Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:40, 22 September 2006

Biography FA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:FAOL Template:V0.5 Template:Todo priority

Middle-earth FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Archives
Archive 1

FA?

right, I would like to elevate this to FA status. A little more work is required, but I think the article is now at least as good as some of the other-language WP's FAs linked above. Any suggestions for what should be fixed? I'll put it on peer review in a couple of days, I think. dab (ᛏ) 07:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've only made minor contributions here, but in general I think this is very good. It could use a copyedit here and there -- especially in the intro there's the occasional awkward phrase -- and I'm not sure about the organization of some of the later sections, but it's very close to what it needs to be IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked through it, and will list it on FAC now to get more input, we can always improve it as the objections come in. dab (ᛏ) 13:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

re-imported section

I have only now realized that the "derivative art" section had been removed. I have re-inserted it. We do have a Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien main article, but the point of the section in this article is specifically about Tolkien's take towards derivative art during his lifetime. Discussion of the works themselves, especially those created after 1973, go of course to the main article. Instead of a separate h2-section, this could conceivably also be a subsection of the "Old Age" section, since popularity of the LotR only really came into full swing after 1959, and Tolkien's losing battle against fandom began when he was already old. dab (ᛏ) 14:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Referencing effort

The following is a list of statements that need a specific reference. (The Biography section is a summary of Carpenter's Biography, with additional statements taken from Letters and referenced, and imho needs no further references. In most instances, we name the publication we are talking about. For example,

"Beginning with The Book of Lost Tales, written while recuperating from illness during World War I, Tolkien devised several themes that were reused in successive drafts of his legendarium. The two most prominent stories, the tales of Beren and Lúthien and that of Túrin, were carried forward into long narrative poems (published in The Lays of Beleriand)"

as far as I'm concerned is sufficiently referenced with the two publications linked. The "Works" section is already well referenced from Letters, so I think we need mainly references for things in "Languages" and "Writing". dab (ᛏ) 11:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• From around 1936, he began to extend this framework to include the tale of The Fall of Númenor, which was inspired by the legend of Atlantis. (where did we get the 1936 date?)
• Tolkien himself acknowledged Homer, Oedipus, and the Kalevala as influences or sources for some of his stories and ideas. His borrowings also came from numerous Middle English works and poems. (where did he do so?)
• The library of Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin preserves many of Tolkien's original manuscripts, notes and letters; other original material survives at Oxford's Bodleian Library.
• In a 1999 poll of Amazon.com customers, The Lord of the Rings was judged to be their favourite "book of the millennium"
• In 2002 Tolkien was voted the ninety second "greatest Briton" in a poll conducted by the BBC and in 2004 he was voted thirty fifth in a list of the Greatest South Africans,
• in a 2004 poll inspired by the UK’s "Big Read" survey, about 250,000 Germans found The Lord of the Rings (Der Herr der Ringe) to be their favourite work of literature.
• When in 1925, aged 33, Tolkien applied for the Rawlinson and Bosworth Professorship of Anglo-Saxon, he boasted that his students of Germanic philology in Leeds had even formed a "Viking Club".

oh dear, I didn't get round to doing this before time ran out. I'll try to address all concerns in the RFA and re-submit it. Don't know when that will be, help is appreciated of course. dab (ᛏ) 09:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Film complaints

Yes, we all know how PJ screwed with the story of LOTR when he committed it to film. He did indeed "add new situations to the films' plot", "leave out several of the book's characters and settings", and that "some characters have their roles modified or combined with those of other characters." There's a word for this in film adaptations of books. It's NORMAL. Nearly every film adaptation of a book ever done, from The Wizard of Oz to The Ten Commandments (both of them) to Blade Runner has done this. It's not worth mentioning. For my own part, this merely scratches the surface of my complaints about the films, but I think it's really tiresome for the reader looking for basic information. If it belongs anywhere -- which I doubt -- it's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Unless a cogent reason can be presented for leaving this expanded analysis in, I'll be reverting it again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, discussion of the Jackson trilogy has no place at all in this article (as opposed to those projects Tolkien still did comment on). PJ's movies have no relation to Tolkien, since Tolkien had been dead 30 years before PJ even thought about making the films. So yes, revert away :) dab (ᛏ) 08:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

But you got to it before I did. Thanks. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

J. R. R.

The spaces in the title are awkward, and look bad typographically. You wouldn't abbreviate Federal Bureau of Investigation "F. B. I.", would you? The spaces should go, and this article be moved to J.R.R. Tolkien. Jon Harald Søby \ 13:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

J.R.R. Tolkien, JRR Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, John Tolkien, and various other variations (and mis-spellings) all redirect to this page. Thus, people using any of these will get to the right place and the question is only over how the page title should appear. Tolkien himself used the initials far more often than the full names and that is how he is generally known. I see 'J.R.R.' more often than 'JRR' or 'J. R. R.', but I believe the last is technically correct for abbreviations of a person's name. 'FBI', like most acronyms, is usually given without dots at all. --CBD ✉ 14:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

see also Talk:J._R._R._Tolkien/archive1#Name_style. 14:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. I also found Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_-_abbreviations_of_names, which says every point has to be followed by a space. I don't agree to that at all, but the guide is thus. Jon Harald Søby \ 14:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest deletion of any "Tolkein" redirects. The misspelling is far too common (not as a typo, but by people who actually think this is how the name is spelled), and I consider {{R from misspelling}} harmful in most cases (it prevents you from spotting misspellings, that would otherwise show up as redlinks). dab (ᛏ) 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpose is to save people who search for the mis-spelling. Rich Farmbrough. 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

filmed interview

this movie clip (mov format) is taken from a 1992 video documentary entitled "J.R.R.T. - A Film Portrait Of J.R.R. Tolkien" -- but can anybody tell me when the actual interview took place, and who made it (is it BBC?) -- there is another interview, dated to 1971, here, by Denys Gueroult for BBC, but it is audio only. dab (ᛏ) 16:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Works Inspired

