Talk:Time in Tolkien's fiction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shouldn't it be The Perception of Time in The Lord of the Rings given there is no "time travel" ??

The Perception of Time in The Lord of the Rings would be a better description of the page I feel as the author does not give any instances of any character travelling backwards through time. Similarly, all characters are travelling forward through time and all are able to interact with each-other, so they have to be travelling at the same rate through time. It's just their perception of time differs.

The Elves being seemingly eternal could be a (for want of a better description) 'trait' of their heritage. Similarly, Man is always on the move. (accelerated time perception) While the Hobbits are more sedate and laid back, hence their perception is that time moves in a seasonal fashion (sow the crops, tend the crops, harvest the crops, tend the soil/lay fallow and repeat). The Ents slept for an age before being awoken, the same for the Dragon Smaug who also slept under the mountain with his gold for many years before being awoken.

Our perception of time is measured with our sleep (about six to eight hours) - roughly one third of a (24 hour) day. Given Ents sleep for ?Centuries and Dragons sleep for years or even decades, then their perception of time has to be different to ours.

Timelord2067 (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. I'd point out that articles have to be based on the cited sources, not the opinions of editors. Some readers may have the view that time travel did not occur, and they're entitled to think that; but they must not transfer that opinion into Wikipedia in any form, such as by reasoning on this talk page about traits of Elves or what Elves and Dragons must have done, that is original research. Scholars are basically unanimous in stating that time travel is involved; they state that the characters find themselves in Lothlorien having crossed two rivers, physically and symbolically; and the characters then discuss the nature of time there, given that they have indeed perceived something odd. The article is therefore not primarily about their perceptions of the time travel that they have experienced, but the time travel itself. I note from your username that you may well have an interest in science fiction, so it may be worth adding that while Tolkien's friend C. S. Lewis was happy to use science fiction devices for some of his books, Tolkien was not, and he chose to explore time travel in a different way. Scholars are clear, however, that time travel was present. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, "Perception of" is certainly wrong as a title, see the next item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Title

I feel that the title of this article is misleading, and based on the above discussion, I am not the only one to think so. Based on the actual article content, the title should more accurately be changed to Time in The Lord of the Rings, or even Perception of time in The Lord of the Rings as suggested in the previous suggestion (though I still lean towards the former). By generalizing the title as such, the article would avoid the confusion altogether for the average reader. There's only a paragraph of information here that even relates to "time travel" (I think I counted 11 mentions), whereas the rest of the article discusses many other applications of time: perception, distortion, dimensions, motivations, etc. To maximize encyclopedic value, I would argue for the title and the opening sentence to be changed to Time in The Lord of the Rings and "Author J. R. R. Tolkien embedded (the concept of) time travel in The Lord of the Rings in a variety of ways." TNstingray (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I hear this, but the immediate and serious objection is that "Time in ..." is so weak and diffuse that it will mean nothing to the ordinary reader: every novel has time as an element. "Perception of ..." faces the equally immediate problem that Perception is precisely one of the offered explanations of the characters' experiences, begging the question of whether that or the other offered explanations were correct, as the article discusses. I'll point out, too, that Tolkien set out to write about time travel in an abortive novel, and many features of that carried across, so perhaps the change in scope should be in that direction if anything. Last, and not least, the cited scholars called it time travel, though time distortion might be closer if only that hadn't taken on a wormhole sense in science fiction. So, I'm not averse to change, but it must be accurate, reflect the scholarship, and intelligible to the ordinary reader. "Tolkien's explorations of time travel" has the advantage both of being less assertive about what the "travel" might consist of, and of including all of his fiction including the unpublished and avowedly "time travel" novels. Let's go with that; I'll tweak the article accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As for "Author J.R.R. Tolkien...", that is someone's unthinking attempt to turn the Oxford professor into an American..... Perhaps some of the discomfort people feel stems from the Britishness of the article. Part of that is inherent in the subject, but perhaps we can soften if appropriately also. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I suggested Time in The Lord of the Rings is because this follows the same basic structure as the variety of other articles discussing themes in Tolkien's work (see Decline and fall in Middle-earth, Women in The Lord of the Rings, Paganism in Middle-earth, Music of Middle-earth, Tolkien and race, Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings, etc. for various title examples). In my experience, this is consistent for other notable authors/works across the English Wikipedia (ex. Religion in The Chronicles of Narnia, Magic in Harry Potter, etc.). Maybe those don't have as much of a scholarly emphasis, but I would also point to WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT when it comes to the current article title. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither "Time... " nor "Perceptions of time..." correctly match the sources used, or the text for that matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if we simplified it to Tolkien's explorations of time travel, Tolkien's exploration of time, etc., that may be good enough. TNstingray (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The former, as, again, "of time" doesn't match the content. But when one names an author, we're obliged to use his initials also, so I've done that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, I should now clarify my position: the title should be Tolkien's exploration of time travel to adhere to the goals laid out at WP:CRITERIA. I now understand your points regarding Time vs. Perception vs. Time Travel, and the latter does indeed more accurately represent the article content, as time travel is a more nuanced subject than "traveling back/forward in time" via some machine or force as the average person would assume in a sci-fi context. However, I still hold that the title needs to be condensed per the specific points I have already listed. If you could point me to the obligatory guideline regarding his initials being listed in the title, I would find that helpful. TNstingray (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm very glad you now more or less agree with my technical input. If you're objecting to the initials J.R.R., the expectations of other editors (i.e., not me) are certainly in favour of the initials. If it's having "exploration" in the singular rather than the plural, I think it quite unimportant, and certainly not worth arguing about; but his explorations were extensive, over several decades, covering multiple aspects of distorted or perceived time and indeed Nesbit-style time travel, and involving two abortive novels and one major work, so I should have thought that most rational editors would agree that the plural was appropriate. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

