbone doesn't have it. I guess both could retroactively be considered South African (by land of birth only), but isn't that like making Achilles a citizen of the Hellenic Republic? Uthanc 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, just as Pericles and Plato are called 'Greek', even though in their day there was no political entity called 'Greece' or 'Hellas', but a regional and cultural identity, Tolkien was born in a region which was commonly referred to, decades before his birth, as 'South Africa,' even though the nation of that name lay in the future.Solicitr 16:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the laws currently governing immigration/naturalization status in the US, geographical origin does not necessarily make one a citizen. Besides, the Orange Free State was still under British Control in 1892. Tolkien is British, colonial born to parents of British citizenship. Orwell is not Indian, is he? Had Tolkien spent a significant portion of his life there, perhaps there would be a case; but he was three years old when he left Bloemfontein with his British mother. He was an Englishman, period. The argument regarding Pericles and Plato is not even remotely comparable. Although Hellas (Greece) as we know it today didn't officially exist in the 5th Century BCE, a confederation of states (including Athens) that currently composes a large part of what is today known as Greece, did. Sparta, Athens, Corinth, Thebes, et al., shared a common language, a pantheon of gods and, pre-Peloponnesian War, a military allegiance (see the Persian Wars. Pericles and Plato were lifelong Athenians, born to Athenian parents, raised as Athenians and died in Athens. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting also that the Union of South Africa wasn't created until after Tolkien had left the area, so there is no sense in which his nationality can be considered to be "South African". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

The external links section is running a little rich on extraneous links - For an FA candidate, it should adhere to the guidelines of WP:EL, particularly the links normally to be avoided section. - Tiswas^(t) 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien was in H.O.G.D.

Lewis and Tolkien were initiated into the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and were active in it for at least 5 years.

Here's the excerpt from here: http://www.illuminati-news.com/tolkien-occult.htm

Interestingly enough, shortly after I had published the first version of this article on the Internet in 1998, I got a letter from a visitor, who was told by a high initiated witch, that both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were initiated in the H.O.G.D. (The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn), which is a deeply occult, black magic secret society. The Golden Dawn is closely related to Madame Blavatsky's "Theosophical Society". During a discussion about Tolkien and his work, this male witch commented that "The Hobbit" and the rest of the Middle-Earth series was merely an elementary 'primer' for witchcraft. He was even a bit irritated at the lack of background knowledge about Tolkien among the people gathered. Later he added C.S. Lewis to the conversation as another well known literary figure who was initiated in the H.O.G.D. If this is true or not is hard to say, but it is interesting and well worth looking further into. However, there are more indications that both Tolkien and Lewis had Golden Dawn connections. The following website is no longer on the Internet, but I still have a saved copy of it, so I am hereby re-posting it: "Hermetic Imagination: The Effect Of The Golden Dawn On Fantasy Literature".

Wikinger 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What a load of horseshit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed. I would call it pure fantasy (no pun intended:) dab (𒁳) 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to arise as a piece of wishful fantasy on someone's part. It is almost certainly the case that Charles Williams was connected with the Golden Dawn, but there no evidence that his friend C. S. Lewis had the slightest involvement with it, and it is inconceivable for Tolkien, who was a rather traditional Roman Catholic. Myopic Bookworm 11:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, all forms of black magic and occult are connected with evil in Tolkien's books. Aminullah 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Dawn did not practice black magic! TharkunColl 10:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you so sure that's true of everyone who was in it, while they were in it, and operating under its aegis? It was certainly an occult organization, in any event. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

White magic is evil too, because always magic = satanism. Wikinger 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Only in the minds of those who don't practice it. Wiccans don't even believe in the existence of Satan, much less worship him. Or was that comment intended as sarcasm? -- CWesling (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I personally agree with Wikinger in the spiritual sense, not all magic is conscious satanism. By the way, Tolkien's characters performed "white magic," which is completely different in a fictional setting from magic in general. I wouldn't even use the term refering to real life. At any rate, the only "secret societies" Tolkien was part of were the Inklings, TCBS, and Kolbitar. Nothing sorcerous for Tollers. ---G.T.N. (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Category madness

please help keep down the category cruft. I mean, "victims of animal attacks", where is this going? also "anarchists" and "illustrators" isn't appropriate: Tolkien called himself an "anarchist" in some private letter at some point, he is nothing like a publicly avowed anarchist writer. Similarly, he privately drew images, but he never published them. Just because every shred of his private life is being published doesn't mean that every private pursuit of his should be reflected in Wikipedia categorization. Please use some common sense. I also object to "Catholic traditionalist": he certainly was a Catholic, but his position is very far from "traditionalism". Indeed, his views border on the heretical in some areas. dab (𒁳) 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

alright, so Tolkien was a "Tolkien artist", how silly is that? He has not "illustrated Tolkien", he has drawn pictures, at the same time being Tolkien, that's really a bit of a different case. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Tolkien artists" is shorthand for "artists who have illustrated writings by Tolkien," and Tolkien himself certainly falls into that category. It's not a trivial category, it's certainly important to know that Tolkien at times illustrated his own stories. (If it were trivial, then it would be true for most writers, which is not the case.) Both the writing and the drawing are acts of creation (or, as he would have it, "sub-creation"), valid in themselves, and both worthy of notice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest we remove all mention of his drawings. I am suggesting that we can make a statement in actual prose (as opposed to 'by categorization'). What you are saying is undisputed, but it leaves open the question of whether Tolkien is a "Tolkien artist". I maintain that it is silly to say this. dab (𒁳) 12:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We do have him under Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing, so maybe we can remove Category:Tolkien artists, and add a note to the category page changing the criteria and reminding people that he illustrated his own works. Carcharoth 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why he is categorized under "South African Emigrants". He was an Englishman who happened to be born in the Orange Free State because his father had been sent out to head the Bloemfonetin office of the bank he worked for. Ojevindlang 13:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't be categorised this way. Unfortuntately, this is how Wikipedia works. The editors of an article have to perpetually watch out for, and remove, this sort of thing. Carcharoth 22:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed Category:Marquette University, as it should be the collection that is categorised there, not the author. I created J. R. R. Tolkien Collection as a redirect pointing at Marquette University. The redirect is now categorised in Category:Middle-earth redirects with possibilities, in case anyone wants to have a go at creating an article for it. See here for lots of information. Carcharoth 23:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparent desire to remove anything even remotely negative about Tolkien

I object at the way three additions to the article I had made were excised with the lofty claim that they "didn't improve the article". Since they were all referenced, I suppose that was the only argument the perpetrator could find. Mentioning that many think Tolkien and Robert E. Howard must share the honour as the progenitors of modern fantasy is perfectly valid. The same goes for pointing out that on one occasion Tolkien did break his word to Father Morgan about not meeting Edith, and that this made Father Morgan threaten to curtail Tolkien's university career. And the way Tolkien was charmed by Roy Campbell (attested to in a letter to his son) is embarrassing for Tolkien's reputation, but it is nonetheless an interesting example of how his intense religious feelings could kill his critical facilities. If anything, I have been too tactful here. This is a Wikipedia article, not a fansite, isn't it?

