Recent ego-surfing

Like most independent scholars of moderate ego (okay, giant ego, but I’m working on that ;), I have a healthy interest in tracking down references to my publications and posts. As such, I find myself ego-surfing on a pretty regular basis, and so I thought I’d share a few of the more interesting places I’ve turned up online recently. (A topic for a different post would be all the weird or terrible things other Jason Fishers are out there doing, tarnishing my good name!)

It wasn’t unexpected, but I was tickled to find myself finally appearing in Google Scholar searches, mainly thanks to my recent article in Tolkien Studies, and to a review in the same issue of a book for which I wrote a chapter. More on that in a future post. What was very unexpected, on the other hand, was to find that I am mentioned by name in Wikipedia’s major entry on The Hobbit. And no, I didn’t put it there myself! ;) In fact, I’m cited twice in the article; in both cases, it’s my review of John Rateliff’s The History of The Hobbit (published in Mythlore 101/102) being referred to. In the first case, my own words are quoted; in the second, a modicum of Old Norse source-study I incorporated into my review. The additions, made by one Davemon back in May, came as a pleasant surprise.

I’ve also been making a regular appearance on Richard Nokes’s excellent medieval website, Unlocked Wordhoard. Since he added me to his blogroll about three months ago, he’s linked to me a half a dozen or so times. I’m grateful for it. Over the last year and more, various other blogs have summarized, responded to, and/or linked to my posts, too. A small sampling of some of the more interesting ones: Elendilion, commenting on my post about the Tolkien Encyclopedia Diary, among other posts [in Polish]; a post on “Elven Latin” at Face of the Moon, linking to my musings on the etymologies and relationships between Gandalf and Albus Dumbledore; Sam Riddleburger’s thoughts on my thoughts on his thoughts (wait, what?) on Lloyd Alexander; a response to my post about the mythical Marathi Hobbit, among other posts [in Spanish]; and a detailed answer to my post on “old Entish swords” in Beowulf and Tolkien over at Eldamar [in Italian]. Finally, a nod to L’Imbrattacarte, where I got a special honor of being mentioned in the blog’s very first (and so far, only) post [in Italian].

This mutual admiration society runs both ways, too. Since I posted a link to Randy Hoyt’s new mythopoeic website, Journey to the Sea, for example, I’ve seen two or three other sites pick up on that post and link to him as well. To some extent, we all share our traffic, and these links and blogrolls can be crucial for reaching a larger audience — which, let’s be honest, is really why we’re all doing this: to be read. And so, thanks for reading this post, and thanks to everyone who has linked back to me from their own blogs and websites. Much obliged.

And now, let the ego-surfing resume. :)

My evil takeover of Wikipedia is almost complete!

Exactly one year ago today, I wrote (inter alia) about having found myself represented as an authority in Google Scholar and in Wikipedia’s major entry on The Hobbit. Today, September 2, is also the 36th anniversary of Tolkien’s death, the 35th observance of which escaped my notice last year. Please raise your glass of English bitter, miruvor, or whatever you’re drinking and toast the Professor with me!

Well, as you can imagine, I have scarcely flagged in my ego-surfing since then, and like Mr. Toad, I come to you today with more to brag about. I hope you will indulge me. Not only has my presence on Google Scholar expanded — to two pages, hahae — but I am now cited as an expert (for what it’s worth) in three different Wikipedia entries. Actually, I am mentioned in a fourth, but that’s just a technicality: the contents, through Volume 5, of the journal, Tolkien Studies.

So, what are these three? (1) I am still in the entry for The Hobbit, with the same two references there as before. (2) An entry I wrote for the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment on “Manuscripts by Tolkien” has been cited and quoted in a Wikipedia entry called “Middle-earth canon”. And finally, at least for now: (3) my entry on the Inklings for the online Literary Encyclopedia has been cited in Wikipedia’s entry for “Edward Tangye Lean”.

I suppose there is still no good reason for me to have my own Wikipedia entry — for heaven’s sake, John Rateliff only recently got one! — but I do have a page on the German Ardapedia. That’s a start! Wikipedia is bound to follow suit one of these days. All in good time.

They say Brazil is a tough nut to crack ...

At the beginning of June, I came across a Brazilian website devoted to J.R.R. Tolkien called Dúvendor. It came to my attention through nothing more than idle ego-surfing. As it happens, my essay in Tolkien Studies 5 — “Three Rings for whom exactly? And why? Justifying the disposition of the Three Elven Rings” — has been translated into Portuguese and posted there without permission (one of seven articles from Tolkien Studies). It comes out as “Três Anéis para … quem exatamente? E por quê?” The subtitle evidently got lost in translation. ;)

This doesn’t bother me personally, especially since I have learned that the site administrator, Daniel De Boni, posts fans’ translations of certain articles because many readers in Brazil can’t read them otherwise. I should say that I haven’t yet studied the translation closely to assess its quality. Reading through the first few paragraphs (without the original in front of me), it seems pretty accurate. Anyway, the question of permissions is something for others to sort out. But I was quite amused when I saw my essay there. Why? Have a look for yourself by following this link. Anything look odd to you here?

