Talk:Tolkien's legendarium/Archive 1

Middle-earth Cycle

(Note: moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth) Talk:Tolkien's legendarium/Middle-earth Cycle contains text moved from Middle-earth Cycle to be merged to Tolkien's legendarium after re-writing. Carcharoth 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevant citations

From Steuard Jensen's FAQ: [1]

Did the events in The Lord of the Rings take place on another planet or what? Short answer: No, on Earth.

• "Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed; but the regions in which Hobbits then lived were doubtless the same as those in which they still linger: the North-West of the Old World, east of the Sea." (FOTR, Prologue)

• The Calendar in the Shire differed in several features from ours. The year no doubt was of the same length (*), for long ago as those times are now reckoned in years and lives of men, they were not very remote according to the memory of the Earth.

(*) 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 46 seconds. (ROTK, Appendix D)

• 'Middle-earth', by the way, is not a name of a never-never land without relation to the world we live in .... And though I have not attempted to relate the shape of the mountains and land-masses to what geologists may say or surmise about the nearer past, imaginatively this 'history' is supposed to take place in a period of the actual Old World of this planet. (Letters, #165)

• I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world. ... The theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is imaginary. The essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by the enchantment of distance in time. (Letters, #183)

• ...I hope the, evidently long but undefined, gap(*) in time between the Fall of Barad-dur and our Days is sufficient for 'literary credibility', even for readers acquainted with what is known or surmised of 'pre-history'.

I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place. I prefer that to the contemporary mode of seeking remote globes in 'space'. However curious, they are alien, and not lovable with the love of blood-kin. Middle-earth is ... not my own invention. It is a modernization or alteration ... of an old word for the inhabited world of Men, the oikoumene: middle because thought of vaguely as set amidst the encircling Seas and (in the northern-imagination) between ice of the North and the fire of the South. O. English middan-geard, mediaeval E. midden-erd, middle-erd. Many reviewers seem to assume that Middle-earth is another planet!

(*) I imagine the gap to be about 6000 years: that is we are now at the end of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S.A. and T.A. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh. (Letters, #211)

• ...I have not made any of the peoples on the 'right' side, Hobbits, Rohirrim, Men of Dale or of Gondor, any better than men have been or are, or can be. Mine is not an 'imaginary' world, but an imaginary historical moment on 'Middle-earth' -- which is our habitation. (Letters, #183)

Was the northwest of Middle-earth, where the story takes place, meant to actually be Europe? Short-ish answer: "Yes, but a qualified yes. There is no question that Tolkien had northwestern Europe in mind when he described the terrain, weather, flora, and landscapes of Middle-earth... However, the geographies simply don't match."

• ... if it were 'history', it would be difficult to fit the lands and events (or 'cultures') into such evidence as we possess, archaeological or geological, concerning the nearer or remoter part of what is now called Europe; though the Shire, for instance, is expressly stated to have been in this region [FR, 11]. I could have fitted things in with greater versimilitude, if the story had not become too far developed, before the question ever occurred to me. I doubt if there would have been much gain; ... (Letters, #211)

• ... As for the shape of the world of the Third Age, I am afraid that was devised 'dramatically' rather than geologically, or paleontologically. I do sometimes wish that I had made some sort of agreement between the imaginations or theories of the geologists and my map a little more possible. But that would only have made more trouble with human history. (Letters, #169)

• The action of the story takes place in the North-west of 'Middle-earth', equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean. ... If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy. (Letters, #294; note that "northwestern Europe was used for comparison rather than equation".)

Was the Shire meant to be England? Short answer: It was based upon England.

• [The Shire] is in fact more or less a Warwickshire village of about the period of the Diamond Jubilee ... {Letters #178)

• But, of course, if we drop the 'fiction' of long ago, 'The Shire' is based on rural England and not any other country in the world... [Later in the same letter he implied that the Shire was "an imaginary mirror" of England.] (Letters, #190)

• There is no special reference to England in the 'Shire' -- except of course that as an Englishman brought up in an 'almost rural' village of Warwickshire on the edge of the prosperous bourgeoisie of Birmingham (about the time of the Diamond Jubilee!) I take my models like anyone else -- from such 'life' as I know. (Letters, #181)