Ojevindlang 20:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree your contributions are valid, although I have doubts whether "sometimes led him off the beaten track" or "he was not even disturbed by the celebration of fascism" is an adequate phrasing. Regarding the "father of modern fantasy" thing, this shouldn't be discussed in too much detail here. I suggest the discussion should be moved to High Fantasy. dab (𒁳) 12:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to mention people other than Howard, as neither he or Tolkien came up with high fantasy out of the blue, as some may think when seeing only Howard. 222.127.199.48 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

nobody claims JRRT single-handedly invented the fantasy genre. But he is the single author with the greatest influence by far. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the reorganization of material has improved the article. I have recast what I regard as clumsy phrasing in the mention of Roy Campbell. Ojevindlang 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash of racism accusations

The politics section reads as if it was written by Tolkien apologists against unstated accusations of racism. It starts off promisingly, then procedes to offer various ways in which Tolkien was a fine upstanding even-handed anti-racist. Can we at least show some intellectual integrity and include a quotation from a critic of Tolkien on his views, or some sort of indication to the uninitiated reader as to why anyone would consider Tolkien racist in the first place? Thanks, скоморохъ 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, unless these literary critics have special mind reading powers, that many of the accusations of racism have no real evidence. We have evidence from Tolkien himself that he is clearly not a racist, showing distain for both the Nazis and Aparteid. I'm not sure what qualifies these critics from having more authority on the mind of Tolkien then Tolkien himself. In fact, I'm not sure what qualifies these critics from having more authority on Tolkien then you or me. People who wanted to see racism will see Tolkien's work as racist, I personally just viewed it as a work of fantasy. The problem with literary criticism is that it relies on subjective interpretation, which is prone to the biases of the critic. Hey, how about that uber-dark Saruman the White, huh, he clearly represents people of African descent. Sauron, the main antagonist, is an eye, clearly reprsenting the barbaric culture of the non-western world. Gee whiz. And yes, Tolkien's work is heavily influenced by Scandinavian and Celtic mythology, so of course the humans will be portrayed as such. Apparently, in modern day ultra-PC society, that now qualifies an author as racist. I guess, in order for a work of fiction to be "culturally tolerant" now, all the bad guys must be pale, WASPy crusaders or Christian space marines, and even then..... --Jtd00123 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

it boils down to WP:RS. The question of racism has been thoroughly discussed in Tolkien Studies. This discussion may be reflected, with proper attribution. dab (𒁳) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Views

I've been asked to provide evidence and quote sources for "what kind of Fascist" Roy Campbell was. I don't think the article about Tolkien is the proper place for that. But here is a representative quotation from Campbell's first autobiography, Broken Record:

"Although it was very difficult to acquire literary fame without kowtowing to the homosexual and yiddish freemasonries, I knew that I could eventually pierce through any screen they tried to set up between me and the public."

I can find out the page number and add other quotations, if necessary, but isn't that a waste of space in this article? When Campbell is called a Fascist, the word isn't used loosely. That's what he was. He stands convicted on his own writings and statements. Today the word "Fascist" is often used as a term of abuse, and often it only tells you that the person using it disapproves of the person he or she uses it about. But in the 1930's, the meaning was pretty unambiguous. A Fascist was a person who admired Mussolini, Hitler and Franco. Originally, before the rise of Hitler, a Fascist was not necessarily also a Jew-baiter, though it was often the case; after 1938, hating Jews became a sort of mandatory thing for Fascists. Campbell, incidentally, was an anti-Semitic long before 1938. Oh yes, and freemasons waere another bugbear for Fascists.

I hope this ends this particular discussion, which would be more relevant on websites about Campbell, Ezra Pound, Wyndham Lewis and their kind.

Ojevindlang 23:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

indeed. Campbell makes for an interesting note, but it's not like he was a great influence on JRRT or something. Fwiiw, the letter on Campbell has the following to say:

Especially as C.S.L. had not long ago violently lampooned him in the Oxford Magazine, and his press-cutters miss nothing. ... It was (perhaps) gratifying to find that this powerful poet and soldier desired in Oxford chiefly to see Lewis (and myself). We made an appointment for Thursday (that is last) night. If I could remember all that I heard in C.S.L.'s room last night it would fill several airletters. C.S.L. had taken a fair deal of port and was a little belligerent (insisted on reading out his lampoon again while R.C. laughed at him), but we were mostly obliged to listen to the guest. A window on a wild world, yet the man is in himself gentle, modest, and compassionate. Mostly it interested me to learn that this old-looking war-scarred Trotter, limping from recent wounds, is 9 years younger than I am, and we prob. met when he was a lad, as he lived in O[xford] at the time when we lived in Pusey Street.... What he has done since beggars description. Here is a scion of an Ulster prot[estant] family resident in S. Africa, most of whom fought in both wars, who became a Catholic after sheltering the Carmelite fathers in Barcelona -- in vain, they were caught & butchered, and R.C. nearly lost his life. But he got the Carmelite archives from the burning library and took them through the Red country. He speaks Spanish fluently (he has been a professional bullfighter). As you know he then fought through the war on Franco's side, and among other things was in the van of the company that chased the Reds out of Malaga in such haste that their general (Villalba I believe) could not carry off his loot -- and left on his table St. Teresa's hand with all its jewels. He had most interesting things to say about the situation at Gib[raltar], since the war (in Spain). But he is a patriotic man, and has fought for the B[ritish] Army since. Well, well. Martin D'Arcy vouches for him, and told him to seek us out. But I wish I could remember half his picaresque stories, about poets and musicians etc. from Peter Warlock to Aldous Huxley. The one I most enjoyed was the tale of greasy Epstein (the sculptor) and how he fought him and put him in hospital for a week. However it is not possible to convey an impression of such a rare character, both a soldier and a poet, and a Christian convert. How unlike the Left - the 'corduroy panzers' who fled to America (Auden among them who with his friends got R.C.'s works banned by the Birmingham T. Council!). I hope to see this man again next week. We did not leave Magdalen until midnight, and I walked up to Beaumont Street with him. C.S.L.'s reactions were odd. Nothing is a greater tribute to Red propaganda than the fact that he (who knows they are in all other subjects liars and traducers) believes all that is said against Franco, and nothing that is said for him. Even Churchill's open speech in Parliament left him unshaken. But hatred of our church is after all the real only final foundation of the C[hurch] of E[ngland] - so deep laid that it remains even when all the superstructure seems removed (C.S.L. for instance reveres the Blessed Sacrament, and admires nuns!). Yet if a Lutheran is put in jail he is up in arms; but if Catholic priests are slaughtered - he disbelieves it (and I daresay really thinks they asked for it). But R.C. shook him a bit. ....

