Why "The Lord of the Rings"?

sun-star · 06-08-2004, 07:37 AM

I'm sure this is an incredibly stupid question, but it's always puzzled me...

Why is LOTR named after the "Lord of the Rings"? Titles often have significance in defining the priorities and themes of a novel, so doesn't it seem a bit odd to choose to call LOTR after the "villain" of the story? There must have been hundreds of titles Tolkien could have chosen - why pick that one?

Come on, crack open your Letters of Tolkien. There's got to be an answer there

Beren3000 · 06-08-2004, 08:06 AM

The other day one of my friends (who is not that big a Tolkien fan) asked me the same question. (In fact at first he didn't believe me when I told him that Sauron was the Lord of the Rings)
So here's what I answered: I think that the major theme in the story is the power to fight evil and corruption. So it would only be fitting to name the story about Sauron whom the heroes fight.

But, thinking now, I don't find this answer to be good enough. I think I might have another one; I think it would sound even more stupid, but here goes:
I think that the title doesn't refer to Sauron. Rather, it refers to Frodo. Frodo, being able to resist and overcome the call of the Ring has become the real LOTR as he could rise above them. (I would also go on to add that Sauron was the Slave of the Rings because he was bound to the Ring and could never do without its evil powers to feed his greed)

Well, I know how all this sounds, but I have only one defense: I didn't read the Tolkien letters so I'm just speculating here.

Durin1 · 06-08-2004, 08:58 AM

If I remember correctly, Tolkien himself stated that the reason why the book is called The Lord of the Rings is because he wanted to point out that there could be no other "Lord of the Rings" than Sauron himself. He was undeniably putting across to the reader that it wasn't just the quest to destroy the One Ring that was integral to the main plot; but also that the effects of the other Rings would also diminish - as Sauron had control over them through the One.

sun-star · 06-11-2004, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beren3000
I think that the title doesn't refer to Sauron. Rather, it refers to Frodo. Frodo, being able to resist and overcome the call of the Ring has become the real LOTR as he could rise above them. (I would also go on to add that Sauron was the Slave of the Rings because he was bound to the Ring and could never do without its evil powers to feed his greed)

I never thought of that before

Unfortunately Frodo doesn't manage to rise above the call of the Ring though, does he? (it's so long since I read LOTR!) Maybe there is no Lord of the Rings (and good point, Durin, about it being all the rings) at all, because no one can rise above them.

I'm still confused though

Beren3000 · 06-11-2004, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sun-star
Unfortunately Frodo doesn't manage to rise above the call of the Ring though, does he?

I wouldn't say that. He managed to resist the Ring for a very long time, longer than anyone thought a hobbit would. I know that he eventually caved in to temptation but look how long he resisted it.

sun-star · 06-12-2004, 05:18 AM

True, indeed.

old scholar · 06-12-2004, 11:11 PM

i agree that frodo resisted the call of the ring for a very long time but i think that frodo never controlled the ring or could bend it to hs will thats why i think that the title refers to sauron , a constant throughout the series
but i am still very confused

Beren3000 · 06-13-2004, 02:52 AM

I am not saying that Frodo could control the Ring as in bend it to his will. I'm just saying that he could bring himself not to use it; which, IMO, is harder

Telcontar_Dunedain · 08-13-2004, 02:40 AM

Yet there were still flashes that showed the Ring was taking control. eg. When Sam found him in the tower or Cirith Ungol where for a moment he became stronger and angry, snatching it off Sam. I think he did well to resist it that long bu Bilbo managed to resist it for 60 years and then give it away!

Beren3000 · 08-13-2004, 04:15 AM

I think these moments where the Ring takes control are shown in the movie more than in the books (but then again, I don't have the strongest of memories

).

Ulmo · 08-14-2004, 01:52 PM

Frodo is definitely not the Lord of the Rings...that's a point made in the story. Gandalf points it out to Pippin:

Quote:

'Hurray!' cried Pippin, springing up. 'Here is our noble cousin! Make way for Frodo, Lord of the Ring!'

'Hush!' said Gandalf from the shadows at the back of the porch. 'Evil things do not come into this valley; but all the same we should not name them. The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out over the world! We are sitting in a fortress. Outside it is getting dark.'

