Talk:The Lord of the Rings

Is "Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings" a notable topic?

Moved to Talk:Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings as it concerns that article directly, and this page is WP:NOTFORUM. Feel free to continue to discuss the topic over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong preference about where the discussion takes place, whether it’s here, on the other talk page, or at AfD. However, I do take issue with the suggestion that my original post was NOTFORUM. My main question is why the Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings page was given a full article, especially when this theme was not previously discussed in the main article or in the Themes of The Lord of the Rings. Additionally, I’ve noticed that the sexuality page has few watchers compared to this one. Could that be a factor in the decision to move the discussion there? That said, I won’t revert your move, but I would appreciate it if you didn’t remove or revert any notices I post to the relevant pages. Thanks! 87.116.181.138 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion belongs on the article's own page, not here, but anyone coming here will indeed see where to look. It would help greatly if you could Assume Good Faith in this as in other matters, rather than continually casting aspersions with your rhetorical questions. As for reversions, you must not spam this discussion across random pages, that isn't acceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have been careful not to cast aspersions. Could you clarify which specific statements you're referring to? Regarding the Template talk post, I don’t believe my actions were out of line, but I understand if there are concerns. Could you help me understand what specifically you found problematic? Also, just to clarify, I wasn't the one who inserted the Sexuality topic into the main LOTR template [1], it was you. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I’ve noticed that the sexuality page has few watchers compared to this one. Could that be a factor in the decision to move the discussion there? strikes me as a clear aspersion, and it's not your first rhetorical question of the type. I'm happy to drop that matter now but I expect the practice, and argument about it, to end immediately. Hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Truce agreed, if you stop reverting my neutral notices to the relevant pages [2] [3] 😊 87.116.181.138 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't do that, it's spamming; but if you add none, I'll do no reverting and no further action will be taken against you. BTW, the article is correctly linked in the template, but that does not make its talk page, Talk:Template..., into a forum site for all Tolkien articles. The rule is that each talk page is for discussing its own contents and structure only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings is Considered One of the Greatest Fantasy Books by Numerous High-Quality Sources

TIME Magazine, with a panel of eight leading fantasy authors, cited The Lord of the Rings as one of the greatest fantasy novels of all time. This panel includes: N.K. Jemisin, Neil Gaiman, Sabaa Tahir, Tomi Adeyemi, Diana Gabaldon, George R.R. Martin, Cassandra Clare and Marlon James. Source: https://time.com/collection/100-best-fantasy-books/

Furthermore, TIME Magazine has another highly-regarded list called "All-Time 100 Novels", where the literary critics Lev Grossman and Richard Lacayo picked LotR as one of "the 100 best English-language novels published since 1923." Key word: best, i.e. highest quality. Source: https://entertainment.time.com/2005/10/16/all-time-100-novels/slide/all/

Neil Barron's Fantasy and Horror: A Critical and Historical Guide is exceptionally well-researched, applying a variety of different scholarly perspectives to determine the greatest across these genres. LotR is placed at number 1 here. Amazon lists the authors as "various" due to how many people contributed to this list. On the back of the book it states that nearly 1,000 authors contributed to determine the "best books" in these genres. LotR ranked the highest. Source: https://archive.org/details/fantasyhorrorcri0000unse/page/n7/mode/2up and https://www.amazon.com/Fantasy-Horror-Historical-Literature-Illustration/dp/B00GUTP72G

The article "'The perfect library': the 196 books selected by 133 personalities", which polled over 100 literary experts, placed LotR in its "perfect library." One of the few fantasy books on here. Source: https://thegreatestbooks.org/lists/445

The BBC put LotR on the 100 greatest British novels. One of the few fantasy books here. Source: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20151204-the-100-greatest-british-novels

The Science Fiction Book Club also listed LotR as the greatest fantasy/sci-fi book across a 50-year time period. Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/reno-gazette-journal/170740690/

