|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 18 2007, 4:41am
Post #1 of 31
(4184 views)
Shortcut
|
|
**LotR Discussion: The Notes on the Text**
|
Can't Post
|
|
Please accept my apology for the long delay in continuing our discussion.
This year marks a twentieth anniversary: since 1987, American editions of The Lord of the Rings have included an introductory “Note on the Text”, by Douglas A. Anderson, which was updated in 1994, 2002, and 2004. (Does the note also appear in British or other editions?) The most recent version is about 3,000 words long, and is followed by another essay, “Note on the 50th Anniversary Edition”, by Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull. The first two-thirds of Anderson’s note describe the history of errors and corrections made over the fifty-year publication history of LotR. The last third briefly explains the drafts published in the four “History of The Lord of the Rings” volumes of The History of Middle-earth. Hammond and Scull’s note more specifically addresses changes made to the text for the 2004-2005 editions.
Douglas A. Anderson’s note begins:
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is often erroneously called a trilogy, when it is in fact a single novel, consisting of six books plus appendices, sometimes published in three volumes.
What word would you use to describe LotR, as a whole? Trilogy? Novel? Something else? (What did Tolkien call it?)
Anderson observes that even before the first edition was published, Tolkien encountered errors introduced by the printers: they tried to change “dwarves to dwarfs, elvish to elfish, nasturtians to nasturtiums, further to farther, try and say to try to say and (‘worst of all’ to Tolkien) elven to elfin.”
Which of these, if any, bothers you the most? Why? Before learning about Tolkien’s particular choices, had you ever noticed his non-standard usages in LotR? Would your reading experience have been the poorer had the printers gotten their way and “corrected” them?
The Return of the King wasn’t published until almost a year after The Two Towers appeared, Anderson says, because Tolkien wanted it to include “an index of names and strange words” including some linguistic and historical description. However, Tolkien never finished it, so RotK was initially published without any index. In 1965, a simple index was added, non-descriptive except for a few dozen short definitions (e.g. for “Stone of Erech”, Tolkien adds “a tryst stone (symbol of Isildur’s overlordship)”). For the 2005 edition of LotR, the index was expanded fivefold by Hammond and Scull, but apart from those 1965 comments, remains just a list without annotations. However, The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion quotes regularly from Tolkien’s earlier unfinished index. For example, he described “Ilmarin” in Bilbo’s song of Eärendil, as follows: “’mansion of the high airs’, dwelling of Manwë, Lord of the Valar (the Elder King) upon Oilossë; used in verse for Valinor” (H&S p. 217).
Would you have preferred more entries like this in the index?
Briefly, Anderson’s history of LotR is as follows
1. From 1954 to 1965, the text was nearly unchanged, apart from a few corrections submitted by Tolkien. The major exception is that The Fellowship of the Ring, beginning with the second printing of 1954, and continuing in all subsequent printings until 2004, included a set of more than 50 unauthorized changes introduced by the printer: what happened was that the printer, contrary to the publisher’s instructions, had not kept standing the metal type of FotR, and when strong sales called for a second printing, scrambled to surreptitiously reassemble the type, without any proofing oversight by Tolkien or the publisher. These changes were not discovered until 1992!
2. In 1965, because of the apparent copyright hole that Ace Books exploited to publish a pirate edition of LotR, Tolkien created a second edition through the addition of the index mentioned above, a new foreword, a new section for the prologue, and a fair number of small changes throughout the text and especially the appendices. (One of the best-known of these was the removal of Aragorn’s testy, funny reference to Gimli as a “rascal of a rebel dwarf” that he “would gladly exchange for a serviceable orc”.) This second edition of LotR was published first as an American paperback, then with some corrections as a British hardcover, which was copied as an American hardcover.
3. The British and American texts diverged. A few changes Tolkien made to the 1966 printing of the American paperback were slow to be incorporated in British impressions (like the inclusion of Estella Bolger as Merry’s wife in the Brandybuck family tree), which however otherwise were frequently updated with emendations by Tolkien and then by his son, Christopher. On the other hand, each such reprinting incorporated new errors. Meanwhile, the American paperback and hardcover texts remained largely unchanged (but different from each other) for twenty years.
4. In 1987, the U.S. text was brought in line with the British text, and vice versa, with corrections overseen by Christopher Tolkien, and in 1994 a British electronic text was created to simplify further revisions. Anderson notes that some new errors nonetheless occurred, including one I remember someone asking about in this forum a couple years ago: in some printings, the last two sentences of “The Council of Elrond” are missing. This text was used for American versions beginning in 1999, and updated again in 2002.
