Talk:The Hobbit.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

Good article The Hobbit has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. 20 December 2001 - 17 August 2007
  2. 17 August 2007 - 25 February 2008
To-do:  · history · watch · refresh
  • Lead section
    • Focus text, make into a coherent whole
  • Genre
    • reltionship Children's Book
    • relationship to Fantasy
    • relationship to Fairy-tale
  • Creation
    • Illustrations
    • Anglo Saxon runes
  • Style
    • More examples and commentary
  • Major Themes
    • Add any major themes that may have been missed
    • Expand psychological journey / joseph campbell theme
  • Reception
    • Include sales-figures (broken down into regions if possible) if published
    • Add quotations from reviews (esp. named critics like CS Lewis / Auden)
    • Add critical/literary approaches
    • Role in 1960's US student movements ?
    • Role in development of Tolkien fandom
    • 'prequel' / 'prelude' concept origins and effects
  • Legacy
    • More detail on relationship with Lord of the Rings, incl. plot and structure comparisons
    • Authors who cite the Hobbit as influence (if any)
    • "There and Back Again" Pat Murphy novel
    • Cover use of The Hobbit in education
  • Adaptations
    • add sale of film and merchandising rights
    • copy edit into a coherent whole
  • References
    • Format all references using the correct citation templates.
    • Format new references properly
    • Keep consistent throughout text

Contents

"Children's fantasy" and genre

Again it looks like the article is subject to an edit-war on first line identifying the work as a children's book. The identifcation as "Children's book" is properly cited in the "Genre" section, and is also evident from the awards it's been nominated for - all being children's book prizes. A case that the Hobbit has been viewed as a straight 'Fantasy novel' has to be cited as well, and would be a very useful addition to the Genre section. Once a precendent is found, the first line can be reviewed. --Davémon (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and look in my books this week. I have a few books that might be helpful if you have any requests for sections to be worked on, unless you have access to the books already. Let me know, as it would be good to bring this article up to scratch (unless LotR reaches FAR first...). Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Carcharoth. I've updated the To-Do list based on the feedback from the FA. Addressing anything on there would be good (and adding anything missing). The genre issue has been raised by several editors and is a cause of needless edit-waring over the first line, so in my opinion that's a priority, and I've exhausted my available sources on the matter. --Davémon (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a request for comment would be useful here. Also, I note terms such as "war" as used, as well as demeaning language in the edit summary. This is unfortunate. Hopefully some dispassionate perspectives will be helpful. --Malecasta (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
An RFC may have interesting results, but really the first step is to engage in discussion on the cause of the disagreement. The status of "The Hobbit" as a childrens' book is well cited in the article, by both analytical and popular sources. The status of The Hobbit as a "grown-up" Fantasy novel (like "The Iron Dream" or "Conan"), or a "crossover" novel (like "Harry Potter" or "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime") isn't supported (yet). I think everyone would welcome the addition of supporting material to the article.--Davémon (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Is classifying the Hobbit as primarily a "children's fantasy" appropriate?

See previous talk section, as well as edit history page. --Malecasta (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


