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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: The LR Second Edition

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.