Why the Lord of the Rings?
 

I didn't search so I am not sure if this has been discussed...anyway..

I am not sure I know why this book is called the Lord of the Rings. Supposingly as Gandalf said that the Lord of the Rings is Sauron, and Frodo titled his book The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings And the Return of the King....so why only part of that title?

My English teacher used to tell me to relate the book to the title...so I was just wondering about this.

I suppose the reason won't be that Frodo's title is too long right? :rolleyes:

A rather small post, but here goes...
 

You know, that could very well be the reason. ;)

Perhaps it just sounded good, and that's what it is about, right? Sauron is trying to get his Ring back, and is also trying to take over Middle-earth. Nearly everything that happens is caused by him.

An even shorter post...
 

I've always thought that it's because Sauron is the main protagonist and overshadows everything.

If I recall correctly, of the titles of the three books (FotR, TTT, RotK), Tolkien liked "Return of the King" the least because it said exactly what happened in the book (well, not wholly, but you get the picture). So would not "The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King" be even worse? I don't know about you, but I don't want to pick up a 1,000-page book and already know the result without having read the first word.

Besides, that long a title would be extremely wordy and irritating. Can you imagine: DotLotRatRotK. Yikes! It's a very cool title for Frodo's book, but in fiction the title should be interesting, relatively short, and more or less to the point.

It is interesting, though. Most books take their title from the protaganist (a book called Frodo? Eh, not as interesting), but LotR is named after the antaganist - that is, Sauron, Lord of the Rings. Yet it is fitting - it is an appropriately shortened form of the title of Frodo's book, and it takes in itself the object around which the whole plot revolves, the Ring. It catches the eye, as well: I remember thinking when I first heard the title, "Rings? What's so important about rings? What kind of rings?" (Maybe I think too much. :p )

LotR has the title it has because it fits.

Of course, Tolkien had chosen the title long before he knew that Frodo had called his book TDotLotRatRotK.

It is quite interesting that Tolkien uses this title, especially considering that Sauron never actually makes an appearance in the book (he appears to Pippin in the palantir, but we only hear about it after the fact; and of course we see his realization and wrath when Frodo claims the Ring, but this isn't really an appearance). It's an unusual, but I think in this case an excellent, literary device to have the main antagonist never appear in the book; but it is quite interesting that the book is then named for him.

Really, though, there aren't very many more options, for titles that is. "The Quest of the Ring," I suppose, is a possibility, but somehow that isn't as mysterious and alluring as "The Lord of the Rings." Somehow that title -- to me, anyway -- implies something dark, and epic. It did even before I had read the book.

That's exactly what I was going to say before I read your post.

The Lord of the Rings is an awesome title- the kind that makes you stop when you are scrolling through a list of books. It makes you think ooh- what's that book about?

The longer title... it just gives too much away. There are too many known things in the title.

Downfall- we know what that means
King- we know what a king is
Return- we know what it is to return

Where as the short title...
The Lord of the Rings- Umm, what's a Lord of the Rings? Is it some guy? Is he bad? Why does he rule rings?

The title definitely makes the book sound more mysterious.

Plus, the long version of the title would just be too much to stick on a book cover. ;)

If I remember correctly, the title "The Lord of the Ring(s)" was not attributed to Sauron alone. Pippin called Frodo that in Rivendell, promptly followed by a rebuke from Gandalf, saying that Frodo is not "the Lord of the Ring," but Sauron. Does that tell us something?

But it's interesting to note that the book title says 'Rings.' Plural. Not just the One, but also the Three, the Seven, and the Nine. So this word alone encompasses most of the Free Peoples of Middle Earth, particularly the prominent characters (the Nazgul, Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf). The Hobbits were added into the mix through Pippin's words above.

Of course I'm merely speculating here.

Very good point about the plural, Lhuna! That little extra "s" tells a lot without giving anything away to new readers. At first glance, one could think that it should be singular, as it's mostly about one ring, Sauron's, but there's so much more involved: the Nazgûl and the end of the Elven 'kingdoms', both results of the rings, are part of the greater picture. That's why the tale doesn't end with the destruction of the One Ring, but goes on to tell of the departure of the Three Elven Rings from Middle-earth. Only when all of the rings are gone is the story over.

Why, thanks for that, Esty! :)

Amazing what one little s can do...