Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

[davem]

’For the Elves the world moves, & it moves both very swift & very slow. Swift, because they themselves change little, & all else fleets by: it is a grief to them. Slow, because they do not count the running years, not for themselves. The passing seasons are but ripples ever repeated in the long long stream. Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last’.

The phrase as my father wrote it was ‘because they need not count the running years’, but in copying I missed out the word need. Looking through my copy, but without consulting his own manuscript, he wrote in do; & do survives in FR.(CT, The Treason of Isengard)

Ok, now, the obvious response would be that the published version is correct - ‘the Elves do not count the running years’, but in the 50th Anniversary edition, just published, the original version is reinstated, & in that edition the Elves are back to not needing to count the years.

Based on the assumption that this is to stand as the ‘official’ version of the text from now on - the changes have been authorised by CT himself, & the new HB edition of LotR, out in December, will carry the 50th anniversary text (& we can assume that all subsequent HB & PB version will do the same) - what effect does this have?

First, I suppose we have to ask whether Tolkien saw do & need as meaning the same thing. Almost certainly he didn’t: he was a Professor of English, & would have known the two words have completely different connotations. To say the Elves do not do ‘X’ is not the same as saying they need not do ‘X’’. ‘Do not’ is emphatic, it implies that they never count the running years. Why? Because of some agreement (tacit or otherwise) among them? Because their brains function differently from those of other races, & they ‘can’t’ count the running years? Because they’ve lost the knack?

Whatever, Legolas, for the last fifty years, has been telling us that ‘the Elves do not count the running years’. From now on, because of a change not authorised by Tolkien, he will tell us that ‘the Elves do not need to count the running years’.

Not needing to do something implies a choice in the matter - the individual Elf is free to decide whether he or she will count the running years or not.

Ok, you may argue, this is not as great a change as replacing do with need in other situations - Gandalf’s letter to Frodo, for instance, if :

PS. Do NOT use It again, not for any reason whatever! Do not travel by night!

was replaced by: ‘You need not use it again. You need not travel by night’?

But is it that simple?

Yet, if Tolkien, in reading over CT’s fair copy of the manuscript, wrote in do rather than need, why would he do that? Had he had second thoughts, & decided that do expressed his understanding of the Elves’ experience of time better than the original need did - the chapter was still in flux after all? Or was he simply in a rush & didn’t bother to check the original notes (this is CT’s explanation).

For myself, not only do I think that the ‘original’ version sounds better in the context of Legolas’ explanation (need sounds too ‘speculative’ - not really much of an ‘explanation’ at all - he seems effectively to be saying ‘This might be the reason or it might not’), but it also goes against my own understanding of the position the Elves are in at the end of the Third Age - basically, it gives them too much control over their situation, by implying that they can make choices over their ‘perceptions’, which really implies they can choose the way they think about the world, & that to a great degree they could fit in & adapt - they need not be isolated, they need not leave Middle-earth.

Its this increased implication of having a choice in the matter which makes me uncomfortable in this change from [‘i]do[/i] not’ to ‘need not’. My own sense is that even if it was a choice originally not to count the running years, by the end of the Third Age it was a matter of choice no longer - the Elves did not count the running years any longer’

(Whatever Christopher Tolkien may say.)

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I suppose one could say that the fact that Elves could count the passing years, but do not feel the need to do so, does not change their essential nature. Their lack of need in this regard still sets them apart from the other races. That they could record the passing years if they chose to do so still indicates that they have a wholly different outlook on existence and does not necessarily imply that they could alter this outlook. So, while they can alter their mindset to enable them to record the passing years in the manner of other races, they cannot alter it sufficiently to prevent the sense of grief and "alienation" (for want of a better word) that this causes them. Indeed, perhaps doing so only enhances those feelings.

[Mithalwen]

Well I don't think it is such a big deal - especially if you factor in the next phrase, "not for themselves" - the elvish idea of a year was a "yen" having as Sam observed more time at their disposal" . They do no need to count them because they are immortal and they are not significant units of time to them... I mean I personally rarely get more precise in time than 5 minutes becasue I don't need to...