-- Uthanc 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

These are all great citations (some of which are already used in various Wikipedia articles, some of which aren't), but this is missing the point somewhat. We are not discussing whether or not Tolkien's stories form an interconnected mass that we want to call a legendarium, but what sources we can cite that justify us calling it a legendarium. The correct place to look is (a) the History of Middle-earth series; (b) Tolkien's Letters; and (c) the book Tolkien's Legendarium. Then we can justify our use of the term, and point to various sources that define and use the term. Carcharoth 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify further, the term seems to be used both to describe the effect Tolkien was aiming to create - that of a genuine legendarium - and also as a blanket term describing the collection of stories he wrote. ie. (1) Tolkien aimed to create a mythology for England, a legendarium. (2) The History of Middle-earth series covers the history of the varied collection of stories known as Tolkien's legendarium. I've now found some cites from Letters. Carcharoth 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• [on The Silmarillion] "This legendarium ends with a vision of the end of the world, its breaking and remaking, and the recovery of the Silmarilli and the 'light before the Sun'..." (Letters, #131, c.1951 - the long one to Milton Waldman, describing The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings)
• "...my legendarium, especially the 'Downfall of Numenor' which lies immediately behind The Lord of the Rings, is based on my view: that Men are essentially mortal and must not try to become 'immortal' in the flesh." (Letters, #153, 1954)
• "Actually in the imagination of this story we are now living on a physically round Earth. But the whole 'legendarium' contains a transition from a flat world [...] to a globe..." (Letters, #154, 1954)
• "But the beginning of the legendarium, of which the Trilogy is part (the conclusion), was an attempt to reorganise some of the Kalevala..." (Letters, #163, 1955)

Those four quotes are the only ones referenced in the Letters index. Incidentially, that last quote is a good example of Tolkien adopting the usage of 'trilogy' to refer to LotR... :-) Carcharoth 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now updated Tolkien's legendarium with this material and more. Hopefully someone will tidy it up. Carcharoth 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Great - but I was responding to Mirlen's request for "geographical" quotes. Uthanc 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I see that now. Sorry! :-) Chttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tolkien%27s_legendarium&action=editarcharoth 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No harm done. On the LOTR Talk page (archived?) it was explained that Tolkien used "trilogy" when corresponding with others who did; the letter is used in the article. Uthanc 03:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That explains it. Thanks for starting the tidying of the article. Hopefully the references will get sorted out properly at some point as well. Well, I'll do that now! Carcharoth 11:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(End copied section - new comments below please)

Middle-earth Cycle

User:Steuard wrote somewhere that he'd never seen this term used before, the discussion groups on Usenet used "Middle-earth legendarium" or something like it. And Tolkien didn't use the term himself. Any chance of it being merged with this? Uthanc 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See note at top of page. Carcharoth 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Neologism

"Legendarium" is a neologism, and it's use should be discouraged. It's use by the author Tolkien, to refer to his own work, and subsequently by certain fans to discuss this work, make it a highly obscure and self-referential fan-boy shibboleth. Nowhere is it clearly defined (what is it? Tolkiens notes, first, second, third drafts of the Silmarillion material, the published works, all of it, some of it, none of it?) and more importantly, nowhere is it defined by verifiable, reputable third party sources. It's not defined at

• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=legendarium&x=0&y=0
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legendarium