5. Hammond and Scull, taking up the attempt to create a definitive LotR (their note traces a little of this project’s history: there was a “Prolegomena to a Variorum Tolkien” as far back as 1966), edited the 50th anniversary edition of 2004, for which more than 300 changes were made (with another 50 or so in 2005). Their intent was to present the text as close to Tolkien’s intentions as possible, though these are not always easy to determine. They note that in 1967, Tolkien wrote that he had “ceased to bother about these minor ‘discrepancies’… But errors in the text are another matter”.
How does all this compare to work to create “authoritative texts” of other books?
Have you ever noticed an error in the text of LotR? Can you find one in the copy you have at hand? What difference does it make?
I think the revisions since 1987 can be broken down into six general categories:
First, errors that are known to have entered into the text since Tolkien’s death were corrected.
Second, the variant texts were made consistent, including changes made by Tolkien and his son since the late 1960s.
Third, spelling, punctuation and capitalization were made as consistent with Tolkien’s general wishes as could be managed. For this, Hammond and Scull examined multiple editions and Tolkien’s own corrections at length, and relied on Christopher Tolkien’s advice. Examples include “Númenórean” for “Númenorean”; “Barrow-downs” for “Barrowdowns”; and “Elvish rather than elvish when used as a separate adjective, following a preference Tolkien marked in his copy of the second edition”.
Fourth, many errors that entered in Tolkien’s lifetime but were never corrected by him were fixed. Most notable are the long-overlooked mistakes made in the unauthorized 1954 resetting of FotR. Here are three of the more prominent examples. To begin, Gandalf’s comments to Frodo:
’Together we sought for Gollum down the whole length of Wilderland, without hope, and without success. But at last, when I had given up the chase and turned to other parts, Gollum was found. My friend returned out of the great perils bringing the miserable creature with him.’
That is how the text appeared since the second printing, but in 2004 the words “turned to other parts” were changed back to “turned to other paths”.
Then, after the hobbits are rescued from the Barrow:
While they were eating Tom went up to the mound, and looked through the treasures. Most of these he made into a pile that glistened and sparkled on the grass. He bade them lie there ‘free to all finders, birds, beasts, Elves or Men, and all kindly creatures’; for so the spell of the mound should be broken and scattered and no Wight ever come back to it.
Here “a pile that glistened and sparkled on the grass” was amended in 2004 to “a pile that glistered and sparkled on the grass”. Tolkien had actually changed “glistened” to “glistered” three times before publication, in his own draft, in the typescript, and in the printing-proof.
And then there is the path from Moria through the Dimrill Dale:
It was rough and broken, fading to a winding track between heather and whin that thrust amid the cracking stones. But still it could be seen that once long ago a great paved way had wound upwards from the lowlands of the Dwarf-kingdom. In places there were ruined works of stone beside the path, and mounds of green topped with slender birches, or fir-trees sighing in the wind.
In that passage, “from the lowlands of the Dwarf-kingdom” was restored to “from the lowlands to the Dwarf-kingdom”, because the land ruled from Khazad-dûm did not extend far from its gate.
Tolkien never corrected these errors, even when preparing the Second Edition of 1965. Does that mean they should have been left as they stood? Christopher Tolkien is quoted in the Reader’s Companion as saying that his father “didn’t go in for steady, plodding, meticulous reading (rereading) of his texts” but would correct errors as he noticed them – sufficient justification?
Fifth, some factual errors in the text were corrected. Here are two examples from the same chapter. After crossing into Buckland on the Ferry, Frodo asks where mounted riders could cross the River:
‘They can go twenty miles north to Brandywine Bridge—or they might swim,’ answered Merry. ‘Though I never heard of any horse swimming the Brandywine. But what have horses to do with it?’
Elsewhere in the same chapter, Tolkien gives the entire north-south length of Buckland as only twenty miles, and it is clear from his map of the Shire that the Ferry is approximately in the middle. So in this passage, “twenty” has now been changed to “ten”.
Here is the next example, from remarks by Merry at Crickhollow:
‘I have prepared practically everything. There are six ponies in a stable across the fields; stores and tackle are all packed, except for a few extra clothes, and the perishable food.’
The number of ponies has been changed from “six” to “five”; Christopher Tolkien says that “six” was a relic from an earlier draft where there were a different number of traveling hobbits.