At this point, my only concern would still be the initials. From an average reader's perspective, it might be easier to search and find this topic by just using the name Tolkien and dropping the initials, and it would maintain consistency with the other Tolkien pages. But I guess it's just a matter of personal preference at this point. Thanks for a good conversation. TNstingray (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

More on the title

I do not feel that "J. R. R. Tolkien's explorations of time travel" is a suitable title for this page. Firstly, it falls foul of MOS:FICTIONAL, or comes close to it. Secondly, it is vague; if you're not familiar with the subject, you might think Tolkien was delusional, a hoaxer, or a scientist. Thirdly, it isn't consistent with articles titled "Racism in the work of Charles Dickens", etc. Fourthly, Tolkien did not explore time himself.

To be natural, consistent, and precise, per WP:CRITERIA, I feel "Time travel in the work of J. R. R. Tolkien" would be a better title. Thoughts, @TNstingray, @Chiswick Chap, or @Timelord2067?

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't think your title would be an improvement - after all, his work was philology, and this certainly wasn't that; and "work" sounds real not fictional too. The point of the existing title is that he was exploring, feeling his way, trying to come to grips with the ideas of time travel, which was difficult as the idea is paradoxical (accidentally killing your great-grandparents so you don't exist, and all that). I'm open to ideas but I can assure you this one has been carefully thought through. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I still take issue with the title as well due to its inconsistency in format with all of the other essay pages about themes in Tolkien's work. I still find the premise of "time travel" to be misleading to the average reader, as the time-related concepts discussed by Tolkien in no way resemble the subject matter presented at the page Time travel. I think "Time travel in the work of J. R. R. Tolkien" is a definite step in the right direction regarding formatting, as Tolkien's work certainly includes his writings, not just his foray into the study of languages. TNstingray (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, the only work involved is his Middle-earth writings, not his professional research, Beowulf studies, or university teaching. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

But his Middle-earth writings are still his work, no? The page provided by @CohenTheBohemian specifically discusses only four of Dickens' writings; is the title's inclusion of "work" therefore misleading? TNstingray (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's ambiguous actually. If you'd asked him his work, he'd have replied that he worked at the University of Oxford teaching English; he wrote LOTR in what little spare time he had, late in the evenings. "Middle-earth" would be clear and unambiguous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. Allow me to respond together

@Chiswick Chap: "work" here does not mean "job, career" – it's an established and unambiguous term for "literary work, writings". See the Dickens page I linked, which does not refer to his work as an editor. However, we could replace it with "fiction".

Secondly, your argument that "The point of the existing title is that he was exploring..." is clearly a NPOV violation as its purpose is to give Tolkien's perspective.

I think it would help the discussion if you would engage with and refute the points in my first message.

