How do you take the meaning of "The Lord [of the Rings]"?

[Misarrius]

This question is not realy poped up by myself.
I was writing in the BBS of LOTR in Japanese, and One person poped up the question.

"Is the meaning of 'The Lord of the rings' only "Sauron"?
I saw a front page picture of an English paper book, and there is a big ring(one ring) over a lot of small rings. Then, I understood that the meaning of "The lord" might be a "One Ring" itself too, doesn't it?"

Then, there is one background that not so many people agrees to this idea in Japanese.
If you ordinarily translate the word of "The lord" into Japanese, the meaning will be mainly "Mr." like.
Yet, I believe that "The lord" could sugest "One ring" to rule them all, other "Rings", as a lord of ring.
Thus, One ring which is "The Lord of the Rings".

I want to hear an opinion from you who use English as your original tonge. Additionaly, I will be very glad if somebody can post any infomation about this topic debated in the past by any "Tolkien-Lore" officialy.

[darkmane]

ahh i get ya
yeh good point
ive only thought of it as 'sumone' who is the lord of the rings not a ring being lord of the rings
im interested also on this topic
ill hav to keep an eye on this thread

[Greenwood]

The Lord of the Rings is Sauron.

In the chapter "Many Meetings" in Fellowship of the Ring when Merry and Pippin first see Frodo after his recovery Pippin calls him "Lord of the Ring". Gandalf chides him: "Evil things do not come into this valley; but all the same we should not name them. The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out over the world!"

Thus we have a clear statement from Tolkien as to who is "The Lord of the Rings".

[ReadWryt]

I'm certain, from the context in which Tolkien has Gandalf use the term, that "Lord" is meant in the same manner as it is when refering to a Land Holder. Sauron was the creator of the Rings in that the Elves would never have forged any of them, nor would any have been made and distributed, had the Dark Lord not conceived and distributed them, then made the One Ring with which he could controll events surrounding them.

[LotR_Girl]

In Yugoslvia (HERE!!!) It's translated like... the Master or Owner of the Rings. Ya know, like someone who owns rings...
And I think it's the right meaning. Yeah, it is deffinitly SAURON. But it's stupid to name da book 'Sauron', isn't it?

[DGoeij]

Funny thing is, in the Netherlands, the title "Lord of the Rings" is translated with: In de ban van de ring. Meaning literally translated, Under the spell of the ring.
To make it more clear, Gollem was severely 'in de ban van ' the Ring and a real fan is truly 'in de ban van' professor Tolkiens work.
I've read LOTR both in Dutch and English, and I have to admit as much others do, that the translator did quite a good job.

But Gandalf most clearly states who is Lord of the Ring, and since the One Ring rules them all, its automatically the Lord of the Rings, right? The title is darn good chosen anyway, leaves room for thoughts like this.

[Moonbeams]

In Croatia, the title means "the one who rules the rings".
I belive the title was ment for Sauron.
But I see what you are saying. It could also mean that the One Ring was the ruler and lord of all others, as it says in the song:
"one ring to rule them all..."
So, if the title "Lord" can be applied to something other than a living being, it could stand for the ring. But since, I belive, "Lord" can be a preson only, it was ment for Sauron.

[Hirila]

The German translation of "Lord of the Rings" is "Der Herr der Ringe"

And this has exactly the same double-meaning tha the English original.
In German the word "Herr" is used like ordinary "mister" when talking to a person ("Herr Meyer")
But it is also used when talking of a noble person. Then it has the meaning of "master", "lord".

So in the German title the "Herr" could be both Sauron as the one who made the ring and legally owns it and also the Ruling Ring as the master of all the other rings.

[LotR_Girl]

Hey, Moonbeams!!!
How about to send me an e-mail or sumthin?! We can be friends!

*sun_butterfly13@hotmail.com *

[J'ohn]

Hmmm...the greek translation of "Lord of the Rings" means "Lord of the Rings"...pretty unoriginal, huh...;)

Anyway...
Quick thinking there, Misarrius!

Apparently enough, "Lord of the Rings" refers to Sauron.
At least literally.

Many book titles have an obvious meaning, and a hidden one.
The book is a saga of the One Ring. Not a saga of Sauron. In fact, Sauron makes no direct appearence whatsoever, in the book.

In my copy of the books, on the very beginning, even before the contents page, there's that little "poem" about the Rings ..."Three for the Elf-lords" etc etc...isn't that interesting, now?

I think that the title may well, subtly, refer to the One Ring.