Other factual errors were let stand, if it was felt that correcting them would have required a substantial change to the text. For example, unchanged are the moon shining on the West-gate of Moria when there could be no moon, and Gimli’s errant statement at Helm’s Deep that his axe has cut only wood since leaving Moria.
Can you identify some other factual errors in the text? Were the editors right to make the two changes I’ve listed?
Sixth, in Christopher Tolkien’s work with the LotR drafts in The History of Middle-earth, he discovered whole phrases that his father apparently meant either to include or omit, but didn’t. I give two examples. First, after Frodo’s scene in the Prancing Pony common room, most of the locals bustle off:
But there was one swarthy Bree-lander, who stood looking at them with a knowing and half-mocking expression that made them feel very uncomfortable. Presently he slipped out of the door, followed by the squint-eyed southerner: the two had been whispering together a good deal during the evening. Harry the gatekeeper also went out just behind them.
Beginning with the 2004 edition, that last sentence has been deleted. In drafts, Tolkien had written, “Cut out Harry—he is unnecessary”, and two of the three references to Harry's presence at the inn did not make it to the typescript. This one did, but Christopher Tolkien believes that was an oversight.
Second, in the next chapter, after the hobbits have talked with Aragorn, he says:
‘Strider shall be your guide. We shall have a rough road tomorrow. Even if we are allowed to leave Bree unhindered, we can hardly hope now to leave it unnoticed.’
Here Christopher Tolkien believes that his father, copying from drafts to the fair copy manuscript, jumped accidentally from “your guide” to “We shall”, omitting this sentence: “And now I think it is time you went to bed and took what rest you can.” Hammond and Scull argue that “We shall have a rough road tomorrow” makes more sense with the missing sentence restored, and so it was added to the 2004 edition.
The most substantial such oversight by Tolkien, however, was not restored: Bilbo’s song of Eärendil, as printed in LotR, was actually superseded by three further versions of the poem, the last of which was probably meant by him for inclusion, but was apparently lost when the final text was assembled. When Tolkien rediscovered it, years later, he assumed that the later version was the earlier, and even tried to work out how it had led to the published version, when the opposite was true.
Comments on any of these corrections? Have Christopher Tolkien, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull gone too far? Not far enough? Christopher Tolkien says that “coherence in fine detail is part of [the] power” of LotR. Do you agree? Do these changes add to its “power”?
Have you ever read these textual notes? Should they be included in LotR? Who should read them? I haven’t even described Anderson’s eight paragraphs on the drafts in HoMe – why are they in this book?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 18 2007, 12:14pm
Post #2 of 31
(3526 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to correct the text, and
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
rarely has it had any impact on our discussion of the text. Even when we have noted a change, it doesn't seem to have much effect on the reading. But still, it's nice to know that someone has gone to all that trouble. I just can't think of anything profound to draw from it.
|
|
|
sevilodorf
Dor-Lomin
Oct 18 2007, 1:04pm
Post #3 of 31
(3532 views)
Shortcut
|
Here is the next example, from remarks by Merry at Crickhollow:
‘I have prepared practically everything. There are six ponies in a stable across the fields; stores and tackle are all packed, except for a few extra clothes, and the perishable food.’
The number of ponies has been changed from “six” to “five”; Christopher Tolkien says that “six” was a relic from an earlier draft where there were a different number of traveling hobbits.
Why is this considered an error? While they only take five into the Old Forest, Freddy rides with them to the Brandybuck's "secret" door so they need six that morning. I would say the error is rather the line from Merry that he is going to fetch the one to be the pack animal. A possible implication that it isn't in the same stable/shed as the others.
Sev's home away from home: http://burpingtroll.com
|
|
|
Lily Fairbairn
Gondolin
Oct 18 2007, 2:14pm
Post #4 of 31
(3513 views)
Shortcut
|
at Tolkien's adventure with the copy-editor changing glistered to glistened. Copy-editors do a wonderful job, most of the time, but throw in an unusual word or variant spelling and you can find yourself in a real battle of wills -- even for much less complex and erudite work than LotR!
A couple of years ago, I heard Betty Ballantine speak on her publishing company's efforts to track down and correct all the errors in the texts, an impossible task, with Tolkien's ongoing revisions and all the different editions of the books. I gather that the reason Ballantine published LotR in paperback to begin with was because Betty saw the company receptionist reading the Ace pirated version. (The Ace editor on the panel made it very clear this all happened well before her time!)
(This may be my entire contribution to the discussion, but I am lurking and enjoying, really I am!)
* * * * * * *
Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day!"
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Oct 18 2007, 3:16pm
Post #5 of 31
(3588 views)
Shortcut
|
What word would you use to describe LotR, as a whole?