And you disregarded thegreatestbooks.org, but it's truly an excellent source. Every list is given its own unique weight depending on if its high or low quality (using fairly objective standards of measurement to determine these ratings). And again, after measuring all this, LotR is found to be in the top 10 greatest books of all time. This is far more than one person randomly assigning rankings. It uses the collective data of hundreds of sources. This is the best you can possibly get in measuring the relative greatness of literature on the internet. There is a similar high-quality source for film (They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?) that is referenced all the time for similar reasons. Source: https://thegreatestbooks.org/books/52; and you can see the criteria used to rate each individual list on the site here: https://thegreatestbooks.org/rankings

At the very least, if you want to be careful about the wording, you could say "many people consider...", which still leaves room for disagreement. But I don't think its right to cast away the many high-quality sources just because Judith Shulevitz wrote a critical assessment of the work in 2001. Brooksboy78 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, I would like to note that all of the above links are specifically talking about the best/greatest novels, independent of general influence and book sales. There are certainly lists on thegreatestbooks.org that do cite influence, but they are penalized steeply for this and are thus not worth nearly as much as lists that focus on the quality of the literature. Brooksboy78 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Addressing the sources that you actually used:

The Science Fiction Book Club, if you go directly to its website instead of taking second-hand information elsewhere, explicitly excludes fantasy from its purview. "When we say we read just Science Fiction, we don't mean ... Fantasy .. fiction." So it has very weak credentials for including fantasy within its Top 50 list (which no longer features on its own website).

Neil Barron is certainly a more authoritative source, but his list of 'Best Books' is ten pages long, and gives no hint that Tolkien is at the top of any list. If there is any such declaration, a page number would help - it is 840 pages long.

Time has brought together an impressive committee of readers, and stated a set of criteria for selection; but it lists its choices in chronological order, giving no indication of which might be at the top of the list according to any non-chronological ordering.

And please, familiarise yourself with {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}, which are the referencing standard in this article. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is the source for the Neil Barron source, including a description of how the books were ranked.

"Fantasy and Horror: A Critical and Historical Guide to Literature, Illustration, Film, TV, Radio, and the Internet, edited by Richard Neil Barron, is an exceptionally comprehensive and well-researched exploration of the history of fantasy and horror literature. Barron, a renowned science fiction bibliographer and scholar, has curated a nearly 800-page volume featuring contributions from numerous experts and academics in the field. This book delves deeply into the evolution of both genres, offering rich discussions and insights into their development and key works.

The book's unique ranking system categorizes notable works of fantasy and horror literature using a variety of labels. These labels serve to highlight different aspects of each book's significance:

• • (The Best of the Best)
• (The Best)

F (Best Fantasy)

H (Best Horror)

MF (Modern Fantasy)

EB (Selected by Everett F. Bleiler)

DH (Selected by David Hartwell)

FR (Selected by Franz Rottensteiner)

L1 (Fantasy Literature for Children and Young Adults)

L2 (Higher Ranked Fantasy Literature for Children and Young Adults)

To create a more organized understanding of the books listed, I assigned points based on these labels and devised a smart ranking system, giving each book a score according to its accumulated points. This method allowed for a clearer hierarchy, showcasing the most significant works in the genres.

I highly recommend this guide to anyone interested in a meticulously organized summary of fantasy and horror literature. It is an essential resource for those who wish to explore the depth of these genres and their history in greater detail."

Source: https://thegreatestbooks.org/lists/472

In regards to TIME, it doesn't really matter does it? I'm not saying The Lord of the Rings should be considered "the greatest book of all time", I'm saying it's one of the greatest fantasy books ever written. That TIME list doesn't have many fantasy books, so the fact that LotR is on it at all does imply it is "*one* of the best fantasy books", according to that specific list. Brooksboy78 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, did you see how many critics contributed to the BBC list? LotR is the highest-rated fantasy novel on that list, and its one of the few fantasy books on the list at all. Furthermore, please go to : https://thegreatestbooks.org/books/52

There are many, many high-quality lists that the Lord of the Rings is on that I did not mention. You can see how thegreatestbooks.org individually ranks them using its own criteria, but you can also find the links to these lists yourself and determine their quality. Regardless, a clear pattern is shown: That Lord of the Rings is one of the best fantasy novels ever written. "One of" leaves enough room for disagreement, and you can specify "fantasy" as well. That is narrow enough that it can easily be defended. Brooksboy78 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Please understand that we are not trying to denigrate Tolkien; we (at least Chiswick Chap and myself!) agree with you that he is a very great author and worthy of study. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cheerleaders' convention. We need to demonstrate that what we write in articles is drawn from reliable (and - implicitly - authoritative) sources.