  • RfC response: Whether or not it's a children's fantasy is the jurisdiction of the author and his intenet. What did Tolkien say? If he said it is, it absolutely is (although the article can say that adults enjoy it as well). If he didn't say, just comment on how the book has been recieved, but shouldn't be classified. However, Wikipedia shouldn't conjecture, since WP doesn't have an opinion. Ever.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Letter 215 (written nearly 25 years after The Hobbit was first published) clearly states that Tolkien conceived The Hobbit as a children's story:
"The Hobbit was overtly addressed to children for two reasons : I had at that time children of my own and was accustomed to making up (ephemeral) stories for them; I had been brought up to believe that there was a real and special connexion between children and fairy-stories."
However, I can't see why Wikipedia should commit intentional fallacy in treating an authors reported (i.e. contextual, self=promotional, inconsistent and unreliable) statements of intention as 'absolute' over and above considered analysis by experts in genre and literature published in reliable sources. --Davémon (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: I disagree with Esprit15d that the author's intentions are the only proper encylopedic standard. Plenty of works have become popularized counter to the author's intent, and many authors fail to meet their stated goals. More relevant would be: how do libraries file The Hobbit? My unresearched guess is that it will be found in Young Adult/Juvenile or in SciFi/Fantasy. One easy workaround to this debate would be to describe it as a fantasy novel that Tolkien intended for children, but that has achieved popularity beyond children's literature.Eeblet (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The book's being popular with adults does not change the book's essential nature. It's children's literature read by adults. -- Evertype·✆ 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: In the text of The Hobbit itself the narrator addresses his young audience several times in the second person plural. If that's not telling a story to children, I don't know what is. -- Evertype·✆ 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: The controversy isn't over whom it was written for. That is clear: Tolkien wrote it for children. The publisher sold it as a children's story. The controversy is over whether the original purpose should dominate current classification. Strebe (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't find this "controversial". Adults may enjoy the book, but it is a "children's fantasy" regardless. As I pointed out, the text itself addresses children. Not the author's "intention". The text speaks to readers and considers them children. -- Evertype·✆ 00:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we understand you don't find it controversial. A lot of people do. The fact that the text addresses the readers as if they are children is not relevant to whether the book has meaning as adult fiction. Beyond clearly juvenile themes, it addresses adult themes, is widely read by adults, and connects to a larger body of literature embraced by adults. Most children's books fail on all of those counts. Since some people wish to classify books by their greater context, rather than their explicit intent, the labeling becomes controversial. But that's all it is: a labeling problem.Strebe (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Who is the "we" who understands that I don't find it controversial? Children's fiction may have "meaning" to adults, and adults may enjoy it, but that does not make it adult fiction. Children's fiction—whether book or film—may address a variety of themes and indeed is often read, aloud, to children by adults. I don't find "a lot of people" arguing for a re-labelling because of this "controversy". I get the impression that you want to re-label it. I would oppose the re-labelling. Else we would have to re-label huge amounts of literature. -- Evertype·✆ 06:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been editing this article for more than five years. I've watched that particular line change back and forth between "children's" and not dozens of times. It's not the same person each time. The article's instability in this concern a matter of public record. Look it up. People wander through, get offended that their favorite book is labeled a children's book, and, oblivious to the history of changes and oblivious to the work's body of criticism, make their little edit and toddle off again into Wikipedia oblivion. You can sensibly argue the book is a children's book. You cannot sensibly argue there's no controversy. And sorry; your impression is false. I prefer the school of thought that calls it a children's book. That's a matter of public record as well; see my edits. But since, objectively, there's a labeling controversy, I acknowledge there's a controversy.Strebe (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