[Boromir88]

I think I'll create a scenario to show everyone how, I think this works. Because, there is a clear difference between "needing" and "doing."

We don't need to go to Mcdonald's and grab a big mac, it's not like Mcdonald's is forcing us off the road into their parking lot. And in fact we don't need one to survive, but that doesn't mean we can't do that.

As Davem says "needing" suggests there is a choice to choose whether to "count" the years or not. "Needing" suggests, it's not "necessary" that they do so, but they can. Where "They don't count the years," simply means, they don't do it, there's no choice in it, they just don't do it. Tying it back with Mcdonald's, we don't need to stop and grab a big mac, it's not going to keep us from dying, but just because we don't need one, doesn't mean we can't go and get one. If we were to say, "I don't go to Mcdonald's to get a big mac," that means I don't do it at all, there is no choice. Where if I say, "I don't need to go to Mcdonald's," would suggest, it's not "necessary," that I go to Mcdonald's but that doesn't mean I can't still go to Mcdonald's.

[davem]

In CT's note on the final words in LotR he writes:

In all the texts of 'The Grey Havens' from the earliest draft Sam said to rosie when he returned to Bag End 'Well, I'm back.' 'Well. I've come back' does not mean the same thing.'

So, he clearly recognises that a particular phrasing, a particular choice of words, affects the meaning of what's being said. That being the case, & for all SpM says, I still wonder how he can justify this particular change. As B88 points out, there is a significant difference between 'do not' & 'need not'.

If I'm right (& its only speculation) that this edition is to be seen as definitve - though it seems from comments in the new foreword that this edition has been recorded electronically by Harper Collins as just that - it means that these changes are authorised by CT to stand from now on, & will be in every subsquent edition.

It may seem a trivial point - maybe Mithalwen is right. I suppose my own feeling is that, as we have so few comments about Elven psychology ‘from the horses mouth’ so to speak, these lines of Legolas’ are significant, & I can’t help thinking we need more justification for the change than CT has offered us so far. If this is to become the standard text, then pretty soon it won’t be possible to buy the original version - the only one Tolkien authorised. I know one could argue that Tolkien made more significant changes between the first & second editions of LotR , but he made those changes. It seems to me that this is different. This edition, as I pointed out recently in the Canonicity thread, contains between three & four hundred emendations. Most are of spellings (with others like the change from ‘smaller than the other’ in Aragorn’s reference to Pippin to ‘smaller than the others’). This one, though, I feel actually alters Legolas meaning not just his words.

[Nimrodel_9]

Hmmm... I would have to say need sounds right. They need not count the years because they are immortal. They live forever, and can only die from wounds in battle or a broken heart. Time really has no effect on them. That is it does, but it takes so long that it wouldn`t be noticable to a mortal, or perhaps one of there own. Counting the years would be a waste of time. Darn. Now that I think about it, counting the years wouldn`t be a waste of their time, seeing how they have so much of it. I guess what I`m trying to say is, why count the years if you are going to be around forever? :rolleyes:

This brings up another idea. Do you suppose most elves knew their own age? I guess if they knew the year as it was to the race of Men (I can`t really decide how to word it), when they were born, they could always figure it out. My mind is slow today. Any ideas? ;)
Nimrodel

[Mithalwen]

Well I just feel that it is possible to read far more into a phrase than the author ever intended. However, I accept that this is an interesting exchange, and if I remember rightly Paul Kocher discusses it at length in his book "master of middle earth". However, I think that there are enough "original" edition out there to mean it will be accessible to many, and I imagine, the changes will be documented on the net even if they are not listed in the books.

