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

Re: The LR Second Edition

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.