How about Stephen King's books? In several of his stories (The Shining, Insomnia, etc.), King uses Tolkien's characters often as parallels to his own. Should he be considered? 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

possibly at the main article; we're trying to keep it confined to works JRRT himself commented on in this article. dab (ᛏ) 11:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

On a related topic: does the "infobox" actually serve any function (other than sparking arguments)? As far as "influenced" is concerned, it would surely be easier to list fantasy authors not influenced by Tolkien. Myopic Bookworm 12:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for article check

Hi, can someone who knows their Tolkien facts better than I check the commentary section of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for accuracy and NPOV?

--Tomandlu 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It states Tolkien's criticisms clearly and fairly, as I recall them. Septentrionalis 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian books

-- maybe an article on Tolkien and Christianity or even Tolkien and Christian propaganda is in order with the recent surge of "find God via Tolkien" publications. dab (ᛏ) 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling it "Christian propaganda" is a bit POV I think. It's been clearly established that Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic. While he stated on numerous occassions that the books were not meant to be allegorical, they do examine the nature of good and evil, of light and darkness, of how the smallest, meekest individual can affect the fate of many. It would not be unreasonable to examine how Tolkien's Christian beliefs had an affect on the stories. IMO, Tolkien's works do a better, more subtle job than C.S. Lewis's Narnian chronicles. While the paragraph looked more like a sales pitch for the book, I believe removing it entirely was not correct. However, it should not be listed under the derivative works section. --malber 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

we can drop the "propaganda", but an article on "Tolkien and Christianity" may still be warranted. Yes he was a Christian. That doesn't mean his books are there to be employed for proselytization. If he had wanted to he as in-your-face Christian as Lewis, he could have done that himself. dab (ᛏ) 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting it was fully correct. It simply lifted the last two sentences of the blurb here and was little more than a promo for the book. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Re his Catholicism in general, a while back I deleted a tag IDing him as one among 'Protestant converts to Catholicism.' If we IDed everyone whose parent/s swum the Tiber (either way) as a convert, the list would be interminable. I am basing this on the information that it was his mother that converted, not him. Jasoncpetty 05:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

highly unusual

went to http://en.wikipedia.org/Tolkien and it said "Joe Rock Red Tire" instead of "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien", and i refreshed it and it went back to normal. what was that all about?

Since Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone we occasionally get people vandalizing articles. So what happened is that when you loaded it the first time the incorrect text was on there, but then by the time you refreshed the page someone had gone through and corrected it. --CBD _☎ 19:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

POV?

"he made a somewhat sarcastic comment" Rich Farmbrough. 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think so. The remark in question didn't strike me as necessarily sarcastic at all, and such a reading didn't even occur to me until I saw it here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

he made a somewhat sarcastic comment about a fan letter by a twelve-year-old American reader (It's nice to find that little American boys do really still say 'Gee Whiz'., Letters no. 87)

If you know Tolkien's attitude towards American English, the comment can be interpreted as nothing but sarcastic. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Archived FAC Discussion

Here it is Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/J. R. R. Tolkien/archive1 - Judgesurreal777 09:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Far too many {{fact}} templates.

Seriously... there's no need for all those citations anyway - they'll ruin readability. Cite the sources at the end of the article instead. UrbaneLegend 18:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is a little overboard. Most of the requested citations can be found in the three references already listed. Do we really need to put (Carpenter 1977) or (Carpenter 1981) at the end of every other sentence in the article? Likewise, the request for a reference about the Peter Jackson films is (aside from being common knowledge / readily confirmable) met by the link to the entire Misplaced Pages article on the subject which appears in the same sentence. --CBDunkerson 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. If there're more than a few sentences all from the same source, then I think citing the sources at the end of the article would be alright. —Mirlen 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can do a footnote to each fact tag, it will not obscruct readability, and FAC will be a breeze. It's good to stick tightly to your sources, especially on Featured Articles. Of course most of the statements will be from Carpenter or HoME, but having the page reference handy won't hurt. dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Footnotes do obstruct readability. UrbaneLegend 14:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll value encyclopedicity over "easy reading" any day, but you may be interested in simple:. dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias don't list individual references for each individual factual statement. People are valuing 'something' over readability, but it isn't 'encyclopedicity'. I don't know what to call it. 'Referencitis'? --CBDunkerson 16:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how footnotes encumber your reading experience, I can only say that I find they rather enhance mine. Also, I'm just the messenger here. I submitted this article to FAC some time ago, and it was turned down because of unsatisfactory density of references. Take a look at our WP:FAs: Theodore_Roosevelt: 46 footnotes. Amateur Radio Direction Finding: 22 footnotes. Scotland in the High Middle Ages: 85 footnotes. Marian Rejewski: 38 footnotes. dab (ᛏ) 17:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the information in an encyclopedia should be verifiable - all the claims/facts stated in the article should be verifiable if one checks other sources - but that verification doesn't have to be supplied in the encyclopedia article itself. A bibliography is a good idea, but excessive footnote citations make the article look less like an encyclopedia entry and more like an essay. That said, I can put my opinions about citationmania aside for now - getting the article up to standard is paramount. This isn't the place for arguing about Misplaced Pages's manual of style anyway. - UrbaneLegend 18:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

