User:Davemon/Sandbox


 * Fof: Forces of Fantasy
 * RH: Ravening Hordes
 * *1st edition Dwarves
 * **List name is given as Dark, but other lists appear as "Night" in animosity / hate rules etc.
 * M- rules only given for use as Mercenaries
 * A- rules only given for use as Allies
 * I – included in larger grouping (bold above)

pseudo-celtic SPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MisledGhost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Deorad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beurlach (actually engaging) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brahva http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michael_Meehan

Greek Myths
Scholars on the veracity of the theories of Graves Greek Myths:


 * Michael Grant CBE, who edited later editions of Graves for Penguin considered Graves's work on The Greek Myths to be "brilliantly refashioned after his own images" (1962).


 * Richard Buxton calls the work "startlingly distorted" (Pharland)


 * Robin Hard in the OUP The Library of Greek Mythology:"the interpretive notes are of value only as a guide to the author's personal mythology".


 * H. J. Rose Finds the scholarship of the retellings questionable including many omissions and some clear errors.


 * Michael W. Pharand, "Graves's theories and conclusions, outlandish as they seemed to his contemporaries (or may appear to us), were the result of careful observation."


 * G.S. Kirk "brilliant but in this field totally miguided"(1970) and then "extensive paraphrases adorned by interruptions of unusual idiosyncracity" (1973). (Pharland)


 * Yale review "Graves's ludicrous etymologies and general unreliability." (1985). (Pharland)


 * Robert Graves "I am not a Greek scholar, or an archeologist or a comparative mythologist; but I have a good nose and a sense of touch, and I think I have connected a lot of mythical patterns not connected before." Indeed. (Pharland 186)

Tolkien Legendarium
Legendarium is a neologism, and not notable.

We don't talk of a "Charles Dickens Mythos" or a "Douglas Adams legendarium". It is normal to just use the term "writings" or "books" when discussing the body of work of an author. The olkienonly example that springs to mind is the Lovecraft Mythos - which is clearly and consistently defined by numerous authors and commentators. Aktually writers do use legendarium, and cycle, and mythology and a host of other things, but never really define them well.

Fixing LoTR article
"Comments from Davémon having nominated the article for review, I think it only fair I elaborate on the specifics of what I think must be done to the article to bring it up to the level I'd expect from a wikipedia Featured article on [|the greatest book of the 20th century].


 * Structure:
 * Presenting the information in a closer adherence to WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines will help ensure the significant areas interest are covered properly by the article, and help people who haven't read the book to understand its meaning and place in the world. It's not too far away right now and a bit of adjustment would make it great.


 * Focus:
 * The article must avoid intentional fallacy. This means that the article should not report Tolkien's comments about his own work at face value. Where Tolkien, or his literary executors opinions are cited, as much biographical context as possible should be given (i.e. date, reason for comment, who the comment was addressed to) and what independant sources have said about the comment or the subject. This is a fundamental requirement of maintaining neutrality. ( e.g. : from the lead: larger conception of a legendarium about an alternate mythological past of the world when did Tolkien say this? why? what relevance does this factoid have? does anyone else discuss the book this way? why?; #inspiration: Some locations and characters were inspired by Tolkien's childhood again, when did Tolkien say this? what motivated him to do so? has anyone else actually noticed this influence?).


 * Plot summary needs to be much tighter, summarising the whole book rather than trying to recount every event. The plot of The Lord of the Rings is reasonably simple in comparison to many other modern novels, and it should be simple to describe "what happens". Use the individual book articles to flesh out significant detail if needs be, but the main article should be as concise and accurate as possible. (e.g. : While Fatty acts as a decoy for the Ringwraiths - Fatty Bolger !?! but no mention of the barrow-downs? barrow-swords far more significant to the plot than Fatty Bolger! "After hearing the story of his Brother's death, Faramir became convinced that the Ring was better off destroyed than used as a weapon." - so what? it's not really a critical plot point. etc.).


 * Reception needs to have a wider focus than a simplistic good reviews vs. bad review dichotomy. It should include academic and expert opinion, comment from cultural observers and cover the extremely well-documented discussions of reader-reactions including:
 * Racism ("Why is the Only Good Orc a Dead Orc?" Rearick in Modern Fiction Studies - Volume 50, Number 4, Winter 2004)
 * Conservatism ("Breaking the Magic Spell" Zipes)
 * Environmentalism ("Ents, Elves, And Eriador" Dickerson et al)
 * Popularism: how did the critical establishment react to LoTR being voted greatest book 20th C. etc. ("The Truth Beyond Memory" miller 2001)
 * What was the books role in the counter-culture of the 1960's - how has that modified both the critical reception of the work and it informed the cultural movements that championed it.
 * The Major Themes section needs to summarise and cite the major well-documented themes that have been seen in the work, including:
 * The Quest (at the very least, "The Quest Hero" by W. H. Auden)
 * Morality - Good vs. Evil.
 * War (with specific reference to the literature of WW1 and WWII ("Reading The Lord of the Rings", Eaglestone, 2006))
 * Stylistic concerns, use of language
 * Poems: their function and effect.
 * Nomenclature: oft hailed as one of Tolkiens greatest skills - how? why?
 * Context:Lord of the Rings relates to Tolkien's other works.
 * How the main plot mirrors that of The Hobbit.
 * elements from The Silmarillion.
 * Legacy needs to encompass the novels effect into the wider world.
 * *The Hobbit hominid Homo floresiensis.


 * Sources
 * I urge anyone working on the article to start by reading: Hammond and Wynne "Review Essay: Tom Shippey's J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century and a Look Back at Tolkien Criticism since 1982" which overviews many of the literature this article should be citing: |Envoi (for free)
 * Journal of the Mythopoetic society do publish some articles online (for free) at |FindArticles - which is also a great source for other journal articles related to The Lord of the Rings. not as good as access to JSTOR, but not everyone (including me) does.
 * Hopefully not teaching grandmothers to suck eggs:
 * | google books
 * | google scholar


 * Citations:
 * The article fails WP:FACR 3c : consistent citations. These would be better formatted using citation templates, and where one book is cited regularly (Letters or Biography for example) then harvard style applied. see WP:CIT & WP:HARV.


 * Hope the comments are taken in the positive spirit they're intended, and the article really becomes worthy of being called an FA!