Talk:Plants in Middle-earth/Archive 1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Jack Upland in topic Why?
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Plants in Middle-earth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Why?
I don't know why this article was recreated so soon after it was recreated. A lot of this article is original research. Almost all of it is completely trivial. A fair amount of the material is basically irrelevant to the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- The implied question "when" is of no consequence as the article has little similarity to the previous unstructured list, but as it happens a year has elapsed since that article's demise. As for "why", the topic is certainly notable given the cited sources, especially Curry's "Plants of Middle-earth", Judd & Judd's Flora of Middle-earth, and Hazell's The Plants of Middle-earth: Botany and Sub-creation. Tom Shippey's statement, quoted and cited in the article "Through all [Tolkien's] work moreover there runs an obsessive interest in plants and scenery, pipeweed and athelas, the crown of stonecrop round the overthrown king's head in Ithilien, the staffs of lebethron-wood..." I should have thought also decisive in establishing the topic as of critical, scholarly, and encyclopedic interest. "Original research" is simply false, as the material is fully-cited, and the major sources span the entire topic. As for "completely trivial" and "irrelevant", those are basically just pieces of ill-considered and in this case entirely inappropriate abuse: everything in the article is reliably cited both to the primary source, Tolkien, and to major secondary sources as mentioned, so we know for certain that both Tolkien and scholars have considered these matters non-trivial and highly relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not abusive; it's just my observation. Plants are, of course, fundamental to life on earth. We could have an article on plants in every fictional work.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Unfounded, at best, and "observation" implies there's something to observe, which repeats the already-refuted claim you made above. The article does not in any way rely on plants' undoubted critical necessity to life; that's just a rhetorical smokescreen to puff up the appearance of an argument. It's obviously not true that every fictional work could have an article on plants: very few have anything like the emphasis on plants that Tolkien's works have, and even fewer authors of fiction have had scholarly books, not to mention numerous essays, devoted to their coverage of plants. Shakespeare's works are about the only instance that springs to mind, and if that's the company, even if Tolkien found the Bard's treatment of some mythological themes inadequate, he perhaps wouldn't mind being grouped with another Warwickshire man in having his attention to plants celebrated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, because a lot has been written about Shakespeare, and a lot has been written about Tolkien. Therefore it's easier, following Wikipedia's rules, to write an article about almost anything relating to those authors. But an article that deals with trees, vegetables, tobacco, medicine, names, and symbols is really a miscellany. Yes, these are all plants, but plants are universal. I don't think you've scratched the surface. Sam is a gardener. He married Rosie Cotton — two plant names.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, we can only go by the published sources, which discuss in detail the themes that form the structure of the article; the overarching theme, also mentioned by multiple sources, is simply that he loved and was fascinated by trees and flowers. Horticulture is already mentioned; but the surname "Cotton" is, as Shippey explains that Tolkien well knew, nothing to do with the plant of that name; it is from Old English "cot", meaning "hut", "cottage", and "ton", meaning "enclosure". Cotton as a crop is not grown in England, and was not widely imported to England until the 17th century. You seem to be trying to make the article sound random - anyone can pick any number of disparate-looking terms from any article, but this article is tightly focussed on the literary functions of plants in Middle-earth, as identified by the cited scholars. The fact that Tolkien used plants at once to give a sense of realism, to further the plot, to help define his characters, and as mythic symbols says something about him; it is not a fault of the article, and indeed it would be remiss not to mention all these aspects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've just found out that Gamgee Tissue is a name for cotton wool. It took me a while to cotton on...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, we can only go by the published sources, which discuss in detail the themes that form the structure of the article; the overarching theme, also mentioned by multiple sources, is simply that he loved and was fascinated by trees and flowers. Horticulture is already mentioned; but the surname "Cotton" is, as Shippey explains that Tolkien well knew, nothing to do with the plant of that name; it is from Old English "cot", meaning "hut", "cottage", and "ton", meaning "enclosure". Cotton as a crop is not grown in England, and was not widely imported to England until the 17th century. You seem to be trying to make the article sound random - anyone can pick any number of disparate-looking terms from any article, but this article is tightly focussed on the literary functions of plants in Middle-earth, as identified by the cited scholars. The fact that Tolkien used plants at once to give a sense of realism, to further the plot, to help define his characters, and as mythic symbols says something about him; it is not a fault of the article, and indeed it would be remiss not to mention all these aspects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, because a lot has been written about Shakespeare, and a lot has been written about Tolkien. Therefore it's easier, following Wikipedia's rules, to write an article about almost anything relating to those authors. But an article that deals with trees, vegetables, tobacco, medicine, names, and symbols is really a miscellany. Yes, these are all plants, but plants are universal. I don't think you've scratched the surface. Sam is a gardener. He married Rosie Cotton — two plant names.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Unfounded, at best, and "observation" implies there's something to observe, which repeats the already-refuted claim you made above. The article does not in any way rely on plants' undoubted critical necessity to life; that's just a rhetorical smokescreen to puff up the appearance of an argument. It's obviously not true that every fictional work could have an article on plants: very few have anything like the emphasis on plants that Tolkien's works have, and even fewer authors of fiction have had scholarly books, not to mention numerous essays, devoted to their coverage of plants. Shakespeare's works are about the only instance that springs to mind, and if that's the company, even if Tolkien found the Bard's treatment of some mythological themes inadequate, he perhaps wouldn't mind being grouped with another Warwickshire man in having his attention to plants celebrated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not abusive; it's just my observation. Plants are, of course, fundamental to life on earth. We could have an article on plants in every fictional work.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- The implied question "when" is of no consequence as the article has little similarity to the previous unstructured list, but as it happens a year has elapsed since that article's demise. As for "why", the topic is certainly notable given the cited sources, especially Curry's "Plants of Middle-earth", Judd & Judd's Flora of Middle-earth, and Hazell's The Plants of Middle-earth: Botany and Sub-creation. Tom Shippey's statement, quoted and cited in the article "Through all [Tolkien's] work moreover there runs an obsessive interest in plants and scenery, pipeweed and athelas, the crown of stonecrop round the overthrown king's head in Ithilien, the staffs of lebethron-wood..." I should have thought also decisive in establishing the topic as of critical, scholarly, and encyclopedic interest. "Original research" is simply false, as the material is fully-cited, and the major sources span the entire topic. As for "completely trivial" and "irrelevant", those are basically just pieces of ill-considered and in this case entirely inappropriate abuse: everything in the article is reliably cited both to the primary source, Tolkien, and to major secondary sources as mentioned, so we know for certain that both Tolkien and scholars have considered these matters non-trivial and highly relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)