IMHO, this article should be deleted, and all references to it removed. Perhaps a paragraph in Tolkiens biography (..he called his works a "legendarium") is all that is really required. --Davémon 12:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that "legendarium" deserves merit unto itself as a word, rather than being attached primarily to Tolkien, even if he coined the word. If not, then a suitable, extant alternative should be suggested, like "compendium" or "mythos". (Please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) —Nahum Reduta 07:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources which can be used to establish notability of the term? They would help the article. WP:NEO has already been refered to - the lack of verifiable, third party sources still needs to be addressed. --Davémon 08:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The history of the pages is a bit confused here. What should exist is Legendary (disambiguation), Legendarium and Tolkien's legendarium. Unfortunately, this edit redirected 'Legendarium' to here. There was a useful version of that page here, with plenty of sources ('The Ring of Words' is a good source for this, written by editors of the Oxford English Dictionary). I've now redirected 'Legendarium' back to 'Legendary (disambiguation)', to avoid this sort of confusion, and removed the hatnote at the top of this article. The material in that old version I pointed out should also be re-added, as it provides a source for what is being discussed here. Carcharoth 10:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And now, addressing the neologism claims. Legendarium is not strictly a neologism, as it was previously an English word and was still in use in other languages at the time Tolkien resurrected the word. The term "Tolkien's legendarium" was not used by Tolkien himself, but is now an accepted term in Tolkien studies. It is used by Christopher Tolkien and Tom Shippey among others. Characterising the word and its use as a "self-referential fan-boy shibboleth" is simply incorrect and rude. Carcharoth 11:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This version: here has no sources for "legendarium", nor sources for "Tolkien's Legendarium", but instead makes unreferenced claims that it is synonymous with "legendary". It's use by Christopher Tolkien and Tom Shippey do not stop it being a neologism (see WP:NEO#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms). Any definition of "Legendarium" (in "Ring of Words" or elsewhere) is simply not evidence for "Tolkiens Legendarium" being a wide-spread term for describing a specific subset of Tolkiens writing. The use in "Tolkien Studies", yet nowhere outside of it, accurately support the identification as a shibboleth. Apologies if that sounds rude - it wasn't meant to offend, but it does highlight a bias issue. The problems initially raised (reliable sources, clear definition) still need to be addressed. --Davémon 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That version does have a source. It is not an inline citation, but look at the References section. "Peter Gilliver, Jeremy Marshall and Edmund Weiner (2006). The Ring of Words. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 153–154. ISBN 0-19-861069-6." Now, get that book and read pages 153 to 154. That makes it clear this is not a neologism in the normal sense of that word. Maybe I will have to quote from the book to convince you. I've also looked at WP:NEO, and it says "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term". I have done that. The Ring of Words is talking about the terms legendarium and legendary, not just using them. The definition does need work - I'll try and do that later on when I can get hold of the right books. One more thing - you are mixing up your capitalisations. Tolkien's Legendarium is the book. Tolkien's legendarium is Tolkien's legendarium. Legendarium is a word that existed before Tolkien used it! I really can't put it any clearer than that until I get hold of the right books later today. Carcharoth 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether the word was in use before Tolkien is irrelevant - the appropriation of it for a specific corpus of fiction makes it a neologism - it has been given a new meaning. "Ring of Words" does not define the term as specifically denoting a corpus of fiction, so is not a reliable, secondary source for the use given in this article. I look forward to the addition of a well referenced, clear definition of "Tolkiens legendarium" which relies on reliable secondary sources to the article. --Davémon 07:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added {{fact}} to the most fundamentally neologistic statements in the article - ie. the statements that define the term, but are not attributed. Finding sources for these stetements, or replacing them with citable statements will help prove the article isn't WP:NEO > WP:OR > WP:SYN. Please don't remove {{fact}} until a reference for the challenged statement has been found. {{fact}} should encourage editors to find sources and help ensure a reasonable time is given to finding the sources before the statements are removed. --Davémon 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to provide references. Apologies for not finding time yesterday. I am glad to see that you have moved away from referring to 'legendarium' as a neologism, and are now referring to 'Tolkien's legendarium' as the neologism. That may be a more accurate statement. May I ask though: (1) what sources are suitable? and (2) when does a neologism stop being a neologism and become a standard if obscure term in a niche area? If you have an obscure scientific term, is it acceptable to refer to a dictionary of science to support a definition of the term? If so, why is it different for literary terms? Would something like the the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia be acceptable? I suspect you are thinking of wanting examples of the term appearing in daily newspapers or something, but that standard is (a) too high for obscure terms; and (b) missing the point. Wikipedia doesn't have to be limited to the mainstream. You are unlikely to see the term Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor used much outside of biochemstry journals, but does that mean it needs to have appeared in independent sources outside of the biochemistry area? Carcharoth 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A clear definition of "Tolkiens legendarium" from the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia or similar would be a fantastic addition to the article, a defintion from a published academic work outside purely-Tolkien-related scholarship (perhaps one that discusses verious "mythos"s, "canons" and "legendariums" (legendaria?) would be even better. A definition of "legendarium" from outside Tolkien scholarship would be great, and really strengthen the article.--Davémon 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