SBS:)

[lilhobo]

tis an interesting title and one that should make JRR smile with irony.....why have a title for the Lord that we hardly ever directly see mentioned...especially a title thats very specific with the article "The" at the front

Its also interesting to note that noone actually controls the rings, not even the One ring, not Isildur, Bilbo nor gollum

and Sauron was slain by Gil galad and Elendil, so he never had control of the 3 rings

[Bucky]

I don't see what difference the title means in another language.....
Tolkien wrote it in English, he meant 'The Lord of the Rings', which as someone stated, Gandalf plainly says is Sauron.

I know a pastor who was a missionary in deepest, darkest Panama. The Kuna Indian tribe he was working with needed the bible translated.
One scripture says "He who began a good work in you is faithful to carry it out to the day of completion".
The only interrpretation he could get in their language that they could understand was "God is able to completely strip the bark off you (like they did to a tree to make a canoe)"

Does that change the original intent of the author?
No.
There are always inequities in going from one language to another.

[Misarrius]

darkmane;

I'm pleased to get your attention :)

Greenwood;

Exactly the same line many people pointed in the Japanese BBS.
Literally meaning, I agreed with this opinion.

By the way, just now I've realized, Gandalf said "The lord of ring" but not "The lord of rings". I didn't realize till now because those are the same words in Japanese, because Japanese Language doesn't use plural on this point.
Does this point make you something difference or not?
(It's difficult to really get the hidden meaning for me)

ReadWryt;

You get it. "made the One Ring with which he could control events surrounding them" but finally even he couldn't control One Ring to come back to his own hand.

LotR_Girl;
DGoeij;

Hi to the lad from Yugoslavia and Netherlands :)
You can imagine how I deadly want to read this book in English as a native tongue.

Moonbeams;

That�fs exactly the point that I want to know. The word "The Lord" can or cannot be used regarding other than a living-thing? I would like to ask who of you speaks English as original tongue.

Hirila;

Oh, you could clear the point that I wanted to say.

J'ohn;

I just checked the part you mentioned. Woo, I just didn�ft read the part till now!
>I think that the title may well, subtly, refer to the One Ring.
It sounds like TOEFL test (If you know about TOEFL test :D)
Yes, I agree with you, regarding the hidden meaning.


lilhobo;

In that point of view, I think "One Ring" had the potential to rule the other rings and the "Ring(s)-bearer". Sauron has special connection with "One Ring", yet he even lost the location (and existence) of "One Ring" for long. And as you mentioned, "One Ring" couldn't control Gil-galad and Elendil to slain Sauron and removed from its belong.
So seems to me, "One Ring" had its own destiny in the story even Sauron could barely foresee.
By the way, I'm now wondering, "Gil-galad" and "Elendil" had (or wore) "Elven-ring" and "Motal men-ring" when they slain Sauron? I've guessed they were not. If they had, they were not supposed to be able to go against the One Ring�fs force.



How about this now.
Sauron was "The lord of the Ring (One Ring)"
and
One Ring was "The lord of the Rings (include the Ring holders in the same manner of 'One ring to rule them all...')"

Bucky;

Absolutely. That's why I should like to know the "Deep" author's intention.
Oh, If we could ask him in heaven! would not it be wonderful ;)

By the way, the title of this book in Japanese is "Ring story". This is the other point which is making people debate in the Japanese BBS.The new movie's title should be which one of them (the movie will come to the Japanese theaters on this spring finally).

[DGoeij]

I wish you good speed in reading LOTR in English if its not your native language. Some of it can be somewhat hard to grasp the first time. But since you've allready read it in your own language (as I understood), that should be helpfull.

Too bad you have to wait so long for the movie. Do they use subtitles in Japan?

[Lantarion]

It *can* mean both Sauron and the One Ring, but literally it refers to Sauron; after all, he's the one everybody is fighting against, and he is the central 'bad-guy' in the book. Kind of a distant but very dangerous (and ever-present) threat.
In Finnish (wow, isn't this an international thread!) it is "Taru Sormusten Herrasta", which is directly translated as "The Tale of the Master/Lord of the Rings". But it's usually abbreviated to "Sormusten Herra", which means "Lord/Master of the Rings".

[graen]

In English, the word "Lord" generally refers to the ability to lead, command, or rule over others. This normally would indicate a person, or somebody with conscious thought.

However, since there are many examples where the ring is personified as attempting to control the wielder, or is acting on its own to return to Sauron, it could still qualify for Lordship. (I don't think that is the case here however).