We appear to agree, then. It is a children's book. It was written for children. Internally, its narrator speaks to the children who are reading or being read the story. I can't imagine why a person would be offended to have their favorite book labelled "a children's book". There's nothing wrong with children's literature, and nothing wrong with adults enjoying to read it. I can't think of any arguments that this book would not be classified anything but children's literature. In the absence of arguments like "I'm an adult and I like the book and I think it's not a children's book" what controversy is there? -- Evertype·✆ 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I supplied the arguments: "Beyond clearly juvenile themes, it addresses adult themes, is widely read by adults, and connects to a larger body of literature embraced by adults. Most children's books fail on all of those counts." These arguments all have merit. It's not a debate to be won by logic, since it boils down to one's philosophical preference of original intent versus social context. Both are reasonable positions. And I do not think it makes any sense to dismiss "widely read by adults" with the observation that adults read children's literature to children. That's a little like claiming adults enjoy changing diapers because they often change their children's diapers. Adults read The Hobbit outside of any involvement with children. They don't read many other children's books that way. Yes, some other children's literature explores adult themes as well. Yet for a children's book, The Hobbit is unusually replete with adult themes and in its method of exploring them. But I'm done with this. I don't think we're making any progress. We agree we prefer to label it a children's book, but that wasn't your thesis. Your thesis was that there is no controversy. There is, and for reasons that cannot be so breezily dismissed.Strebe (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree the social context entirely embraces the "not-just-for-children" perspective, so rather than an intention vs. reception problem we just have multiple receptions deal with. Perhaps if we elaborate on the crossover/adult arguments Strebe has given:
1) Contains themes not suitable / understandable by children. Some of these are around the politics and negotiations and implications of the Battle of Five Armies, and the moral reconciliation of the Arkenstone, and the irony of Bilbo's burglar status? These are acknowledged at least in Kocher and probably Rateliff and Andersons introductions. Perhaps a list of themes considered "adult" would help clarify.
2) Marketing of the book to non-children. It's in the sci-fi section of my local bookshop, and the kids section of my local library. Doctor Who books are in the kids section of both, and the sci-fi section of neither. I've no idea where to source this information, publishers and bookshops aren't likely to be that transparent about their marketing intentions. Perhaps librarys produce cataloging guidelines?
3) Non-childrens-book readership. Where can this information can be sourced? What produces a non-children-related perspective on the book? Who are the non-child readers? Winnie the Pooh has entertainment value for adults in its charactures of certain personality types which young children won't recognise - but the works recognition as a kids-book hasn't changed.
4) Relationship to Tolkiens other works. Actually I think this also has a converse effect insomuch as 'The Lord of the Rings' is occasionally considered a childrens-book because of the Hobbit (along with the other general "fantasy is infantile" view of some critics). There are arguments (i.e. Kocher and Anderson) which state that the narrative relationship is problematic and the case for a prequel/sequel relationship is largely insubstantial and the books should be approached as entirely separate works. But how is the narrative relationship seen to modify the reception of the two works?
Hopefully breaking up the issue can help move the debate forward! (full disclosure, in my opinion The Hobbit is a children's book) --Davémon (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: I believe that, although The Hobbit may have been originally intended for children, it is now a novel that can be classified as both children and adult friendly, thereby obtaining a general rating. Compare The Hobbit to the Harry Potter series. Both were originally aimed at children, and were extremely sucessful in that area. But, as both grew, they came to be loved by adults as well. The Hobbit's classification as a childrens book is incorrect, and should be changed to general, meaning it is suitable for both an adult and children audience, and is not specifically limited by age groups.Watch As I Wander (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
(did some minor reformatting on your comment to keep the thread - hope that's ok). Can you point to any reliable sources that support your opinion? Thanks. --Davémon (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response What is the problem with simply stating that Tolkein wrote it as a children's book, but it has since been rread and enjoyed by adults as well, due to it's close association with the Lord of the Rings novels. Creative people are sometimes mistaken about who their audience really is. Tolkein himself thought at one point that The Silmarillion was his most important work, but his fans told him in no uncertain terms that this was not the case. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Facts? Do we have statistics about who reads The Hobbit and for what reasons? If you have something to cite, by all means, add it. The listing already categorizes the book as "Children's literature" and "Fantasy novel". Strebe (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Peter Jackson Have any Film Plans for "The Hobbit"?