While 'legendarium' is an uncommon word it is not at all a 'neologism' or 'given a new meaning' here. Its use here means what it has always meant... a collected body of legends, synonymous with the more 'common' (in English) form 'legendary'. This can be seen in uses of it unrelated to Tolkien; e.g. the Anjou legendarium and The Great Austrian Legendarium. The term also appears in the lead of Wikipedia's Cthulhu Mythos article and hundreds of non-Tolkien pages indexed by Google. Use of the rare term 'legendarium' is no more 'original research' or 'improper synthesis' than Calabi–Yau manifold. It's an uncommon term being used exactly the way it is supposed to be. --CBD 16:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing useage, (whilst very educational - thank you!) isn't adequate evidence for non-neologism, (see WP:NEO#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms) the term should really be defined in a dictionary somewhere. --Davémon 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The meaning hasn't really been changed, just applied to a specific body of work, as CBD said. Tolkien's Legendarium (Amazon, 1, 2, Google) is not by C. Tolkien but by others, and it even contains a piece called "The Development of Tolkien’s Legendarium". Now if anyone has that book, they could help. Are you expecting "Calabi–Yau manifold" to be in a dictionary as well? To older, more scholarly fans than I (child of the movies), when was the term first used? Uthanc 09:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of 'citing usage' was to demonstrate that the claim that 'legendarium' is used "nowhere outside of" Tolkien is simply incorrect. Likewise, those usages clearly show that this is not a neologism in any sense of the word... the term 'neologism' itself is of about 300 years more recent coinage than 'legendarium'. Even Tolkien's use of the term dates back to at least 1951. The point of the section of 'original research' on neologisms that you are citing is that we shouldn't include newly minted terms unless they have been used in third party sources. This isn't a 'newly minted' word by any reasonable stretch of the imagination ('computer' is more of a 'neologism' than 'legendarium') AND it has already been demonstrated that this word IS used in third party sources. The Ring of Words describes it as an, "all-embracing word to describe the totality of his [Tolkien's] imaginative writings relating to Middle-earth". The book Tolkien's Legendarium cites Tolkien himself to describe it as, "a body of more or less connected legend". You now say that it should be defined in a dictionary somewhere, but that isn't what the policy says and isn't a reasonable standard given the thousands of similarly specialized words used in Wikipedia without appearing in a dictionary. That said, this word likely would appear in some of the larger Latin, German, and Ecclesiastic dictionaries... but I'm not going to go searching for one of those to satisfy a condition which makes no sense. This isn't original research. It's a specialized term with a clear meaning which has been around for centuries (or 'mere' decades if you wish to exclude the usages predating the modern English language). --CBD 11:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that Legendarium is not a body of legends. Tolkien didn't write legends. Tolkien wrote fiction which he pretended were legends. The use of the word legendarium to describe a corpus of fiction is a new meaning for the word. --Davémon 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Citing useage, (whilst very educational - thank you!) isn't adequate evidence for non-neologism, (see WP:NEO#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms) the term should really be defined in a dictionary somewhere. --Davémon 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

By your standard, commonly used prefixes like neo itself would prohibit use of all neologisms such as the very word neologism, stifling language change and forcing this project to always be behind the times and reactionary. (Opinion: Clearly, this guy is getting kicks from being obstructionist and legalistic. A time stealer.) With primary sources using the term, however tainted they may be in the view of this negativist, I submit the best course is to ignore his yammering and get on with improvements. More to the point, WP:NEO is dicussing articles about the neologism itself, in the main thrust. That the primary source used the term certainly merits an article discussing what he meant by it. The term is used in Tolkien Studies, and these are articles about Tolkien and his (or their) works, so on with it. To not include mentions of it would be the wrong thing!