Also, I feel that CRT would not have authorised the changes if he did not think the alteration were closer to his father's intentions that what is there currently. It will not have been a frivolous decision. Given that he is now eighty (or near enough) it is his last chance to put things "right". Whether it is the correct choice we will probably decide for ourselves,but I am not sure anyone is better placed than CRT to make it. Clearly Davem is right in pointing out that do not and need not are not quite the same thing but I think the "not for themselves" tightens the distinction. I think I prefer need not because elves in mirkwood who interract with mortals must use mortal reckoning for convenience .. so I think it is a clarification .... but we will see..

edit italicised

[The Saucepan Man]

As B88 points out, there is a significant difference between 'do not' & 'need not'.I do not deny that there is a significant difference in meaning. But I do not think that this difference alters the essential nature of Elves. In fact, using "need" is probably more accurate:


I think I prefer need not because elves in mirkwood who interract with mortals must use mortal reckoning for convenience .. so I think it is a clarification .... but we will see..Elves actually do record the passing of years when it is necessary to do so, for example, as Mithalwen says, for interraction with mortals. For example, Celeborn notes that it has been "eight and thirty years of the world outside since you came to this land", when he greets Aragorn. (And we all know that he's the wisest Elf in all of Middle-earth. ;) ) So Elves do recognise and record the passing of the years. They simply feel no need to do so for themselves. But to say that they do not do so under any circumstances is inaccurate.

[Aiwendil]

I usually hate it when people say this - but I think, Davem, that you may be reading too deeply into the issue (though it is indeed interesting and I'm glad you brought it up).

Yes, on face value there seems to be a rather significant difference between the two versions of the text. If the circumstances of the writing of LotR weren't known, if this were some epic from a thousand years ago one text of which gives "do" and another "need" - then no doubt it would be worth spilling a good deal of scholarly ink over the issue. It is certainly possible to read deep significance into the variation.

But consider the circumstances as we know them to be. Tolkien wrote "need" initially. At that point, such was quite clearly his intention. Then through a mere accident on Christopher's part, the word "need" was lost. In correcting Christopher's copy, Tolkien observed the grammatical lapse and filled it. Now, we may entertain three possibilities:

1. There is a significant difference between "need" and "do", and Tolkien's final intention was "do".

2. There is a significant difference, and Tolkien's intention all along was "need", "do" being a mistake.

3. There is no significant difference, at least in Tolkien's intention.

If 1 is true then not only was there apparently some quite real but otherwise wholly unknown shift in Tolkien's conception of Elves between the writing of the chapter and the correction - it was also a remarkable stroke of luck that an accidental omission made by Christopher happened to coincide perfectly with that change. This seems to me rather improbable.

If 2 is true, then we must assume that Tolkien was in quite a rush when he wrote in "do", for otherwise he surely would have noticed that the statement as it now stood was incorrect.

If 3 is true, then "do" and "need" are equally good and it is of no import whatsoever whether Tolkien was rushed or not, nor does it much matter which was finally adopted.

I am inclined to think that 1 is the least probable of those three scenarios, and consequently that "need" is indeed what ought to have been adopted in the published text.

[davem]

Perhaps its down to a question of what kind of statement Legolas is making - is it a 'primary' statement on Elvishness, equal to 'Elves at death do not pass beyond the circles of the World' - ie, a 'fact' about their nature, or is it simply a turn of phrase? Change it to 'Elves at death need not pass beyond the circles of the World' & it changes an essential statement about them.

But, in a sense this change does exactly that - 'Elves do not count the running years' says that no Elf, ever, for any reason, counts the running years. Elves need not says 'some may, some may not - its optional'. It may be that need is a more accurate reflection of Tolkien's thought, but we'll never know, & for that reason I'm uncomfortable with the change.

Also, in changing Legolas' words, don't we change his character? Its not simply a question of whether the statement is technically correct about how Elves think, its also a matter of what the character Legolas is saying, the idea he's trying to communicate.

[Boromir88]

I think we can pretty much all agree there is a difference between need not, and do not. This clearly effects whether the elves, do or don't count the years.

