Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The LR Second Edition

Expand Messages
  • William Cloud Hicklin
    ... holdings. ... Bibliography ... In fact, CRT has over time (1987-98) shipped much if not all of his manuscript material relating to Hobbit, LR and Farmer
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Since Tolkien sold the manuscripts to Marquette in the 1950s,
      > material he wrote a decade later isn't included among their
      holdings.
      > The source you shd consult is Wayne's Descriptive
      Bibliography
      > [1993], which notes all the changes between each edition.
      > --JDR

      In fact, CRT has over time (1987-98) shipped much if not all of
      his manuscript material relating to Hobbit, LR and Farmer Giles
      to Marquette. I don't think that legally includes the post-sale
      revisions, but CRT apparently wants all the papers to reside
      together.

      I have all the textual changes in Wayne's LR-RC, but that's not
      exactly what I was asking. I was wondering if in Tolkien's own
      mark-ups there is an indication how carefully he reviewed those
      chapters, not whether he revised them (mostly he didn't). After
      all, I'm evaluating a passage he *didn't* change.


      >
      > current reading: THE MOTHER OF PEGASUS
      >
      > On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:48 AM, William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
      > > Does anyone who has seen the Marquette papers have an inkling
      > > as to whether, when JRRT was revising the FR text for the 2d
      > > Ed, he approached the Bombadil chapters carefully, or in a
      > > cursory fashion? I'm asking because I'm not sure how much
      > > weight to attach to the retention of Tom's statements which
      > > clearly reflect the old astronomical myth rather than the
      > > newer round-world version, and thus whether by implication
      > > Tolkien had decided to keep the old story by 1965.
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Wayne G. Hammond
      ... To my knowledge, there are no papers concerning the second edition LR at Marquette. Christopher still has, at least, some of his father s check copies ,
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        William Cloud Hicklin wrote:

        >In fact, CRT has over time (1987-98) shipped much if not all of
        >his manuscript material relating to Hobbit, LR and Farmer Giles
        >to Marquette. I don't think that legally includes the post-sale
        >revisions, but CRT apparently wants all the papers to reside
        >together.
        >
        >I have all the textual changes in Wayne's LR-RC, but that's not
        >exactly what I was asking. I was wondering if in Tolkien's own
        >mark-ups there is an indication how carefully he reviewed those
        >chapters, not whether he revised them (mostly he didn't). After
        >all, I'm evaluating a passage he *didn't* change.

        To my knowledge, there are no papers concerning the second edition LR at
        Marquette. Christopher still has, at least, some of his father's "check
        copies", i.e. copies of his works in which he marked corrections, while a
        few others have found their way into the secondhand market. But since
        Tolkien made no changes in the Bombadil episode for either the Ballantine
        or Allen & Unwin second editions (see, as John suggests, the Descriptive
        Bibliography of 1993 rather than the Reader's Companion for a fuller
        accounting of LR textual changes), one would suppose that he felt that it
        was fine as it was, and that no workings would be found in Christopher's
        possession.

        Wayne




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • William Cloud Hicklin
        Thaks, Wayne. A qustion on a trivial matter: what is the correct name for that edition? On my 1965 H-M (Quackenbush covers), the title page reads Second
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Thaks, Wayne.

          A qustion on a trivial matter: what is the "correct" name for
          that edition?

          On my "1965" H-M (Quackenbush covers), the title page reads
          "Second Edition," the dustjacket reads "Revised Edition," and
          the front flap reads "Second Edition, Revised!"

          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne G.
          Hammond" <Wayne.G.Hammond@...> wrote:
          >
          > William Cloud Hicklin wrote:
          >
          > >In fact, CRT has over time (1987-98) shipped much if not
          all of
          > >his manuscript material relating to Hobbit, LR and Farmer
          Giles
          > >to Marquette. I don't think that legally includes the post-
          sale
          > >revisions, but CRT apparently wants all the papers to reside
          > >together.
          > >
          > >I have all the textual changes in Wayne's LR-RC, but that's
          not
          > >exactly what I was asking. I was wondering if in Tolkien's
          own
          > >mark-ups there is an indication how carefully he reviewed
          those
          > >chapters, not whether he revised them (mostly he didn't).
          After
          > >all, I'm evaluating a passage he *didn't* change.
          >
          > To my knowledge, there are no papers concerning the second
          edition LR at
          > Marquette. Christopher still has, at least, some of his
          father's "check
          > copies", i.e. copies of his works in which he marked
          corrections, while a
          > few others have found their way into the secondhand market.
          But since
          > Tolkien made no changes in the Bombadil episode for either
          the Ballantine
          > or Allen & Unwin second editions (see, as John suggests, the
          Descriptive
          > Bibliography of 1993 rather than the Reader's Companion for
          a fuller
          > accounting of LR textual changes), one would suppose that he
          felt that it
          > was fine as it was, and that no workings would be found in
          Christopher's
          > possession.
          >
          > Wayne
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • William Cloud Hicklin
          ... As well as thanks. :)
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "William Cloud
            Hicklin" <solicitr@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Thaks, Wayne.

            As well as thanks. :)
          • Wayne G. Hammond
            ... There s no one correct name for it. In the Descriptive Bibliography I call it the second Houghton Mifflin edition , as distinct from the second Allen &
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 7, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              William Cloud Hicklin wrote:

              >A question on a trivial matter: what is the "correct" name for
              >that edition?
              >
              >On my "1965" H-M (Quackenbush covers), the title page reads
              >"Second Edition," the dustjacket reads "Revised Edition," and
              >the front flap reads "Second Edition, Revised!"

              There's no one "correct" name for it. In the Descriptive Bibliography I
              call it the "second Houghton Mifflin edition", as distinct from the "second
              Allen & Unwin edition", the Ballantine "revised edition", etc., and because
              "second edition" in the tortuous publication history of The Lord of the
              Rings could mean not only any one of these, but also the Ace Books edition
              (a new typesetting except for the Appendices) and even the Allen & Unwin
              Fellowship from the (reset) "second printing" onward.

              The trick in all this is to distinguish "edition" in bibliographical terms
              (a wholly or substantially new typesetting) from "edition" in publishers'
              terms (any kind of marketing construct) and from "edition" in the textual
              sense, as when we refer to the "first edition text" and "second edition
              text" of LR.

              Wayne




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • William Cloud Hicklin
              ... edition ... Okay-- but then (just to keep things confusing)- even in this third (authorial) definition, which I think is the operative one, can we
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 7, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne G.
                Hammond" <Wayne.G.Hammond@...> wrote:

                > and from "edition" in the textual
                > sense, as when we refer to the "first edition text" and "second
                edition
                > text" of LR.
                >


                Okay-- but then (just to keep things confusing)- even in this
                third (authorial) definition, which I think is the operative one,
                can we meaningfully define the ur-Second Edition as "what Tolkien
                intended in 1965"? Or do the many errors that persisted, and
                CRT's periodic "consistency" emendations, obviate such a
                definition? And is it sensible to refer to the first Anderson as
                the "3rd Edition" and your 50th as the "4th Edition", in the same
                way that one hears of the "4th Edition" Hobbit- texts attempting
                to restore a theoretical pre-existing state, rather than create a
                new state?
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.