@TNstingray: Yes, you’re right. Perhaps "Time in the work of J. R. R. Tolkien" would be better. It's rather weak, as Chiswick Chap says, but I think this points to an issue with the article’s basic structure; the title has to couple two different phenomena (the “Notion Club Papers” psychic time travel and the fairyland time distortions in Lórien). "Passage of time..." is another possibility. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, that is a serious weakening; I'd remind you that in the deal with C.S. Lewis, Lewis did "space travel" and Tolkien was to do "time travel", so at the least there was an intention to write on that topic, and Tolkien was nothing if not systematic. "Passage of time" is completely wrong; scholars have discussed Lothlórien as embodying either an actual change in the progress of time, or a change in people's perception: and Tolkien realised that the process was paradoxical to the extent that it couldn't really work. Also, time appears in many types of writing such as historical novels, but those are nothing to do with time travel or time distortion. The article certainly is not attempting to give Tolkien's own perspective: at most, that would be one small fact among many. So in your proposed title, the lack of the word "travel" is serious; "the work" (to reply, I believe, to your points above) is tolerable, depending on the context in which it is used. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Something like "Attempts at time travel in Tolkien's writings" or "Tolkien's literary attempts at time travel" would convey the required meaning. Or perhaps "Tolkien and time travel". Or "Middle-earth and time travel". Shorter is definitely better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The details of Lewis' and Tolkien's agreement are not relevant to the name of the page. Agreed, "passage of time" is not a good title. You are right that time occurs elsewhere, but I don't think this argument works because 1) making an article about it implies a certain level of prominence - for instance, Dickens was not the only author to write something racist - and 2) as you say, the subject of the page is time travel and time distortion. The common element here is time, so adding "travel" is confusing. I did not mean to imply that the article gives Tolkien's perspective, but that the title does. Your four new suggestions have, I think, the same issues as the current one.

I do not think this conversation is moving productively. As far as I can tell I have responded fully to all your points, but I would be very grateful if you would explicitly reply to the four points I raised in my first message:

1. MOS:FICTIONAL.

2. Vagueness, implying that Tolkien might be delusional, a hoaxer, or a scientist.

3. Inconsistency with other articles, e.g. Racism in the work of Charles Dickens or general “Topic in context" titles such as Slavery in ancient Rome.

4. Tolkien did not explore time.

If not, perhaps we should discuss this at WP:DRN or Wikipedia:RM.

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not averse to changing the name, as my several alternative suggestions here indicate.

On your points 1, 2, 3, I have no special opinion, so please feel free to correct the title as you please in those dimensions, I won't object.

On your point 4 "Tolkien did not explore time", I am bemused; please read the scholarly sources in the article, especially Flieger, Verlyn (1996). "Tolkien's Experiment with Time: The Lost Road, The Notion Club Papers and J.W. Dunne". Mythlore. 21 (2). Article 9.; her book Flieger, Verlyn (2001) [1997]. A Question of Time: J.R.R. Tolkien's Road to Faërie. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87338-699-9. is a major work of Tolkien scholarship, and well-respected by other scholars. You might find her summary on "Time" in The J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia easier to get hold of, perhaps.

Another work that explicitly discusses Tolkien's time travel writings from a major Tolkien scholar is Rateliff, John D. (2000). "The Lost Road, The Dark Tower, and The Notion Club Papers: Tolkien and Lewis's Time Travel Triad". In Flieger, Verlyn; Hostetter, Carl F. (eds.). Tolkien's Legendarium: Essays on The History of Middle-earth. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30530-6.

It is thus certain that scholars (and there are more cited in the article) do see Tolkien as writing or trying to write time travel fiction, though obviously the stand-alone novels on that theme never attained publication. It is also certain from the scholarly sources cited that multiple scholars believe Tolkien was exactly exploring time in a literary sense; if the word "explore" is giving you trouble, then please choose another: I already suggested some above, and am quite happy for you to go ahead and rename the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement. I think "Time in J. R. R. Tolkien's fiction" is as short as I can make it - what do you think?

As to your replies to my point 4 - to me, this is a great demonstration of why the title is unclear. I used it literally (Tolkien did not travel forward or backward in time), whereas you used it figuratively (Tolkien imagined the past and considered time in depth). I admit it's an obvious point, but worth stating. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

OK. All titles but the most basic are ambiguous, that's why they come with article text to explain what they mean. All the information I gave you above was already in the article... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the move! CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Time in different dimensions

In the section on Time in different dimensions, is the list of other writers influenced by Dunne of any relevance to this article? I can see that Wells and Tolkien's fellow Inkling might be, but the others? Why are they here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien had certainly read Buchan at least (and surely also Hilton); but the relevance of the list, as the cited scholars in that section have noted, is that that was the literary climate at the time, i.e. the different now-famous names map out the co-ordinates of the time-travelling literary landscape among Tolkien's contemporaries. The authors are by no means confined to the rocket-and-raygun brigade, as many readers might expect, so the range of names is absolutely relevant to the topic of the definitely-not-SF Tolkien's being fascinated by time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

But what does Dunne's influence on a handful of names have to do with Tolkien? Dunne "undoubtedly influenced the literary climate", but do we really want to go into everybody else he influenced, besides Tolkien? Isn't the quote I just gave enough (from an obituary of Dunne if I remember rightly)? The influences on Tolkien are what matter here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