Fantastic!!
Trilogy?
Well, calling it a "SEXtology" would probably dramatically increase sales.
Novel?
Definitely a novel experience.
Something else?
Absolutely!!
(What did Tolkien call it?)
“my long book” (Letter #264)
Anderson observes that even before the first edition was published, Tolkien encountered errors introduced by the printers: they tried to change “dwarves to dwarfs, elvish to elfish, nasturtians to nasturtiums, further to farther, try and say to try to say and (‘worst of all’ to Tolkien) elven to elfin.”
Which of these, if any, bothers you the most?
I like this “Who’s on first?” conversation that Tolkien has:
But “nasturtians” is deliberate, and represents a final triumph over high-handed printers. I dug my toes in about nasturtians. I have always said this. It seems to be a natural anglicization started soon after the 'Indian Cress' was naturalized (from Peru, I think) in the 18th century; but it remains a minority usage. I prefer it because nasturtium is, as it were, bogus botanical and falsely learned. I consulted the college gardener to this effect: 'What do you call these things, gardener? 'I calls them tropaeolum, sir.' 'But, when you're just talking to dons?’ 'I say nasturtians, sir'. 'Not nasturtium?' 'No, sir; that's watercress.' And that seems to be the fact of botanical nomenclature.
(Letter 148)
Before learning about Tolkien’s particular choices, had you ever noticed his non-standard usages in LotR?
They’re non-standard?
Would your reading experience have been the poorer had the printers gotten their way and “corrected” them?
“The word not taken”, as it were. I love Tolkien’s usages, which are queer, eccentric, and quite delightful to this old Texan’s ears.
Would you have preferred more entries like this in the index?
Yup. More Tolkien is better.
How does all this compare to work to create “authoritative texts” of other books?
Well, I’m reminded of the Christian publisher who wanted to print a perfect copy of The Bible. He and an army of proofreaders checked and rechecked and re-rechecked the galleys and proofs. When the work was finally published he read it carefully and was delighted to find there were absolutely no errors!! Full of pride and satisfaction, he closed the book, then noticed the front cover: “The Bibel”. So it goes.
On the other hand I’m also reminded of J.M.Barrie's extreme reluctance to ever print an “official” version of Peter Pan because he wanted producers and actors to have the freedom to change the work as they wished.
Have you ever noticed an error in the text of LotR?
The moon over the WestGate.
Can you find one in the copy you have at hand? What difference does it make?
It just shows nobody is perfect, not even (dare I say?) the good professor. (*Puts on silver bunny suit for the flaming*)
Tolkien never corrected these errors, even when preparing the Second Edition of 1965. Does that mean they should have been left as they stood?
Maybe Tolkien thought the mistakes were serendipitously better. Maybe he’d flipped a coin in the first place or didn’t really care one way or the other.
Christopher Tolkien is quoted in the Reader’s Companion as saying that his father “didn’t go in for steady, plodding, meticulous reading (rereading) of his texts” but would correct errors as he noticed them – sufficient justification?
Sure. If it didn’t bother him why should it bother me?
Fifth, some factual errors in the text were corrected. Here are two examples from the same chapter. After crossing into Buckland on the Ferry, Frodo asks where mounted riders could cross the River:
Quote
‘They can go twenty miles north to Brandywine Bridge—or they might swim,’ answered Merry. ‘Though I never heard of any horse swimming the Brandywine. But what have horses to do with it?’
Elsewhere in the same chapter, Tolkien gives the entire north-south length of Buckland as only twenty miles, and it is clear from his map of the Shire that the Ferry is approximately in the middle. So in this passage, “twenty” has now been changed to “ten”.
Who’s to say Merry isn’t exaggerating, using hyperbole? I can just see some film editor in the future changing Peter Jackson’s “300 lives of Men” or “10,000 orcs now stand between Frodo and Mount Doom” to a more “realistic” number. “Twenty miles” doesn’t necessarily mean twenty miles. I remember an old drill instructor, when guys were out on a cross country march, whenever someone would ask “How much farther, Sarge?” he’d always go “Two more miles, just two more miles!” Two miles later he’d answer “Two more miles, just two more miles!” to the same question. Four miles later, eight miles later, always the same answer. Definite numbers are often used indefinitely.
Can you identify some other factual errors in the text?
“The Nine the Nazgûl keep.” Yet later "'So it is now: the Nine he has gathered to himself…” So which is it?
Were the editors right to make the two changes I’ve listed?
