# Talk:The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen

Nitpicking the category (which came over from the original article) - is this really a short story? I looked for a category or article on appendices and Wikipedia directs the reader to addendum which is not helpful here. I suspect Wikipedia doesn't have anything really explaining these sort of appendices. Would something on paratext be useful? Do the sources say anything on this? Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

They just call it an Appendix. Or a Tale, of course. I think Short story is about as close as one can expect to get. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Where does "becomes the only living Elf in Middle-earth since Lúthien to die of old age" come from? Is that explicit, or a reading of the text? I've been re-reading the text and there are hints here and there, but nothing explicit. Something maybe needs to be in there about how Arwen was "not yet weary of her days and thus tasted the bitterness of the mortality that she had taken upon her". Carcharoth (talk)

There is something on Gilraen's linnod in Shippey's Author of the Century (p.177). For something on the poetry, see 'Straubhaar, Sandra Ballif (2005). "Gilraen's Linnod: Function, Genre, Prototypes". Tolkien Studies. 2: 235–244. doi:10.1353/tks.2005.0032' (used as a source in Themes of The Lord of the Rings). Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll mention it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The linguistic aspects are better placed in an article that covers Elvish verse modes (if we want to), see Wynne, Patrick, Hostetter, Carl F[ranklin]. Three Elvish verse modes: Ann-thennath, Minlamad thent/estent, and Linnod. In Flieger, Verlyn (ed.), Hostetter, Carl F. (ed.). Tolkien’s legendarium: essays on The History of Middle-earth. Though I am intrigued by what Strabhaar has to say about this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Couple of points here.

I did earlier say that the Letter numbers should be included, but I think the page numbers also need to be included (as some Letters are multi-page and because page numbers are more precise and are what is expected in standard citations). In my edition (the 1995 HarperCollins paperback ISBN 0261102656) the page numbers for the material quoted are: #142=p.172; #181=p.237; #186=p.246. If that agrees with your edition, then I think the page numbers should go in as well.
The reference to Letter #187 is either incorrect or refers to a different Letter to the one in my edition. There is another Letter (#181) where Tolkien also refers to the tale as "essential", which I added by extending the quote here ("it is part of the essential story"). The letter with the other quote ("really essential to the story") is one that was not published in Carpenter's edition of Tolkien's Letters, but was an unpublished one used by Hammond and Scull (presumably for the first time) in 2006 in their Companion and Guide. It is dated 6 April 1956. So the citation needs to be to that, and not to Carpenter, hence this edit I've made.
One final point: some of these published 'letters' were drafts that Tolkien had kept (and it is not always clear whether they were ever sent, or if the final versions differed from the drafts). These 'drafts' were still published by Carpenter, and they are heavily referenced by Tolkien scholars and commentators, but IMO, when they are drafts, we should make that clear in some way. This applies to Letters #181 and #186.
Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As you like. The page numbers match. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting here that in this edit I added an item of further reading, which is directly mentioned elsewhere (see citation). I have only put this in further reading, as I know the author personally, so am leaving it to others to decide whether it can be used here (see also the discussion about Mallorn articles in the archives here). Please ask if a copy of the article is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing for now and checking best way to handle this (partly because after reading the article, the 'summary' of it in the Tolkien Encyclopedia makes little sense!). Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The paper discusses who is ostensibly telling the Tale; and quotes JRRT quoting Simone de Beauvoir on death. The point-of-view thing could be mentioned briefly and cited to the paper; JRRT's quoting of SdB (with a quotation or perhaps a paraphrase, but I think her words and his appreciation of them bear repetition) could be cited directly rather than via the paper, or indirectly ("Armstrong recalls that Tolkien cited...") as you like. I think it would be worth including, but actually in the text, not as a 'Further reading' item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree, but am not sure on the best way to handle this. It did strike me as worthy of citing directly as it is a full-length analysis of the Tale (the other sources are more incidental). Agree on the Simone de Beauvoir and the Tolkien quote about this subject (death and the inevitability of death) being the "keyspring of The Lord of the Rings". The Barkley article referenced by Armstrong is available online here ('Point of View in Tolkien'). That has a fair amount as well, and I think the Christine Barkley there is the Chris Barkley here ('a retired professor of English, Literature, and Film'). Helen Armstrong is a contributor to the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia and "compiled The History of Middle-earth Index." Again, it is difficult for me to assess when to include various materials as I know some of the authors of the articles personally, so it may be best I leave that for others to decide (or at least flag this up when making the edits). Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC) PS. The Barkley paper has a diagram - and I know you like reproducing/redrawing diagrams, though this one may not be suitable. Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, an Onion diagram. I remember those! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Given that you've declared the interest, and a non-interested party has said it sounds fine, I think a brief entry as per my suggestion above is fully mandated. Failing that I can do it, but a bit busy just now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've finished now. For the record, the edits are here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a couple more potential sources as and when they are found:

'Choosing to Die: The Gift of Mortality in Middle-earth' by Bill Davis, pp.123-136, chapter in The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy (2013) edited by Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson, part of the Popular Culture & Philosophy series from Open Court Publishing Company.
Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. More on the same themes: we're close to the bottom of the well now, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. I have been taking note of some of what you have said in edit summaries. Do you think any of that needs discussion here on the talk page (e.g. plot section - I am happy with that no and have no plans to add any more; and making the S de B quote from 1968 more prominent - not sure how to do that especially as the 1956 letter quote is a nice end to that section)? The only additional thoughts I have right now are that it would be nice to give one example from West of links to the main story of LotR - would that fit better in the 'frame story' bit? - it is really something like compositional analysis or textual analysis; I'm also not entirely satisfied with the HoME bit, as though there are drafts of ToAA there, there isn't anything really meaty there. CJRT did speculate about his father's intention to end LotR with this tale, but only in reference to an earlier draft. It is very difficult to summarise - do you have that book to look at it yourself? The 'context' and 'frame story' sections could be reorganised slightly, maybe? Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have it. I guess the S de B quote will have to stay as it is, as I agree with you about the ending, and also about the difficulty of summarizing. We've probably done the best we can; if you feel like making a small reorg then go ahead. I think some of the scholars' comments could be cut down for overlap but on the 80/20 rule we're well and truly past the 80%! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Agree with all that. I have got thoroughly side-tracked now - see here and here. The first has (among other things) some collected thoughts on the HoME series, and the second one gives an insight into how some parts of the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia was assembled. Not usable as a source, but fascinating (it is by the person who wrote the 'East, The' entry in the Encyclopedia, so that would be John F. G. Magoun). Completely off topic, but had to share. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree the lead is a good summary of the article (referring to your recent edit summary). Another 'final' thought: a little bit of tidying of the sources is maybe needed for consistency, but before doing that was wondering if you were planning to do that? For some sources, cannot give an ISBN as not sure which edition the page numbers refer to. Also, what is the story with the use of {{!}}? Carcharoth (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Go right ahead. When a work's name spans two lines for a title and subtitle, the thingy indicates a break without inventing a colon : or other fiction. I'm not bothered however you feel like doing it.  Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Some other reviews given here (the ones about 'Second Quartet') also touch on the themes of mortality and immortality. There is also a book The Loss and the Silence by Margaret Hiley which may have relevant material in the 'Escapes from History and Time' bit near the end (or indeed elsewhere in the book). Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As you know, I think we've already flogged that theme to, er, death. If you really feel we need more of it then add the refs, but I'd avoid adding any more words to the text unless (somehow...) the reviews say something "new". Yours sceptically, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Understood. I will try not to flog anything to death. The aim is more trying to broaden the appeal and relevance and interest. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Do you think it's approachable, or is it a bit stiff and academic? If so, what could we do about it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I like it. Might not be to everyone's taste. Nothing springs to mind right now. I will drop some wider thoughts on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 19:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a wonderful read, and I'm really looking forward to reviewing this. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments
This is excellent work Chiswick Chap and Carcharoth, and I feel bad to nitpick at it, but here goes.

Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
While I think that specific appendices should be capitalised (e.g., Appendix D), elsewhere in the article "appendix" isn't a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalised. (Overall the usage isn't consistent - for example, Sarah Workman writes that the relegation of the tale to an Appendix but in the following sentence Tolkien had "reluctantly relegated" the tale to an appendix.)
Good catch. (The only thing worse is Tolkien's capitalisation of races like Hobbit, but an individual hobbit - even he could hardly keep up with the subtlety of the rule there (and it totally threw his typesetters.)
The only mention of Appendix B is in the final paragraph of the Relegated ending section. This doesn't give the reader any context of what Appendix B is - some sort of explanation of what it's about would be helpful. Can't really assume readers would know what it is.
Added a gloss.
Reference 20, to Dante's Inferno, should be in the primary sources or notes section, not in the secondary sources, since it Dante doesn't actually address Tolkien.
The 'Primary' reflist, as for all Middle-earth articles, says "This list identifies each item's location in Tolkien's writings." Rather than make an exception here, I've removed the ref and just labelled the Inferno canto in the text.
I'm concerned that the table comparing Tolkien with Dante creates poses WP:WEIGHT issues. It's only a single sentence in the source, so turning that into a table seems like overkill.
Guettarda (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood, but it's only a small portion of the article; the advantage of the table format is clarity in presenting what is quite a confusing set of pairs of relationships. I'd say it more than "pays for itself".
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
It's quote-heavy, so it scores pretty high on the copyvio detector, but I believe the quotes are all used appropriately.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Looks great. And as a person who got very heavily invested in the story as a teenager, thanks to both of you for doing this. Guettarda (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)