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

Re: The LR Second Edition

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.