Just curious if there is any citable about this.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

'Commentary' editions

I'd like to add some information about The Annotated Hobbit and The History of the Hobbit, but can't see where the best place in the article would be. Any suggestions? --Davémon (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Concept and creation seems the right place to me. That section already includes the history of the tale and its publishing. The Annotated Hobbit and The History of the Hobbit concern themselves with precisely those topics. However, I would rename the section to History, since that's already its topic. Thanks for all the good work. Strebe (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Strebe (and thanks for all your work tidying up my contribs!) - I've positioned the AH and HoTH into the end of the Concept and creation section as "Posthumous editions", not 100% on that title for the subsection, as they are more than just editions, having considerable editorial content. Potentially these could/should be considered to be reception/legacy material, but there is overlap as they fully reproduce original texts. --Davémon (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why a GA nom?

I was interested in knowing what this article will gain from being promoted to Good Article. It's already A-class, which is higher on the totem pole, correct? Shouldn't FAC be the next logical step once issues from the last nomination have been addressed? María (habla conmigo) 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you see it doesn't look A-class. It needs a review. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 12:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could elaborate on what aspects don't look A-class and require review (outside of what was suggested at the FA review or is already on the To-Do-List)? Davémon (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hobbit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

  • "The Hobbit or There and Back Again" – remove the bold and italics from "or"
    • "There and Back Again" isn't an alternative title to "The Hobbit", rather it "The hobbit, or there and back again" is the full title of the book. So I think the formatting is correct? --Davémon (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      Ah yes, I remember now. That doesn't need to be changed then. Citations are still needed in some parts of the article. Gary King (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Format the references according to WP:CITE/ES; it is suggested that {{cite web}} be used
    • Done I think the cite being refered to has been tidied.
  • Resolve the [citation needed] tag
    • I think the sentence "The Hobbit has been used as a educational tool..." should just be eliminated. The second half of the sentence would also need a source (effective by whose terms?). I guess one could argue the book is popular because it is used as an educational tool, not the other way around. I don't think it would take away too much from the section to eliminate the one sentence, as the rest of the section pretty much makes the point that it's widely used in education. Blackngold29 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. From memory, it was along the lines of 'the book proves popular when taught in class', rather than it already being popular with students, but unfortunately this is another case of not citing something immediately when adding it. I can no longer find the source. The sentance has been removed, until such time as the source re-presents itself. Davémon (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename " Synopsis" to "Plot"
    • Done
  • The "Middle-earth Portal" goes in the "See also" section
    • Done
  • In the Infobox", "NA" → "n/a"
    • Done

Gary King (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some information still requires citations. I would suggest finding one to place at the end of each paragraph. For instance, "His creative endeavours at this time also " needs a citation.

Also:

  • "edition.[29]. Tolkien" – remove extra period
    • Done
  • "The Hobbit sells for £6,000, bbc.co.uk, 26/11/04[1]" – format URLs so they don't appear as numbers, like in this case.
    • I've fixed the one you mentioned. As well as a few that needed cite temps.Blackngold29 06:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any updates? Gary King (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Prior to this GA review, I have not worked on the article one bit, but I suppose I could step up and try to fix stuff for the sake of getting it to GA. Blackngold29 06:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The references are a mess right now. Could something like WP:CITESHORT be done so that books are moved to a separate section and only page numbers are listed in the References section? Gary King (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, now that I look at them closer they are pretty bad. I could try to fix them, but it's gonna take a few days probably. If someone wants to help me that would be awesome. Blackngold29 06:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing :) If books were used in the references, then normally that wouldn't be enough for me to mention it, but in this case, several books are used, each themselves several times on different pages, so WP:CITESHORT (and if you want, {{harvnb}} along with {{citation}}) will help greatly in reducing the clutter in the references. Once that section is cleaned up, then it will also be easier to spot any other issues that might exist in there. Gary King (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the cites are a bit messy, but I don't understand why all the references need to be completely reformatted. The recent FA Macintosh Classic has references formatted very much like The Hobbit, doesn't use Citeshort or Harvard, and has many of the same untidy problems (although less of them because there are fewer sources). The Murders in the Rue Morgue (a literature GA) similarly is formatted the same way as The Hobbit. Seems to be creating an awful lot of work for something that appears to be a stylistic preference rather than actually improving the article. Why not just update the unformatted cites to be consistent with the cite web / cite book templates already in use? --Davémon (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Either way, some of the web references still need to be formatted. Gary King (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing the bugs me most is how equal the citation template refs are split with the non temp cites. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates there should either be all templates or no templates. I prefer using them, so if there is no opposition I will do so. Blackngold29 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
No opposition at all to applying cite templates to the untemplated cites - thanks for helping out with that. Davémon (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Just to keep everyone updated: I think there are only four books that are used for multiple pages throughout the refs. I have those four and just need to spend time working my way through the article and adding the replacements in. I should have time in the next day or two. Blackngold29 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There are a few citations that do not give page numbers. If somebody could add them I'll go back though and take care of them, as I don't have any of the books. Blackngold29 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope I've caught them all for the texts I have. Its difficult to see what needs page numbers and what has them, perhaps using <!-- need page numbers --> comments to flag any would help? --Davémon (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There are still a few left. I guess the easiest way to find them would be look down the ref list, and find the ones that look like ref 38, 59 or 60. It uses one of the four sources at the top, but there is no page number. Ref 62 is the same way. Blackngold29 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing those out, I'll take a look when I can. Unfortunately I find the citation list impossible to scan through, it is so badly structured - un-padded numbers followed by repetitious carat symbols, superscript letters (or not), lack of alphabetical order, inconsistent formatting (especially the year in brackets, or not, after the author name. It's a typographic junkyard. --Davémon (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