I am not sure we can characterise this in a general statement of "JRRT admired RC". It is also important to note that this is a statement made in private conversation. But I agree we should state JRRT was much taken in by RC. dab (𒁳) 10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ojevindlang, Do not misunderstand my caution with regard to the words "Fascist" and "Anti-Semite." I am a Traditionalist Catholic and a Paleoconservative. Therefore, I have known both terms to be thrown around quite frivilously in the direction of myself and my fellows. I am very uncomfortable with regard to how casually the words are used today and consider both to be too serious an accusation to be taken lightly. Therefore, I requested clarification on both pages that accuse Campbell of it. BTW, you might wish to add the quote, along with book and page number, to the Campbell article.

Mr. Dbachmann, The paragraph you cited from Tolkien's letters would make a rich addition to the Campbell article. I will leave it up to you to decide whether you wish to place it there.

Kingstowngalway 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

you are right, I'll try to do that. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

alright, I just noted I had missed the second half of the letter, and I admit that "admiration" is not too strong a term here. But it appears JRRT was somehow mesmerized by the immediate effect of the meeting, and the admiration doesn't seem to have lasted. At least I don't know that he referred to Campbell again on later occasions. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kingstongalway, I can understand your concern, but trying to claim that Campbell was not a Fascist does not serve your faith or your political agenda well. The man repeatedly expressed anti-Semitic views and riled against homosexual "nancy boys" and freemasonic conspiracies. Even after the Second World War, he did not hesitate to contribute to Diana Mosley's magazine The European, which also counted Ezra Pound and Henry Wilkinson (an old member of Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists) as contributors. The Mosleys, like Pound, remained unrepentant Fascists. Campbell, according to his own statements, physically attacked Jews and Leftists. There is no way one can deny that the man was and remained a Fascist, in the original, unreconstructed sense of the word. You don't repeatedly say and do the things he said and did without a reason; and you don't keep the company he did (which also included Wyndham Lewis), unless you feel in sympathy with the people in question. If you for some reason find yourself unable to accept that, further discussion of this should be conducted somewhere else, not in the context of the article about Tolkien. BTW, I am looking for copies of Campbell's autobiographies so I can cite the exact page numbers for the horrible things he is universally admitted to have said. But the citations won't go into the article about Tolkien, of course.

Ojevindlang 15:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

indeed, please take it to Talk:Roy Campbell (poet). I think the Campbell episode is now duly addressed in this article. --dab (𒁳) 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien's Inspiration

Tolkien may have used historical names for his characters in The Lord of the Rings. For instance, Frodo from Frodi Fridleifsson, a Viking King. Others include Gandalf from Gandolf Alfgeirsson, a King in Norway; Meriadoc from Merodachus, a Sicambrian/Frankish King; Pippin from Pbepin “The Short,” King of France; the Sea of Rhun from Rhun "Hir (Tall)" Ap Maelgwn, a Welsch King; and Smeagol from Smiorgoill, an Irish King. Likewise, he may have borrowed from historical situations. For instance, the Stewards of Gondor in The Lord of the Rings ruled in the absence of the kings much the same way that the Mayors of the Palace ruled France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billandbeckypaul (talk • contribs) 06:43, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about where Tolkien got inspiration for his stories. For instance, do the small, white flowers that grow on the graves of King Theoden’s ancestors have any correlation in Europe? Bill and Becky Paul 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He documented most of the sources of his name choices himself - some in an LOTR appendix, and others in History of Middle-earth material, and in private letters.

• Gandalf - Gandalfr is a name of a dwarf in the Old Norse poem Völuspá, part of the Elder Edda. See Norse_dwarves#List_of_Norse_dwarves
• Meriadoc - pretending the events of LOTR were real, he said this was just representative of Merry's real name Kalimac. His real nickname Kali meant "happy" so he used a historical name with a concievable similar nickname (Meriadoc - Merry)
• Pippin is a similar case - his real name in-universe was "Razanur", "Razar" for short. Razar meant "a small apple". Pippin is also a term for apple. See, for example, Cox's Orange Pippin. Razanur and Peregrin also are meant to have the same meaning of "traveler, stranger". See Westron (which English represents)
• Sméagol - Old English smygel, "burrow". His real name was Trahald, meaning "burrowing".
• Frodo - replaced "real" "Maura", meaning "wise, experienced". Frodo means about the same (Latinized Fróði; also Old English fród means "wise by experience").

Uthanc 07:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

don't overestimate these "real" names. They are more or less ad-hoc creations for the appendix and don't have much depth. The "real" names proper are really the English ones, since Tolkien's work is steeped in English philology. dab (𒁳) 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien was well versed in more than English Philology. He was fluent in Icelandic as well as other medieval languages. Their linguistic and nomenclature influence on his stories should not be understated or brushed aside. Tolkien worked out his own translations of many of the old tales. Also his son Christopher has translated "The saga of King Heidrek the Wise" from Icelandic which his father introduced him to. In the Saga of Heidrick the Sword "Tyrfing", is cursed and will not be sheathed until it sheds blood, is an obvious inspiration to Turin's sword "Anglachel". "Brego" is Icelandic for "Lord" and is the name of the second King of the Rohan. "Durin" is used by Tolkien as "Durin the Deathless" one of the Father's of the dwarves. "Dwalin" is a variation of "Dvalin" and "Mirkwood" is a variation of "Myrkvior". The inclusion of lines of geneology and the pattern of riddles and songs is taken from the Norse Eddas and is found in the Icelandic tale of King Heidrik as well. Tolkien was fluent in Icelandic and familiar with the old medieval sagas and langauges. Tolkien used to read the Welsh writing on the trains as a child and there are some links there as well linguistically. To claim Tolkien didn't know the depth of meaning of the name Brego he gave to the second Rohan King is ridiculous. Of course this depth of meaning in the names and words used and link to the old tales does not diminish what Tolkien has added in the way of literature as well. He has brought us the old tales re-wrought in modern literature form, invented new langauges and woven an entire world in Middle Earth. There is a qualitative difference between the sekletal Eddas and the highly descriptive writing and original story Tolkien has written. Tolkien takes the essense and spirit of the old tales and builds his own masterpiece, true to the old tales but also distinct. DaigoroDaigoro (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue Plague

Is there one at the The Oratory Schoolas it quotes on the wikipedia page of this school that tolkien stayed there and wrote some of LOTR there Dingyv03 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an official blue plaque. There might be an unofficial marker. There are some in Oxford and Birmingham in some of the other locations. Carcharoth 00:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Omigod! How many poor students at the Oratory School turned blue and died from this horrible epidemic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solicitr (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarehole

Although some sources say that Sarehole was in Warwickshire, and it apparently was at a later time, this (scroll down to "Birmingham 1885-1936, 1:2500") seems to provide reliable evidence that it was in Worcestershire at the time Tolkien lived there. Deor 04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely correct. Sarehole was in the parish of Yardley, in Worcestershire. The parish of Yardley was transferred to the county borough of Birmingham in 1911 (years after Tolkien had moved from there). The county borough of Birmingham came under the geographical county of Warwickshire, but at no time has Yardley ever been subject to Warwickshire county council, which had no authority over the county borough of Birmingham. However, Tolkien himself, in one of his letters I think, erroneously stated that the village where he spent his childhood was in Warwickshire. Let there be no confusion over this - Tolkien was mistaken. Sarehole was in Worcestershire when he lived there. TharkunColl 11:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected- led astray by JRRT himself. However, given the way his mind worked, can anyone answer in which county Sarehole lay in preindustrial times?Solicitr 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Answered my own question- Domesday lists Yardley in Worcs.Solicitr 15:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the parish of Yardley had been in Worcestershire ever since that county was created in the early 900s, and prior to that it had been part of the Hwicce, coming under the jurisdiction of the bishopric of Worcester, since about 680. On the map of the Hwicce, it's the pointy bit sticking out top right. TharkunColl 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for all this! Carcharoth 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

South African born?