Should we go back and correct “unalienable” in The Declaration of Independence or “Pensylvania” in the US Constitution? Some stuff you just don’t mess with.
Comments on any of these corrections?
Revisionist history be darned! Han Solo shot first and no amount of “corrections” will ever change that.
Have Christopher Tolkien, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull gone too far?
Has Lucas?
Not far enough?
There’s still a lot of Tolkien’s writings stuffed in boxes! Stop messing with what’s already out there and publish some new stuff!!
Christopher Tolkien says that “coherence in fine detail is part of [the] power” of LotR. Do you agree?
I thought it more that vagueness is part of the power of LOTR. What color is Legolas’ hair? Do elves have pointed ears? Do Balrogs have wings? The power of "seeming" in LOTR.
Do these changes add to its “power”?
Nah. It’s just diddling.
Have you ever read these textual notes?
Yep.
Should they be included in LotR?
Annotated versions put off first-time and casual readers.
Who should read them?
People who’ve been consumed by Tolkien! Mwahahahahahahaha!!
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
weaver
Gondolin
Oct 18 2007, 3:56pm
Post #6 of 31
(3506 views)
Shortcut
|
|
the importance of such things....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
None of this kind of detail in terms of spellings, etc., matters to me as a reader -- the story's power does not depend on how you spell dwarves or where the moon is or isn't, to me.
But once I read some of the Tolkien biographies, plus letters, and learned how much it mattered to the author, then these issues got my attention. Not in terms of appreciating the story, but in terms of appreciating the care and thought and personality of the one who wrote it.
In the same way, there are things about the story that people focus on that Tolkien did not -- feminist interpretations, Freudian psychology, etc. These are things that did not matter to Tolkien, and which don't affect the way I enjoy the story, but which matter to someone. And so they take on importance when I am looking at the tale from those angles.
To me, it all says that LOTR is big and deep enough that Tolkien, the author, has a right to bring new things to his tale, as do scholars and editors, as do all of us. Tolkien felt that his rights and views should be respected as long as he was a "living" author, and also recognized when the tale had gone beyond him and was making its own way in the world. It's interesting to bring back the things that he wanted, but really, hasn't it passed on in some ways, and it's up to the rest of us now to be the stewards, so to speak?
Not sure I've completely said anything clearly here, but I'm kind of rusty in terms of RR discussions...bear with me!
Weaver
|
|
|
Morwen
Nargothrond
Oct 18 2007, 5:22pm
Post #7 of 31
(3569 views)
Shortcut
|
What word would you use to describe LotR, as a whole? Trilogy? Novel? Something else?
I usually try to bypass the confusion by just referring to it as a story.
Which of these, if any, bothers you the most? Why? Before learning about Tolkien’s particular choices, had you ever noticed his non-standard usages in LotR? Would your reading experience have been the poorer had the printers gotten their way and “corrected” them?
None of them bother me much at all. I don't think I realized that there were standarized plurals for "elf" or "dwarf" as those words just don't come up much in everyday language, and my term for nasturtians (or nasturtiums) is "flowers". I understand that Tolkien had his reasons for wanting these things a certain way, but I don't think any corrections would have affected my enjoyment of the book.
Would you have preferred more entries like this in the index?
I'm not sure it would have mattered much to me.
(One of the best-known of these was the removal of Aragorn’s testy, funny reference to Gimli as a “rascal of a rebel dwarf” that he “would gladly exchange for a serviceable orc”.)
I never knew that! When did Aragorn say that to Gimli, before Tolkien made him unsay it? I wonder why he took it out.
Have you ever read these textual notes? Should they be included in LotR? Who should read them? I haven’t even described Anderson’s eight paragraphs on the drafts in HoMe – why are they in this book?
I suppose I might read them someday, but I think I'd find them distracting while I was actually reading LotR.
I've heard your anguish, I've heard your hearts cry out
We are tired, we are weary, but we aren't worn out
Set down your chains, until only faith remains
Set down your chains--Jewel
|
|
|
Humbert
Lindon
Oct 19 2007, 2:27am
Post #8 of 31
(3508 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I was just reading the relevant HoMe books
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I didn't know that the faults Christopher T was noting had actually been corrected in a relatively recent edition. Interesting!
What word would you use to describe LotR, as a whole? Trilogy? Novel? Something else?
"Book," I think, generally. "Story," "tale," "fiction," may do. But "book" seems sufficient to me, somehow.
Which of these, if any, bothers you the most? Why? Before learning about Tolkien’s particular choices, had you ever noticed his non-standard usages in LotR? Would your reading experience have been the poorer had the printers gotten their way and “corrected” them?