I therefore suggest that you stop quoting TheGreatestBooks.org. It has no indication of authorship, let alone authorial qualifications, that might make its ranking system of any interest to Wikipedia. If it points you to a useful reliable source, great, but then use that original source in your cites.

I am looking at Barron's book (as you linked on Archive.org), and I can see Tolkien's Hobbit and LoTR listed with double asterisks, but I have yet to find Barron's explanation of this. There is a note on asterisks under Best books on page xi (including the specific criteria for which they are used), but I see nothing about doubled asterisks. Can you point me to a page number for this information?

BBC Big Read was based on a public vote, with some fiddling to remove duplicates per author. There was no intervention by literary critics. If you mean some other BBC list, please specify. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not cite the Big Read at all. Please go back to that source again (it's the BBC's "100 Greatest British Novels", that is not the Big Read. That list was compiled entirely by experts. Additionally, I have just cited many, many other strong sources as well. I did include TGB.org, but also their original sources when I could (although some are behind a paywall). Brooksboy78 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Then please link to the original. TGB gives only an explanation that it was limited to 'critics outside the UK', and it claims that that LoTR was ranked 26 (on the main page) but ranked 9 (on the page for that list), while Dombey & Son was ranked 1357 (out of 104?). I'd like to read something more consistent before I believe it is reliable in any way. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I did link to this in my first post. TGB also includes links to each source it uses as well. It's on the right of the list's page.

Furthermore, the relevant chapters and pages you're looking for on the Barron book are as follows: pages 11 and 15, which explain that the greatest fantasy books have asterisks by them, page 190, which states that LotR is "one of the most remarkable literary phenomenon in the 20th century, and chapter 18, which includes all the best books mentioned in the book. Brooksboy78 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Double asterisk means "best of the best." Important to keep in mind when looking through chapter 18. Brooksboy78 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I can now see the link to the BBC page - it only covers the three letters 'BBC' so I missed it earlier - thanks.

In Barron:

• Page xi (= p11 in the preliminaries) explains single asterisks.
• There is no page xv in the prelims.
• Pages 11 and 15 are in the chapter 'The Early and Later Gothic Traditions' and say nothing about asterisks
• Page 190 does say that, though it should be cited to Brian Stableford, who wrote the chapter 'From Baum to Tolkien'
• Chapter 18 has many single and double asterisks, but no explanation of them, either at the beginning, the end, or in a footnote.

The phrase 'best of the best' does not occur in the entire book. For the avoidance of confusion, I am using this link. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Go back to page xi, it does explain the double asterisk (at the very bottom of the page). The books that are viewed as the most essential are given two stars, it says specifically. Brooksboy78 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I see it now - two stars for those books 'most essential for smaller libraries'. Thank you. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Did you see the other 10 other sources I provided? I think a lot of them are quite good in themselves. Brooksboy78 (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no interest in sorting through your raw materials. You've done a good job in collecting them (with the help of TGB); the next task is to go through each one, finding out what it actually says about Tolkien (not just that he's Number One, but by what criteria, and compared with what other authors/books), and also find out who actually said it, and what their qualifications or skills are. The Brian Stableford quote is a good start. Then pick the 'best' (most reliable or best qualified, not those who are nicest to Tolkien) two or three, and use their statements to improve the article. Just remember that 'the greatest' is a vague and simplistic statement needing much explanation to justify it. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I can find the specific people for some of those sources, but others (like the above BBC source) does not specify which of their experts voted for Lord of the Rings as the greatest British novel. We just know that it ranked 26th after averaging all of the sources' individual lists. Is it still OK to cite that? That it ranked 26th out of 100 on the list, and that it's the highest-ranked fantasy book on the list? Brooksboy78 (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not a strong source. Better sources are identifiable people who have literary skills and experience. What do anonymous committees know about Tolkien? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean the sources in question may not be Tolkien scholars or experts, but they are literary critics (and therefore have authority to talk about "great literature). Judith Shulevitz, who is cited in the LotR article, isn't even a literary critic. She's just a journalist and certainly not a scholar in any way, and yet a lot of time is given to her comments on Tolkien. Brooksboy78 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

One sentence. Perhaps her authority comes from being in the NYT. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 23:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but how is this source "better" than the BBC one? The latter has far more people involved who are actual literary scholars and academics. One journalist, however qualified, is still just a solitary voice. The BBC list has far more.