To say in the introduction that Tolkien was "South African-born", as the article does currently, might well be correct, but in fact gives the wholly misleading impression that he and his family had any actual connection with the place, other than that his father happened to be working there at the time. His place of birth, and the reasons for it, are adequately covered in the text of the article. And in any case, strictly speaking its wrong anyway. South Africa wasn't created until 1910, so if it says anything at all, it should say Orange Free State. TharkunColl 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To repeat what I posted above (you should have posted under the existing heading), the English colonies and Boer states were in ordinary speech called "South Africa" decades before Tolkien's birth, just as Kenya and Tanganyika were and are called "East Africa." Nobody objects to calling Bach a 'German' composer, even though no such state as 'Germany' existed in his lifetime! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solicitr (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

commission vs. enlistment

I changed "enlisted as a second lieutenant" to "commissioned as a second lieutenant." Second Lieutenant is not and has not been an enlisted rank in the UK. See Comparative military ranks of World War I. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to change it back. To "enlist" means to join, to sign-up, to volunteer -- and that is precisely what Tolkien did. Take a look at the index to John Garth's book "Tolkien and the Great War" and you'll find an entry covering Tolkien's "enlistment," and Garth uses that term in the body of the work. This is a book by a British author, published in Britain. "Enlisted man" is an American term, not in use by the military in the UK -- they use "other ranks", so there is no problem confusing Tolkien's joining up with his being an enlisted man. Tolkien enlisted in the service, and was commisioned as a second lieutenant -- *he* didn't "commision", he *was* commisioned. Please do not revert. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Garth, page 50 - "In lieu of enlisting in Kitchener's Army, at the start of term Tolkien..."

page 53 - "But Cynewulf, the Kalevala, G.B. Smith's probing questions, and arguably even Tolkien's anxieties over enlistment, all conspired to bring them pouring out now."Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Enlisted man IS a UK term. I will revert back to the correct version. Your source has nothing to do with my edit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to "was commissioned" instead of commissioned. However, commissioned is the correct term. In the BRITISH ARMY during WWI, enlisted man was a term for a non commissioned officer soldier. Tolkien, however, was a second lieutenant which is an officer rank in the british army. [1]. Therefore, he physically cannot have "enlisted" as an officer position. The sources you mention, do not actually say "he enlisted" in the army. They merely talk about his fear of enlisting (probably why he commissioned as an officer). Therefore, they are not relevant. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Were I you, I might actually do a little research instead of simply making assumptions. Tolkien never considered "enlisting" as a ordinary soldier, the only question that faced him was whether he would join up as all his friends had done by applying for an officer's commission. This is precisely what the first half of the Garth book is about, and you'd be well advised to take a look at it. When Garth refers to "enlisting" and "enlistment" he is referring entirely to the action Tolkien eventually took, not to some fantasy about Tolkien considering joining without a commission. However, to avoid a little edit war over this completely stupid disagreement, I've altered your text to something that covers the facts of what actually happened and also provides the important information that Tolkien voluntarily joined the Army. If you can live with that, then I guess we're through here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have slightly tweaked the wording. I agree with Ed Fitzgerald that "enlisted" in current British usage is generally taken to mean "volunteered", rather than being conscripted, regardless of the rank acquired; but if American readers are going to keep misinterpreting it then it needs rewording. Myopic Bookworm 09:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your new wording works for me -- it's quite clear and fits the facts. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That problem is solved- but the WWI passage is still problematical with reference to his units. Tolkien's commission was in the Regiment of Lancashire Fusiliers, not any particular battalion thereof. Under the British Army system at the time, each Regiment maintained 'service' or 'expeditionary' battalions, and 'reserve' battalions. The latter, stationed in Britain, were responsible for recruitment, training, and administration in support of the former. Tolkien entered service with the 13/LF, a reserve battalion; after training he was transferred to the 11/LF, a service battalion attached to the 74th Brigade, 25th Division BEF in France.

Is that from the Garth book? If so, let's put it in the article. Carcharoth 07:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done- straightened up his battalions and ref'd GarthSolicitr 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

CS Lewis's role in publication of The Hobbit

As far as I can determine, CS Lewis played no role whatsoever in getting The Hobbit published. Whilst he was a enthusiastic audience for JRRT's readings of Lord of the Rings and Lewis positively reviewed The Hobbit on release, I can find no evidence that he read the book prior to publication. The chapter in Carpenter's biography on the issue remains the definitive account of how The Hobbit made it to publication: Tolkien wrote the bulk of the story in 1930-32 but did not finish it. A family friend named Elaine Griffiths was shown a typescript of the story a little while later. When she later went to work for George Allen & Unwin, she revealed the existence of the story to a staffmember named Susan Dagnall, who in turn asked Tolkien if she could look at the (still incomplete) manuscript. He complied and Ms. Dagnall, impressed by it, urged him to complete the book. Once this was done in late 1936, she then showed the book to Stanley Unwin, who then asked his son Rayner's opinion. He gave the book the thumbs-up and it was published the following year. I think the quoted source confused Lewis' role in Lord of the Rings with that of The Hobbit.--Werthead 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Carpenter is no longer even close to being the "definitive account"- he has been superseded by both Hammond & Scull's Companion and Guide, and Rateliff's History of The Hobbit. Lewis read the book in manuscript in January 1933, and wrote Tolkien a letter of appreciation on 4 Feb; moreover, Carpenter got it wrong: it is clear that the book was already finished (though not quite in its published form). Carpenter's notion that Tolkien abandoned the work at the death of Smaug and didn't return to it until after A&U showed interest was due to a misinterpretation of the manuscript series.

It's simply not the case that "when [Griffiths] later went to work for George Allen & Unwin, she revealed the existence of the story to a staffmember named Susan Dagnall." Griffiths, a career academic, never went to work for Allen & Unwin; as a graduate student whose B.Litt thesis Tolkien was supervising, she was (on Tolkien's recommendation) revising the Clark Hall Beowulf for publication by A&U, and it was in that context that Dagnall went to Oxford to see her. It is unfortunately unclear whether JRRT lent the manuscript directly to Griffiths; or merely asked her to take it to the then-ill Reverend Mother of Cherwell Edge, where Griffiths was staying; or lent it directly to the Reverend Mother from whom Griffiths in turn borrowed it: but in any event it was in Griffith's room there that Susan Dagnall saw it.