← That's what I've been saying in my review. Gary King (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the same problem with all the other WP articles, its the result of using templates. Updated many. I do not have Carpenters Biography to hand so those may need to wait unless someone can cover that. Davémon (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I actually remember that I do have that biography somewhere, if I can find it I'll look for the page. But I haven't read the whole thing, so no guarentees. The ones you did look good! Blackngold29 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I looked, but when you have over 1000 books laying around the house it's not always easy to find the one you're looking for (that's a good thing right)? Anyway, I was unable to locate Tolkien: A Biography, but I will keep looking. My purpose of posting is to ask if the refs have improved enough? I still don't think I would even support it for an FA, but that's not why we're here. The important part is that everything does have a source, they're just missing page numbers; are page numbers required for a GA? (I'm sure they're prefered, but ...) Also, if there are any comments about other stuff (wording, etc.) I'd be glad to fix that for a change. Blackngold29 07:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Status? Are there any questions for me? I just saw the page numbers question, and yes, they would definitely be appreciated. Gary King (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've pretty much done all I can do; I realize the page numbers would be good to have, but are they required for the GA? If they are, then I'm kind of at a loss because I only have one of the books and though I could probably pick up some at the library tomorrow, it would be difficult to locate a single statement in a lenghy book that I've never read before. If they aren't required, then are there any other things that need fixed? I'd be glad to fix those.... Actually, the only statement that needs a page number is "Tolkien claimed later to dislike the aspect of the narrative voice addressing the reader directly,[39]", so if someone could find that info, I think we're good. Blackngold29 02:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that's at the discretion of the reviewer. And in my case, I pretty much require the page numbers otherwise it makes it very difficult for others to verify that the references are accurate. Whoever added the reference – if they are involved with this GA – should get the page number to make it easier. Gary King (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

← That sounds reasonable to me, I would probably do the same. After looking closer this is what we need:

  • Cit 6 needs pg. num
    • Removed Unfortunately Rateliffs index isn't as comprehensive as I'd wish. It's an uncontroversial statement, so perhaps the citation should just be removed.--Davémon (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what 10 is (book, magazine?)
    • It's bibliographic information about the book (an annual collection) [1]. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 17 should be split up, with pages given for each individual statement
    • Done It looks like all the required information is there, just as one cite, so that should be doable. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 21 needs pg. num
  • I assume that 30 is referring to "The Hobbit", but I'm not sure
    • Removed I think it's just the bibliographic information for "The Annotated Hobbit" - not sure it is really required as a footnote here. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 39 needs pg. num
    • Again, this is footnoted bibliographic information for the edition being discussed, rather than a citation for the comment. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a messege on the talk page, just in case someone with these sources isn't watching this page. Blackngold29 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this article's history, but why are you investing so much time in this GA if you aren't too familiar with the article...? :p Gary King (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I figure if nobody is going to step up and do what is necessary to get it up to GA, I might as well do so. I hate to see an article fail its GA when it doesn't really have a ton of work to do. The article is rated as A class, but it failed its FA nom; I'm sure it will be FA nom'd again at some point and whatever we fix here couldn't really hurt, could it? Blackngold29 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm certainly not complaining! :) Gary King (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Blackngold. Your input with cleaning up the cites has made an onerios task much lighter. And yes, I wish I'd added the full set of information at the time! There are still coverage and copy issues which need to be addressed before taking the article back to FA - but the references will be much easier to police. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI but someone post a message at the bottom of this page when the article is ready for me to take another look :) Gary King (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Updates? Gary King (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately nobody came forth with the source needed. So either we eliminate the statement for citation 43 or I'm out of answers. Blackngold29 04:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The book was out on loan at my local library. However, I found Amazon has a "search inside" feature on Carpenters Biography so was able to find the page refs. Is everything up to scratch now? --Davémon (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Citations look good to me. I am currently proof-reading my through the whole article. I found one statement (in the "Revisions" section) which references "the connotation of Garden gnomes..." which needs a source. But so far, the overall article is very solid. Blackngold29 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

← The article looks very good now, so I am passing it. Great job everyone! Gary King (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dust jacket art