Attalus · 08-14-2004, 02:49 PM

Beat me to it, Ulmo. Yep, Sauron is called the Lord of the Rings, not because he has dominion over all of them, especially without the Ruling Ring, but because he was the proximate cause of them all being made, and if he regained the Ruling Ring, he would have indeed have dominion over all of them that remained.

sun-star · 08-15-2004, 06:25 AM

So... why name the whole book after him?

Beren3000 · 08-15-2004, 07:25 AM

I don't see what's wrong with naming a book after the bad guy. After all, Sauron was one of the prime movers and shakers in ME, wasn't he?

Attalus · 08-15-2004, 11:27 AM

Well, there are precedents, most famously Moby-Dick. Horror stories and novels are often named for their evil protagonists, such as "The Dunwich Horror" by H.P. Lovecraft and Jaws by Peter Benchley. The movies are too full of examples to even cause a second of reflection. Alien, Godzilla,, and Mothra. Don't forget that the full title of Frodo's book was The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King. Tolkien just took the part that was most euphonious (think of the alliteration of those R's! - Tolkien was very fond of alliteration) and used it as an arresting title, like The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald sweated blood over that title; one of his alternatives was Among the Flappers and Millionaires. That doesn't sing, does it?
BTW, I read somewhere that Tolkien wanted to issure the LotR as six volumes, for the six books. Among the projected titles: Vol. 1, The Return of the Shadow, vol. 2, The Fellowship of the Ring, vol. 3, The Treason of Isengard, vol 4, The Two Towers, vol 5, The War of the Ring and vol. 6, The Return of the King. Much more logical, but the publishers put the kibosh on it.

Beren3000 · 08-15-2004, 12:26 PM

I read that "The Two Towers" title was suggested to him (or maybe forced on him) by his publishers. In fact, in one of his letters he mentions how "misleading" it sounds.

Attalus · 08-15-2004, 04:32 PM

I agree that The Two Towers as a title is misleading, as there are, indeed, four towers mentioned in that work (Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Barad-dûr, and, of course, Orthanc). I further recall in the Letters that he objected to The Return of the King as it gave the ending away.

Haradrim · 08-20-2004, 06:56 AM

Did anyone really doubt that everyon would win. I mean when I got really into reading it sometimes I worried but when I wasnt reading I knew what would happen. Also I think its call LOTR because never wanted us to forget what everyone was fighting what the name of all the evil was. I mean I think the book was about 9 people who had their own stories about their struggles with the Lord of the Rings.

Beren3000 · 08-20-2004, 12:01 PM

It's true that we know that Good will eventually triumph, but one of the strongest things about LOTR is how Good's victory is not complete. At the end, the Elves are forced to leave Middle-earth and it becomes a gloomier place without them. The ending is a bit gloomy after the amazing victory they scored. So while Good had to triumph, Tolkien managed to free the story from the weakness of a total triumph that many authors would have fallen into.

Haradrim · 08-20-2004, 03:42 PM

But still we knew very early on that the elves were leaving. The only thing that may have come as a surprise is when Frodo and Gandalf leaves. Maybe Im just being too pragmatic (hope thats the word) but I never really saw as a gloomy ending. IT was sad yes bu tnot gloomy and I think there is a big difference

06-08-2004, 07:37 AM	#1
sun-star Lady of Letters Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England Posts: 2,476	Why "The Lord of the Rings"? I'm sure this is an incredibly stupid question, but it's always puzzled me... Why is LOTR named after the "Lord of the Rings"? Titles often have significance in defining the priorities and themes of a novel, so doesn't it seem a bit odd to choose to call LOTR after the "villain" of the story? There must have been hundreds of titles Tolkien could have chosen - why pick that one? Come on, crack open your Letters of Tolkien. There's got to be an answer there __________________ And all the time the waves, the waves, the waves Chase, intersect and flatten on the sand As they have done for centuries, as they will For centuries to come, when not a soul Is left to picnic on the blazing rocks, When England is not England, when mankind Has blown himself to pieces. Still the sea, Consolingly disastrous, will return While the strange starfish, hugely magnified, Waits in the jewelled basin of a pool.