Good work adding the citations on the 18th!— but now the article looks ugly!. Great way to improve nothing but ways to waste time there, Davemon. Really commendable. BARFFFFFF! (Removing OR tag too--sue me) // FrankB 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, arguing on the talk page is a pointless waste of time, please help improve the article by supplying sources, I'm looking, but haven't found any yet.(nb. Please read WP:Personal_attacks). --Davémon 06:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference between 'legends' and 'fiction' is in many ways a semantic and perceptual one, but even allowing that distinction... 'legendarium' has still been being used "to describe a corpus of fiction" for over fifty years. That is not "a new meaning". It has had that meaning, for this specific instance, longer than most of the people contributing to this site have been alive. It is simply not a 'neologism'... and even if we pretended that it were, the tenets of WP:NEO have been satisfied. Those require that it be possible to cite reliable sources for the word's meaning and use. Senior editors of the Oxford English Dictionary are, to put it mildly, 'reliable sources' for the meaning and use of a word in the English language. Three of them published a book, The Ring of Words, which covers this term and which is cited in this article. So what's the deal? --CBD 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course the difference is semantic, most differences in meaning are... Being used for over 50 years. Please cite. JRR used it in some letters 50 years ago - and certainly was not referring to The Hobbit, nor Adventures with Tom Bombadil with it. A single authors whimisical neologism, use of an arcane word which he happens to like. 20 or thirty years later, some commentators pick up on it, and decide Legendarium means everything he ever wrote about Middle Earth (who? when? where? citation needed). WP:NEO is clearly not satisfied. If "Ring of Words" defines it, then use the definition that it gives in relation to Tolkiens writing (not just what "legendarium" means generally) and cite it - Good morning! to you all. --Davémon 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"JRR used it in some letters 50 years ago - and certainly was not referring to The Hobbit, nor Adventures with Tom Bombadil with it." - Actually, he identified The Hobbit as being part of the legendarium in letter #131 and Tom Bombadil in letter #153. Your statement that 'some commentators decided 20 or thirty years later' that "Legendarium means everything he ever wrote about Middle Earth" (sic) is again, incorrect... that's how Tolkien used the term in the 1950s, is consistent with its meaning for centuries prior to that, and is how it has been understood and used by every text on the subject which I can think of. If you think it at some time meant something else... perhaps YOU could provide a citation of that? --CBD 21:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

letter 131: "As the high Legends(sic) of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view – and the last tale blends them." The word Legends is specifically being used to define the Silmarillion, in direct contrast to the word "tale" which is being used to define both LoTR and TH. Here Tolkien is explicitly not calling TH a "Legend", so therefore if "Tolkien's Legendarium" be a "collection of stories Tolkien called Legends": then TH does not belong in it, it is a Tale (my capitalisation) according to Tolkien, not a Legend. Further... "This legendarium ends with a vision of the end of the world". Here Tolkien is using Legendarium to singularly define The Silmarillion - and it may be noticed that throught the rest of the letter, the term 'cycle' is used - emphatically not 'legendarium' to describe the stories of the Second and Third Age. With letter #153 the only reference to Tom is a discussion on "the character of Tom Bombadil in the Lord of the Rings" which is quite a different matter to the question of if Tolkien (or anyone) has said that the collection of poems entitled "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" are part of a "Legendarium". All of this, of course, amounts to WP:OR - we are both discerning a definition from the terms 'usage' in - and this is against policy. Policy requires a definition of the term to have been published. "Tolkien used the term in the 1950s, is consistent with its meaning for centuries prior" - this is clearly bias - "Fiction" does not equal "Legend". And finally, no, it is not the position of someone challenging content to provide sources to the contrary or for alternative views - "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds" (ie. not with someone who challenges it). --Davémon 11:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Davemon, you make some good points here. For what another editor wrote on the Middle-earth Cycle, see Talk:Tolkien's legendarium/Middle-earth Cycle. As the note at the top of the page indicates, I moved that text over here so that the matter can be treated as a whole. Quite what the title for that sort of page should be, I don't know. There is probably enough published material to make a start at an article on the reaction of critics to Christopher Tolkien's editing and publication of his father's manuscripts. Carcharoth 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien's legendarium, Middle-earth canon, The History of Middle-earth and The Silmarillion