I think Tolkien is referring to a person, however I am not convinced he is limiting the "Lord" to just Sauron. Rather one of the themes of the story is to determine who will be the final Lord. Granted Sauron was the original Lord, but having lost the ring, does he keep that title?

Had another power actually claimed the ring (Gandalf, Saruman, Galadrial, Elrond), would they have dethroned Sauron and become the new Lord of the Ring?

[Gandalf714]

Sorry to disagree with you ReadWryt.

The Lord Of The Rings is Sauron, however he didn't make the Elven rings, nor did he distribute them. He made The One Ring to rule them, but the Elven rings were made by Celebrimor. When Sauron put on the One Ring, Celebrimor became aware of him and hid the Elven rings. They were never touched by Sauron.

[Greenwood]

graen

I agree that had anyone with sufficient power who claimed the Ring and dethroned Sauron, that person would be the new Lord of The Ring, but barring that Sauron is the Lord of the Ring as depicted by Tolkien.

[Legolam]

Just wanted to say that this thread has made me think a whole lot about something I just took for granted ie the name of my favourite book. I never thought about it before.

I agree with whoever it was (sorry, you were on the other page and I'm too lazy to look back) that said Sauron was "Lord of the Ring" but the One Ring could be "Lord of the Rings" as Sauron never got a hold of the Elven rings.

Interesting (and international!) thread!

:cool:

[Tar-Steve]

Maybe the title was a misprint. Maybe it was supposed to be "The Lore of the Rings". Maybe? ...MAYBE NOT!

*
*
*
I'm kidding! You thought I was serious?
*
*
*
I really just wanted to say what a cool thread this is (although I have nothing to add) and that it will add a point of interest to my next LotR reading.

[Cian]

In Quenya Heru i Million or Heru i Cormaron

Umm. Ok :D

[DGoeij]

And now it becomes from international to an interwordial thread:D

Sauron indeed never touched the Three. That's clearly stated by Tolkien.

[Cian]

We know that Sauron definitely "aided" the Elves in their craft:

"For in that time he was not yet evil to behold, and they recieved his aid and grew mighty in craft, whereas he learned all their secrets, and betrayed them, and forged secretly ..." FotR

(Celebrimbor is said to have made the Three here) In "Of the Rings of Power ..." (may not be generally canonical but ...) " ... and they took thought, and they made Rings of Power. But Sauron guided their labors, and he was aware of all that they did; ..."

In UT Sauron was said to have departed from Eregion after the Mírdain had begun making the Rings of Power. He would later sack the house of the Mírdain, take the nine rings and learn where the Seven were bestowed (according to this account). "The Seven and the Nine were made with Sauron's aid, whereas the Three were made by Celebrimbor alone ..." UT

In any case I really only posted to add the possible Sindarin :) from Helge

Hîr Cyrf (Hîr i-Chyrf)
or
Hîr Corvath (Hîr i-Chorvath)

[graen]

...take the nine Elven rings and learn where the Seven were bestowed...

Shouldn't that be the nine human rings?

[Cian]

Well I edited that to avoid this question :D (not fast enough) but the 16 were "Elven rings" of Power in any event. Sauron stole the rings and ultimately gave 9 to Mortals.

[YayGollum]

I'm here a little late, but I just saw what DGoeij said about Gollum being the name of the trilogy! :D Yay Gollum! I'm sure you're translation is the best one! See, that proves even more that Gollum is the hero and we should all love him. The trilogy is named after him! :D It took us a while, but now the Gollum Fan Club has a really really good way to say that Gollum is the greatest! :D

[DGoeij]

Actually, I used Gollem as an example to explain the Dutch words I used to the non-Dutch readers on the thread.
Your devotion to Gollum is admirable, but I personally think the 'Lord of Gollum' was the Ring, not the other way around.;)

[Grond]

The title is The Lord of the Rings and not The Lord of the Ring. I think the clear intent here is that Sauron is the Lord of the Rings but can be unseated as stated elsewhere in the thread. I think the author used this title to illustrate that very presonification in the One Ring. Sauron had invested so much of himself into the One Ruling Ring, that whosoever possessed it and exercised his power of control over it, would become the Lord of the Rings, it he had enough inner power himself.

