# Talk:Tolkien's round world dilemma

@Chiswick Chap: In fact I now find his article was published in Russian as "Он всегда был огромным шаром" in Палантир Vol.90. Do you think this is enough to consider it a WP:RS and mention his analysis? It differs drastically from pretty much all the other authors and argues that JRRT had resolved the problem to his satisfaction in favour of a Round World framework. Double sharp (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could check at the helpdesk whether that is an RS: we should be cautious, specially when the opinion is a distant outlier as well as the author. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Thanks. Asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#citing Palantir for Tolkien scholarship article. (I tried to keep the situation understandable for those not aware of the issue; if you think I cut out too much of the context, then please feel free to chime in. :D)
If the consensus emerges that this is an OK source, then my proposed text would be: "Vyacheslav Stepanov expressed a contrary view in 2024, arguing that Tolkien in fact accepted the Round World in the late 1950s and never abandoned it. Stepanov points out that Tolkien consistently incorporated Round World concepts in his Middle-earth writings (both linguistic and narrative) from the late 1950s to his death, and that he even went so far as to revise the third edition of "The Hobbit" to match it. As such Stepanov argues that Tolkien had resolved the problem to his satisfaction, keeping the Round World he now preferred while salvaging the Flat World texts, simply by adopting the in-universe transmission framework: the Flat World still exists in-universe as a legend from the Númenórean tradition, while newly written narratives coming in-universe from the High-Elven tradition contain the astronomical truth of the Round World."
(Perhaps, if you deem it appropriate to illustrate what Stepanov is talking about regarding those new Elven narratives, I could quote one of the brief citations that Stepanov refers to. Possibly the one from "The Shibboleth of Fëanor", since it mentions the day-night cycle twice in a short span.) Double sharp (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Let's wait and see. I will say that the proposed text is too long. As for revising the 3rd ed. of TH, Tolkien abandoned that revision, incomplete. Everybody except Stepanov thinks that Tolkien realised the revisionn attempt (of TH and the whole cosmology) would not work and the explanation for it wouldn't be acceptable to readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Are you thinking of the 1960 revision, or the 1966 one? The 1960 one was indeed abandoned incomplete per Rateliff. But the 1966 one was completed, published, and invoked the Round World just as Stepanov says it does (and Garbowski admits this, as we note in our article). Incidentally Stepanov's observation about the heraldic devices from the 1960s was also pointed out by Hammond and Scull (also noted in our article).
Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps then we might say "Vyacheslav Stepanov expressed a contrary view in 2024. He points to the consistent incorporation of Round World concepts in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings from the late 1950s to his death, including the published third edition of the "Hobbit"; as well as repeated references by Tolkien to distinct Mannish and Elvish traditions into the 1970s, which was to be the in-universe explanation of the Round World framework. As such he argues that Tolkien had in fact solved the problem to his satisfaction and decided in favour of the Round World."
I realise Stepanov is (currently at least) alone here, but the fact that we already can point out with sources so much of his argument (last paragraph of "History") may count for something. In short, his key observations have already been picked up by others (Hammond and Scull, Garbowski); it is only the conclusion that is unique to Stepanov. Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes. So we should minimise repetition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, how about this then:
"Vyacheslav Stepanov expressed a contrary view in 2024. Noting that Tolkien's Round World revisions and the associated transmission framework date over an extended period from the late 1950s to his death, Stepanov argued that Tolkien had in fact solved the problem to his satisfaction and decided in favour of the Round World."
So it would then isolate Stepanov's departure from earlier authors, which is that he argues his case based on the date of those revisions (essentially, that it's difficult to argue JRRT ever abandoned it when he was still resolutely going with that explanation as late as a 1971 letter and writing it down in 1972–73). Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Forgot to ping you for this two-sentence version, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, no need to keep pinging. Text is better. Issue is that a) Stepanov is not a recognised authority, and b) Palantir is borderline as a source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, so let's see how the consensus emerges at the reliable sources noticeboard then. Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#citing Palantir for Tolkien scholarship article, I added the 2-sentence version. All else has been left alone, so that Stepanov appears only briefly as a minority view. Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
It was hardly a ringing endorsement: that normally writings for such societies are ok if the author is notable: which Stepanov seems not to be. Let's go with it for the moment; I'll add the name of the society. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Might I note, since all this prompted me to look up what CJRT selected for "Myths Transformed" and how he commented on text II, that CJRT was very much not certain that his father had rejected the Round World at all. In fact he only said that that "may be" the case, and that he had "no evidence on the question one way or the other". Moreover in just the previous sentence CJRT admitted that his father was "committed in mind" to abandoning the Flat World; all he said was that it was also "arguable" that JRRT had "left in abeyance the formulation and expression" of how the Round World worked. Such a commitment is also confirmed by CJRT in his notes to Myths Transformed text I: The sentence which I have italicised suggests an assured commitment, at the least, to the reformation of the old cosmology.