I do agree with SpM on this point.
But I do not think that this difference alters the essential nature of Elves.
It effects whether they "can" or if they just plain out don't count the years, but I don't see it effecting the nature of the Elves. I also, agree with SpM, in saying that the correct word should be need. Since, they do need to count the years, to have certain interactions with mortals. SpM, makes this clear with his quote from Celeborn (nice quote SpM). So the correct word would have to be "need not."

[davem]

Sorry, but 'do not' is emphatic, 'need not' isn't. What I like about 'do not[/i]' is that its actually quite mysterious - why would it be that they do not count the running years? Perhaps because by the end of the Third Age Time itself has come to seem an 'enemy', a thing to be avoided, in thought at least. Perhaps Time is something they have decided to have as little as possible to do with. Time may pass in the 'world outside' their realms, but within them (& within their own minds) it has no place. Time takes away everything they love, time will drive them into exile from Middle-earth (only the Noldor are 'going home' when they pass into the West, the Sindar will be leaving the only home they've ever known.)

So, the words Legolas uses in relation to Time are significant, in that they reflect his (& other Elves') attitude to the running years. 'Do not' is a stronger expression than 'need not'. 'Need not' is too passive - it expresses a kind of unconcern with Time, as though its irrelevant to Elves - they can take notice of it or ignore it, as they choose. But it seems to me that Time & what it means to Elves is a central theme in Tolkien's works. Why are they so driven to 'embalm', to stop time, to hold back change, if Time & the change it brings isn't a central concern to them?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
'Do not' is a stronger expression than 'need not'. 'Need not' is too passive

And yet, one cannot alter the fact that Tolkien wrote "need not". I still think it highly improbable that Christopher's accidental omission of the word "need" should precisely coincide with a change that his father was going to make anyway. In all likelihood, he either intended "need not" or felt that there was no significant difference between the two.

[Lalwendë]

I have to say that such tiny differences in wording can, and do make an immense difference to the meaning of a text. In my work, much time is spent mulling over the meaning and context of words, to the extent that the writing of just one sentence in a document can necessitate a meeting and much heated discussion. This can be an utterly depressing thing to have to sit through, but I fully appreciate the importance of it. If I was to write that people are 'entitled' to something then it might mean hordes of people demanding that very entitlement, and thus costing the taxpayer x millions of pounds more than they should have paid.

To put the actual words being debated into this context, if I was to write: "the responsibilities of the Department do not include answering letters" then this would mean that any letter which is received can be sent straight back without a reply - and this would further mean less staff would be need to be employed as it was not in the Dept's remit. But if I was to write: "the responsibilities of the Department need not include answering letters" then this is nowhere near emphatic enough and any member of the public could argue that in fact the Dept ought to be answering those letters. I'm sure anyone who knows about Law will also appreciate this!

There is a saying where I work "You don't have to be a pedant to be a policy officer but it helps". I think this can also apply to writers, especially where they are attempting to express such complex concepts as perceptions of time and space.

[Boromir88]

I have to say that such tiny differences in wording can, and do make an immense difference to the meaning of a text.

Exactly Lalwende, also the tone in which you say it is important. When we are on the internet "posting/iming/e-mailing..etc" you don't get a tone, so it's hard to understand how I'm coming across. It could seem as if I'm angry at someone, but really I'm not. Depending upon the tones that one uses, influences what type of mood one is in, and it's hard to do that when you are communicating over the internet. :cool:

There is obviously a difference between the "do not" and "need not," as SpM has given us some wonderful examples the clear word should be "need not." The question is whether this effects the nature of the elves.

The destinction is elves simply "don't count the years," or they "need not count the years," which implies, they don't need to, but suggesting that some elves do indeed count the years. So, the way I think it is, it has an effect of whether the elves do not, or need not count the years. But, that doesn't effect the elves very nature because, whether they "do not," or whether they "need not" both come off as, counting the "passing years" isn't a big deal of theirs. "Do not" clearly comes off as elves simply don't count the years, it's not something that's important to them. "Need not," to me, I see as, ok they don't "need" to but they may, if they wish to have interactions with mortals. Still, it comes off as not a big deal to them. SpM, has already pointed out that there are those elves who do "count the passing years," again to have interactions with the humans. But, then there are those elves, who just don't care about mortals, and simply don't count the years.