WP may be special in this regard. You have a point, considering encyclopedias edited by solid boards of editors. Since WP is Schroedinger's encyclopedia, however, it is reassuring to have things sourced as closely as possible, to dispel as much as possible suspicions that a given statement may have been snuck in by a stoned kid last week. dab (ᛏ) 18:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This, of course, is very true. Misplaced Pages is very special in this regard - point taken! ▫ UrbaneLegend 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

looking at the present state of the article, I admit it is now well referenced, and some of the remaining 'fact' tags are a bit over the top. I am removing those I find to be so. dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Link pruning

There are too many internal links in this article; they obstruct readability. I'm going to go through and remove those that are duplicated, redundant, or just plain useless (like years and dates). Hopefully this will improve the look of the article while still providing reference where necessary. UrbaneLegend 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done the dates, and a few other housekeeping and tiny content details. Rich Farmbrough 09:17 13 March 2006 (UTC).

"primary" vs. "secondary" sources

I don't get your division here. How is David Day's book a "primary" source, and the Tolkien's "Family album" a secondary source? Strictly speaking, primary sources are written accounts about Tolkien by Tolkien himself and by "eye-witnesses". But we don't need the distinction. What we need is a distinction between references sourcing statements made in the article on one hand, and literature listed as recommendations for further reading on the other, hence my change to the ToC. dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

English and Welsh

In the Academic Works section, most of the lectures and essays are linked. There's a mention of "1963 English and Welsh, in Angles and Britons: O'Donnell Lectures, University of Cardiff Press.". We have an English and Welsh article about a Tolkien lecture. I have not linked to it, though, because it describes the thing as a valedictory address to the University of Oxford of 1955, explaining the origin of the word "Welsh". Are they the same thing? I have no idea. So someone who knows the topic can decide whether to link it or not :) --Telsa (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, they are. The lecture held in 1955 was printed in 1963. dab (ᛏ) 07:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Academic accomplishments?

Is it worth adding that Tolkien set in motion, during his time at the University of Leeds, the project that would ultimately produce The Linguistic Atlas of England (a record of the dialect words used in England)? Admittedly he did not remain at Leeds long enough to be an actual contributor to the project, but Bill Bryson (in The Mother Tongue) notes that the original idea for the project was Tolkien's. I didn't know if it would be a good non-LOTR detail to help give a more rounded picture of his life, or whether it was too minor to be mentioned. Jwrosenzweig 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

I own a copy of Fourteenth Century VERSE & PROSE edited by Kenneth Sisam and published at the Clarendon Press. My copy is a third edition published in 1955. (First edition was 1921) which includes JRRT's Vocabulary. This contradicts the suggestion found at http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/abouttolkien.htm that the vocabulary was only included in the first edition of Sisam's book. The Vocabulary has no pagination except for the penultimate page which is numbered eleven.

The sentence from tokienlibrary.com is: "Tolkien wrote A Middle English Vocabulary, but it was not published until 1922, but after it was published some copies were bound with 1st impressions of Sisam’s book,Fourteenth Century Verse and Prose which was published one year before. "

I propose an emendation to the Bibliography to show that vocabulary is also available in Sisam's compilation.Rdmoore6 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The website mentioned does not explicitly state that the Vocabulary was found only in the first edition of Sisam. The later editions are not quite the same, since presumably the Vocabulary was actually included in the text, not just bound in later by the publisher as happened with the 1922 printing. I don't think a general encyclopedia article on Tolkien is the place to go into exhaustive detail about bibliographical niceties, but it might be worth adding a note to the effect that Tolkien's text is also included in some editions of Sisam's book. Myopic Bookworm 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

Is the big list of names in the section "Tolkien's family in the English Census" noteworthy? I don't think it is... ▫ UrbaneLegend 12:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile for inclusion in some form in a 'Tolkien family' article, but not here. --CBDunkerson 13:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation and historical context for "father of modern high fantasy" quote

This article needs a citation and historical context for the "father of the modern high fantasy genre" quote. Also, the use of the word "modern" needs to be put in context. It seems to be used here to distinguish from earlier (pre-1950s) fantasy genres, but in 20 years time the word "modern" will be very confusing, and could be confusing even now. I think that what Tolkien "fathered" was an explosion of fantasy stories, from the 1960s onwards, that imitated his style. It is possible that the explosion started in the 1950s or 1970s though, so I'm not really sure. If the genre is still recognised as such today, then it is still 'modern', but in its origins (1950s/60s/70s) it is NOT modern (that is 30-50 years ago now)! Carcharoth 15:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"modern" usually means post-1600. I agree we can drop the "modern" here. "high fantasy" appears to be a term purposedly coined to refer to the genre fathered by Tolkien, so while that may make the statement a bit redundant, it is still true that Tolkien, for better or worse, 'fathered' a genre, or at least a sub-genre. In any case, I have been doubtful about the passage myself; it should be attributed to whoever first said Tolkien fathered anything like it, and possibly moved down to the "writing" section. If we drop the dubitable "fathering", let's make sure we keep a link to high fantasy somewhere. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Likely to be from Lin Carter, somewhere in a Ballantine introduction.Septentrionalis 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed

"Tolkien also portrayed Lewis as the character Treebeard." Really? Says who? ▫ UrbaneLegend 00:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Google it. You will find hundreds of references to it. I have no opinion as to if it should be reincluded in the article so i'll leave it to others to sift through the hundreds of hits to find a sourcable one. Just one example quote - In addition to this he points out that Treebeard's 'hrum, hroom' was modeled on C.S. Lewis's style of talking. (J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography p.198). It is also mentioned in one of the documentaries on the bonus discs of the LOTR dvd's. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The connection between Lewis and Treebeard is there, but whether this belongs in this article is debatable. As far as I know, it is only that comment in Carpenter's Biography that makes the connection. The actual quote should be used, as Treebeard is based on far more than just Lewis. As it stands, the comment is a throw-away piece of trivia with no context. Probably best in the Treebeard article, with a sourced quote. Carcharoth 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Treebeard article has this: "It has been theorized that many of Treebeard's mannerisms were based on Tolkien's friend C.S. Lewis, a loud, bombastic man known for his powerful stride and overwhelming presence." - this fails to state who theorized this. A classic case of not following the sources back to the original, and seeing that Tolkien himself "theorized" this! I'll check this in my copy of Carpenter's Biography tonight. Carcharoth 16:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said I have no opinion on its inclusion in this article, I agree that it could probably be included in Treebeard's article. I merely felt that there are sufficient sources for it to be legitimate encyclopedic information, and not merely a theory. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Shortening this article

This article is very long. Since there is a separate article on "Works inspired by JRRT", I see no reason to have a section on that topic here. It's not, after all, actually information about Tolkien, for the most part. I wonder if it might also be possible, given the great number of works listed, to have a separate article for "Works by J. R. R. Tolkien", leaving only a summary bibliography of the most important works here. Myopic Bookworm 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

PS Re the old comment above under "re-imported section": if the topic is actually "Tolkien's view of works inpsired by his work" then it should be called that. And even then, it might still be better to have that as a section at 'Works inspired by...', not here. Myopic Bookworm 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

short summaries of sub-articles, linked with the {{main}} template, are common practice on Misplaced Pages. You could suggest a better section header, but "Opinions of JRRT with regards to works inspired by his works" seems rather clumsy. This article is still almost identical to the version that passed FAC, so until a lot of new material is added, I see no reason to re-organize it. dab (ᛏ) 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though it passed FAC, there is still a lot of improvement that could be done to this article. A good example is the hemlocks footnote added recently, and, on a lesser note, the additions to the bibliography that I made recently. It could also do with a lot of tweaking to clarify certain points. My main concern is that the article dribbles out of steam at the end. There really needs to be a section titled "Tolkien's legacy" or "After Tolkien", in which all the stuff after he died can be briefly covered. "Works inspired by" would only get a few sentences in that section. That would be the correct way, IMO, to round out what is, after all, a biographical article.

Other things that could be added to a "legacy" section would be an expanded mention of his influence on the fantasy genre (this only gets a passing mention at the moment). Even the "works inspired" by section gives too much weight to art and film, and ignores radio and music. Other things to be mentioned could be the growing field of Tolkien scholarship, and the immense number of books about Tolkien and his works.

Finally, to reinforce my point about a "Legacy" section, the final paragraphs in both the "Writings" and "Langauges" section start to talk about the enduring aspects of his legacy, but it would be nice to bring that all together in one section. Just ending on the release of the films makes it seem like that is Tolkien's legacy, which is not really the impression I'd want anyone to get from this article.

I'll probably try and actually implement some of this later, but does it all sound OK? Carcharoth 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "shortening the article" comments above, I would say that a full bibliography is OK. People just scan past it, like references. There are some sections that could be pruned though: I think the "external links" and "further reading" sections are getting a bit out of control. What sort of criteria do people think are needed here? An absolute limit? A bar of notability or usefulness? Carcharoth 17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography section

The Bibliography section is steadily expanding (see also the comments in the section above). What should be done with this section? My opinion (as stated above) is to have a complete listing of works published in his lifetime, and to only have a selection of the posthumous works, moving the minor posthumous puiblications to another article or section of another article (ie. a full bibliographical article). There is a start on this at Tolkien research, though that is not an ideal title IMO. Carcharoth 09:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• We should probably keep an eye out for more details on this. It would be another addition to the posthumous publications section. --Andy 02:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographical error?

The two entries for "Beowulf: the Monster and the Critics" are giving different dates. The first entry (under academic and other works) says the lecture was given in 1937. The other entry (under posthumous publications) gives 1936 in brackets. Which is correct? Carcharoth 09:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've clarified the confusion. The 1937 entry is the date of publication of the 1936 lecture. This sort of thing has caused confusion before, see here. There is some inconsistency with this, with On Fairy-Stories appearing in the bibliography both as a lecture and when first printed. Should the bibliography also included lectures printed later, or should they only appear under the date of first publication (even if years later), with a reference to when the lecture was delivered? Technically a bibliography should only refer to printed material, I think. Maybe the lecture details need to be included in some sort of timeline of Tolkien's life?