In fact, looking at what CJRT actually said and did not say, he seems surprisingly close to Stepanov. In CJRT's notes to the late texts "The Shibboleth of Fëanor" and "Glorfindel" in HoME XII, he actually refers outright to his previous "Myths Transformed" discussion concerning the Mannish transmission that is referred to in both those texts. (It is note 17 to both texts; note 17 to "Glorfindel" refers to note 17 in the "Shibboleth", which refers back to "Myths Transformed".) So it seems to me that the main difference between CJRT and Stepanov is: CJRT thought there was no evidence to settle the question while editing HoME X, and Stepanov thought (decades later) that there is. And considering that the evidence Stepanov puts forward is confirmed by CJRT in a later volume (HoME XII): surely we now have a secondary source of substantial authority (CJRT) that the Round World transmission framework was being put forward by JRRT as late as 1972–73? And if so, then isn't Stepanov's conclusion (that JRRT could hardly be abandoning something if he kept saying it right up to his death) already an obvious conclusion from CJRT's notes, and thus not quite as distant an outlier after all?
(Naturally Stepanov did substantial work on his own collecting citations, and I do not mean to denigrate that at all. Quite the contrary! But I mean to say that the core of his argument is really not far from what CJRT himself was commenting.) Double sharp (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I expanded the Stepanov paragraph with the editorial comments by CJRT and Hostetter. Their reliability is pretty inarguable, and they make the same point Stepanov did about the Round World carrying on its appearances all the way into the 1960s and 1970s. So the main point Stepanov adds to them is, as I said, the point that JRRT can hardly be said to have abandoned the Round World if he was adhering to it as late as the year of his death. I plead in this case that (1) the Stepanov source has been considered borderline in the RS discussion and (2) quite frankly that conclusion is rather obvious. Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Added also Kane's comment. Even he admits that "Of the Ents and the Eagles" is a late incorporation of the Round World, as CJRT noted too. Double sharp (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I think "would not fit as physical sources of light" is still not an accurate way to describe the situation of the Two Trees in the Round World. They are evidently physical and illuminate Aman: it's just that they don't illuminate Middle-earth. That statement is evidently just as true in the Round World as it is in the Flat. Which is why I think just vaguely saying it's "difficult" seems both more accurate while remaining true to the secondary sources, but if you have another opinion, I'm all ears. Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The point here is that in a Round World orbiting the sun, light comes from stars (inc. the sun); it doesn't come from overgrown trees, so the physical fit is rather more than just difficult, it's ridiculous. The agony in Tolkien's mind was precisely that he felt no longer able to have mythological shining trees in medieval style alongside realistic 3-dimensional planets, orbital mechanics, and stars with nuclear fusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
That is not true. The Round World text II in "Myths Transformed" precisely has those shining trees in Aman, made after the Sun. Indeed, that's the whole point: the Trees preserve the unstained light that used to be with the Sun, until the rape of Arien. Both objects are referred to in the same text.
If you want a narrative example, then CJRT in his notes to "Myths Transformed" text III calls it "notable" that the Dome of Varda appears in my father's final work on the narrative text of the Quenta Silmarillion Chapter 6. Not only does the rest of his commentary to "Myths Transformed" text III explain the sequence of events (confirming coexistence of shining trees and the realistic Round World), but that also happens to be the part of the Silmarillion narrative about Melkor and Ungoliant destroying the Two Trees anyway.
Though all this is making me wonder if the status of the Trees in the Round World needs to be explained in more detail for clarity, using CJRT's commentary to the "Myths Transformed" text as the secondary source. Double sharp (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I suspect we are both correct but talking about different events. May look at it later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
P.S. This problem is admittedly also present in some of the secondary sources. We cite Whittingham 2008 in "The horns of the dilemma" for the statement that the tale of the Two Trees needed revising, but that JRRT provided no alternative version. But we have CJRT's own word that that is false, from the abovementioned commentary to "Myths Transformed" text III! Double sharp (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

When the page is viewed in Vector (2022), with text size set to Standard, and any of the right side sidebars open, the word “No” at the start of the paragraph that is meant to be to the left of or below the Timeline table inset box is separated from the rest of the paragraph. Those settings are, as best I can tell, the default settings for people viewing the page when not logged in. I’m not familiar enough to feel comfortable with doing a bunch of edits to the live page (as part of the problem stems from the sidebar pushing the content, the issue didn’t show up in the edit preview when I initially thought to make a tweak), would it be possible for someone more familiar with fixing formatting issues to take a look at this? Thanks.
Ganonsghost (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)