Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Individuated Hobbit


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Individuated Hobbit

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This book is not notable. Despite quite strenuous efforts, this article has minimal, indeed insufficient sourcing. The two sources given are both brief mentions in articles about broader topics within the (large) field of Tolkien scholarship. The fact is that in over 40 years, hardly any Tolkien scholars or critics have thought it necessary to mention this book; and that is despite the fact that its subject, Jungian archetypes in Tolkien's work, have been the subject of numerous works of scholarship. Pia Skogemann, in her book on the subject, does briefly mention O'Neill, to say that his interpretation of the Ring as wholeness is wrong (it's the opposite, Middle-earth is healed when it's destroyed; and Frodo isn't healed at all). O'Neill's book is a minor work, written with insufficient understanding of psychology, and scholarship has judged it not worth bothering with. We should do the same. But I'd not oppose merging it, for example to the article on its author, Timothy O'Neill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and influential book
 * Tolkien scholar Thomas Honegger called it "the unsurpassed standard work on the subject" (2019)
 * "a compelling and influential Jungian reading" (2013) by Christopher Vaccaro, editor of The Body in Tolkien's Legendarium
 * The opinion of the nominator this is a "minor" work is their own. It is contradicted by reliable sources, which call it both "influential" (2013) and the "standard work" (2019) on Tolkien Jungian analysis. Every other book about Jungian analysis of Tolkien references this book, "scholarship has judged it not worth bothering with" is completely false. The nominator wrote the article for Timothy O'Neill (camoufleur) the author of this book. As you can see here almost no mention of the book was made in the bio. When I attempted to correct this by adding importance of the book in the lead, the nominator deleted it. The one who has judged it "not worth bothering with" is the nominator.   --  Green  C  17:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid not; "notable" and "influential" can be judged only by what other scholars do. The large number of Tolkien scholars in the field has deemed this book unworthy. On the two sorry mentions, Vaccaro has made a rapid passing comment, and Honegger (whose skill is rather in translation and language, not psychology) has similarly said something brief and flattering-sounding before moving swiftly on. The most charitable interpretation of these two brief insubstantial mentions is that the scholars saw that the book existed and wanted to fill a sentence with something that sounded reasonable; if they had actually found it useful, they would presumably have made use of it, and we'd have pages of material to work with rather than these two brief quotations. O'Neill's background is in military camouflage, which does involve a branch of psychology, visual deception, in which he's an expert. That doesn't mean he's an expert in Jungian archetypes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has "judged this book unworthy" but you it appears. -- Green  C  18:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a personal attack. Please retract it immediately. It's also untrue in another way, as the discussion of Skogemann above demonstrates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Skoegeman just says she doesn't agree with some aspect of it, has nothing to do with the entire book being "unworthy" which is pretty strong language. Your the one making the assertion you should either back it up with sources or retract it. It's not my fault you are saying things unsupportable and strongly opinionated. -- Green  C  18:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a second personal attack, and again it is a misrepresentation. I did not say that Skogemann called the entire book unworthy; she just shows that the only thing she quotes from the entire book, which she must have read given her comment, was incorrect. As for sources, I've dealt with those you propose below: they don't establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment Examples of how influential the book is
 * 1 Harold Bloom, an important American literary scholar, included an chapter-length excerpt in his book J. R. R. Tolkien (2000)
 * 2 It is mentioned throughout Cross-currents of Jungian thought: an annotated bibliography (1991)
 * 3 Discussed in The Hobbit: a journey into maturity (1995)
 * 4 Discussed in Readings on J.R.R. Tolkien (2000)
 * 5 Discussed in Jung and the outside world (1992)
 * 6 The Annotated Hobbit, an official version edited by Tolkien scholar Douglas A. Anderson and published by Houghton Mifflin, includes it in its bibliography, which is very selective only a few pages long.
 * -- Green  C  18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's analyse those "influential" mentions then:
 * 1 Bloom: including an excerpt is not critical comment or analysis, it's just a primary (O'Neill) fragment; perhaps Bloom had a book to fill and was happy to use some pages to occupy the space. It doesn't prove anything.
 * 2 Annotated bibliography: isn't detailed critical analysis, doesn't establish notability.
 * 3 Green - this is a brief paragraph (11 short lines) which says it's impossible for a short book adequately to apply Jung's complex theories to Tolkien's lengthy writings. Green comments that the best O'Neill can do is to assert that Beorn (the skin-changing bear-man) is (he quotes O'Neill) '"in the general category of Self symbols because of his symbolic hermaphrodism"'. This doesn't establish notability, though it sounds as if Green thinks O'Neill is way out of his depth.
 * 4 O'Neill - this is a brief (primary) account by O'Neill himself, it obviously isn't independent and doesn't contribute to notability.
 * 5 Ulanov - just over 1 page of commentary, probably counts for notability, though it says little beyond that Ulanov found it interesting.
 * 6 Listed in Annotated Hobbit's booklist: isn't critical comment or analysis, is just a list entry, doesn't establish notability.