Lothlorien
"Welcome!" the Elf then said again in the Common Language, speaking slowly. "We seldom use any tongue but our own ; for we dwell now in the heart of the forest, and do not willingly have dealings with any other folk. Even our own kindred in the North are sundered from us. But there are some of us still who go abroad for the gathering of news and the watching of our enemies, and they speak the languages of other lands."

So, some elves NEED to do things like "count the passing years," and speak other languages, if they wish to gather news from outer lands, or have interactions with other languages. But, then there are those who NEED NOT to, which means they can, but they simply don't care about communicating with mortals, or others not of their kind, so they don't speak in the other languages, and they don't count the passing years. To me, this shows as if it's not a big deal to the elves, if they want to communicate with other peoples, then they NEED to do these things, but if they simply wish not to, then they NEED NOT do it. It just comes off to me as not an important thing amongst the elves, and not something that effect their whole nature.

[davem]

Well, Legolas says they 'do not/need not count the running years, not for themselves, so the issue is not whether they can or can't count the running years per se - obviously they can do that - but whether they count them for themselves. To say they do not count them for themselves implies either something in their nature - the 'running years' do not register on them personally - or, that they have made a deliberate descision not to count them for themselves.

Changing it to need not means either that the 'running years' do register on them but that they can somehow ignore that, or that its all dependent on circumstances - sometimes they'll register the passing years, sometimes they won't.

It changes a 'definite' into an 'indefinite', a 'certainly' into a 'maybe', a 'will' into a 'perhaps', & so it alters completely what Legolas is saying.

My own suspiscion is that when Tolkien came to read over what Christopher had written down (with the missing word) he wrote in what seemed the obviously 'correct' word, whatever his original idea had been.

[Bêthberry]

This discussion brings to mind a discussion I once had concerning the nature of medieval texts and the kind of "close reading" which used to be taught in schools and universities.

Medieval texts are fragmented texts in that full and complete editions such as we now are accustomed to have been lost to the vissitudes of time. With scribal transmission, we also have variations in texts, variations which cannot be resolved by recourse to "authorial intention" . The upshot of this earlier discussion was that the medievalist with whom I was talking argued that we cannot use methods of textual analysis derived from "modern texts" for medieval ones. Medieval narratives work differently and they deserve different approaches. (I think likely what has happened now is that more 'medieval' aproaches to narrative are being used on 'modern literature', but that's beside the point and I've really stated this very broadly for the sake of delineation rather than definition.)

What does this have to do with Tolkien? Well, more and more as I look at his oeuvre, I see a writer whose work not just takes its themes and structure from medieval (and earlier) texts. I see a writer who own stance as "author" is being 'medievalised.' Whose texts are being 'medievalised.'

First we had Christopher Tolkien 'tieing in' pieces of The Silm to make a coherent story. Then we had him edit HoMe and UT. Now we have Christopher producing a book which he believes respresents an authoritative version (if I understand davem's point here. I haven't seen the edition).

Without meaning in any way to deny Christopher's great knowledge and expertise, I would like to suggest that what he has done instead is to create a situation where multiple versions of texts abound, as exists with earlier literature. What we have essentially are two authors, one of whom was primary and the second of whom is the interpretive author. In short, I think Christopher's work takes us farther and farther away from a single authorial intention. And it takes Tolkien Pere's work further away from such modernist ideas as coherent, consistent character.

In short, I don't think we have any Ariadne's thread which will help us out of this labyrinth. Just more and more frayed ends.

[Boromir88]

Let's look at the full sentence, maybe that can get us somewhere farther here.

Slow, because they do not count the running years, not for themselves.