What it has to do with it is that the literary climate at the time was much more widely favourable to time travel, encompassing the list of remarkably diverse authors given, than Wikipedia readers would expect. Therefore, Tolkien was writing at a time when such literary exploration was very much possible, even among non-SF authors; and we have it on definite critical authority that these authors were influenced specifically by Dunne, which is very much "what matters here". This is more than enough to justify including the names. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I think this needs refactoring so it is not just a Dunne fanclub but a wider movement; Dunne was important but he was not gang leader. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No, he influenced the others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Dunne was also influenced by Ibbetson, Hinton, Wells, Einstein, Rayleigh, McTaggart and a host of others. Should we include the whole family tree of influencing the influencers of the influencers ad nauseam? No, we have other articles through which that can be traced. This one is about Tolkien and should not be dragged off-topic by time-haunted fanbois. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the point you are missing is that Dunne's theory was new and quite definitely his, and he was extremely widely read, as the cited Tolkien scholars and critics have noted, by Tolkien and the other literary figures mentioned by the scholars. You are starting to reason for yourself (WP:OR) rather than following the scholarship. And actually, the "Dunne was also influenced by..." is a WP:STRAWMAN: neither of us suppose that whoever influenced Dunne is at all relevant here, and the question has no bearing on anything in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Good, then I'll delete it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Erm, no, we've not agreed that you can delete anything, quite the reverse: to be quite clear on the matter, we agree that influences of authors on Dunne are out of scope, but that the influences of Dunne on Tolkien's contemporaries, identified by Tolkien scholars in their discussions of time in his fiction, are very much in scope. The scholars state that the authors mentioned were influenced by Dunne, and the article should say so too, as I've stated repeatedly above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Um, this is getting increasingly surreal, as you are asking for sources for a claim that the article does not and never did make. I do not believe, and have never claimed, that there were influences on Dunne that then affected Tolkien; that strawman is nothing to do with the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

So, if "text does not assert any secondhand influences, on Dunne, to Tolkien" then it is irrelevant to Tolkien. Sure it belongs on Wikipedia, but not in this article, no matter how energetic your misdirections. You cannot have it both ways. And please do not remove citation tags without consensual discussion, thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

We cannot call for citations for something that is not even in the article! Nobody here believes in the claim you are trying to cite, and it's kind of weird that you want to cite something that is not present in the text, has never been present, and which nobody wishes to put into the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Middle-earth Wikiproject have been informed of this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a confusing debate. Steelpillow, your reinstated citation request wants documentation of the influences on Dunne that transitively influenced Tolkien, but the article text it’s attached to doesn’t say anything about influences on Dunne that then influenced Tolkien. So, why the citation request? Strebe (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Because Chiswick Chap was insisting the material is relevant to Tolkien, therefore I assume that RS should make explicit the relevance to Tolkien. But now he is claiming that even though it is not actually relevant, it is still relevant really, or something. You think you're confused by this? Join the club! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Output is different from input: not too difficult to grasp, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Strebe, you are correct: the citation request makes no sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Chiswick Chap posted a neutral request for additional input on my talk page, which I'm happy to oblige, as I work in related areas. Speaking as an editor rather than an admin, I confess I share the confusion expressed by Strebe above. I see text saying that Tolkien, among a number of others, was influenced by Dunne. I assume the citations support that fact, and I haven't checked because that doesn't appear to have been challenged. So what exactly is being asked for here? Reading between the lines, I might guess Steelpillow doesn't like the list of names that precede Tolkein's, but if the sources make the connection, I don't see why we shouldn't. I could perhaps see a case for positioning Tolkein more prominently in that list, but that's about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies for not making myself clearer. Let me repeat myself yet again. In the passage "[Dunne's] theory ... attracted the interest of contemporary writers including H. G. Wells, J. B. Priestley, Jorge Luis Borges, John Buchan, James Hilton, Graham Greene, Rumer Godden, and two members of the Inklings literary group, C. S. Lewis and Tolkien", the fact that Dunne influenced all those other people is not relevant to his influence on Tolkien. The wider philosophical and literary influence of Dunne's theory is fully explored in the article on An Experiment with Time, and that is where it belongs, not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, that is clearer. As long as the sources are listing all the authors concerned in the same breath, there is no original research here; as such, it's a matter of editorial discretion whether to include it or not. You find it irrelevant; Chiswich Chap disagrees. I'm inclined to think that the material is okay, because Dunne's influence on Tolkein's milieu extends beyond his influence on Tolkein alone. Given the disagreement I think you need to invite more outside input, or launch an RfC, if it's so important to you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not that important to me really, and thank you in your turn for an intelligible response. The listing as it stands is a little misleading - for example Borges and Godden did not record any such influence until postwar, long after The Lost Road and even The Notion Club Papers and The Hobbit, while several others do not get a mention - but I hardly think the world of Tolkien scholarship will lose any sleep over it. To be honest, I made the edit in passing and then got an emotive reversion which rather surprised me. Hey-ho. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)