It is however the case that Lewis had no role in getting The Hobbit published, since he had no connection to A&U at all- rather the reverse: Tolkien got A&U to consider Out of the Silent Planet (though they passed on it). Solicitr 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is good stuff. But I went looking for all this in the articles and found nothing. Can we get this off the talk pages and into the articles (clearly marked with sources). I suggest The Hobbit and a summary sentence here (LotR) that is more nuanced than the one we have at the moment: "...he was persuaded by C. S. Lewis to publish a book..." Carcharoth 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten, in very brief form (more detail belongs on the Hobbit's own page).Solicitr (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation to letter, Giddings and Holland

I put in a citation to p. 391 of the Letters stating that S. R. Crockett's Gilles de Retz inspired Sauron. But I haven't read the Letters. Could someone who has a copy fix my shoddy scholarship by checking the quotation and by giving the letter number instead of the page number for consistency?

Also, according to this, Robert Giddings and Elizabeth Holland's J.R.R. Tolkien: The Shores of Middle-earth (1981) is an earlier source that connected Gollum with Rider Haggard's Gagool. It's less likely, but if anyone can check that, I think it should be mentioned (despite any other flaws the book may have). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis an influence?

In reviewing the page history, I notice that C.S. Lewis has been fluttering in and out of the list of Tolkien's influences in the infobox. Currently, he's not in the list. Can we get some consensus on whether or not he was an influence on Tolkien's writing and put him in or take him out for good? This back-and-forth stuff is silly.

Given that they were close friends, and that Tolkien is listed as having influenced Lewis, my feeling is that Lewis influenced Tolkien as well. Agree/disagree? -- CWesling (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lewis wrote, "No one ever influenced Tolkien—you might as well try to influence a bandersnatch." In the face of that, I think a statement that Lewis did influence him would need a good source. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether anyone agrees, the flaw with your statement, so far as Wikipedia is concerned, is exactly at my feeling is. Whether or not your theory has merit is arbitrary. Without a source, it is treading heavily into the Wiki-no-no category of original thought (see: WP:NOT). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that quite the opposite is actually the case. Lewis was a tremendous fan of allegory and you will be hard pressed to find some character in some part of Lewis which does not directly map to one thing or another. Tolkien did not use allegory at all.

I have argued before that this "influences" slot is not useful, and I'll say so again. Just because someone came up with some parameter in the infobox template doesn't mean that we should use it, or even can do so meaningfully. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In all honesty, there is so much that goes into people's writing, both consciously and subconsciously, whether it be works by other writers, current events, friends/family, etc, that it really isn't something that can be narrowed down. It suffices to say that Tolkien was heavily into legends/poems/languages of antiquity (particularly those of Anglo-Germanic and Norse/Finnish origin) and it could be left at that. Even that doesn't need to be listed on the infobox, as the biographical content of the article offers insight aplenty.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd just point out that Lewis's direct influence on Tolkien is a matter of record in one instance (if no other): Lewis read and commented on an early version of part of the 'Lays of Beleriand', and Tolkien acted on some of his suggestions in the revised version. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

the central role that Lewis and all of the Inklings played in Tolkien's literary production is made perfectly clear in the article and there is no need to stuff this complex question into the infobox in any way: the point of an infobox is not to replace the actual article, although on Wikipedia you often get this impression. Detailed discussion of the Inklings phenomenon belongs on Inklings. dab (𒁳) 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree: I think the "influences" thing in the Infobox is a waste of space. I was just noting a counter-example to the comment that it really isn't something that can be narrowed down.Myopic Bookworm (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

sure -- I see we have a consensus to drop the "influences" slot from the infobox. dab (𒁳) 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've added html comments to discourage later re-addition. Another possibility is to have a link pointing to a section in the article, but that just encourage people to read the article out of order. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I could envisage a link to Works inspired by Tolkien under "influenced", and arguably a "see Inklings" under "influences". This is by no means necessary, but better than the "Anglo Saxon Poetry (most notably Beowulf), Germanic paganism, Greco-Roman mythology, the Kalevala, the Bible" we used to have. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to list E.A. Wyke-Smith, William Morris, George Macdonald and Lord Dunsany in the influences section of the infobox, all can be cited if needs be. Perhaps distinguishing between these "Literary influences" and "draft readers" (Inklings, Christopher Tolkien, editors etc.) and the "textural inspirations" (kalevala, beowulf etc.) would be useful. In this regard, no C.S. Lewis was not a (literary) influence on Tolkien. --Davémon (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe start by discussing their influence, with the citations, in the "Influences" section of the article?

I think the need to make distinctions like those you mention is one of the main arguments against putting this information in the infobox. I see the box as being for information you can take in at a glance, not for anything with distinctions, qualifiers, nuances, etc., or for any long lists. But the article needs whatever you've got. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-Fair Use of Carpenter Images

This article contains several scanned photographs from the Carpenter biography. The only mention of Carpenter is in the captions to the photographs and the references. Therefore this is not fair use according to the Wikipedia rules, coming under the "baseball card" scenario. Frodo Halfpint (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the photos should be used to illustrate the article on Carpenter's biography? These are pictures of Tolkien, not photos of the biography. Have a look at J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography and Billy Ripken for examples of the correct use of pictures of the book and of the baseball card. The pictures used here are correctly used under fair-use to illustrate this article on Tolkien. The copyright, as far as I'm aware, is held by the Tolkien Estate, not the Carpenter estate or the publishers of the book. Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

they are somewhat problematic still. fair use applies because they depict a notable individual, and because no free equivalent can be produced (the individual being dead). But I think we still need to make sure that the images are all of a very low (thumbnail) resolution to be on the safe side. If I understand the Copyright law of the United Kingdom correctly, these images will enter the public domain in 2047. dab (𒁳) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked them all. As far as I'm concerned, that is already low-res. Compare with the blue plaque pictures further down for what a hi-res pic is. The guidelines talk about 500—600px as a maximum, and these images are already below that. Playing devil's advocate though, it is probably the amount of fair use here that could be problematic. I think they can all be justified to varying extents, with the last photo of him, with the tree, as the least justified (the pipe-smoking one already shows him in old age). It is also the poorest quality. The others all show stages of his life, so are justificable, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: public domain - previously unpublished photos by an unknown photographer or a named photographer who is dead, 70 years after the publication in 1977? Yes, with caveats that I can't remember now. Republication and copyright renewal is one possibility. Earlier publication is another. When was the family album published? Carcharoth (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

When was the family album published? I believe in 1992. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is only fair use when the photos from a copyrighted text are used to refer to that text, so yes you may only use them in a commentary on the Carpenter biography. Copyright exists in the copy that you use to make your copy. If the Carpenter photos are taken from something earlier that is irrelavant under copyright law, even if the originals are in the public domain. I cannot scan a 2005 Penguin edition of the Illiad because the Illiad is public domain (at least not until several decades have passed since 2005). Similarly it is wrong (but done on Wikipedia) to use screenshots from the Peter Jackson movies to illustrate Tolkien's novel, without adding any critique of the movies.Frodo Halfpint (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Crockett sentence and pronunciation

It's great to see more on Tolkien's modern (to him) influences, but there's a sentence on S. R. Crockett that needs clarification. "Incidents in both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are similar both in narrative and style." Similar to The Black Douglas, or to Crockett's work in general?