I don't recall whether I had read about this before first reading LR, but as I now associate these statements strongly with the story itself (having read them along with the actual text so often) I can't recall a time when I wasn't already aware of the situation.
And yes, I think it would have made a difference. Not that I would have "noticed it", per se, as I wouldn't have known JRRT intended otherwise, but these details add up. Tolkien was very specific about words, especially names, and using his own (more "correct" as he may have seen it) terms helps set the scene, helps create Middle-earth.
Have you ever noticed an error in the text of LotR?
I remember trying to square Aragorn's age with some info given in the Tale of Years. I was unable to make it add up - a definite booboo on JRRT's part. (I won't go to the trouble of looking it up now, as I am sure everyone here knows the error of which I speak.)
Thanks for all the info on edition changes, NEB. Some of those I was quite unaware of!
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 19 2007, 3:21am
Post #9 of 31
(3499 views)
Shortcut
|
Why is this considered an error?
Possibly the textual history may support this argument more strongly, I don't know (see pp. 326-326 of The Return of the Shadow) but Hammond and Scull's answer to your question, from p. 118 of The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion, is:
Although some readers have tried to explain the reading 'six ponies' by suggesting that one was for Fredegar to ride with his friends as far as the hedge, Merry is here answering Frodo's question about preparations, with details of transport and provisions specifically for the four hobbits who are to make the journey -- excluding Fredegar.
You may have caught something with Merry's other comment -- if so, maybe Hammond and Scull will note it (it woudn't be the first time one of your remarks here wound up in their corrigenda).
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 19 2007, 3:36am
Post #10 of 31
(3505 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for bringing up "Star Wars".
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And also especially these two comments:
Christopher Tolkien says that "coherence in fine detail is part of [the] power of LotR
I thought it was more that vaguness is part of the power of LOTR. What color is Legolas' hair? Do elves have pointed ears? Do Balrogs have wings? The power of "seeming" in LOTR.
I'd love to hear others' comments on this contrast. For instance, I think many people feel very strongly that at least some of these questions have definite answers, rejecting that ambiguity. And Tolkien himself in letters was ready to clarify many obscure points when raised. (Does anyone know when the balrog-wing question was first raised? Why did no one think of it Tolkien's lifetime, and write to ask?)
There's still a lot of Tolkien's writings stuffed in boxes! Stop messing with what's already out there and publish some new stuff!!!
What, The Father Christmas Letters, the Gawain / Pearl / Orfeo translations, "The Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings", The Silmarillion, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, The Old English Exodus, Finn and Hengest, "A Secret Vice", "A Middle English Romance", Mr. Bliss, Roverandom, twelve volumes of The History of Middle-earth and a wealth of linguistic texts aren't enough?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 19 2007, 4:01am
Post #11 of 31
(3490 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's after Aragorn challenges Sauron in the palantír.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The text now reads:
"You have looked in that accursed stone of wizardry!" exclaimed Gimli with fear and astonishment in his face. "Did you say aught to - him? Even Gandalf feared that encounter."
"You forget to whom you speak," said Aragorn sternly, and his eyes glinted. "Did I not openly proclaim my title before the doors of Edoras? What do you fear that I should say to him? Nay, Gimli," he said in a softer voice, and the grimness left his face, and he looked like one who has laboured in sleepless pain for many nights. "Nay, my friends, I and the lawful master of the Stone, and I had both the right and the strength to use it, or so I judged. The right cannot be doubted. The strength was enough - barely."
But in the first edition, the text runs "...and his eyes glinted. 'What did you fear that I should say: that I had a rascal of a rebel dwarf here that I would gladly exchange for a serviceable orc? Nay, Gimli,' he said..."
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
Morwen
Nargothrond
Oct 19 2007, 4:05am
Post #12 of 31
(3482 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maybe Tolkien thought the tone of passage was wrong for humor.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But it's still a great line.
Thanks, N.E.B.
I've heard your anguish, I've heard your hearts cry out
We are tired, we are weary, but we aren't worn out
Set down your chains, until only faith remains
Set down your chains--Jewel
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 19 2007, 4:06am
Post #13 of 31
(3473 views)
Shortcut
|
In the first edition, that is; he lives to be 210 in the second edition.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Oct 19 2007, 9:30pm
Post #14 of 31
(3470 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sound and fury over the "trilogy"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What word would you use to describe LotR, as a whole? Trilogy? Novel? Something else? (What did Tolkien call it?)
