Talk:The Lord of the Rings

2nd best selling novel of all time?

The claim in the opening paragraphs is not supported by the source. I'll leave it in for now for others to check if they agree and remove it later in the week if there are no objections. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a reasonable explanation/source on this article. DP76764 (Talk) 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, the source on that page is 'estimated', think we need a stronger source. The one given in this article states that there are 150 million copies sold, but there is no reference to the sales of other books Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Which 'other books' do you mean? Here's a Houghton Miffin press release from 2003 indicating 25m copies sold between 2000-2003 here DP76764 (Talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the books in first and third place for comparison. We shouldn't make claims based on speculatory (is that a word?) sources. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, putting them in order, as they are in this article is legitimate (ie: not-OR); why not expand the sentence to include #1 and #3 and use the sources from that article for all 3? DP76764 (Talk) 19:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Loving the change, reads much better. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The change in tagging aside, I've now implemented the "real" change and have added a comparison of sales with references from the list article. That should work. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy Trilogies

I think that the Lord of the Rings should have a link to the category: Fantasy Novel Trilogies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fantasy_novel_trilogies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.1.112 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But Tolkien rather emphatically did not consider it a trilogy (i.e., three separate but related books), rather a single book that for publishing convenience had been divided into three physical volumes. -- Elphion (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Arwen.

Arwen is not a major character in the Lord of the Rings. She has a none speaking role at the feast before the council of Elrond, she has a very small appearance at the end of the book, and she appears in the appendixes, this is not indicative of a major role. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it, I've removed Goldberry from the list too, as she is even further from being a main character than Arwen. Genedecanter (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings referring to Sauron?

In the second paragraph the article says "The title of the novel refers to the story's main antagonist, the Dark Lord Sauron." I've always taken the title to refer to the One Ring itself, being the Lord of all the other rings (one ring to rule them all). And considering that the story revolves around the Ring to a much greater extent than it revolves around Sauron, I think this is the more likely meaning. And then at the end Frodo is writing The Lord of the Rings to help himself come to terms with himself after losing the influence of the Ring - not the influence of Sauron (Sauron and the will of the Ring are technically separate forces). Any thoughts? Canine virtuoso (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings explicitly refers to Sauron, he is even referred by that title a few times in the book, specifically Gandalf just before the council of Elrond. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree, though it would be nice to get Tolkien himself making the equation. Gandalf's phrase is the Lord of the Ring (singular), not Rings plural. The closest association between Lord of the Rings and Sauron is made in the epigraph, which is given the title The Lord of the Rings and whose content is the Ring verse. But one could argue that this makes the association instead with the One Ring. It's a nice conceit, but not one supported in the critical literature (that I'm aware of). -- Elphion (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The ringwraiths are at one point explicitly refereed to as 'the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings'. Sauron at his point does not hold the ring but they definitely serve him. I know he keeps the nine, but still this is explicit.

Again at the council of Elrond, Glorfindel states 'But in any case, to send the Ring to him would only postpone the day of evil. He is far away. We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it.". GimliDotNet (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good quotes -- you should add refs to the article. -- Elphion (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that Frodo's part of the Red Book is not titled "The Lord Of The Rings" but rather "The Downfall Of The Lord Of The Rings" (the films changed this detail). This title makes the matter fairly explicit I think. A ring cannot experience a downfall, but Sauron clearly does. Genedecanter (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)