But there is still room for confusion with other dates. The current entry for the 1983 publication The Monsters and the Critics says:

• Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics (1936)
• On Translating Beowulf (1940)
• On Fairy-Stories (1947)
• A Secret Vice (1930)
• English and Welsh (1955)

This leaves plenty of room for confusion. The "Beowulf: the Monster and the Critics" entry gives the lecture date (1936), not the first publication date (1937). The entry for "On Fairy-Stories" gives the first publication date (1947), rather than the lecture date (1939). The "English and Welsh" entry gives the lecture date (1955), not the first publication date (1963). The "A Secret Vice" entry gives the lecture date (1930), but there are no details about whether it had been published previously. Not sure about the "On Translating Beowulf" entry. This is dreadfully inconsistent and needs to (a) be corrected for consistency; (b) clarified to prevent future confusion arising. I'll try and make the improvements, but what is the best approach to take regarding giving and clarifying dates, and having entries (or not) for lectures in the bibliography? Does a timeline of Tolkien's life sound like a good idea? Carcharoth 09:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A bibliography, by convention, should give the publication date, not the date that a lecture was given. It should also give dates of later editions if the text has been revised: this is the case, for example, with "On Fairy Stories", which was revised in between original publication in "Essays presented to Charles Williams" and reprinting in "Tree and Leaf". I don't know (book not here to check) which version "The Monsters and the Critics" reprints, but if it is the "Tree and Leaf" text, then it should not be given as "(1947)". Myopic Bookworm 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien's academic qualifications and honorary titles?

I found this website that mentions an honorary degree Tolkien received in the last year of his life. They give a long string of letters and titles. I'll wikify them, more in hope than certainty. Can anyone work out what these letters mean?

• John Ronald Reuel Tolkien CBE, Hon Dr en Phil et Lettres, Hon D Litt, FRSL

Presumably this is not the full list of his qualifications, as I think some of these degrees supercede others, such as, for example, the BA he would have received from Oxford University. Is it worth putting these strings of letters in the article somewhere? Carcharoth 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, here what I have come up with:

• CBE (1972) - Commander of the British Empire
• Hon Dr en Phil et Lettres (1954) - Honorary Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Letters from University of Liege, Belgium
• Hon D Litt (1954) - Honorary Doctor of Letters, University of Dublin, Ireland
• FRSL (1957) - Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

Source of years and universities is here: "On the academic front, Tolkien never "took a Ph.D." was we now sometimes say - he was too busy working professionally on the kind of stuff people normally do Ph.Ds on - but he was awarded a Doctorate of Letters (D. Litt.) and Philosophy by the University of Liege in Belgium in 1954 and similarly a D. Litt by the University of Dublin in Ireland that same year. In both cases this was for his contribution to his field of philology and medieval literature in general, and his services to the universities in particular as a contributing examiner and researcher."

It also looks like he recieved at least two other honorary degrees in the last year of his life:

• Hon D Litt (1973) - Honorary Doctor of Letters, University of Oxford, England
• Hon D Litt (1973) - Honorary Doctor of Letters, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

He also held three professorial chairs, which I think are mentioned in the article. We should also note the reason for an award - academic work or fiction work. Carcharoth 09:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And the university details are:

• BA (1915) - Bachelor of Arts, Oxford University
• MA (1919) - Master of Arts, Oxford University

Professorships:

• University of Leeds (1920)
• Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon, Merton College, Oxford University (1925-45)
• English Language and Literature, Merton College, Oxford University (1945-59)

There is an even more comprehensive list here. The only things that that account seems to miss is his honorary doctorate of Letters from Oxford University and his being vice-president of the Philological Society Carcharoth 10:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Useful reference?

Might this be a useful reference to expand the article? Carcharoth 10:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings - his magnum opus?

Shouldn't it be the Silmarillion? He did work on it since 1917.

I don't think so. He may have viewed it as such himself, but objectively his true 'magnum opus' is the work on which his reputation as a writer rests, the one which made his mark on the literary world, not the one he actually spent the most time and effort on. Arguably The Silmarillion was not in fact an 'opus' at all, since he never finished or published it. Myopic Bookworm 10:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

O Lord, not this again! Can we please not rehash this argument? TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See here for the previous discussion on this topic. --CBDunkerson 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

One quote that discussion doesn't seem to have touched upon was the comment he made in a letter about LotR having been written in "his life's blood" - I always found that quite a revealing comment, though blowing single comments out of proportion is always a worry. Carcharoth 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is only part of Tolkien's family mentioned?

Tolkien had two sons, yet only one son, Christopher, is mentioned. Why? Is it because the eldest son, John, was a catholic priest and convicted pedophile?

Your question is false both in that John is mentioned and that he was accused, but not "convicted", of being a pedophile. The police looked into the accusation, but were never able to find any evidence and eventually dropped the matter after he died. --CBDunkerson 11:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's more, Tolkien had _three_ sons, not two, the third being Michael. cfh 12:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Awards

I recently read that The Lord of the Rings received the International Fantasy Award for 1957. Should this be mentioned here or at the The Lord of the Rings article? Can anyone think of any other awards for the books, or even for Tolkien himself (see also the list above). Carcharoth 10:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to the LotR article for now. Carcharoth 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tarantula?

Although I know this may be nitpicking and may not bring about a radical change in the page, nor on the main facts of Tolkien's life and how it influenced his works, I feel that I have to bring this to the readers and compilers of this page's attention that Tolkien could not have been bitten by a tarantula since this spider is not find in South Africa, nor in Africa in general. I do not doubt Tolkien's account of being bitten by a spider, just that he must have been mistaken of the spider's family.