Okay, I suppose you have to actually know me personally to see the problem. But here it is. The picture? That’s not me! It’s just some random dude! How I laughed when I saw this!

Some of the photos on the site are of the right people (e.g., Anne Petty, Tom Shippey), but others are not (e.g., Verlyn Flieger and me). Mark Hooker’s photo was also a purely random one, but when I told him about the site, he got in touch when them and had this corrected. I’ll probably do the same … eventually. In the meantime, I found this too funny not to share. (At the same time, it’s flattering that somebody out there felt my essay was one of the few — so far — worth translating for a Portuguese-speaking audience. Muito obrigado!)

Funny where you run into yourself ...

Ego-surfing this morning, I happened to come across an unexpected link in a vrey recent laundry list of other links captioned as a “Recopilación de artículos MSDN Magazine sobre Seguridad Informática.” The compiler of the list introduces it with the assertion that “la seguridad es el asunto más importante de la informática hoy en día” — very true!

The link was to an article I wrote about computer viruses some four years ago. I had pretty much given up ever seeing that one again. Those who know me know that one of my biggest complaints (dissatisfactions, really) about computer writing is its very limited and transient nature. What’s relevant today is irrelevant by tomorrow, or at least by the day after. And this is why I’ve largely stopped doing that kind of writing, lucrative though it can be.

Anyway, for those who are used to the more philosophical, literary, right-brained Jason, take a look at my 2003 article for a wholly different perspective on me.

A first: Google alerts me to ... myself!

Well, this hasn’t happened before: I got a Google blog alert (a sort of email-based subscription to certain search terms out on the web or in the blogosphere) featuring one of my own posts. And in fact, it was that day’s post! Talk about quick indexing! Considering my own rate of ego-surfing, this was quite gratifying to see. :)

Here’s a picture (click to enlarge):

The things we remember, the things we forget, and the things we never knew we didn’t know

Wikipedia entries about Tolkien and related topics have been making reference to my research for some time. I can’t remember when I first discovered this … Okay, I just hunted it down, and it was in September 2008. I admit it was a bit of a thrill to see this for the first time, but I stopped keeping an eye out for it after a while. As of this writing, more than 60 entries on Wikipedia make reference to me, and not all of them in English. I didn’t realize it was that many until just now; I should definitely take a closer look. It’s nice to see that people are reading my work, remembering it, referencing it, and recommending it, directly or indirectly. Part of the reason my first book is still in print and still selling.

What brings me here today is the Wikipedia entry for Nazgûl, which includes a pretty substantial reference — the better part of 400 words — to my linguistic analysis of “wraith”, “nazgûl”, “writhe”, “ring”, and other connected words. It’s an accurate, relevant, and well-written summary of (a small part of) what I published in my 2014 essay, “Tolkien’s Wraiths, Rings, and Dragons: An Exercise in Literary Linguistics”. That essay grew out of a conference paper I delivered in Connecticut in 2008, which in turn evolved from a series of investigations I published here on this blog over the course of 2007 — nearing twenty years ago now! Could time be any stranger?

A Wikipedia contributor called “Chiswick Chap” added the “Etymological connotations” section to the Nazgûl entry on June 25, 2023, originally just a single short paragraph early in the day, then edited and expanded multiple times over the course of the same day and into the next to take the bulk of the form it has today. The same contributor created and added a diagram as part of a flurry of edits over the summer and fall of 2024, with the diagram’s first appearance coming on September 21, 2024.

The diagram (shown at the bottom of the post) is a remarkable visualization of some of the linguistic connections I made, organizing words and cognate forms from various languages into a series of overlapping ellipses, a bit like a multivariable Venn diagram. I find this especially elegant because it’s not only an accurate representation of how these words relate to each other — which tells me I did well at conveying those relationships, and Chiswick Chap did well at comprehending them; neither to be assumed! — but the ellipses also beautifully echo the circles, rings, and circular connections at the heart of the analysis. Like two stones dropped into a pond, each sending out overlapping ripples. Chiswick Chap even puts an image of the One Ring at the top of the diagram, shown at an angle that makes it elliptical also. I love it.