Davemon, I think injecting how the dust jacket got from several colors to two colors in the Publication section just detracts from the purpose of the paragraph. Hammond & Anderson make it plain in considerable detail from quoted correspondence between Tolkien and A&U that almost all the work was done by Tolkien, even in cutting down the number of colors. The fact that the final design got pared down from three to two (whether by Tolkien or someone else) for publication seems like too many words explaining trivia. Surely it suffice to note that Tokien designed the jacket. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. According to Anderson, Tolkien indeed carried out the amendments too, but the notion must have come from somewhere (should have noted the source when first adding it). To my mind, taking into account TH as a 'whole' i.e. as a physical "book", is more encyclopedic than a purely literary approach. It was, in essence, written, designed and illustrated by one man. Tolkien reducing colours on the cover is as significant, if not more, as Tolkien changing "gnomes" to "elves" - as one had a direct impact on the economic viability work, and the other only an aesthetic effect. This not "trivia", it reflects the times and place in which the book arose, and the material processes and constraints that went into making it happen. The illustrations should also be taken account. Is there pertinent information in Artist & Illustrator which could serve? --Davémon (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It not so much the trivia aspect that bothers me; it's that the jacket description is disproportionate to the remainder of the paragraph. It reads badly with so much of it taken up by the dust jacket when the paragraph is about so much more. It belongs elsewhere.
Still, it's more problematic than that. If you read H&A carefully, you'll see that Tolkien did indeed pare the colors down to three but that the publisher further removed the red, taking it down to two. It's very unlikely that they redrew the whole jacket; more likely a designer or stripper masked it. We can't give a real sense for what happened in just one long sentence about such production matters—particularly since we don't actually know what happened. The sentence as it reads still is not correct.
The whole matter of paring down the colors does not reflect particularly on the times and place. How many colors to print in, and whether to use process or spot colors, and how few can we get away with, have always been considerations in book publishing, and still are. It's a discussion that would come up in the preparation of any book. Strebe (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right, one sentance isn't enough to do the subject justice, please ammend as you see fit. At some point in the future,the article should at least contain a paragraph, if not a section, covering the dust jacket artwork changes, and the inclusion of the b&w illustrations to the UK and US editions. I do think that print issues and dust-jacket / binding / typography /paper weights should indeed be covered in every book article, where these things have been discussed in the literature. A comparison with something like Harry Potter - which had multiple covers ('adult'/'kiddy'), 7-colour offset with gold spot printed in china (I'm guessing) - shows that process is clearly indicative of time/place - not that the article needs to make that comparison, but the reader should be able to obtain a materials, processes and design understanding of a book from a Wikipedia article. Other than on a general principle, specifically with The Hobbit, the work is 'all of a piece' being a culmination of Tolkien's creative endeavours, and should reflect that. --Davémon (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Great content added there. I'm still a bit unsure about the number of colours on the original dust jacket - is it really green, blue and black inks or is the 'black' just from the green and blue inks over-printing. I've got a hunch it's 2-colour print.--Davémon (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Del Toro Quote

The way the Del Toro quote is presented is less than neutral, and it surprises me that this doesn't seem to be obvious to everyone. Before I changed it, it read:

"Guillermo Del Toro quoted as saying: "I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits—I've never been into that ... I hate all that stuff." in 2006 signed on to direct the double-bill in 2008. Shortly after signing up, he was recorded by Weta saying "re-reading The Hobbit just recently I was quite moved by discovering, through Bilbo's eyes the illusory nature of possession, the sins of hoarding and the banality of war - whether in the Western Front or at a Valley in Middle Earth. Lonely is the mountain indeed."