I find this whole question (pace N.E.B.) to be so much sound and fury signifying nothing. I know people who will violently pounce on anyone who dares call The Lord of the Rings a trilogy, but Tolkien himself did so occasionally. In a letter to W.H. Auden, he uses the term liberally. The notes to Letters tell us this is because Auden used it first, but Tolkien also called it a trilogy in a draft letter to Michael Tolkien (#252). It's clear that Tolkien didn't think the term particularly accurate, but I don't get the feeling he was particularly aggressive about arguing the point either. I can't see Tolkien using the term casually with his own son unless he was fairly comfortable with it (at least by that time).
For myself, I usually call it a novel. But I think you can call it anything you like really.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Oct 19 2007, 9:37pm
Post #15 of 31
(3472 views)
Shortcut
|
What did you fear that I should say: that I had a rascal of a rebel dwarf here that I would gladly exchange for a serviceable orc
To my ears, this is quite similar to Gandalf's "Fool of a Took!" Perhaps it was changed because it "felt" more like Gandalf than Aragorn, or perhaps because the barb seemed better aimed at Pippin than Gimli. But Gandalf had already softened to Pippin over his meddling with the palantír, so it might have seemed weird to "Pippinize" Gimli at this point.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Oct 20 2007, 2:02am
Post #17 of 31
(3468 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Have we all become Tolkien's "literary heirs"?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Would being "stewards" of the text be like being, in a way, "literary heirs" of it? In that, it's up to us to preserve the text, appreciate all that went into its creation, and engage in meaningful dialogue regarding it - but not alter it in any large fashion.
I think the effort to make certain corrections is part of that stewardship, acknowledging the many printing errors, and trying to be as true to Tokien as possible. True, it's picky! But there are places where the slight change of one word alters the meaning, as NEB pointed out. I like to think of the Philologist approving of these efforts  .
Even when I don't agree with him - those "try and do" somethings, instead of "try to do", drive me nuts!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
weaver
Gondolin
Oct 20 2007, 3:35pm
Post #18 of 31
(3449 views)
Shortcut
|
|
literary heirs and fan culture...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Perhaps the book purist/film fan dichotomies are a reflection of what's going on in the world of Tolkien "culture", which I see as a combination of Tolkien Studies and Tolkien fandom which we haven't entirely found a way to fit together yet...
Since LOTR is really one man's work, and he left so many other works and notes around to mine for information, a big chunk of Tolkien culture, if I can put it that, way, is focused on understanding what it's all about, and in revealing more of its roots and his vision, than adding to it. Some of us are focused on the academic side of it, and can work on things like language technicalities, etc. Others take it on themselves to be guardians or commentators or interpreters on other aspects of it. I'd put these things in the category of "literary heir" activities...
On the other side of it are all of the "enhancements" that come from a work being part of a living, breathing and evolving culture -- conventions, fan fiction, and communities like TORN. Those are more the characteristics of a "fan culture" that is evolving from Tolkien's work, of people using it as springboard for their own visions, enjoyment, creativity and contributions to it.
Star Trek is another "culture" that provides some means of comparison -- there was "one man with a vision" at the start of it, too, in terms of Gene Roddenberry, but the nature of television production made it more a group effort from the start, and the series very quickly started to grow from other talents and ideas being brought to it. Trek is more of what Tolkien originally envisioned, perhaps, when he wrote of wanting to create a canvas upon which others could paint.
In Trek, also, fan culture seems a more accepted, rather than "deplorable" thing, though it's still made fun of by those outside of it...
Again not sure if I've totally made any kind of point here, but these are the best ramblings I've got right now!
Weaver
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Oct 20 2007, 5:43pm
Post #19 of 31
(3442 views)
Shortcut
|
never seem to be understood by those "outside" them, do they! They begin, when more than one person finds they have been "touched" in some way by the show, or book, or movie, or whatever other media brought the concept to their attention. And those who are not "touched" think that the fans are a bit "touched"...
There's a fine line between Tolkien studies and Tolkien fandom! And I think they intersect, and collide, in several areas. Come to think of it, is it possible for someone to engage in Tolkien studies without being a Tokien fan? Maybe it is, that the Studies group and the "literary heirs" group are specialized subsets of the "deplorable cultis".
(Unless, of course, Tolkien really reserved that term for the hippies who would call him on the phone at all hours of the night, and who wanted to name their firstborn after Gandalf!  )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 20 2007, 5:54pm
Post #20 of 31
(3448 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Fan" began as a perjorative term,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
short for "fanatic."
