Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Just to note: the name of the place is Middle Earth, not Middle-earth, and the Ringwraiths are Black Riders, not Dark Riders. I suspect some copyedits were made by back-translating from other languages. Just FYI. - Zadcat

No, the place is Middle-earth according to Tolkien and Wikipedia convention. You are right about the Ringwraiths though. --General Wesc

Requested move

• The Fellowship of the Ring (book) → The Fellowship of the Ring;
  • The Two Towers (book) → The Two Towers;
  • The Return of the King (book) → The Return of the King;
  • The Fellowship of the Ring (movie) → The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring;
  • The Two Towers (movie) → The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers;
  • The Return of the King (movie) → The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - The Lord of the Rings: is the full name of the movies and that makes the (book) useless too. - 68.72.128.19 22:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support [where is the discussion for this?] —Michael Z. 2005-04-27 23:17 Z
• Neutral on books & Oppose movies, I don't have a problem removal of "(book)", but not with the movies (should be like "The Fellowship of the Ring (movie)") Cburnett 06:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support books, as the books are the primary use and the most commonly linked to. This would make linking easier. Not as sure about the movie proposal, though. Jonathunder 00:51, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Support books, but Oppose movies. Fornadan 16:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support books so long as a "The Fellowship of the Ring (disambiguation)" page is created (and for other articles). Oppose, films. K1Bond007 20:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support books & Oppose movies. If the the books are moved then the current disambiguation page currently at the title name, will have to be moved to The Fellowship of the Ring (disambiguation) etc and a first line will have to be added to each book page pointing to the disambiguation page. Philip Baird Shearer 09:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Voting over, see Decision below

Discussion

I oppose the proposed moves for the movies. Both the books and movies have LotR in the title (so that's factually wrong). If we're going with The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, & The Return of the King for the books then it should be The Fellowship of the Ring (movie), The Two Towers (movie), & The Return of the King (movie).

Though, I would much rather support Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring & Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (movie), etc. and redirect appropriately because I disagree with the "common name" convention and disbelieve that redirects are bad. Cburnett 06:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe the individually parts of the books (unlike the movies) have TLotR in the title. Eric119 18:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Are the Books in The Fellowship of the Ring unnamed?

They are as published, but Tolkien did have titles for all six books of his novel. They were cancelled as the decision was made to publish the LotR in three volumes. As a result there are some variant titles.

Book 1: The Return of the Shadow / The Ring Sets Out

Book 2: The Fellowship of the Ring / The Ring Goes South

Book 3: The Treason of Isengard

Book 4: The Journey to Mordor / The Ring Goes East

Book 5: The War of the Ring

Book 6: The End of the Third Age

HTH, HAND. -- Jordi·✆ 10:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Decision

All books have been moved but the movies have be left where they are. Some disambiguation may be required at the top of these articles. violet/riga (t) 10:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Policy violation

This page is currently violating WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, as it is nothing more than a plot summary of The Fellowship of the Ring. It will continue to be in violation until it adds real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance.

Given that this is Lord of the Rings, the current state of affairs is deplorable. Perhaps a section discussing the symbolism of the novel, or something similar, is in order?

Chapters

Is there any need for a break-down of the chapters as well as the plot summary?? Eragon fan 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources and citations needed

I've flagged this article for lack of sources and citations, as well as possible original research in the Destiny (theme) section. This article should be expanded and many of the abundant sources out there used.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm going to work on the infobox for this page, but I need someone to come up with a good picture of the 1st edition book to put in it. This article is in a serious state of disrepair and hasn't been looked at in a while. I don't see how an article as important as this one can possibly still be a Start class article. Come on, guys. Let's get to work. -Kanogul ^(talk) 14:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the cover in the infobox not he first edition? I've been searching, and it seems so. Or are you looking for Tolkien's design, as seen in the LotR article? --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

Is there any way I can find criticle reception for this book? The New York Times search only goes back to 1981. Where would I look? --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a start here's a list of positive professional review quotes. But without authors and dates. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

An obvious problem here is that most discussion of the critical reception of this work is in the Lord of the Rings article rather than here, since most critical discussion of the work is on the trilogy as a whole rather than on just this one volume. The makes hard to avoid making this article WP:PLOTONLY. (On the other hand, the Lord of the Rings article has no plot summary at all.)
I also think that the plot summary here is just a wee bit too long.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the novel has been the target of most critical and popular response that we should cover, and we should do that in other articles. But there must have been a greater response to the first volume than we show here.