Ganadalf states I think in LotR in Many Meetings something to the effect, "you have not yet attempted to use it. Before you could, you would have to learn to strengthen your will to the domination of others..." That is my memory and not a direct quote. But it would indicate that the One Ring in the right hands of say Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel, et. al. would render that holder The Lord of the Rings and usurp Sauron of his power. At least that's the way I see, but I could be wrong.
;)

[Cian]

Originally posted by Grond
But it would indicate that the One Ring in the right hands of say Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel, et. al. would render that holder The Lord of the Rings and usurp Sauron of his power. At least that's the way I see, but I could be wrong.

"Unless some other seized it and became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong or heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and usurp his place." JRRT (probably late 1951)

You probly know that one but, thought you might like it.
Plural indeed, Cormaron ("of rings")
;)

[Grond]

OH MY GOD! Grond has finally posted something that is in agreement with the author's own thoughts. WOW!!

Okay Harad! What is wrong with my statement??

[EverEve]

ummm...ive always thought of the "lord" of the rings as being a person...but i see ur point

[Grond]

I agree EverEve. The title belongs to Sauron until someone wrestles it from his by taking possession and control of the One Ring.

[syongstar]

I feel it means whoever is holding it but since it has an invisible power the word lord was used to denote spirituality

[YayGollum]

Yes, the Ring was the Lord of Gollum, but you're translation is still the best one if that's what it's saying, DGoeij.

[Greenwood]

Cian

Just a clarification. I assume, as you place the date of the Tolkien quote you cite, that this quote is from a letter to an editor or a friend who had read the manuscript since 1951 is prior to publication of LOTR?

[Cian]

Good notice Greenwood ~ the Letter was to Milton Waldman of Collins, sometime after A&U had reluctantly declined to publish The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion together.

The general intention seems to be: "... of demonstrating that The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion were interdependent and indivisible." ~ from Letters

[Grond]

Originally posted by Cian
"Unless some other seized it and became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong or heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and usurp his place." JRRT (probably late 1951)I just found it on page 153 of the first Houghton Mifflin paperback edition of 2000 of The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter to Milton Wadman of Collins Publishing. The author was trying to convince Collins to publish both The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings simultaneouly.
I can't believe my thoughts and the authors were so close on this one. :D

Ahhh Cian...... you must have been posting as I was typing. Your fingers are as quick as your mind. ;)

[DGoeij]

Correct Yay, 'possesed by the mere thought of it', is a description of the meaning 'In de ban van', but it can be more friendly used. Like I'm 'in de ban van' my girlfriend. Not a bad title if you see how the finding of the One Ring creates such a turmoil in ME.

Those letters are always great in bringing in the thought of professor Tolkien himself, good job.

[Misarrius]

I'm very grad for many discussions for my question.

So seems to me, at this point, how to take the meaning of "The Lord" has still a lot of possibility to discuss but at least it can be "Sauron" with no doubt. And it also seems that the person's suggestion (from the Japanese BBS) was not the out of the question. That at least very grad to know :)

And now, many persons start to discuss about "Who could be "The lord of the ring(s)""....

From now, I have to tell that please aloud me to only read and think but not answer for every opinion (of course I'll keep reading!). All discussions are very interesting but getting too heard to join for me who am not "The Lore of the Ring" enough :o

[Garfield]

Nobody control the ring. The ring has a life of itself but Sauron mad it and put all of himself in it, so in a word Sauron is the ring and the ring is Sauron. If Sauron can be said to Be anything. Sauron is more of a way of thinking. A state of mind. As long as people belive and/or fear Sauron, It will continue to exist. The ring can be said to represent the evil that is Sauron, so yes Sauron is the Lord of the rings and the Ring is Sauron.

[Lantarion]

Or maybe the name "The Lord of the Rings" was translated incorrectly by Tolkien from the Red Book, and it was actually supposed to be the "Lord of the Ring" or Barahir! Shoot, dang hangit we've all been wrong all along!! :D

[Misarrius]

Wow, you are very right :D

I almost forgot that this book was already translated by Tolkien from their language.
So, nobody know but only they can answer perfectly!?

I'm just kidding :p

[Harry_Potter]

Everyone seys that sauron is the lord of the rings but he didnt actually have ANY throughout the entire book, i think that gollum is the lord of the rings because he is the only one who can eventually destroy it.

[Harad]

Sauron is the Lord since he made or controlled most of them. He lost his own thru carelessness, but still has the 9 under his thumbs, and the 7 taken care of one way or another. Its only that pesky OneRing that he keeps fumbling. (Oh yeah the 3--bfd, since he wasnt interested in lovely forests, seaside resorts, or mountain getaways.)