Unrelated: the pronunciation in the infobox needs to show whether "Tol" has "ol" as in "Solomon" or as in "soldier". And the accent is on the first syllable, right? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the correct pronunciation (in informal style) is TALL-keen, but the infobox header isn't the place for it, anyway. If the pronunciation of T's name is thought to be relevant it should be given in IPA after the boldface name at the beginning of the article lead. Deor (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But is that "tall" the way I say it (having grown up in Cleveland), or the way Tolkien would say it? That's why I agree with you about IPA. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong translation of the German name Tollkühn

The translation of the German name Tollkühn is not right and rather misleading. Back then toll didn't mean dull – it meant mad or crazy [the meaning changed and nowadays it means great or awesome(which apparently had a similar change in meaning)], and kühn doesn't mean keen but fearless and bold.
The combination of both forms a new word which means that the person so characterized is bold and fearless to an extent that is seems like madness.
According to Tolkien's biographer H. Carpenter aunt Grace told the story (among others), that the family earned this honorific name when some Georg fought bravely in the defence of Vienna in 1529 against the Turkish besiegement.
Christian Storm (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the word etymological in the explaining sentence.

It doesn't make sense though to identify a figure of speech as is done in such an etymological translation, because the meaning which developed from the same stems is so very different.

Christian Storm (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the point is that tollkühn is etymologically dull-keen, which is a precise translation of oxymoron. I think JRRT punned on this at one time, but I'm not sure where now. The bit as removed was already garbled (what is "a calque and an oxymoron" supposed to mean). It was changed by a well-meaning anon last January. This article sees a lot of traffic, and not all editors bother to switch on their brains first. dab (𒁳) 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why repeat what I wrote in my second posting (apropos etymology) instead of dealing with the second thought? There is an "analytical twist" -- going from tollkühn to dull-keen is done by looking at syntax and stem, but going from dull-keen to oxymoron employs a semantical approach. So there's a misleading rupture in reasoning. Christian Storm (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight. At the time Tolkien's ancestor got the name, maybe for improbably surviving some exploit at the siege of Vienna, toll meant "crazy" and kühn meant "brave" (cf. English "keen" in the sense of "eager"?). So the name meant more or less what Tolkien's "Rashbold" means.

Toll is cognate to "dull" and kühn to "keen". Thus a sort of cognate to the name would be "dull-keen". This is not only an oxymoron, but oddly enough, an etymological calque on "oxymoron" (with the order reversed—"Tol" goes with "-moron").

My opinion, just an opinion, is that the second point is minor, only to be mentioned in a footnote if that. Even if Tolkien mentioned the relationship to "oxymoron" somewhere, it might not rate more than a footnote. It doesn't seem like an important part of his life. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien, Myth, Applicability vs. Allegory and the Lord of the Rings

Regardless of who writes it and how well it is written, it is of utmost importance that we include something about Tolkien's view of Faerie Stories (Tolkien spells "Faerie Story" thus consistently throughout Tree And Leaf) and his application of this belief to the Lord of the Rings. This is the heart of his poetic style.

As to applicability vs. allegory, this is something which was prevalent enough for Tolkien to feel it appropriate to discuss in the introduction to the second edition. Specifically, he refutes a number of his contemporaries who believed that the LotR had to do with the conditions in Brittan in and after WWII. Rather, he believes that the story should be applicable (and, upon reading Tree and Leaf, one realizes that he means that he views this as a similar Faerie Story). It might speak of Nuclear Weapons, Catholicism, World War II, etc. because it is addressing a universal truth.--Ignatiusantioch (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think one needs to remember that Tolkein detested anything that smacked of allegory (refer to Humphrey Carpenter's biography to validate this) so I do not believe you can read in anything that is remotely 'allegorical' into The Lord of the Rings. Ivankinsman (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Tolkien detested anything that smacked of allegory" is an ubiquitous cliché informed by the preface to LotR. The precise dividing line between "applicability" and "allegory" is less than clear. This is an important point, but it needs to be discussed informed by secondary literature (Tolkien studies), and should perhaps be delegated to the mythopoeia article to avoid placing another burden on this one. dab (𒁳) 08:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis

Although the article mentioned WH Auden, who was a great help to Tolkien in his work, it failed to mention the role that CS Lewis played in encouraging Tolkien's writing efforts and their strong friendship. As such, I have added in a section that deals with this complex friendship between two leading writers of their time.

Either Ufanc or Ed Fitzgerald deleted a very pertinent quote from Tolkien after Lewis' death - can they explain why as this helped to depict the depth of their friendship?Ivankinsman (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

he is, incidentially, called Tolkien. dab (𒁳) 14:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

gotcha. I have re-inserted some information about Tollers and 'Jack' Lewis - something that I feel is crucial to show the mutual respect they felt for each other. Ivankinsman (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Singular

Is there any way to change "Debut works" in the infobox to "Debut work," seeing as there's only one listed? I know it's a tiny inconsistency, but it's bugging me. :-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to split this article

I've been working on a general copyedit and cleanup, but it strikes me that the article is really quite a bit too long at 89K. It's probably past time to split it up in some way. I would suggest that the entire "writing" section be moved into another article, leaving behind only a sectional link to it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "split" - this is known as WP:SS, and the article is already doing it, we just need to clamp down on the spurious material more. I don't like the look of the ToC these days, it is much more fragmented than it used to be, and encourages the addition of more trivia. We don't need three (!) sections called "legacy". dab (𒁳) 15:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

looking through it, I find that the article now also contains some appallingly bad prose. We haven't been watching this well. We might need to put it on FA review. Or, less bureaucratically, just compare the present version to the FA version, and revert all deterioration. dab (𒁳) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've split off the Bibliography into the existing article (which had been a redirect to the Bibliography section) Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien, in order to keep down the length of this main article. Not that the Bibliography was the longest section, but it's the own which could most easily be split off. Consideration should be given to splitting off the "writing" sections to a separate article as well, as per common Wikipedia practice. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've completed changing all current redirects to point to the new Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien, plus added a half dozen more. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with this. Do we have any precedent where we split the author's bibliography off their biography article? It would be more helpful to review the entire article text: much chaff has accumulated over the months, and intelligent trimming is better than cut-n-pasting parts to sub-articles, chaff and all. dab (𒁳) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick's bibliography was split off to a separate article, and I'm sure there are others -- but in any case, it's no different than WP:SS, where a summary is left behind with a link to the spin-off article, it's just that with a bibliography, there's no need for a summary, since the list is the content and can't be summarized. Copyediting and cleanup would garner a small amount of change, but not as much as you seem to think. This is the way to go. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A turned up a couple more precedents in a couple of minutes searching -- Leo Tolstoy and Hunter S. Thompson, there's no bibliography for either in their bio article, just a link to a separate article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, I am not fundamentally opposed to splitting off the bibliography. Still, can you go easy with this please? This is a Featured Article, and your refactoring plans so far have elicited one reply (mine), expressing misgivings. Can you make a more detailed proposal first, and see what people think? This doesn't need to be completed by tomorrow. dab (𒁳) 10:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no plans to do anything else at this time. I do suggest, though, that people interested in this article begin to discuss ways in which it can be brought under control. As it stands it's significantly too long, and internal editing and trimming will not solve the problem. I do agree with you that WP:SS is the way to go regarding the text portions of the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Legendarium