I see that Davemon has tagged Middle-earth canon as unreferenced as well. My view is that the term Tolkien's legendarium and the concept of Middle-earth canon and the different versions and drafts of The Silmarillion (as well as the posthumous nature of The Silmarillion) need to be clearly explained in the context of the publication of The History of Middle-earth series. This could be done in a very short, brief fashion in one article, with some key references, and I think that might satisfy Davemon's concerns. One problem here is that Middle-earth canon is a descriptive title, rather than a neologism. It describes Tolkien's work in terms of the concept of canon. It doesn't claim that Middle-earth canon is a term. Tolkien's legendarium, however, most definitely is a term. I also take issue with his rejection of works by Tolkien scholars and Christopher Tolkien as "not independent". Would you reject work by Shakespeare scholars on Shakespeare as "not independent"? Where do we go from here? Carcharoth 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Davemon changed the top tag of Middle-earth canon back to "unreferenced" after I changed it to "refimprove", reasoning: "there isn't a single secondary source". But the text of "unreferenced" means "unreferenced"... Uthanc 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think refimprove is better, but I've said elsewhere that I'm waiting until the weekend to do a proper improvement and referencing job. I somehow think that Davemon (who I'd like to thank for bringing these issues up - they needed to be tackled at some point) won't be satisfied with a sticky plaster job. :-) It might seem stressful at the moment, but if we provide more and better references, things should work out eventually and the articles will be the better for it. Repeat every few months and who knows where we will end up! Carcharoth 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no issue with works by academics who have written about Tolkien (or Shakespeare) and have their work published by an academic press. I think using Christopher Tolkien, and specifically HoME is problematic in discussing JRRs entire fictional corpus. CTs independence is questionable, he is both author editor of the published Silmarillion, and literary executor, so is hardly likely to be critical. IMHO references to primary sources are worse than none at all, as it gives the article a superficial appearance of being well-researched. I'm sure things will improve :-) --Davémon 07:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Author? But he denies statements like this in the foreword to The Book of Lost Tales Pt. 1, the Doriath story nonwithstanding. Uthanc 09:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

CT would deny authorship. However, until reliable sources back up my opinion - I'll conceed (changed author to "editor"). --Davémon 07:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, given that the original texts are available, in J.R.R. Tolkien's own (quite distinctive) handwriting, the implication that CT is 'lying' about not having written them himself seems more than a bit 'out there'. Not to mention the dozens of references to them in texts published during Tolkien's lifetime, the fact that Allen & Unwin reviewed the Silmarillion manuscripts for possible publication (twice), the existence of letters from various people who had read them, et cetera. Christopher Tolkien was all of thirteen years old the first time 'The Silmarillion' was submitted for publication... and the majority of text in the version eventually published was identical to that 1937 manuscript. --CBD 10:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you seem to be imagining arguments that haven't been made, and then refuting them. If you have independant third party sources that the differences between the 1977 Silmarillion and 1937 Silmarilion are negligable, then please cite them, they'd be worthwhile additions to the articles. Davémon 12:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand: "It would seem that the QS text from the 1930s served as the basis for the published SILMARILLION (sic). But this text was not used by Christopher Tolkien. The published SILMARILLION text is most likely Christopher's own composition. He offers no explanation of where it came from. It differs substantially from the QS text, which has several variant names and is longer than the published text." [link]- Michael Martinez authour of (Understanding Middle-Earth: Essays on Tolkien's Middle-Earth) And that's just about one paragraph seems to be saying CT's editorial style was creative. --Davémon 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "author" and "redactor". - jc37 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to research the veracity of the source you are citing. Essentially, it is claiming that the passage in The Silmarillion which mentions Balrogs in the 'train' of Glaurung was made up by Christopher Tolkien. This is simply untrue;

1. "In the front of that fire came Glaurung the golden, father of dragons, in his full might; and in his train were Balrogs, and behind them came the black armies of the Orcs in multitudes such as the Noldor had never before seen or imagined." - The Silmarillion, Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin
2. "In the front of that fire came Glomund the golden, the father of dragons, and in his train were Balrogs, and behind them came the black armies of the Orcs in multitudes such as the Gnomes had never before seen of imagined." - JRR Tolkien. The Lost Road and Other Writings, Quenta Silmarillion - Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin

As I mentioned previously, most of the wording in the published Silmarillion is identical to the 'Quenta Silmarillion' text Tolkien submitted in 1937. Even the minor variations, mostly updates to the names, were introduced by JRRT himself when he revised the passage in the later 1950s (see 'The War of the Jewels - The Later Quenta Silmarillion'). Martinez compared the text published in The Silmarillion to 'The Grey Annals' (also given in 'The War of the Jewels') and, since the corresponding passage in that abbreviated timeline did not mention 'Balrogs in the train of Glaurung', he mistakenly concluded that Christopher Tolkien had invented this text. As demonstrated by the quotations above, he is simply wrong - and thus this example serves as poor cause for concluding that, "CT's editorial style was creative". --CBD 21:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinez is, albeit demonstrably wrong about Balrogs, nontheless a published source, and is evidence that CT is not universally believed to be a simple editor. "In 1977, the publication of The Silmarillion was criticised because it included interpolations by Christopher" (my emphasis) [2].