[Harry_Potter]

actually i have thought this over and i think that ghan-buri-ghan could be the lord of the rings, if you think of his encounter with Cirdan you'll see what i mean!!!

or it could be farmer maggot

[Ciryaher]

Gollum didn't actually destroy the Ring, anyways. He fell by his own folly, and wouldn't have done it of his own will.

[Harry_Potter]

but gollum had the ring for a total of 246 pages whereas Sauron had it for a total of 46 lines of which 38 are footnotes

[FJURI1]

The Lord of the Ring is the one who created it: ie Sauron. There is no question that others held it longer, at least in the book, but Sauron was the Lord and when the ring was destroyed so was the Lord of the Ring. It is interesting that Tom Bombadil was not effected by it, just goes to show you The Lord of the Ring was not the Lord of all!!

[YayGollum]

Yay Gollum! I know he wasn't the Lord of the Rings, but it's cool that you're so messed up that you think he is. I think Tom Bombadil was some kind of nature spirit and it didn't affect him because any kind of ring isn't going to affect nature. BTW, I hate Harry Potter!:mad:

[Lantarion]

Why do you hate Harry Potter books, Yay? :confused:
Technically, nobody is the actual Lord of the Ring*s*, because that would imply that they had full ownership of all of the Rings of Power. Nobody had that power at any point, except Celebrimbor, only miniutes after he made 'em. But Sauron it is, because he both helped make them and almost dominated them.

Then again, perhaps Tom Bombadil was working secretly for Melkor from the Void, and he made them so he could watch the world go into disarray.. Hmmm.. :D

[YayGollum]

I hate them because everybody I know has been hypnotized by them! Even my family and really close friends have read the books and seen the movie! People who I knew who didn't read at all, if they read the first book they would read the rest! Some people saw the movie which made them want to read the books! I guess it's good that it makes people interested in reading, but it's just too creepy for me. I hate things that are way too popular. My mom is always telling me that I shouldn't criticize it until I have read it, but I just know that I might get hypnotized! :eek:

[Harry_Potter]

i havent read the harry potter books, i dont like the colour of the spines!!!

See you Auntie

[Ragnarok]

Then again, perhaps Tom Bombadil was working secretly for Melkor from the Void, and he made them so he could watch the world go into disarray.. Hmmm..

Thats the coolest thing Ive ever heard.

[Kit Baggins]

.:glares at H.P.:.

So, you're still here are you :mad: ?

As you can tell, I don't like Harry_Potter very much.

~Kit :p

[Harry_Potter]

Calm down will you!!!!

See you Auntie

[Kit Baggins]

You dared to insult my gingerness :p !!!!

~Kit :p

[Lantarion]

hehheh
I know what you mean, Yay. I read the HP's before they became overcommericalized, and objects of media gossip rather than serious or fun discussion. I liekd them then, but now I feel as though they have been denied their chance for excellence by denoting them through the extreme advertisement, and the horrible introduction of the Movie. blech
But they are good books, IMHO, both 'serious' and 'funny'; a very nice blend.

[Nazgul_Lord]

I was under the impression that this was a Tolkien Forum not HP, then again maybe I'm mistaken. And to end this once and for all Sauron is the Lord of the Rings (I can't believe there was doubt in anyones mind about that. He is the lord because he forged the One to rule over all the rings, so therefore he is the Lord over the rings, hence the title, The Lord of the Rings.

[Harry_Potter]

Aaaaah my point exactly, he ONLY forged the ring

[ssgrif]

He didnt only forge the OneRing, but he did actually possess it for a time. This surely makes him the Lord of the Rings. He made the pesky trinket, so therefore it belongs to him.

you could go on to say that whoever possessed the ring was the Lord at the moment, like Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo and Sam, but the true lord was and always will be The Necromancer - Sauron...

:p

[Nazgul_Lord]

Thankyou ssgrif, also HP Sauron is the Lord of the Rings because his ring took power over all the rings, even the 3 because Celebrimbor made them with Sauron's style of craft (if that sounds right) so any ring Sauron made to control rings made with the same style would be under his power, now if you can make sense of that it might also help a little.

[Harry_Potter]

You say the necromancer sauron, is there any bits where he does actually practice necromancy?? Have not read Sil so mite be in that

[ssgrif]

Not read the Sil yet, Sauron's called the Necromancer in "the hobbit" briefly...

[Anarchist]

One ring to rule them all one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
I bilieve that the real lord of the rings is indeed the One ring. The One, in the right (or wrong youo could say) hands would rule them all.