 * If anyone seriously thinks these sad entries establish notability, all I can say is, the bar for notability must be pretty low then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I said "how influential the book is". Influential is important because it is "a compelling and influential Jungian reading". You incorrectly asserted "unworthy", you said hardly anyone "mentions the book", that is clearly incorrect.    --  Green  C  19:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are hardly any substantial mentions: there is perhaps one such so far, Ulanov. Chiswick Chap (talk)#


 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK per the evidence supplied by GreenC. Experts in the field assert importance of the book in publications which should be weighed in favor of keeping the article. The source analysis by Chiswick Chap is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the analysis can be so described: it's completely transparent and everybody can check it against the sources. I've never heard of a presumption in favour of keeping, that seems completely broken as a process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @ you deleted my comment in this edit. I have restored it, and added a bit more to my original opinion. You should not remove the comments made by other editors.4meter4 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I did that, there was an edit conflict which I thought I'd sorted out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Notability (books) says: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."  This is a 473-word book review. The book review notes: "The author attempts to superimpose Jungian analysis on works of fiction, discussing his conception of Jungian theory and providing a glossary of key terms, then applying all this to The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion. ... One might well argue that the difference between a fairy and a goblin is not really important: the theory still operates over the general text. And that, I think, is the problem. Here is an all-purpose theory that will, like a bushel basket, fit over a candle. But it does not permit much light to shine through."  This is a 139-word book review. The book review notes: "This highly original work seeks to explain Tolkien's amazing hold on the modern imagination in terms of his independent and parallel development of the themes comprising Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. Rather surprisingly, O'Neill makes of this provocative explanation a tenable hypothesis. ... The study falters only when it gropes for evidence of direct influence by Jung on the thought of Professor Tolkien."  The book review notes: "The dangers of this procedure are obvious, and O'Neill is aware of them. He seeks to nullify them, however, by pointing to many coincidences between Jung and Tolkien from which he sees Jung's "theme of Self-realization" emerging in a way that cannot be merely accidental (pp. 161ff). The reader must judge these for himself. ... O'Neill's book as a whole is written pleasingly, with grace and ease."  This is an 82-word book review. The book review notes: "In his preface of this book, the author apologises for any inaccuracies in his interpretation of Jungian theory—his real field is the psychophysics of camouflage! Introduced by a friend to Tolkien's work, and by an aunt to Jung's, he became fascinated by both writers. The opening section of the book is a short, lucid introduction of Jung's theories, and it is followed by a commentary of the themes and characters of The Lord of the Rings as seen through Jungian eyes." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Individuated Hobbit to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * OK, the (rather mixed) reviews of the book and its author are clearly enough for us to get the article up to a decent standard, so I'm happy to withdraw the AfD nomination now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This ref mentioned above meets WP:SIGCOV, while 's last ref is too short IMO at 82-words, the first review and third one is definitely also WP:SIGCOV, second one probably too despite still being a bit short 139-words. Therefore, with 3 or 4 refs counting towards WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK I support keeping this article, but it needs improvement and expansion.  VickKiang  (talk)  08:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The reviews establish that WP:NBOOK is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.