So it remains true four years later that "this section needs expansion". First and foremost, what were the responses in Britain, or perhaps England and others severally, rather than in the two American newspapers we cite here? Second, was there any response locally: Tolkien's college or colleagues? Oxford town or university?

--P64 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Chapter summaries

A summary of all chapters is certainly not needed, nor have I read any article on a book in Wikipedia which has something like thus, apart from these three articles of the LOTR. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed to a brief overview with key points (discussed in scholarship perhaps). 74.109.214.27 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Individual chapter summaries is over-kill. -- Elphion (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed them in the past, only for someone to constantly re-add them. Prepare for an edit-war if they're removed. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If at all we should limit it to a list of chapters but the summary is given in the previous section. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple plot summary is fine, what do the chapter summaries even add? Most probably skim over them anyway. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant, there's no need for chapter summaries. De728631 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Even I have attempted to remove the chapter summaries in the past, but they have always been reverted. I am doing it again, since the consensus is that there is absolutely no need for chapter summaries or even chapter names. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Members of the Fellowship of the Ring

Again, this section seems superfluous; the members of the Fellowship are mentioned in the plot summary. Do we need a table repeating the same information? Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There should either be a bit more critical discussion of the characterization and role of each of them (as in say a Cliff notes), or they should be removed. One or the other. I prefer the first alternative.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This section really gives trivial information. How are their ages important? Their ages are hardly mentioned in the book. How is their parentage important? Generally, it's not. I think it's only mentioned once that Pippin's father is the Thain. And the reasons they were summoned to the Council of Elrond are not particularly important.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Added book titles

It was pretty amazing to find that this article didn't list the book titles for books I and II, (Return of the Shadow and The Fellowship of the Ring, respectively); especially so considering the sister articles, The Two Towers and The Return of the King do list titles for books III—VI. So, I've added them.--Rfsmit (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so it would help if I got the "right" titles. Thanks Google, for some unsourced info.... The Millennium Edition at least collects the titles used there in a single place; and these are identical with the titles to be used when the three volumes were originally published. It's not clear where the other titles come from; though they appear to match the History of Middle Earth series titles by CJRT.--Rfsmit (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently deleted some unwieldy long titles like X or Y. With a main and an alternate title in the article table of contents it looked bad. Evidently these titles are only used in one-volume editions of LotR.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Members of the Fellowship of the Ring section contradiction

In the section; Book I: The Ring Sets Out, it says that "...on the same day, September 22, that Frodo Baggins, his heir, is celebrating his 33rd birthday (his 'coming of age') at Bilbo's birthday party. It then says in the Members of the Fellowship of the Ring section, that Frodo Baggins is "He is 50 years old as he leaves on his quest to Rivendell." Could this error please be corrected Vought109 (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the error here? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(Dept. of Amplification) No error, since Frodo turns 33 at the beginning of the book, but several years pass before Gandalf warns him of the nature of the Ring and advises him to leave the Shire. -- Elphion (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinion or relative length of sections

IMO, the plot section of this article is much too long, and the characters section much too short! I don't mean we should add more characters, but that more detailed analyses of the the personalities and characters should be present, while the plot should be heavily trimmed.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot is overlong, but in-depth discussion (if warranted) belongs in each characters page. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This page could have a briefer summary of the significance of the character to this story, without saying anything about, for example, what Gandalf was doing a thousand years ago that is irrelevant to Fellowship. For that matter, nothing about the role of these characters in Towers or King belongs here. But a brief literary discussion of the characterization and purpose of these characters to this (part of the) story I think belongs here.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we really need to keep details linked to book only Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ Rob^Talk 01:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hall of Fire" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hall of Fire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of proposal to merge to The Lord of the Rings

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The AfD suggesting merge/delete and redirect has closed, and another discussion about merging all three LotR volumes' articles into The Lord of the Rings has now opened at Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Proposed merge of The Fellowship of the Ring etc into The Lord of the Rings, as of February 4.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Amon Sul" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amon Sul. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Amon Sûl" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amon Sûl. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Aman Sul" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aman Sul. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot summaries: the way forward?