[Ciryaher]

No, Sauron IS the Lord of the Rings. He was all powerful until the big goober made the mistake of flashing his hands around so that Isildur cut off his finger *grr at silly movie*

[Kiwi]

Lord of The Rings HAS to be the ultimate Lord of all SF/F books,
I liked HP too...though reluctantly at first.
Shame that the movies (however skillfully/or not adapted) will probably prevent a whole heap of young minds from reading the originals. Simply by exsisting, and so being an easier to digest (much less effort required), more accessible medium.

I wish wish wish more young people would read books such as these, maybe HP when they're younger and then Tolkiens works...to spread the joy!!!!!

PS -If Sauron was indeed Lord of the Rings..then did he have a full fledged name to match?

[7doubles]

i believe in the retrospective view that the ring was the axis powers of ww2 and sauron was hitler. remember the slanted eyed southerner. i think Tolkien was a profit!

[Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn]

I have never heard the word "lord" used to describe any inanimate object.

If Tolkien had named the Trilogy "The Master of the Rings", it would be more ambiguous, as 'master' is often used to describe non-human objects, or even non-physical things like emotions, as in, "His hate was the master of his soul."

But 'lord' is spoken only of persons or gods. Indeed, it may be the religious connotation that Tolkien was after. Consider that the Christian God is often called "Lord of Lords", "Lord of Hosts", and so on; and Satan is the "Lord of Darkness" and the "Lord of the Flies". Pehaps this latter is the parallel that Tolkien was after.

One last point:

In "The Grey Havens" in RotK, we see the full title of the Red Book. There were several "false starts" by Bilbo, but what Frodo settled on was this:

The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings (as seen by the Little People; being the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo of the Shire, supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the learning of the Wise.) Together with extracts from Books of Lore translated by Bilbo in Rivendell.

I think this full title leaves no doubt that Sauron is the Lord of the Rings.

[Aldanil]

Most definitive in thy apt citation, Donnie B!

[Vilya Elathelas]

The true 'Lord of the Rings' is JRR Tolkein himself!!

[DGoeij]

Welcome to the forum Donnie B.

Very good point. Since professor Tolkien always stated he had written from the Hobbit perspective, I think the Lord of the Rings as meant by the title would have to be Sauron. Good thinking. I forgot about Bilbo's book with the very long title, mentioned at the end.

[ssgrif]

Thats a bit too much Vilya!

Tolkien was indeed a great writer etc, but come on, lets try and keep this thread in the confines of Middle-earth...;)

We all know that Sauron was the Lord of the Rings, because the whole book was about the great adventure Frodo had, taking on the greatest of foes (amongst other things).

[ssgrif]

Just to confirm my beliefs that Sauron is THE lord of the Rings. Check out Chapter "Many Meetings" when Frodo talks to Gandalf in bed after his scrape with the Ringwraiths.

Gandalf clearly states that Sauron was the Lord of the rings and that Bilbo in fact was not a ringbearer but a Ringfinder.

[Misarrius]

>Donnie B.

Your explanation made me really no place to stand against any more.
I'm not a native English speaker. If you say "master" would be better use for making the double meaning for this title and Tolkien intentionally used "loads" for the position, I think yes, the "load" should be Sauron.

Yet, I feel something not inanimate, human-like character for the "One Ring" in this book.

Now, I believe the "Load" on this title (especially for the title of the original Red Book) is Souron. And if I say the "load" could be the "One Ring" too, would be only my own image for this book.

[ssgrif]

Not one to Nit-pick (ok I am) but there's a thread about this very question already on this forum:

Try here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2269)

THE lord of the rings is Sauron, Gandalf mentions it in the book.

He didnt only forge the OneRing, but he did actually possess it for a time. This surely makes him the Lord of the Rings. He made the pesky trinket, so therefore it belongs to him.

Just to confirm my beliefs that Sauron is THE lord of the Rings. Check out Chapter "Many Meetings" when Frodo talks to Gandalf in bed after his scrape with the Ringwraiths.

Hope that clears things up...

[Greenwood]

Not one to Nit-pick (ok I am) but there's a thread about this very question already on this forum:

ssgrif

Also not one to nit-pick but, if you check the dates of the posts that started this thread and the other your refer to, this thread is older by ten days and I gave the quote you refer to in the "Many Meetings" chapter in the third post on this thread the day it started. :)

[Grond]

Greenwood, I also have compared dates and am merging the newer thread with this one since it was first. :)

[DGoeij]

Which gives us the internet forum equivilant of my family at the dinner table.:D
Anyway, I'll toss in the last argument by Donnie B. Sauron is the Lord of the Rings, because LOTR is the translation of Bilbo's book (finished by Frodo), with the many titles, of which one is: The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings (as seen by the little people, yadiyadiya).
Which I have to say is one solid argument to support that case.

