- ... As well as thanks. :)Message 1 of 8 , Jan 6, 2007View Source--- In email@example.com, "William Cloud
Hicklin" <solicitr@...> wrote:
>As well as thanks. :)
> Thaks, Wayne.
- ... 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 2 of 8 , Jan 7, 2007View SourceWilliam Cloud Hicklin wrote:
>A question on a trivial matter: what is the "correct" name forThere's no one "correct" name for it. In the Descriptive Bibliography I
>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!"
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- ... edition ... Okay-- but then (just to keep things confusing)- even in this third (authorial) definition, which I think is the operative one, can weMessage 3 of 8 , Jan 7, 2007View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Wayne G.
Hammond" <Wayne.G.Hammond@...> wrote:
> and from "edition" in the textualedition
> sense, as when we refer to the "first edition text" and "second
> 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