Talk:Authorities

I'd like to say that the context of that phrase seemed to refer rather to the historians and the loremasters who studied the Red Book as "Authorities". I was surprised to read that the Prologue meant the Valar. Sage 18:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to note the following: Foster's entry provides the reference Z 9/12/65. In the list of references, Z refers to information by Dick Plotz and the numbers are obviously one of the dates 12 September 1965 or 9 December 1965. It's surprising that 12 September 1965 is the exact date of Tolkien's Letter 276 to Dick Plotz. I looked to see whether the text of the letter makes any reference to the Valar or the Riddle Game, but there is nothing about it!! Sage 18:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Was this letter to Plotz published in its entirety?--Morgan 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a different view. I actually think we should stop referencing Foster. Going through the First Age years he has loads of mistakes. We reference Foster as if he's a primary source and he's not. I would use Foster just to find references to other things, but I would stop all referencing Foster directly. As a teenager I used Foster before I realised there were better places to get the info (like here!)

I would agree with you that "The Authorities" are not the Valar. How on earth would hobbits know that the Valar had thought about the riddle-game and discussed the legitimacy of the final question? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concerns but I am conscious when I am using his references and I am well aware when he is off. Foster's educated guesses (when primary sources are not enough) are not inferior that Fauskanger's liguistic interpretations; unless you are against Fauskanger as well.

I couldn't create this article and add a "perhaps" without any source. I wish I could include my interpretation but that would be impossible without resolving to original research. Sage 16:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would rather not source Fauskanger if I could something more primary. But actually the point I'm making is that I am increasingly of the view that we should treat Foster as we treat Day: as an unreliable source.

In terms of this article, does it even need to exist? And if it does, do we need to reference just because he has mentioned it? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Authorities as possibly the kings of Arnor?

I am pretty sure that it is mentioned somewhere in the LOTR prologue that Hobbits considered the original rules laid down by Arnor to be sacred and kept them long after. Perhaps the original Arnorian rule of the Shire-hobbits remained in memory as simply the “authorities?” I am not one hundred percent sure that this is the case, but the connection can be made even if it is only very subtly implied. I will try to find the actual quote that links to the quote on this page though the word sacred. Dour1234, 20 March 2022