06-08-2004, 08:06 AM	#2
Beren3000 Fëanorophobic Join Date: May 2004 Location: Between the pages of a book Posts: 1,417	The other day one of my friends (who is not that big a Tolkien fan) asked me the same question. (In fact at first he didn't believe me when I told him that Sauron was the Lord of the Rings) So here's what I answered: I think that the major theme in the story is the power to fight evil and corruption. So it would only be fitting to name the story about Sauron whom the heroes fight. But, thinking now, I don't find this answer to be good enough. I think I might have another one; I think it would sound even more stupid, but here goes: I think that the title doesn't refer to Sauron. Rather, it refers to Frodo. Frodo, being able to resist and overcome the call of the Ring has become the real LOTR as he could rise above them. (I would also go on to add that Sauron was the Slave of the Rings because he was bound to the Ring and could never do without its evil powers to feed his greed) Well, I know how all this sounds, but I have only one defense: I didn't read the Tolkien letters so I'm just speculating here. Last edited by Beren3000 : 06-08-2004 at 11:54 AM.

06-08-2004, 08:58 AM	#3
Durin1 Elven Warrior Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 221	If I remember correctly, Tolkien himself stated that the reason why the book is called The Lord of the Rings is because he wanted to point out that there could be no other "Lord of the Rings" than Sauron himself. He was undeniably putting across to the reader that it wasn't just the quest to destroy the One Ring that was integral to the main plot; but also that the effects of the other Rings would also diminish - as Sauron had control over them through the One. __________________ Durin the Sleepless!

06-12-2004, 05:18 AM	#6
sun-star Lady of Letters Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England Posts: 2,476	True, indeed. __________________ And all the time the waves, the waves, the waves Chase, intersect and flatten on the sand As they have done for centuries, as they will For centuries to come, when not a soul Is left to picnic on the blazing rocks, When England is not England, when mankind Has blown himself to pieces. Still the sea, Consolingly disastrous, will return While the strange starfish, hugely magnified, Waits in the jewelled basin of a pool.

06-12-2004, 11:11 PM	#7
old scholar Hobbit Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico Posts: 27	i agree that frodo resisted the call of the ring for a very long time but i think that frodo never controlled the ring or could bend it to hs will thats why i think that the title refers to sauron , a constant throughout the series but i am still very confused __________________ ``Here at the end of all things, Sam´´ - Frodo

06-13-2004, 02:52 AM	#8
Beren3000 Fëanorophobic Join Date: May 2004 Location: Between the pages of a book Posts: 1,417	I am not saying that Frodo could control the Ring as in bend it to his will. I'm just saying that he could bring himself not to use it; which, IMO, is harder

08-13-2004, 02:40 AM	#9
Telcontar_Dunedain Warrior of the House of Hador Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 4,651	Yet there were still flashes that showed the Ring was taking control. eg. When Sam found him in the tower or Cirith Ungol where for a moment he became stronger and angry, snatching it off Sam. I think he did well to resist it that long bu Bilbo managed to resist it for 60 years and then give it away!

08-13-2004, 04:15 AM	#10
Beren3000 Fëanorophobic Join Date: May 2004 Location: Between the pages of a book Posts: 1,417	I think these moments where the Ring takes control are shown in the movie more than in the books (but then again, I don't have the strongest of memories ).

08-14-2004, 02:49 PM	#12
Attalus Swan-Knight of Dol Amroth Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: On the Bay of Belfalas Posts: 1,125	Beat me to it, Ulmo. Yep, Sauron is called the Lord of the Rings, not because he has dominion over all of them, especially without the Ruling Ring, but because he was the proximate cause of them all being made, and if he regained the Ruling Ring, he would have indeed have dominion over all of them that remained. __________________ "What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Urn Burial.

08-15-2004, 06:25 AM	#13
sun-star Lady of Letters Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England Posts: 2,476	So... why name the whole book after him? __________________ And all the time the waves, the waves, the waves Chase, intersect and flatten on the sand As they have done for centuries, as they will For centuries to come, when not a soul Is left to picnic on the blazing rocks, When England is not England, when mankind Has blown himself to pieces. Still the sea, Consolingly disastrous, will return While the strange starfish, hugely magnified, Waits in the jewelled basin of a pool.

