Why "The Lord of the Rings"?

[sun-star]

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 :D

[Beren3000]

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. :o

[Durin1]

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]

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]

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]

True, indeed.

[old scholar]

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:confused:

[Beren3000]

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]

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]

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 :o).

[Ulmo]

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

'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]

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]

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

[Beren3000]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :)

[Radagast The Brown]

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 :)I thought it was obvious Gandalf was leaving actually. The end is sad, relativerly to otehr stories and books. Frodo leaving Sam, for example. We knew the Elves are going to leave - still it doesn't make it less sadder, in my opinion.

[Beren3000]

Exactly! you get the feeling that Middle-Earth became a dreary and lonely place without the Elves.
One of the things that emphasise this feeling is reading (in Appendix B, I think) that when Gimli and Legolas' boat left, "an end was come of the Fellowship in Middle-earth" :(

[Haradrim]

yes but there was still happiness cuz while the fellowship was broken everyone would still have happy lives. Aragorn would have troubled times but all in all I would think he would be very happy in the end. Same with Merry, Pip, and Sam, and we know all the elves, Gandalf, Frodo, and Bilbo had wild parties in Valinor. So I would think it ended on a slighlty down up-note.

[Attalus]

Speaking just for myself, when I first read the Trilogy, I had a very real fear that Sauron would regain the Ring.

[Haradrim]

Really? WEell I guess it could be like 1984 but then again most fantasy works end on an upside. His really was a rebirth though. I can see how people could think both ways.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

As for good having complete victory that isn't true. For the powers of the three fade when the One is destroyed. Even Galadriel wasn't totally prepared for that as she shai when asked she wished to happen she replied
'That what will be will be'

[Thorin II]

Speaking just for myself, when I first read the Trilogy, I had a very real fear that Sauron would regain the Ring.

My first read was a long time ago, but I remember being sure Sauron would not regain the Ring. Tolkien did establish a willingness to kill off major characters, so I think my primary concern was which members of the Fellowship would survive the quest.

[ringbearer]

Back to the original question...Why "The Lord of the Rings"...as Attalus has already stated...the original title is "The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King". Just like everything else in this world the title has been corrupted by mankind. The Hobbits never intended it to be so, and I am sure their decendants are upset about it!

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

But Tolkien wouldn't have called it 'The Downfall of The Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King' because he thought that the Return of the King had a revealing name so imagine what he would think about 'The Downfall of The Lord of the Rings '

[Attalus]

But Tolkien wouldn't have called it 'The Downfall of The Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King' because he thought that the Return of the King had a revealing name so imagine what he would think about 'The Downfall of The Lord of the Rings 'This is quite true. This was the title of Frodo's book, revealed after their return to the Shire. I think "THe Lord of the Rings" was chosen quite early on, but don't have a quote. I'll look into the Letters.

[Haradrim]

Yeah Frodo would have called it by a different title just like Biblos book. Yeah tolkien would never have given away so much of the ending in just the title. And I always thought GImli the dwarf would die. Too much Robert Jordan I guess. :)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

On my version of the Hobbit it is called The Hobbit and There and Back Again.

[Haradrim]

thats interesting. Mine just say the Hobbit. On the inside it say s that but not on the cover. Thats wierd. Oh well. :)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

That's what I meant on the title page on the inside.

[Haradrim]

oh okay cuz I have never seen it on the front and I thoughbt that was pretty cool. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

[ringbearer]

thats interesting. Mine just say the Hobbit. On the inside it say s that but not on the cover. Thats wierd. Oh well. :)

:) My green hardbound version of "The Hobbit" says "The Hobbit or There and Back Again by Bilbo Baggins"...it is written in Runes all around the edges of the cover...AND I have used the appedix on languages to transalte the Runes and that is what they say...thought it was a "nice touch".

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Wow. I translated Treebeard's song of Living Creatures into runes.

[Gordis]

Big BUMP ! :d