It was most likely a spider from the Theraphosidae family, commonly known in South Africa as baboon spiders. Especially their size, as well as the coulouring of the male Harpactira baviana can give rise to this mistake. I added a link that describes the species below. Like I said, it does not radically change nor bring Tolkien's account into disrepute, it is just for the sake of accuracy that I think it should be included.

http://www.museums.org.za/bio/spiderweb/therapho.htm

CFM5

these details are what makes Misplaced Pages so great :) Misplaced Pages is not for Original Research, but it is the perfect place for adding 2 and 2 and finding inconsistencies like this (I wouldn't be surprised it this had gone unnoticed so far just because Tolkienologists and Arachnologists have little exchange outside Misplaced Pages). dab (ᛏ) 14:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is semantics. The page linked above says that there are 'Baboon spiders' or members of 'family Theraphosidae' in South Africa... but 'family Theraphosidae' is more commonly known as... tarantulas. This, and the fact that they are called 'Baboon spiders' in South Africa, is all explained on the Misplaced Pages Tarantula page. Different names for the same thing. Tolkien's family didn't live in South Africa for long and thus it is not surprising that they would call the thing a 'tarantula' rather than a 'baboon spider'. --CBD 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

right... never mind then. dab (ᛏ) 17:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry to be a killjoy. It does still add up to the minor point of why they used the 'wrong' name... the term 'tarantula' originated in Europe (in reference to a spider which would now NOT be called a tarantula) and many english speaking people then used it for pretty much every large 'furry' looking spider. Which is how it came to be the most common name for Theraphosidae once that was identified as a particular family of spiders. This actually has come up amongst Tolkienologists a few times in my experience - which is the only reason I knew about it. --CBD 10:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"A tiger, in Africa... must have escaped from the zoo or something." TharkunColl 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Boethius?

The article claims, "A major philosophical influence on his writing is King Alfred's Anglo-Saxon version of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy known as the Lays of Boethius," citing . That citation does not support the claim at all. In it one finds Boethius mentioned as an exemplar of Tolkien's "medieval... organizing principles", but the Lays of Boethius is not mentioned (nor is Consolation of Philosophy, but what else could be meant?) and both Chaucer and Dante as well as the Scholastics are given equal emphasis in the same sentence. Certainly I can recall no mention of Boethius in any Letters or anywhere else Tolkien actually mentions his influences. The only other mention of Boethius I can think of in connection with Tolkien is Tom Shippey's in Tolkien: Author of the Century where he (wrongly, IMO) uses Boethius to label the "orthodox" Christian view of evil in opposition to the "Manichaean" -- but Shippey did not call Boethius an influence as such; he just used him to characterize one side of an apparent dichotomy. Is there any other justification for this claim that I might be missing? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Shippey show that Tolkien read Alfred's Boethius? He certainly read Alfred's Orosius, and he may not have read the originals; he didn't care for Latin. Septentrionalis 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Latin didn't appeal to him the same way that the Northern Eurpoean languages did, but I wouldn't say he didn't care for it, and it was certainly well-known to him.

I don't recall that Shippey demonstrated it, but I concede Tolkien probably did read Alfred's Boethius translation regardless. So what? That doesn't make it an influence. Tolkien's portrayal of the nature of evil in LotR, despite Shippey's misguided, reductionist analysis, is squarely within the Catholic tradition. (And the tradition of any other Christian communion with an ascetic element.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Shippey contrasts two approaches to evil, one of which he associates with Boethius, the other with Augustine; which do you consider outside the Catholic tradition? And if you consider Shippey's interpretation of Tolkien, of striving for synthesis between two viewpoints, simplistic, I shudder to think how you would describe Edmund Wilson.) Septentrionalis 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "simplistic", I said "reductionist". Actually, Shippey associated the "Boethian" view of the vacuity of evil as representing orthodoxy, and the "Augustinian" view of evil as an active force as "Manichaean". It's Shippey who therefore (erroneously) places the latter outside the Catholic tradition, since any view that's characteristically Manichaean is by definition not Catholic. This "synthesis", between evil as a lack on the one hand and as represented by a definite (even conscious) force on the other, far from being something Tolkien had to "strive" for, has always been present in the Catholic understanding of evil. I'm actually far more familiar with Eastern Christianity than Western, but the picture that Tolkien paints here is a very familiar one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I read Shippey quite differently. He is not writing for an audience of theologians, or even of Christians, but for literary critics and fandom. He has the description Manichaean from C.S.Lewis, after all; and I would hope that depicting one of the great antinomies of faith in fiction is something that should require "striving". A successful synthesis may not be novel, but it is rare; a wholly successful synthesis may be beyond human capacity. Septentrionalis 00:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with selecting that term, whatever its source, is that it's guaranteed to irritate those who know what it means. It's a common thread in the Christian ascetic experience that evil is ultimately vacuous, but also apparently powerful on a personal level and certainly active. These are not seen as contradictory, the latter is very much not taken as an expression of dualism, and I don't see that to a Catholic (particularly one raised by a devout priest) that there would be anything to synthesize. I would say rather that the depictions of Frodo's temptation, as well as the temptations of others who were less successful against it such as Boromir, could not have been written by someone who had not himself the experience of having been tempted (and resisting it, at times unsuccessfully) himself; and that the understanding and expression of it are characteristically Catholic (understood more broadly than "Roman Catholic.")

Perhaps it's just me; that the concepts are sufficiently familiar that there's nothing startling about them. I don't suppose Shippey is Catholic or Orthodox or anything with related traditions.