[imladris]

good question
Ithink that it means that the ring is the greatest of all rings, but it also means Sauron because he created the rings and has great power over them.

[Quercus]

In the trilogy, three different 'lords of the rings' are mentioned; the ring itself, Sauron and Frodo. I've always thought that the ring itself was the true Lord of the Rings, but I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

[Grond]

Quercus, welcome to the forum and since you are new we will forgive you for referring to the single narrative novel The Lord of the Rings as a trilogy. (Even I did it when I first came on the forum.) :)

[DGoeij]

Incoming! The Grond at twelve o clock sharp!
**puts on his steel helmet**
I'm ready for it.;)

No, that's not fair to the honest Grond. I'm kidding. You're right Quercus (sounds nice, Roman?), a lot depends on how you look at it. It's just that the rich materal of the work of professor Tolkien provides us with a lot of evidence/arguments on these kinds of matters.

[imladris]

Good one Quercus:D :cool: :) ;)

[Quercus]

Grond,
I apoligize for the use of the word "trilogy", and yes I did read the part at the beginning of the book where Tolkien states that LOTR is not a trilogy but a single story divided into six parts.
You'll have to forgive me, I've spent 27 years trying to tell uninformed people what a great story this is. I'm not used to talking to people who know more about it than I do.



DGoeij,
Thank you. Quercus (K-ware-cuss)is Latin actually, it is the botanical name for Oak.

Anyway, could not "The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings, as seen by the little people, also mean the destruction of the Ring itself? Not just Sauron?



imladris,
Thank you!

[Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn]

I'm gonna take on Grond on this one. Hope my shields hold up!

(This may be an old discussion, but I'm new to the forum and haven't noticed any threads about it. If I'm rehashing old material here, I apologize.)

I sometimes use the word "trilogy" to refer to the LotR narrative, for several reasons:

1. "Trilogy" is good shorthand for "The Lord of the Rings". Fewer syllables to say, less to type, and unambiguous as Tolkien never released any other works in this three-volume format.

2. It fits the traditional description of a trilogy, in that it was released in three volumes over a period of time (they weren't all published together) and each volume has a separate name. This may have been the publisher's doing, of course; but it's still the way the opus is produced. Surely the great popularity of the work would have given Tolkien the necessary "clout" to change the way it was published, but he never chose to do so.

3. True, the three volumes (six "books" plus appendices) form a single narrative, and do not stand alone as individual works. However, other well-known "trilogies" also have this form, such as Asimov's original "Foundation" trilogy.

So Grond, I humbly request that you not scold me if I choose to refer to LotR as a trilogy. It is! However, I am not suggesting that the forum should have separate topics for each book; as it's a unified narrative, a single topic makes sense.

[Lantarion]

But a trilogy is commonly acknowledged to be a SET of books, whose plots are inadvertently and cunningly linked to one another. The way the LotR is cut up into three big sections is not a trilogy, because the same story continues from the exact same point in time, or even before! The Belgariad by David Eddings is called a 'trilogy', even though there are many more books than three in the series. The stories all take place in the same world, and the events are linked but separated by long stretches of time or space.
Tolkien didn't mean to publish the LotR as three seperate editions, but his publishers insisted that it would be advisable. It is rational, but what people fail to notice is that the LotR is cut up into even more concise sections: 1, the story itself; 3, the FotR, TT and RotK; 6, the Books which act as seperating 'chapters; and 62, the actual chapters or 'sub-chapters'. The indexes can be excluded because they are not a part of the actual narrative.
So what is the LotR? A tale, a trilogy, a sextology of a sixty-two-ology? :D

[Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn]

Well, as with so many other silly disagreements, it all comes down to semantics, doesn't it?


tril·o·gy (plural tril·o·gies) noun

1. set of 3 related works: a group or series of three related works, especially of literature or music

2. set of three: a set of three related things


[Mid-17th century. From Greek trilogia , from logos "word" (see -logy ).]


I'd say that LotR comprises a trilogy under this definition, although I can understand the argument that it's not three related works but one work broken up into three volumes.