Despite what the lead of Tolkien's legendarium says, and despite how the term legendarium may be used in Tolkien scholarship, it's clear that Tolkien himself used it to refer to the totality of his imagined history of Arda, including The Lord of the Rings—as the quotation from letter 163 (the last quotation in the bulleted list in Tolkien's legendarium) makes clear. I don't know why this statement should be controversial, and I have no intention of edit warring over it, but it seems incontrovertible, so I'm reverting one last time. Deor (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nontheless, the idea that Tolkien used the word 'legendarium' to talk about the "totality of middle-earth writings" is not explicitly born out by the sources provided, so it is interpretative (WP:SYN) rather than representational - thus it is 'controversial'. The facts (as I see them) being interpreted are the use of the word 'legendarium' to refer to:

• 131 explicitly, the elven legends in the Sil, before the coming of Man.
• 153 vague, referencing only the downfall of Numenor.
• 154 vague, referencing only cosmological matters.
• 163 explicitly, inclusive of LoTR and the Sil.

Tolkien does not apply "legendarium" consistently. Tolkien makes no reference to the "totality of writing regarding Arda". Nor does he include The Hobbit or The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. If there are other sources that include these in their definition of "legendarium", then we should cite those instead. Until then I feel we should accurately reflect the sources cited and will ammend the article accordingly. --Davémon (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

debolding

That's fine -- just do them all instead of only one. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just looking at the most recent edit. I didn't notice that someone had bolded the others, too. Deor (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NP. In fact, I may be to blame here: I think I bolded the blockquotes in the WWI section at one point somne time ago because they seemed to disappear without it. In any event, consistency across the entire article is better, one way or the other. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT a Native of South Africa

First off, South Africa as a political entity was not in existence in 1892.

Even if the argument was drawn out to say that the Orange Free State and South Africa are synonymous for our purposes here, rhetorically there is a lot depending on the definition of native -- particularly in the context which it is being used in the sentence that has been edited and re-edited. Tolkien may have been born in Bloemfontein, but he is not for any other intent nor purpose, a native of South Africa or of the Orange Free State. The semantics of nationalism notwithsatnding, here is the case:

• Both of his parents were British. His father was on assignment for a British bank in the province -- much the same way that Richard Blair was on assignment abroad when when his son Eric Blair was born in India. Example: It is no different today for a child born abroad to American parents today in Germany (e.g. those on military assignment or working abroad). A child under those circumstances is not a native of Germany. He or she is an American if that's what the parents are.

• Tolkien was three years old -- barely out of diapers -- when he was brought back to England by his English mother. His citizenship was never anything but British. He lived in England from age three until his death near 78 years later. How is he a native of South Africa? If he had lived there and gone to school and had spent some significant period of his life there, perhaps a case could be made. As it stands -- particularly in the context of one editor who insists on re-adding ...in his native South Africa. Fact: Tolkien never viewed himself as anything but a citizen of Britain. His native South Africa? Even in the context, the quote by Tolkien states: The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain . He was referring to himself.

He was English. He was not South African. His views on apartheid were not given as a South African citizen, they were given as an Englishman who was raised and schooled in Britain, fought for Britain in WWI, taught Anglo-Saxon at an English University, and wrote his masterwork of fiction as a tribute to Anglo Saxon tradition. Disprove any of this. I challenge anyone to -- there is nothing in the article that happens to Tolkien after the age of three that indicates he is a native of South Africa. Born there? Yes. Native son? Definitely not. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, don't you mean barely out of nappies. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that works too. Yanks usually don't call 'em that though. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do know that (after years working here) but Tolkien was no yank and indeed sceptical of the hippy brethren amongst you folk (according to the article). Thanks, SqueakBox 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, "native" means he was born there. It doesn't say anything about citizenship, self-identification, or effect on one's life.

The use of "his native South Africa" reminds the reader that the country has already been mentioned in the article; it's where Tolkien was born. The reader might go on to infer that this reminder indicates Tolkien felt some kind of special connection with S. A. and even some special reason to comment. That would be unjustified speculation, and I can see why you might object. On the other hand, it seems odd to skip over the fact that he was born in a country being mentioned. I don't have strong feelings either way; I just want to point out that "his native South Africa" is not the same as "he was South African".

By the way, when Tolkien mentioned reactions to apartheid among people "going out from Britain", I don't think he was talking about himself. He never went back to S. A., did he? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood that native (Latin: born of) can be understood in that context. But, as I stated above, it also carries with it -- if one is a native -- connotations of belonging to said place. And he didn't. He was born there to non-citizens of S.A. and left long before his age of legality, and likely wasn't much aware of his situation, let alone his citizenship. You indicated you understood the definition inferred in that context, so I'll let it be.

On the subject of the quote: No, he didn't return to S.A., but his son was deployed there during WWII (the letter was in correspondence with Christopher during his deployment), and in that sense, his reference to anyone going out from Britain included himself in the context of a British citizen witnessing what would be deemed as a barbaric foreign custom (i.e. racial segregation in S.A.). Tolkien admittedly states the source of his knowledge of the situation there was not by his own witness:

I used to hear them discussed by my mother; and have since taken a special interest in that part of the world.

Interestingly enough, the whole sentence quoted in the article is not even given, nor is the sentence that follows. Here are both:

The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain, & not only in South Africa. Unfort. not many retain that generous sentiment for long.

That, of course, implicitly could open another can of worms. Lastly (and no you didn't ask, but it was on my mind enough to go back and look at dates so I'll mention it here), the quote is anachronistically noted -- what Tolkien was referring to in his letter to Christopher was indeed what would become instituted as apartheid in 1948; however, in 1944, when the letter was written, it wasn't apartheid yet (see:History of South Africa. Tolkien was referring to the social conditions in a pre-apartheid state. Inasmuch, I have edited the article accordingly. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So what I called an unjustified speculation would have been at least partly correct—he did take a special interest in "that part of the world". I suggest that some mention of that fact go into the article, maybe in parentheses or a footnote. It doesn't have to use the word "native". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, from everything that I've read on Tolkien (and I've an entire shelf of his writings that go well and beyond the immediate scope of LOTR) I wouldn't go so far as to say there is anything substantially notable about his interest in S.A. outside of brief mentions such as that. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Review and tune-up needed

I happened across this article because of the WP:Accessibility issues, but while here, I found a number of deficiencies wrt WP:WIAFA. Please see my edit summaries, and consider asking User:Epbr123 to help with a tune-up. I'll check back in a week or so to see if a featured article review is warranted. There are numerous MoS deficiencies, cite needed tags, unformatted citations, an external link farm, and further reading needs cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing MoS errors being introduced, just saw incorrect italics on quotes as well. Epbr123 would be able to clean all this up, in case you all want to contact him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There's probably a bit more WP:OVERLINKing, but I got the bulk of the MoS issues. They are still citations needed, and citations that are incomplete or need formatting cleanup (see WP:CITE/ES). Another editor switched some of the spaced endashes to unspaced emdashes; that wasn't necessary, but since it was partially done, I did the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Beneath Politics the word Tolkiem's should become Tolkien's 198.188.255.2 (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In future, you can just fix it yourself, and save time. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Link farm

I removed some of the links, but noting the edits here for review:

• Pruned these ones as inferior or not suitable for various reasons.
• Removed two wikis as not providing more than we do (this is debatable actually - it is possible adding these back in might be possible later).