As far as I know, he's C of E; but, as he says, he is not writing for a specifically Christian audience. Septentrionalis 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But back to the point, there's nothing about this that points singularly to Boethius as an influence. Unless Tolkien himself cited him as an influence somewhere I have forgotten about, I'd discount it entirely. And as I originally pointed out, the given citation doesn't support it as phrased. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked over the relevant chapter from Tolkien: Author of the Century again. If Lewis ever identified Shippey's "Manichaean" view of evil as such, Shippey doesn't say so here. What he does is to slap the label "Manichaean" (and therefore "Dualist") on the idea of an active principle of evil, and then go on to attribute something Lewis said about Dualism to it. At the same time he is positively wrong when he says the "alternative tradition" to Boethius has "never risen to the status of being official." (p. 134 for both) I can't imagine what would even lead him to say such a thing.

It goes without saying that to believe in Satan (i.e. evil as an active force that must be resisted) is not the same as being a Dualist. Satan is not God's opposite, any more that Tolkien's Melkor is Eru's opposite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

infoboxes

Infobox cruft is but a minor threat to Misplaced Pages, but it must be contained somehow. To include "influenced by" and "influenced" entries in an inlined overview infobox is madness. The concept of creative "influence" is much too fuzzy to be treated like that. If an influence is notable enough, write a prose paragraph about it, in the article body. The aim of infoboxes is not to substitute reading of the actual article. If they grow any more, we'll need to introduce infoboxes-within-infoboxes, summarizing the box's content again. dab (ᛏ) 19:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely: I added some influences because it looked so dreadful with just "Conan" Howard listed, but I'm much happier to see the whole thing go. Myopic Bookworm 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits concerning Mythology

User:Satanael has recently, 21 July, showing preference toward one definition of mythology and using such definition made valid edits to the article. My concern is which form of the article is the better understood, better read, and better received. Please take the time to view both options and make suggestions as to how we could clean up the article which would ensure a more neutral POV, on a mildly leaning slope. Das Nerd 13:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only real difference between Tolkien's stories and what Satanael thinks of as a "mythology" is that the latter is traditional while the former was devised by a single man. By that standard of course, German and Finnish mythologies aren't really mythologies either. Since "legendarium" is a word Tolkien coined that is not in common use outside Tolkien scholarship and needs to be explained every time it's used, "mythology" is far clearer whether or not it offends someone. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with TCC: the term "legendarium" is generally only familiar to Tolkien scholars, and as I see it, the term "mythology" comes awfully close. If Satanael doesn't want to have his changes simply reverted, I think it would be good for him to explain what exactly his point is. His edit summaries don't explain, they simply state his position as fact. It's not clear to me that such a restrictive definition of "mythology" is either necessary or useful.--Steuard 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Legendarium coined by Tolkien or not?

The article says that Tolkien coined the word to describe his work. "Other terms he has coined such as legendarium and eucatastrophe are mainly used in connection with Tolkien's work."

The article that the word links too Legendarium states that Tolkien did NOT coin the word. " As the word is seldom now used for other purposes it has sometimes been mistakenly ascribed to Tolkien."

I don't know which one is true. Just thought I would point it out to the more knowledgeable so that it can be clarified.--Defraggler 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to say that he introduced it to the English language. Presumably the information is taken from the reference given on Legendarium, but it would be better if we had a full cite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien invented 'eucatastrophe', but 'legendarium' is a medieval latin term which predates him by about a thousand years... as can be seen by a simple google search for pages that contain 'legendarium', but NOT 'Tolkien'. The term had been largely replaced by anglicized 'legendary' (used as a noun with the same meaning as 'legendarium') by the time Tolkien adapted it, but has enjoyed a renaissance since then... though this may be unconnected as it is largely a return to using the term in reference to texts that were previously described that way. --CBD 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't invent legendarium; but he brought it (as opposed to legendary) into English. The OED does not include legendarium; legendary is early sixteenth-century, and as a noun, is a collection of saint's lives, like the Latin. Septentrionalis 13:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic influence on his works

There is a mention of many influences on his work, but how come there is not something on the Catholic influence on his work?

There are many reputable and respected works on this subject, just to mention a few:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2001/feature7.htm

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Tolkien/

Kindly consider having something on this. Thank you for your consideration. Arturo Cruz 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article neglects Tolkien's attitude to material progress

It is frequently observed (elsewhere from the Misplaced Pages article, that is) that Tolkien was uneasy with "progress" in the, shall we say, American sense. It's said that he felt that in and of itself, "material progress" was demonic, leading to "the iron crown".

I believe this dimension should be mentioned in the article about Tolkien the man.

Did he reject material progress, philosophically? And if he did, what did that mean? Did he reject the right of modern humans to adequate shelter or medical facilities? Large aircraft? Television. Immense office buildings? Durably paved roads for swift automobiles? Or, rather, did he feel all of these would be acceptable or desirable if humankind progressed morally and spiritually?

I believe his attitude is something to be explored in either the biographical article, or instead in one that is specifically devoted to Tolkien's outlook and philosophy. It's no doubt central to his poetic and fantasy work... to his "message" we might say. Joel Russ 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My impression from his bio and other writings was that he wasn't really opposed to progress as such, but deplored the ugliness, noise, and destruction of nature (especially trees) that he saw generally goes with it; and the mindset of those who valued progress above all else.