As a short digression, something you wouldn’t have seen if you’ve only read my published essay is the PowerPoint presentation I built to accompany the conference paper, which included a variety of animated and, to be honest, wildly over-engineered diagrams to visualize these words and their interrelationships. Here’s a taste:

It’s something I hadn’t done before, didn’t need to do then, and haven’t done since. It was fun, but not at all necessary. Still, one could almost wonder whether Chiswick Chap had seen this presentation, given the type of diagram he eventually constructed. But no, I’m sure that’s not the case. (Another small side note. I’ve been inclined toward this type of diagram before, though not animated in PowerPoint. In college, I produced complex diagrams like this to accompany papers I wrote on Poe, Hemingway, and Brontë, among others. No wonder Chiswick Chap’s diagram appeals to me so much!)

So, who is this Chiswick Chap? Well, someone from Chiswick, I presumed, a district in West London. Also, I guessed he’s a man; are women ever called “chap” in colloquial British English the way Americans can call women “dude” or Australians call women “mate”? I don’t think so. He’s a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, not just in matters of Tolkien, but also Agriculture, Animals, Artists, Biology, Cookery, Culture, Chiswick (duh), Forestry, History and philosophy of science, Natural history, Scandinavia, Beowulf, Victoriana, Yoga, and other subjects besides. Some of these have obvious overlaps with Tolkien; others, not so much. He’s also created hundreds of diagrams for Wikipedia.

On the matter of Tolkien in particular, Chiswick Chap has been busy, writing more than 100 entries and improving more than 200 others relating to Tolkien! Describing his own work here on his Wikipedia landing page, he writes:

This [i.e., Tolkien on Wikipedia] didn’t look like a dark corner, as it had been extensively and lovingly attended … by fans. Suffice it to say that a lot of the old articles are now a great deal better-cited, while the unciteable ones aren’t around any more. At least 137 new (*) articles (including half-a-dozen phoenixes) and over 250 GAs and FAs, not counting the 4 Tolkien/Beowulf ones. The old articles were basically all in-universe; the new ones are thematic and analytic, summarizing a now-vast body of international Tolkien scholarship. There’s a write-up of it all in Mythlore, for anyone of a scholarly bent. [2]

So, a reference to something in Mythlore! And the essay in question reveals Chiswick Chap’s identity! “Weaving Wikipedia’s Middle-earth Web” by Ian F. Alexander, published in the April 2025 issue. Now, one might think I’d’ve read this over a year ago, eh? The issue did catch my eye when it was announced. Searching back, I see I flagged the announcement in my email, and I also find that I wrote to the Mythopoeic Society’s listserv at the time:

The upcoming essay on Alan Garner’s Elidor really caught my eye! Nowadays it’s an almost forgotten book, but it was a favorite of mine at one time. I’ll have to read it again. The piece about Wikipedia and Middle-earth also sounds like it could be really interesting. And the new essay from Eric Reinders. Saw him at Mythcon last year and was impressed with his work. Lots of good stuff coming! Thanks as always to you, Janet, and to all the contributors! [April 10, 2025, emphasis added]

But in spite of noticing the essay and intending to read it, I didn’t. I should have, but it evidently slipped my mind, as more and more things do nowadays. Even if I had, it doesn’t mean I would have discovered the Nazgûl entry a year ago.

Well, I’ve read it now. In the short piece, Alexander argues that Wikipedia serves as a valuable bridge between Tolkien scholarship and the general public by creating a large, interconnected network of well-sourced articles on Middle-earth that combine accessible explanation with scholarly references — exactly the kind of balance I always hope to achieve in my work. Too many writings on Tolkien are one or the other — accessible or scholarly, not both. He also summarizes his many contributions and provides interesting insights into how contributing to Wikipedia works, statistics on popular Tolkien topics in Wikipedia, and more.

The scope and quality of Alexander’s contributions to the treatment of Tolkien in Wikipedia are, frankly, pretty staggering! I know, I know: I’m coming to this late, and — tellingly, I guess — through ego surfing. I only discovered the Nazgûl reference because the entry had been edited again, trivially, in the last month. But better late than never, and better circuitously than not at all. I like to think I know or know of most of the people who are really actively involved in the Tolkien community, but I don’t think I’ve ever crossed paths with Ian Alexander. I’d like to. Thank you for your service to the community, sir!

For posterity — Wikipedia entries have a tendency to evolve, and the internet is an ephemeral thing — here are the relevant section and diagram as they look today:

[1] Fisher, Jason. “Tolkien’s Wraiths, Rings, and Dragons: An Exercise in Literary Linguistics”. In Houghton, John Wm., Croft, Janet Brennan, Martsch, N., et al., eds. Tolkien in the New Century: Essays in Honor of Tom Shippey. McFarland, 2014, pp. 97–114.

[2] GAs are Good Articles, and FAs are Featured Articles. I don’t think “phoenix” is an official term in the parlance of Wikipedia contributors, but I take it to refer to a Wikipedia entry that died for lack of quality or interest, was eventually deleted, but then recreated and resurrected better than before.