Given that the recent merger discussion suggested that this article (and its counterparts, The Two Towers and Return of the King) existed to provide publication history and critical reception for the respective volumes, should the plot summaries for this article and its counterparts be removed? There is an existing link to the plot summary at The Lord of the Rings. The plot of no volume can be understood in isolation, and having a long plot summary is in violation of Wikipedia's rules.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

We could try trimming it first. It seems far too detailed for a plot summary. El Millo (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Why? It could be condensed into a short paragraph: "Hobbit Frodo Baggins goes on a quest to destroy Dark Lord Sauron's Ring. He is joined by eight companions who are known as the Fellowship of the Ring. The wizard Gandalf is lost in the Mines of Moria. When the warrior Boromir tries to take the Ring, Frodo decides to leave the Fellowship."--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that, according to the maintenance template at the top This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary, if we're going to do this we might as well merge it right now. With little to no plot summary, this article would be little more than a stub. El Millo (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, Jack Upland, I think we should have this discussion in one place instead of three. We could have it at Talk:The Lord of the Rings and add a notice in each book's talk. El Millo (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have it here, so it relates directly to one of the articles in question. I have replaced my duplicated comments with a link to this discussion. There was no consensus to merge, but that doesn't mean we need to artificial inflate this article to stop it being a stub. If editors are convinced that they can write an article about The Fellowship of the Ring that is not just plot summary, let them do it.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no point whatsoever in duplicating the perfectly good plot summaries of all three volumes that we already have in The Lord of the Rings. The section 'Members of the Company of the Ring' (odd capitalisation) is also redundant, and I'd suggest the Editions list, too, has no discernible function, given that this is part of a 3-volume set. We would therefore have a lead, a 'Title and publication' section, itself partly redundant, a 'Critical reception' which should hold only immediate "Reception" (reviews in the press from 1954-5, applying only to one volume). Personally I think all of that would be better in the main LoTR article but we are where we are; the AfD mandated keeping these 3 article-lets so we ought to assemble the 3 "Reception" sections and see if, when these are basically all the articles contain, whether people will still want to keep them separate in a few years' time. There is no reason to include later and more general scholarly criticism, which basically always applies to LoTR as a whole, rather than to individual volumes, so there is no scope for the articles to grow: very different from everything else in the Middle-earth project. We should not wish to keep them as they are, as lifeless fossils; nor as empty stubs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

We should try and complete the Reception section as we best we can, and as soon as we're done with that see if we propose the merge once again. By then, without the overly-long or duplicated plot summary and without that barely relevant information you mentioned, I presume the results of a requested merge would be quite different. El Millo (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

But without the plot summary how will readers know the prologue is there to set the stage for the novel? Lava Lamps (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

We leave a link to the existing summary in the LoTR article. If you want to take up Jack Upland's idea of a 3-line summary we can do that but it's redundant too, and it would be an open invitation for someone to start all over again, so I'd earnestly advise against it. The point is that these 3 articles exactly DO NOT set the stage for the novel: the main LoTR article does that, as indeed may any of the character or race articles (i.e. people may arrive looking for Frodo Baggins or Orcs or whatever). My choice would be that if by some odd chance somebody came looking for "Two Towers", they'd at once be redirected to the Two Towers plot summary at LoTR, which would give them exactly what they were looking for. But we can't do that today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

My idea of a short summary was a compromise proposal. I agree it is better not having a plot summary in these three articles. I don't understand what the issue is with the prologue.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess sarcasm doesn’t come across so easily in written form. I was trying to express how pointless it is we have a section describing that the prologue of the book is there to set the scene. Lava Lamps (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, a simple list of what this volume contains IS one of the few valid things this article SHOULD contain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. This volume contained the Prologue; ROTK contained the Appendices. However, in the 50th anniversary edition, the Prologue is not contained in The Fellowship of the Ring. This then returns us to the problem that this article is apparently about what was originally published, so the Prologue is considered part of The Fellowship of the Ring even though in some editions it isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some editions were single-volume, and the Millennium edition was in 7 volumes (6 Books and 1 Appendices). So these three articles make sense only as records of the first edition really. A sorry mess but there it is. I suggest we get on and do the editing. At least adding the historic reviews will be not uninteresting, in a quiet sort of way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