This is definitely worth exploring, but I doubt I could do it justice. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is something still missing from the article, and we should address it. But we have to be careful to avoid the cliché of an escapist JRRT locked away in his academic ivory tower. There is, of course, an escapist component in his work and character, but it would be very wrong to read Tolkien as one big anti-industrialist, environmentalist metaphor (as of course it has been). Tolkien's "romantic environmentalism" still permeates much of his work, mostly as a sense of loss ('fading'). Maybe we should begin with a few references to Letters, maybe in a new "worldview" (or similar) section. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to add a personal beliefs section to the article, so one can evaluate this into it. Wiki-newbie 09:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. Part of the requirement for featured articles is that they be stable. I'm all for adding stuff to this article (see my suggestions above), but please remember to keep the overall article length manageable, and consider writing a section in your user space, so that it looks OK, before adding it here. At the moment, we have blank sections sitting in the article, making it look silly. Carcharoth 00:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Flow

I've just edited in a few places without thinking, but have now realised that this is an active, much-edited article, and that I should have checked here first. Sorry. I think what I've done helps readability without compromising sense, but feel free to revert if you disagree. Cheers, Sam Clark 23:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Views" section

it's alright to have it, I suppose, but there should be a more insightful discussin than a thinly-veiled "JRRT was a fascist". It is certainly true that he was "conservative", but hardly the kind of "we own all the oil and industry and that's as things should stay, Jesus would nuke Iran and burn abortionists as witches" attitude that passes as "conservative" today. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmmm, yeah, that's not a conservative. Judgesurreal777 11:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was being surreal777 :) dab (ᛏ) 11:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

racism

the "JRRT and racism" debate involves the distinction between racism and racialism. Care must be taken however, because I think JRRT himself used racialism in the sense of what we would call racism today (the terms swapped meanings, it's complicated, I'll have to look it up). dab (ᛏ) 11:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit the actual Tolkien and racism article while you're at it, if it's deficient or wrong. If this is racialism:

the view – which I shall call racialism – that there are heritable characteristics, possessed by members of our species, which allow us to divide them into a small set of races, in such a way that all the members of these races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race. These traits and tendencies characteristic of a race constitute, on the racialist view, a sort of racial essence; it is part of the content of racialism that the essential heritable characteristics of the "Races of Man" account for more than the visible morphological characteristics – skin colour, hair type, facial features – on the basis of which we make our informal classifications. — Kwame Anthony Appiah, In My Father's House (1992)

...then this does apply to the races of Middle-earth, different kinds of Men included - but then it's fantasy. The Númenoreans did have longer lives and greater wisdom, but they're from Atlantis anyway. Uthanc 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

no, no, we shouldn't even begin discussing whether his fiction is "racialist". His fiction mirrors aspects of his worldview, but unless we can pinpoint something outside his fiction, it's worthless to the debate. Your source is English and Welsh where he discusses (real world) ethnicity and "racial memory". dab (ᛏ) 12:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

conservatism

"conservative views" in the context of 20th century Great Britain implies sympathy for the Conservative Party (UK). Is it known whether JRRT supported them in any way? Otherwise, we'd need to be more specific as to what we mean by conservative here. dab (ᛏ) 12:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Was he? Aside from his religion, how? (In Simon Tolkien's website there's an anecdote on his reaction to Vatican II; he didn't like the vernacular Mass and insisted on answering in Latin while the others used English.) But he spoke out against apartheid at Oxford. Needs more examples/balance. Uthanc 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that the Tories supported apartheid either. No idea if he ever even voted, but I somehow don't see him supporting Labour :) dab (ᛏ) 12:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicking on Fascism

In this section, there's this statement, "as opposed to the aggressive (social Darwinist) racism promoted by fascism". Actually, extreme racism is present in National Socialism, better known as Nazism, whereas fascism, when first implemented by Mussolini, did not have evidences of anti semitism or other forms of racism. I'm not too sure what to do with it, though.James Delgado 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to deal with that; but the whole question of "Was Tolkien Conservative, or was he really Progressive Labour?" is misguided. The answer is No. As far as I can tell he was a High Catholic agrarian Tory, when he was political at all; a position virtually unrepresented in this century. This can overlap with progessivism (see Distributism and Sybil), but is not part of the same spectrum at all. Shippey remarks somewhere that Tolkien would not have understood what pacifism was, which is probably right; less so than John Buchan. Septentrionalis 14:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Tolkien was in no sense of the word an anarchist. He was a firm monarchist. ("Anarcho-monarchist"? Is that even possible?) The only quote from a letter I can recall that might apply is that he once described his ideal king as someone whose primary interest was stamp-collecting, but who could sack his prime minister at will. In other words, someone uninterested in power for its own sake, who acts primarily as the guarantor of good government. (I won't be able to locate this quote exactly without an exhaustive search, which I do not now have time for.) I don't see how this is in any way anarchic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!" — J.R.R. Tolkien, in a letter dated Nov. 29, 1943 to his son Christopher, who had recently been called up into the Royal Air Force, and was then at an R.A.F. training camp (_Letters_ p. 63) cfh 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

template clutter

there is a template containing the entire bibliography of Tolkien's now? What a horrible idea. almost as bad as {{Latin alphabet}}. Can we orphan this please? dab (ᛏ) 19:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's shorter than Template:Stephen King's... the music artists have them covering all of their singles and EPs and LPs and videos. I don't see why authors can't. I enjoy navigating/browsing this way. And yes, I'm the one who started it so of course I'm advocating for it. =) Alanlastufka 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be one of those Bad Ideas that has just kind of taken off. Leave it out of Tolkien and people will just wonder why it's missing and create a new one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

well well, it's a matter of taste after all. How about we leave it on articles on minor works? It won't look as much like clutter on short articles, but on this article, where we already give a full bibliography, it should definitely not appear. deal? dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I could live with that. Alanlastufka 14:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• FA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Tolkien articles
• Top-importance Tolkien articles