08-15-2004, 07:25 AM	#14
Beren3000 Fëanorophobic Join Date: May 2004 Location: Between the pages of a book Posts: 1,417	I don't see what's wrong with naming a book after the bad guy. After all, Sauron was one of the prime movers and shakers in ME, wasn't he?

08-15-2004, 11:27 AM	#15
Attalus Swan-Knight of Dol Amroth Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: On the Bay of Belfalas Posts: 1,125	Why name the book after the bad guy? Well, there are precedents, most famously Moby-Dick. Horror stories and novels are often named for their evil protagonists, such as "The Dunwich Horror" by H.P. Lovecraft and Jaws by Peter Benchley. The movies are too full of examples to even cause a second of reflection. Alien, Godzilla,, and Mothra. Don't forget that the full title of Frodo's book was The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King. Tolkien just took the part that was most euphonious (think of the alliteration of those R's! - Tolkien was very fond of alliteration) and used it as an arresting title, like The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald sweated blood over that title; one of his alternatives was Among the Flappers and Millionaires. That doesn't sing, does it? BTW, I read somewhere that Tolkien wanted to issure the LotR as six volumes, for the six books. Among the projected titles: Vol. 1, The Return of the Shadow, vol. 2, The Fellowship of the Ring, vol. 3, The Treason of Isengard, vol 4, The Two Towers, vol 5, The War of the Ring and vol. 6, The Return of the King. Much more logical, but the publishers put the kibosh on it. __________________ "What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Urn Burial. Last edited by Attalus : 08-15-2004 at 11:28 AM.

08-15-2004, 12:26 PM	#16
Beren3000 Fëanorophobic Join Date: May 2004 Location: Between the pages of a book Posts: 1,417	I read that "The Two Towers" title was suggested to him (or maybe forced on him) by his publishers. In fact, in one of his letters he mentions how "misleading" it sounds.

08-15-2004, 04:32 PM	#17
Attalus Swan-Knight of Dol Amroth Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: On the Bay of Belfalas Posts: 1,125	I agree that The Two Towers as a title is misleading, as there are, indeed, four towers mentioned in that work (Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Barad-dûr, and, of course, Orthanc). I further recall in the Letters that he objected to The Return of the King as it gave the ending away. __________________ "What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Urn Burial.

08-20-2004, 06:56 AM	#18
Haradrim The Official Court Jester of the Entmoot Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Far Harad Posts: 1,006	Did anyone really doubt that everyon would win. I mean when I got really into reading it sometimes I worried but when I wasnt reading I knew what would happen. Also I think its call LOTR because never wanted us to forget what everyone was fighting what the name of all the evil was. I mean I think the book was about 9 people who had their own stories about their struggles with the Lord of the Rings. __________________ A Bit More Grown Up This Time...

08-20-2004, 12:01 PM	#19
Beren3000 Fëanorophobic Join Date: May 2004 Location: Between the pages of a book Posts: 1,417	It's true that we know that Good will eventually triumph, but one of the strongest things about LOTR is how Good's victory is not complete. At the end, the Elves are forced to leave Middle-earth and it becomes a gloomier place without them. The ending is a bit gloomy after the amazing victory they scored. So while Good had to triumph, Tolkien managed to free the story from the weakness of a total triumph that many authors would have fallen into. Last edited by Beren3000 : 08-20-2004 at 12:02 PM.

08-20-2004, 03:42 PM	#20
Haradrim The Official Court Jester of the Entmoot Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Far Harad Posts: 1,006	But still we knew very early on that the elves were leaving. The only thing that may have come as a surprise is when Frodo and Gandalf leaves. Maybe Im just being too pragmatic (hope thats the word) but I never really saw as a gloomy ending. IT was sad yes bu tnot gloomy and I think there is a big difference __________________ A Bit More Grown Up This Time...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Theological Opinions , PART II	jerseydevil	General Messages	993	03-22-2007 05:19 AM
Calling All Nazgul : Formal Info Thread	The last sane person	RPG Forum	37	07-20-2006 06:50 PM
Why "Lord of the Rings"?	Gordis	Lord of the Rings Books	3	06-21-2006 10:30 PM
Theological Opinions	Nurvingiel	General Messages	992	02-10-2006 04:15 PM