Note that the article doesn't mention Del Toro at all before that, so before it is even said what the heck that guy has to do with The Hobbit, we tell our readers that he said that he hates the Hobbit. Then we tell our readers that he was signed to direct the films. That is not neutral. Period. I'm not sure if we need the quote at all, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight (This is the article about the book, not about the films, after all), but if we have to have it, it should be after it's said what he's got to do with The Hobbit. --Conti|✉ 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't actually explained how the original is not neutral, or what bias it creates. By reporting the events out of sequence, you are introducing bias. By introducing Del Toro as the director, the article naturalises this position (which is bias), then by saying "hates" however "loves", it dismisses the first quote by virtue of the second quote (which is bias) - without the intermediary action "got job" that contextualises the change of opinion (which is bias). I'm not saying the original is perfect, but the current alternative is much more biased. Can we somehow keep the unbiased, strict historical ordering of events and still address your perceived bias issues? --Davémon (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought I explained it, at least. The original is not neutral because it first mentiones the perceived opinion of Del Toro of The Hobbit, and then says that he'll direct the films. Just imagine he would've said the opposite in some random interview a couple of years ago instead. Would you support a version that'd read "Del Toro, who said in 200X that he loves The Hobbit, is going to direct the films", then? That wouldn't be neutral, either. Both versions introduce a bias (one negative, one positive) before they even mention what Del Toro has to do with The Hobbit in the first place.
Why doesn't my version contextualise the change of opinion, tho? It says that he got the job in 2008, that he said something negative about The Hobbit before that and something positive about The Hobbit afterwards. It's all in the same paragraph, so I very much doubt people would miss this, whether it's written in chronological order or not.
My main point here is that we should mention Del Toro as the director of the films without first offering any kind of bias or opinion whatsoever. No "He loves The Hobbit, he's going to direct it", no "He hates The Hobbit, he's going to direct it", but a simple "He is going to direct The Hobbit". Everything he said about the book, before or after he got signed to direct it, can be said afterwards. So I'm not sure if we can agree to keep the chronological order of things in the article. Right now I can't imagine a chronological version that would be, in my opinion, neutral. I'd very much like a third party to comment on this, tho. Who knows, maybe I'm the only one who sees NPOV issues with the current wording. --Conti|✉ 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The main problem isn't bias. The narrative is incoherent as it stands. Bringing up Del Toro before his association with The Hobbit is established is simply poor editing and jarring to the reader. Secondarily, the temporal order is not a way to remove bias, since any bias so introduced is completely drowned out by the choice of what to bring up and not bring up, the context in which it is brought up in, and inferences caused by word choice. There is no way readers are going to absorb those comments without inferring that the editors of the article wish for them to question Del Toro's intellectual integrity. The article itself thereby creates controversy, and that's a massive bias problem. That cannot be waved away by claiming that it's a neutral history. It's not. Both of those comments are, in a sense, cherry-picking from amongst a possibly much greater universe of comments and actions by Del Toro concerning The Hobbit. Deciding whether those comments specifically are historically significant enough to merit attention in an encyclopædia is the job of historians, not encyclopædia editors. The proper way to handle this is to cite balanced external sources that comment on the Del Toro irony. Strebe (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Controversy is not bias. If questioning DT's integrity is a natural result of reading the article, so be it. This isn't a NPOV or bias issue. Sorry to be absurd, but people who read the Hitler or Charles Manson article should question the integrity of their subjects too. This isn't because the articles are constructed or written in a way which is biased against them. Of course there are editorial considerations about selection of sources, but this is inevitable in a way that rearranging and implying relationships between the events of history to construct a narrative isn't. In this instance the WETA quote isn't really a reliable, independent source - it's a staged Q&A from the company making the movie. The only reason it is in the article is to balance the controversy produced by the Salon interview - which is reliable and independent. I've added that DT is directing to the first line - without qualifying when this happened, so his role introduced before his comments reported. --Davémon (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not claim controversy is bias. I claimed an enyclopædia introduces bias when it creates controversy. An encyclopædia must report controversy, not create it. Again: The proper way to handle the Del Toro incident is to report external sources which themselves comment on Del Toro's apparent change of heart; otherwise the text is not encyclopædic. Just plucking facts out of the æther is not unbiased writing, since the context of those facts and their weight in the bigger scheme have not been established. Encyclopædia editors have no right to decide those things. Personally I don't much care, now that the temporal coherency has been addressed — although that paragraph is still a mess given how it lumps together a lot of disjoint factoids about the movies. Anyway, thanks for all the work. Strebe (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources needed!

As per the GA review for the article, there are a few holes in the citations. Many books used do not give page numbers which are needed, if you have any books used for sources and can locate this info, your help would be much appreciated. To find a list of what is needed see the bulleted list near the bottom of the GA review. Thank you! Blackngold29 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I've noticed that the Reception section only contains positive reviews. The novel has historic and literary importance, but without any negative critique isn't this article violating NPOV? --Marshmello 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • By all means if you can find negative reviews and want to present them go ahead. I wouldn't bother placing an NPOV tag though as negative reviews might not exist (in this case I'm not sure that the book was reviewed negatively by any source. I certainly have never seen one). Look for opposing views and present them if you find them. They are welcome.Nrswanson (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
All Right Reserved © 2007, Designed by Stylish Blog.