I still say, if I choose to see it as a trilogy, don't flame me! After all, I had to shell out for three books...!

:p

[Grond]

We won't flame you since I was of the same opinion when I began. You may view that argument at http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=11162&highlight=trilogy#post11162.

I was wrong as are you. Both the FotR and TT were printed in 1954 and RotK in 1955. Tolkien in his letters, specifically addresses the trilogy conotation and rejects it saying that it is one very long work that (due to publisher's insistence) was broken up into three volumes. You may continue to refer to it as a trilogy but you will be ribbed incessantly on the forum in you do.

Also, one other note concerning trilogies. Generally they are stand alone works that intertwine the plots from one book to the other. The Lord of the Rings does not do this. It is one narrative that ends on incomplete notes in the FotR and TT.

[Greenwood]

I must agree with Donnie B. here. LOTR was published as three books, and is still, in most editions, published as three books. It can therefore legitimately be called a trilogy. I don't know how many forum members are familiar with the Patrick O'Brien sea novels set during the Napoleanic Wars. There are 19 or 20 of them following the adventures of a Britsh Navy Captain and his surgeon friend. In some cases they set sail on a voyage from England and do not return until three or four books later. Narratives are often carried through several books and certainly there are plot lines that go one for more than half a dozen books. In some cases, a book starts the day after a previous one ended. The point is each is considered a seperate book even though some are direct continuations of the previous one.

LOTR can quite legitimately be called a trilogy, even though it is one narrative.

[Grond]

YOu certainly may call it whatever you want. The author completed the entirety of the work before it was ever published. It was presented to the publisher as a really long work. The publisher split it into three separate volumes for the sake of salesmanship. The one huge volume would have cost so much, Allen and Unwen was concerned it wouldn't sell. The cost was much more reasonable when marketed as three books.

And I know that Greenwood doesn't consider the posthumous publishings of the author as authoritative but here is what the author himself had to say about the subject. The following quote is from Letter #165 To the Houghton Mifflin Company dated 5 June, 1955:

"...P. S. This book is not of course a 'trilogy'. That and the titles of the volumes was a fudge thought necessary for publication, owing to length and cost. Thee is no real division into 3, nor is any one part intelligible alone. The story was conceived and written as a whole and the only natural divisions are the 'books' I-VI (which originally had titles)..."

So you may believe that it fits a certain definition from a literary viewpoint, but the author makes it clear above that it is a single work.

[Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn]

I don't dispute that it's a single work. But it's also a trilogy. Ha! :p

Ooooh... does anybody, anywhere, know what the original titles of the six Books were?

[Grond]

Ask and ye shall receive. From Letter #136 to Rayner Unwin, dated 24 March, 1953:

"...Would it not do if the 'book-titles' were used: e. g. The Lord of the Rings: Vol. I The Ring Sets Out and The Ring Goes South; Vol. II The Treason of Isengard and The Ring Goes East; Vol. III The War of the Ring and The End of the Third Age?"...

There you have it. Six books with titles in Three Volumes later entitled The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King.:cool:

[Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn]

Hmmm, I like them all except the last one.

Tolkien liked at least one of them enough to nab it for a chapter title.

[Greenwood]

And I know that Greenwood doesn't consider the posthumous publishings of the author as authoritative

Grond

What I have said is that they have to be considered differently from material published by the author during his lifetime.

Of course Tolkien wrote LOTR as one story, but it was published as three books, which makes it by defintion a trilogy.

[Grond]

I will not argue with you Greenwood. The author clearly states it was written as one book. The definition of trilogy is three related books. The three books are not related since none completes a story except for the last. They are incomplete and hence each is simply a volume of the whole. They are all called the Lord of the Rings. That is the name of the book.

[Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn]

Looks like we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one. It's really just a question of semantics and definitions. My definition of "trilogy" includes LotR; Grond's does not. Okay, no biggie!

But Greenwood and I know we're really right :D

[Thorin]

Holy smokes, people!!

Tolkien made it quite plain that it was not a trilogy....Grond has shown quotes and reasons for it's separate publications....What in the world is it that stops you from accepting the word of Tolkien concerning his own publication????

The book is one long narrative, not three related books. It is all one story split up into six parts that (for reasons given by Grond), was published in three parts....My LoTR is one big edition just like it was supposed to be and it runs as one big story (as it was written to be). If you want to get anal retentive over the definition of the word "trilogy" that's your perogative just don't apply it to LoTR.

Stop splitting hairs and bickering over what has been made quite obvious....

Sheeeesh.