"... is in fact an editorial text, selected and made consistent from the numerous versions, according to (with some remarkable exceptions, I believe to its advantage) the latest intentions, by Christopher Tolkien" (my emphasis). [3] - the 'making consistent' being particularly relevant to CTs independance in terms of defining "canon".

"They said, `It's not really Tolkien's words, because you can't tell what is J.R.R. and what is Christopher.' " But, said Drout: ``When it comes to Middle-earth, he rightly feels that he knows more than anyone else. I can't think of anyone but Christopher Tolkien to make that call."" [4] - it's not whether he made the right call, or wrong call, it's that he made a call at all that brings into question his independence from the subject.--Davémon 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If I am wrong about Balrogs, Conrad Dunkerson's arguments hardly constitute proof of such error. He has a long history of misciting the Tolkien sources to shore up his attempts to rewrite the Tolkien texts in his own vision. Christopher Tolkien did not provide any source for the Balrogs passage in the published SILMARILLION -- its source can only be surmised from the published texts, and there is only one published text that includes the specific language used in the published story. The published story is a complete editorial construction that has no legitimate source in any of J.R.R. Tolkien's stories.

It would be nice to see that CBD (Conrad Dunkerson)'s lies have been expurged from Wikipedia after several years of his attempts to discredit me, but obviously that isn't going to happen. I note he deliberately omitted all mention of his conflicts with me both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere when he applied to become a Wikipedia administrator (which is a violation of the application process). He fooled Wikipedians into expunging the expression "Ages of the Sun" from other Tolkien articles here by falsely claiming it was an expression I had made up (in fact, it was coined by David Day many years ago).

Tolkien used the term "legendarium" to refer to the body of legends in their "pure" form, not in their told form. That is, he never intended for The Book of Lost Tales to be included in the canon of the legendarium when he used that expression in the 1950s -- he was thinking of the stories as they should be retold to fit into the Middle-earth he had created for The Lord of the Rings.Michael Martinez (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Any secondary, published, reliable sources that describe Tolkiens use of the term "Legendarium" in relation to his work, would be a much needed addition to the article. Any individual editors opinion, no matter how logical or well thought out amounts to wp:original research. Wikipedians can't just read Tolkien (the primary source) and then summarise /interpret what he said. We need someone (a reliable source) to have made that summary, and wikipedia content needs to be verifiable by recourse to those sources. If no reliable sources can be found which discuss the subject directly and in-depth, then the subject isn't notable and wikipedia doesn't need an article on it. Please note wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are merely for the discussion of improvements to their article, not other matters. --Davémon (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to defining Tolkien's conceptual boundaries, there are no "reliable" secondary sources, regardless of whether they are published or -- according to the artificial distinction you and others have now introduced into the process - "fannish speculation". It's all opinion, framed one way or another. I happen to know some of the scholars mentioned here and they are as uncertain on the issues of canon and authority as the newest reader of his books. They just have to pick and choose their words in order to form a coherent thesis for their books and essays. The entire group of articles about Middle-earth and its creatures and concepts here on Wikipedian began as "fannish speculation", achieved featured article status as "fannish speculation", and remains firmly entrenched in fannish speculation.

To really do this topic right (by published Wikipedia criteria), you'd have to delete most of the articles and reduce the section to just a few topics. You need an article on Tolkien, listing his books, and an article on Christopher Tolkien, as well as an article on Tolkien Studies. The Tolkien Studies article could dwell on the arbitrary distinctions between scholarship and fannish speculation (although that actually constitutes more original research since in the literature itself there is no such real distinction -- the peer-reviewed works and most often-cited books, including Christopher's own books, frequently make reference to fan correspondences, newsletters, and publications).

And while I am quite aware of what the talk pages are intended for, you've done a poor job of bringing that point up in a timely fashion. The horse is out of the barn, thank you, and I'm not the one who let it out. So let's just try to stay on topic at this point.Michael Martinez (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If I am to understand you correctly you think that the article will never pass wp:n and should be put up for AfD? --Davémon (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire collection of articles about Middle-earth was started by Tolkien fans several years ago to create an archive for a Tolkien fan encyclopedia. The Wikpiedia principles were ignored from the start. Most of these articles constitute original research. Furthermore, thanks to the efforts of a handful of "contributors", many of the articles now present very biased points of view. Neutral point of view was never really achieved, although the original contributors did hope to establish something like that.