Also, I never understood why Judith's comments were featured, and yet Andrew O'Hehir's piece arguing that LotR is the book of the century is nowhere to be found. O'Hehir is the executive editor of Salon Magazine. Still just one person, but it would be quite easy to put his POV in relation to Judith's. Brooksboy78 (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I haven't added because I'd never heard of it. You go ahead and use it. (Article is here, for those who are interested) -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 23:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That's the plan. I'll try to make a good synthesis of the sources I use. It'll probably take me a little but, but when I've finished, should I go ahead and insert it into the LotR main page, or would you want to go over it beforehand? New to this, so any advice would be appreciated. Brooksboy78 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the Andrew piece. Wrong link. Brooksboy78 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I should specify that in the BBC list, half are literary critics and the other half are academics. I would say that makes them great sources on determining the greatest British novels. The fact that there are so many sources used makes it even stronger. What's one random journalist compared to that? Brooksboy78 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

ProTip: Anything from the Daily Mail is not acceptable as a source. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the BBC list in my above comment? Brooksboy78 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes; I had just noticed the DM at #8 below. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 23:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, although that article does have the specific person that names "Lord of the Rings" as their favorite. It's Dominic Sandbrook, and he seems normal to me at least. Brooksboy78 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

These are all other notable sources that I pulled from here. In no particular order:

1) The list "30 Books Every Adult Should Read Before They Die (The British Museums, Libraries, and Archives Society)", a list compiled by librarians. LotR ranked third. Here it is on TGB.

2) It's third on "Books of the Century" by Library Journal, a publication for libraries. Librarians also voted on this specific list. Here it is on TGB.org.

3) Fifth on this "All-Time Classics, According to Academics" list. These selections were made by seven academics, with all the sources listed on the side here. The rankings were determined by how many times each book came up, with "The Odyssey" getting the number 1 spot by appearing on six professors' lists. LotR appears twice, making it tie for fifth place. It's the only fantasy book on the list.

4) The Union of Russian Writers also compiled a list of 100 great books. The Lord of the Rings is the only fantasy book to appear here. Here it is on TGB.org as well.

5) One of the few fantasy books on this "200 Books to Shape 200 Years of Literature", which was compiled by a panel of writers by the Center for Fiction. Here it is on TGB.org.

6)Many authors worked on this list as well.

7)Der Spiegel, with the help of literary experts on a four-person jury. This just came out a few days ago. Here it is on TGB.org, especially since you have to get through the paywall to see the full list.

8) Authors, writers, and experts from the Daily Mail made their own list of the 100 most significant novels.

9) The list "Best Books (Fiction, Prose) : Experts Choose Their Favourites." These experts are: Brenda Richardson, Chris Murray, Roz Kaveney, Anthony Thwaite, Claire Tomalin, Malcolm Bardbury, Oliver Harris, Ian F A Bell, Kadiatu Kanneh, Brian Aldiss, Marina Oliver, Colin Dexter, Derek Parker, and T. J. Lustig. Here it is on TGB.org if you can't search through the physical book.

10) Books that Shaped the Century from LOGOS, which uses many sources, which consist of publishers, librarians, and booksellers, identified books that profoundly influenced societal thoughts and actions, thereby shaping historical progress. The selection was made from 500 titles recommended by various prestigious sources, including The New York Times Book Review and Waterstones bookshops, etc. Here it is on TGB.org as well.

Tbh, I'm not even done, but this took a long time. I'll do more if necessary, though. Brooksboy78 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel list is also archived here, if you don't trust TGB.org by itself. Brooksboy78 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)