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Oct 20 2007, 6:48pm
Post #21 of 31
(3450 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Depending on one's point of view
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...that's a perfect description!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Oct 20 2007, 10:57pm
Post #22 of 31
(3467 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The PROBLEM: I read my old and beloved
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
2nd edition (American) Houghton Mifflin's. And I am going to stick to those, because I love them. But I miss many of the newer "changes" and additions, including new notes on the text in the text, so to speak. My editions have the second forward by Tolkien and that interesting "Bamfurlong" error: on page 100 of FOTR, Pippin says, "I know these fields and theis gate!...We are on old Farmer Maggot's Land. That must be his farm away there in the trees". H&S (Reader's Guide to LOTR) note:
"This is Bamfulong, old Farmer Maggot's land." -- As first published this passage read simply: "We are on old Farmer Maggot's land." It was revised, with the name of the property addes, in the second printing (1967) of the Allen & Unwin second edition.
Interestingly enough, though, the index in my edition has an entry for Bamfurlong, referring me to page 100 of FOTR. On which page, it does not appear.
Love that!!
Further, H&S state:
The name Bamfurlong originally appeared in Book VI, Chapter 8, referring to an entirely different place.
It's not referred to in Book VI, Chapter 8 ("Many Partings") in my edition. Anyone have an entry for Bamfurlong there?
But there was one swarthy Bree-lander, who stood looking at them with a knowing and half-mocking expression that made them feel very uncomfortable. Presently he slipped out of the door, followed by the squint-eyed southerner: the two had been whispering together a good deal during the evening. Harry the gatekeeper also went out just behind them. Beginning with the 2004 edition, that last sentence has been deleted. In drafts, Tolkien had written, “Cut out Harry—he is unnecessary”, and two of the three references to Harry's presence at the inn did not make it to the typescript. This one did, but Christopher Tolkien believes that was an oversight.
Now this is one entry I would miss, if it disappeared--and it remains in my old editions. I am used to wondering why Harry leaves with the suspicious group. I don't care if it's ambiguous...I like my Tolkien with a hefty dose of ambiguity.
Anderson observes that even before the first edition was published, Tolkien encountered errors introduced by the printers: they tried to change “dwarves to dwarfs, elvish to elfish, nasturtians to nasturtiums, further to farther, try and say to try to say and (‘worst of all’ to Tolkien) elven to elfin.”
Which of these, if any, bothers you the most? Why? Before learning about Tolkien’s particular choices, had you ever noticed his non-standard usages in LotR? Would your reading experience have been the poorer had the printers gotten their way and “corrected” them?
I don't know that any of them "bother" me. I guess you could say I'm bothered on Tolkien's behalf, since I know he wanted "elven" and "dwarves" so badly.
I could not care any less about nasturtians and dislike "try and say", which makes no sense to modern American-English ears.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love."
~~~Reinhold Niebuhr
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 20 2007, 11:01pm
Post #23 of 31
(3443 views)
Shortcut
|
"The Scouring of the Shire" ("Many Partings" is Ch. 6) and if I remember correctly, the name "Bamfurlong" there was replaced by "Whitfurrows".
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Oct 20 2007, 11:08pm
Post #24 of 31
(3455 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't know, but I think it's undeserved by Gimli
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always assumed that Tolkien changed the line because, funny as it is, it also suggests that Aragorn had become a little more like Sauron than he himself understood
Yes, perhaps it does show Aragorn in a sort of unflattering light.
But I think more importantly, it completely misinterprets Gimli's concern here. He doesn't ask Aragorn if he "said anything" because he is worried about his own neck, as Aragorn's snappy response might indicate. I think he's genuinely worried about Aragorn, about the remaining Fellowship...and about Frodo and Sam. And Aragorn's remark (which is beneath Aragorn's dignity, I agree) is also insulting in this way to Gimli, as it misinterprets what Gimli says as some kind of selfish worry for his own safety.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love."
~~~Reinhold Niebuhr
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Oct 20 2007, 11:14pm
Post #25 of 31
(3437 views)
Shortcut
|
|
hah!! Book VI (six) chapter XIII (eight)!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I screwed up the chapter. Gotta refresh my Roman Numeral memory.
It is book six chapter 8 "Scouring of the Shire" to which H&S refer. My mistake entirely.
Interestingly, that correction has been made in my edition: my edition reads "One came in from Whitfurrows last night".
a.s.
"an seileachan"
"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love."
~~~Reinhold Niebuhr
|
|
|
|
|
1