To do the topic justice within the Wikipedia format and principles, the bulk of these articles should be excised and the whole subject area condensed to just deal with the facts that the man lived, wrote, and was published, and what the published works were. The area of Tolkien Studies itself may warrant some coverage as well, but you cannot reasonably distinguish between "fannish" efforts and "professional" efforts (Michael Drout, editor of the Tolkien Studies journal, blogged about that several years ago). Many so-called "fan" sites are, in fact, the personal creations of Tolkien researchers who have been published in the peer-reviewed journals. And many Tolkien journals and fan newsletters have been published by academics. Likewise, some of the leading authorities on Tolkien in the world (including Douglas Anderson and several notable linguists) are not academics, but they have nonetheless published authorized and/or collaborative research works.

To document the work that has been done is one thing. To attempt to define what is "canon", what the "legendarium" was (to Tolkien), and their contents is quite another. I don't believe these articles fall within the scope of Wikipedia's goals. Certainly the propagandistic statements that have been allowed to stand in various articles for months, or years in some cases, show that the Wikipedia community has been outmaneuvered by fannish passions.

So I propose that the entire Middle-earth subject area be pruned to meet Wikipedia standards. There is no real hope of cleaning up all the articles.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS gives very clear guidance about what wikipedia can and can not accept as a reliable source. The difference in sources lays not just with the author, but also where their opinion is published (i.e. Drouts blog carries no weight, whereas an article by him in a peer-reviewed journal by the same author would). Whilst I do not disagree with many of your statements regarding the current poor state of much Tolkien related material on Wikipedia your critique would be better posted at wp:me rather than here, as the scope of this talk page is only this article. Feel free to take this article to AfD under a lack of notability if you believe it fails. --Davémon (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the policy. I have also previously looked at the project page and it appears to have lost momentum (there have been two discussion contributions in November and December, both from new people). This project is orphaned, in my opinion, and I feel there is more to be achieved by reaching out to people who are actively working on specific articles. It's not like I have a lot of time for this myself. I just happened to be snowed in this holiday season.Michael Martinez (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What is Tolkien's legendarium?

Rather than squabble over the usage and sources of the terminology, what should be on this page is a description of the content of Tolkien's legendarium (as someone just pointed out to me), and which is what Davemon was almost certainly getting at all along. Let's now move forward and find source for that, and incorporate the useful material from other locations (or merge material there). eg. The Silmarillion, Mythopoeia (genre), The History of Middle-earth, Middle-earth canon and Talk:Tolkien's legendarium/Middle-earth Cycle. In something like this, as always, we need reliable sources, or at a minimum, a documenting of the history of the publication of the writings and (reliable, published) people's responses to them. Carcharoth 16:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I found a source! In the History of the Hobbit, Rateliff defines the 'main line' of the "legendarium", which I've added to the article... --Davémon (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article pretends to be "about the legendarium", while in fact it mostly discusses the term legendarium, while the actual legendarium is covered in the articles Middle-earth, History of Arda, Middle-earth canon, etc. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright-kind of thing

In this video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlSvzbcFkbw somebody made models for the Total War-engine based on Tolkien's work. Need I ask permission to do so? The literary work is copyrighted, but what about the idea, the canon and the names like e.g. Osgiliath? User:ScotXW^t@lk 19:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Jack Upland (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Following the recent AfD of Ælfwine of England, I propose it be merged here. It's pretty clear that the interest in Ælfwine is in his role in the development of the legendarium, though in the end he was excluded from the major published works. It's also clear that "Ælfwine of England" is not a commonly used name and means nothing to most readers of Tolkien. Tolkien gave the character several names and none of them appeared in a fully-fledged work. It therefore makes sense for this material to be moved here.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge the name of the chacter is not even clear, there is no clear way to create an article on this undeveloped background character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge This character isn't featured in Tolkien's main works. He just survived an AfD because it was determined that he played a major role in the development of Tokien's legendarium, so this article is a good merge target. Hog Farm (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.