Re: [mythsoc] Shelf Esteem
- Trudy Shaw wrote:
>> ***HARPER'S BIZARREOf course he's guessing -- and with his remark about throwing away the
>> No Tome Left Unturned
>> ...HarperCollins is to publish the books in separate volumes
>> because children, apparently, prefer shorter works.
>I've seen at least one example of a Houghton Mifflin boxed set
>of the separate books, and they were actually quite elegant looking.
>It was some months ago, but as I remember they had black (or at
>least dark) covers with the original (I think) Eye/Ring image on the
>front of each volume--certainly nothing I'd think would be printed
>especially for children. I wonder if the reviewer's "apparently"
>means he's guessing or if he checked into the reason the set was
appendices, trying to get a rise out of Tolkien fans. HarperCollins first
published LR in seven volumes in 1999, as the "Millennium Edition". The new
paperback set, under the Collins imprint (which is aimed at young readers),
is merely its latest incarnation. The division into seven was, and is, no
more than a publishing gimmick, though at least one that has some basis in
the structure and history of LR. There's also a new Collins edition in
three volumes as well.
- At 06:06 PM 11/1/2001 , Trudy wrote:
> I certainly don't see publishing LotR divided into the "books" as "mucking"The book is _not_ of course a 'trilogy'. That and the titles of the
>with Lord of the Rings." Didn't Tolkien dislike the three-volume division
>more, or do I recall that incorrectly?
volumes was a fudge thought necessary for publication, owing to length and
cost. There is no real division into 3, nor is any one part intelligible
alone. The story was conceived and written as a whole and the only natural
divisions are the 'books' I-VI (which originally had titles)."
-- J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 165
>Of course, anyone who'd call the"Unreadable" is factually incorrect. They have been read. Especially by
>appendices "unreadable" and even consider throwing them into the trash is
>either looking for an argument or simply needs our pity.
me, who found them the best part.
Of course, there's Harold Bloom, who claims the entire book is unreadable,
based on the evidence of one paragraph in Book V.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:34 AM
Subject: [mythsoc] Re: Shelf Esteem
--- In mythsoc@y..., "Trudy Shaw" <tgshaw@e...> wrote:
>Didn't Tolkien dislike the three-volume division more, or do I
>recall that incorrectly?>>
More than what?
More than dividing LotR into six volumes(one volume per book). IIRC, a critic called the newly released set in this format "mucking around with Tolkien." [Is this a memory test? :)] -- Trudy
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- At 04:00 AM 11/28/2001 , Trudy wrote:
> Didn't Tolkien dislike the three-volume division more, or do IOne physical volume per book was not an option presented to him. Had it
> recall that incorrectly?>>
> More than dividing LotR into six volumes(one volume per book).
been, he (and his publishers) could well have disliked it for making it
just too many volumes, and too much of a hassle to buy if published
separately at different times, as the original 3-volume edition was. I
view the new 7-volume edition as a gimmick, if a well-produced one, and
note that I've seen it offered only as a set.
Tolkien's dislike of the 3-volume division was based on concern that people
would think he'd written 3 books instead of one, as well as on the
artificial association of the constituent books - in particular, Books 3
and 4 seemed disassociated to him.
What would you think of a 2-volume edition: Books 1-3 and 4-6?