I see Sandy has removed the external links farm tag, but more work is needed to polish this section and the rest of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, more work may be needed, but I removed the tag because you got right on it, and I don't like to leave tags on FAs unnecessarily; I trust this will be attended to. Back later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles

• Wall Street Journal: Tolkien, Christianity, and Paganism
• Birmingham Archives and Heritage Service: Tolkien's Circle, article about Tolkien's time at King Edward's
• Tolkien and Iceland: the Philology of Envy. Tom Shippey's lecture at the University of Iceland. Last accessed 17 October, 2005.

These articles were probably placed in the external links as references or for future use as references. Ideally, any useful content that can be sourced from these articles should be integrated into our article and these links used as references. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio recordings

• 1952 audio recording of Tolkien reciting a poem in Quenya (Galadriel's lament from The Fellowship of the Ring)
• 1952 audio recording of Tolkien reading an excerpt from The Two Towers (from "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit")

These are nice, but I suspect they may be copyright violations. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They are apparently published by Salon.com. This site has a good reputation for journalistic integrity. I doubt they are hosting material which violates someone else's copyrights. silly rabbit (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to re-adding the sound recordings? These seem like a good addition, and I really doubt salon would be hosting copyvios. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

In making the article conform to MOS, you've introduced a massive amount of whitespace. Well done, you've certainly improved the appearance of the article immensely. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. I hope your concerns about white space don't cause you to lose sleep over the people who have need for our WP:Accessibility guidelines. They don't see the white space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goody, more bureaucracy, more dogma, more editing by checklist, and even less concern about writing good articles. Fabulous! Just exactly what Wikipedia needs. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps just ... more accessibility for people who use screen readers. And WP:WIAFA; if a tuneup is such a problem, there's always WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe this? Ed obviously has some strong ideas on this subject. Why not engage with him about those separately, and not make this article the focal point of this emerging dispute? I'll try to get to the other clean-up stuff in the next few days or by the end of the weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No need. I'm tired of being "engaged", tired of people who can't see further than the "guidelines" they've turned into hard and fast rules, tired of getting beaten up just for trying to help make Wikipedia better. I've unwatched the page, go ahead and do whatever you want to it, I don't care.

WHAMMO! CONSENSUS!! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually trying to get Sandy to see your point of view, but since you've unwatched the page... Carcharoth (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If "my point of view" has value, then it has value whether I'm here or not. If it doesn't have value, then it should be rejected out of hand. Discussion for the sake of discussion, "engagement" for its own sake is a waste of time. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are talking about the TOC (table of contents) stuff, right? Would be nice if you could actually specify what you are both talking about next time... The edit was, I think, this one. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A Factual Error

The article maintains that J.R.R Tolkien was "an English writer, poet..." In truth, John Ronald Tolkien was born in Bloemfontein, South Africa. I find this to be a very important factual error that demands immediate review and editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zensunnimentat (talk • contribs)

Tolkien was born to English parents who had come from England before moving to South Africa. Tolkien moved at a very young age back to England, as it says in the article. Just because he wasn't born in England doesn't mean he wasn't English. That's like saying if you're born to American missionaries in the Philippines you're not American, you're Filipino. --Narfil Palùrfalas (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Languages

The various languages created by Tolkien became an integral part of his lifestyle and the nature of his work (particularly the developement of the languages as a part of his mythology). I would suggest a section or a table solely devoted to his constructed languages and what races, beings, etc. they are associated with. For example, Sindarin would be considered the language of the Grey Elves spoken by Thingol; Quenya, the more ancient Elvish tongue spoken by his ancestors. Dwarvish I believe is considered like an early Sindarin offshoot dialect and Nûmenórean (or Adûnaic), of course, is the language of the Men of Nûmenór. Kudos to JerekDain for a comprehensive list, http://www.jerekdain.com/tolkien.html

In his novels, Tolkien creates what could be called comparative dialects of the more common languages. The most obvious example of this is Westron, or the Common Tongue of Middle-Earth, which Tolkien uses extensively in his novels (though we see it as English) and the other dialects of Westron, such as those used by the Rohirrim of Edoras (we see as Old English). Hobbitish could also be considered a dialect of Westron, though Tolkien writes it little differently from Westron itself. These differences allow us as the reader to better comprehend how difficult it could be for communication to occur between characters, thereby affecting the plot. Loonybin0 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See the article Languages of Arda and the more specific articles linked therein. Such information is off-topic in the general biographical article, I think. Deor (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Tolkien contrived to show off multiple aspects of his invented languages in some of his stories is certainly NOT off-topic in a BIOGRAPHY that focuses mostly on the man's literary and philological accomplishments -- particularly a biography that wrongly implies he used "legendarium" to refer to most of his writings (in fact he was referring to a vision that he never coherently recorded in complete form). The close relationship between his philological and creative work should be clearly noted somewhere in the biography. It was central to much of his fiction.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Michael that this point is rather central. There must be a way of driving home the importance of this in all brevity while still delegating the details to the dedicated Languages of Arda article. I have the feeling that this article is about to fall apart under the weight of trivial additions once again, and it may be time to review it as a whole for structure and emphasis. dab (𒁳) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thornton S. Quimby

I wouldn't be so hasty to disagree with User:StantonCarlisle. The sentence he deleted was originally added to the article by an IP here, in an edit that was the second of a string of edits on that day, all the rest of which were certainly vandalistic. I don't have a copy of Carpenter's biography handy at the moment; but after checking online and finding no mention of Quimby anywhere but in WP clones and mirrors, I'm going to restore StantonCarlisle's version for now. Would someone with access to the biography please check it to verify the matter? If StantonCarlisle is correct, shame on us all for letting this vandalism hang around in the article for more than a year and a half. Deor (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh... yes, good point, Deor. I should not have been so hasty. Frankly, looking at it again it does look highly questionable. Thanks for keeping your eyes open. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Allowing for human error, there is no mention of a Dr. Quimby in Carpenters biography. --Davémon (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that, nothing in the index, or in the text around the spider incident. I've been reading Tolkien-related material for 38 years, and I don't recall the name. We definitely should require a citation before letting it in the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, although it's certainly possible that the guy could be real, the name sounds like a character Groucho Marx would play. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)