On reflection, since we are keeping these articles, which are on books, we must have plot summaries for them (otherwise, the articles are stuck at Start class as they're obviously incomplete). Since these are necessarily shared with the combined 3-volume book, I've made the 3 summaries into templates and included them where needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I find your continual changes of direction disconcerting. And I think this is ignoring consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be easily disconcerted; the changes have been very slow, over a period of years; and being unable to change one's mind in the face of evidence is not necessarily a sign of merit. Since the clear consensus at AfD was to keep these articles, the three volumes being considered individually notable, it makes sense to have them in a good state. It is not possible for a book article to be in a state much above "Start" without a plot summary. To avoid continual divergence, the plot summaries are shared via templates. I think that about sums up the reasoning, which leads to the current situation. The volume articles are indeed useful both for recording the volume-specific reviews, and for volume-specific links, such as when discussing individual films. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A logical outcome would be to merge the articles on the three volumes into the LOTR, but that would probably be blocked by irrational Tolkien nerds who think we have to have 1001 articles about the Old Forest and that the Silmarillion is a factual account.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

They did that already. However there are also the rational grounds that I've set out here. The volume-specific reviews, by the way, establish the separate notability of the individual volumes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that polishing a turd is rational.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The literary establishment held that view, and have been comprehensively refuted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The turd is not LOTR. The turd is that Wikipedia needs separate articles on the separate volumes, even though they could be easily accommodated in the LOTR article. The volume-specific reviews do not on any rational basis establish that we need separate articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, since the matter has been decided by consensus at AfD, it's a fact. Since the three volumes have each received substantial reviews in reliable independent sources, their individual notability is also established. Since they therefore exist, it is rational to make them as good as possible so that we have a good-quality encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Prologue

Are there any sources on why Tolkien wrote the "Prologue"? Many of the details are unnecessary to the plot, for example, "Of the Ordering of the Shire". In fact, if you skip the "Prologue", the only thing is that you don't know what "mathom" means. Was this an issue in the publication history?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Shippey (Road to Middle Earth) describes Tolkien's calque of the Shire upon England, with as the Prologue says the founders Marcho and Blanco leading the three hobbit tribes from the East, equivalent to Hengest and Horsa leading the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes to England. Like so much else, it was important to Tolkien even if not to the average reader; and he wanted to include much more in the Appendices. It's not easy to cite this as Shippey doesn't say in so many words "and this was the purpose of the Prologue". Maybe another authority does so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I was really thinking of the publication history, but I'm assuming from what you say that Tolkien wrote it as Prologue because he thought the story needed a Prologue.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Structure table

The 'Structure' section is supported by a table, which performs several functions. It identifies the distinctive flashback-narration chapters, and their narrators; it shows the similarity in structure of the two books in the volume; and it visually sets the flashback chapters in context with lists of the preceding and following chapters, illustrating their equally distinctive long single narrative thread (in the context of the rest of The Lord of the Rings), serving to indicate just how unusual they are in position and relative quantity. None of this can readily be brought out in a block of text, which conveys just one visual message, "there is a block of stuff". For readers who appreciate articles visually, tables, maps, diagrams, photographs, infographics, and even infoboxes offer ways into a subject – English may not be their first language, or they may 'think visually' – which words alone do not offer. This would seem to be more than enough justification for the table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the courtesy of fitting deed to word by starting the discussion.

It's ironic that you cite visual communication as the reason you undid my edit, as that was the exact reason I made it. I thought that as the information is quite simple and easily conveyed via text that the table was merely repeating what had already been said, while marginalising the text and making it harder to read. The hatnote also looked odd in such a short section.

My original thought was that as this was essentially a de gustibus matter, there was no point in discussion, but I tried putting the table under the text and removing floatright, which made it easier for me to read - what do you think? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; certainly not my job per WP:BRD but it seemed advisable given the unknown quantity involved. Let's try the formatting you propose; since you ask my opinion, it's certainly worse on a large screen, and will make no difference on a mobile one; perhaps for those with some intermediate-sized gadget, it will appear better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick thought: skin makes a big difference here. The article looks better in 2010 because the display space is wider; could that be part of the issue? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In that case, beyond my pay grade. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

Are Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, etc. capitalized or not? Because the text is currently inconsistent. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be, I'll have a go now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hobbit isn't capitalised, here and in Hobbit. What gives? Clarityfiend (talk)

Feel free, capitalise away. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)