Ok, the first phrase "they do not count the running years," then it follows up with, "not for themselves." So, now where I'm going is, the added "not for themselves," means they DO count the running years, they just don't do it for themselves. It's clear that some elves do count the running years. This sentence just says, they don't count the running years for themselves. Time is not important to the elves, but it's important if they wish to communicate with the other races, so there for they DON'T count it for themselves, but they DO count it in order to gather news from other places. Maybe the phrase is suggesting, they DON'T count the years for themselves, since they are ageless, and it's suggesting that they just don't count "how old they are," but they keep track of time to communicate with other peoples.

Therefor, I come to the conclusion that "do not" and "need not" are interchangeable, if you take it the way I just showed. If the sentence was just "They do not coun the running years," then that would mean they don't count it. But, it adds in the "not for themselves," which shows they don't count it for themselves, but they do count it for other reasons.

Edit: I know I just contradicted myself, but that's because I wasn't looking at the whole sentence before. I think the added "not for themselves," changes the meaning of the sentence. Making "do not," and "need not," interchangeable, since they don't count it for themselves.

[Lalwendë]

I've posted, hopefully, if it works, a link to my post the other day on the
nature of Elven time (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=360094&postcount=11) . I think that the actual crucial point to begin with here lies in the words 'running years'. What are the running years? I think that these are the years of mortals, which must seem to zip by to Elves. An Elven year, apparently, runs for 144 years of mortal time - an age which most mortals do not seem to get to. If you can imagine it, someone as renowned as say, Bilbo would have his life over in a year.

So, if the Elves do not count the running years, not for themselves, this is emphatic. They simply do not count those years in their own reckoning. But if the Elves need not count the running years, not for themselves, then it's something that by dint of being immortal, it's not necessary for them to do. In which case, the new (old, aargh!) version actually explains more about the nature of Elven time. But the 'old' version (do not) also makes sense, it simply says less about the nature of immortality.

Boromir 88 - I'm in agreement with you all the way on the importance of written words. The tiniest difference or mistake in a text can have the most enormous effect. Words are quite dangerous things, they've been known to start wars when misused. :eek: Well, you can't imagine how much this discussion is amusing to me, it reminds me so much of endless discussions about semantics in meetings. Yet, I am enjoying it... ;)

[davem]

I hope everyone will bear with me here, because I’m going to repeat some of my earlier points, but I want to try & clarify my position.

There are different kinds of changes made in this new edition. The first kind is the change from:

’Thank goodness you don’t keep any boats on the west bank!’ said Frodo. ‘Can horses cross the river?’

‘They can go twenty miles north to Brandywine Bridge - or the can swim,’ answered Merry. (A Conspiracy Unmasked)

to ‘They can go ten miles north’, which is fine, because its correct, & should have been changed, but it was missed in the proof-reading stage.

Another kind of change happens in this chapter (The Great River), where the line ‘Nonetheless they saw no sign of an enemy that day nor the next.’ is altered (apparently correctly) to ‘They saw no sign of any enemy’. This doesn’t really change the meaning of the statement.

But I still say that changing ‘theydo not count the running years’ to ‘they need not count the running years’ alters the meaning & implication of Legolas’ statement.

Its the qualifier, ‘not for themselves’ that makes the difference. Of course, without that the statement ‘they do not count the running years’ would be incorrect, as Celeborn has already shown that they can count the passage of time. But with that qualifier it is changed from a statement of objective fact to a comment about the Elves relationship to time.

Despite what other’s have argued (very cogently) I think there is a difference between ‘do not’ & need not’ for this very reason - Legolas is speaking (& I think the whole context confirms this) about the Elves relationship to time - how they think about it, how they relate to it & what it means to them.

As I said, I can’t see that CT’s statement that his father simply inserted the word do to fill a lacuna in the copy he made for him, & that his father’s original need should stand doesn’t hold up. At this time Tolkien hadn’t come up with a definitive text - he was still working on it, & its likely that he decided on reading through the text that do expressed his thoughts better than need.

Whatever. The issue is whether there is enough evidence to justify the change back to need. I can’t see that there is enough evidence - certainly not as much as in the other two kinds of case I mentioned. Or even in the case of the change from ‘He (Pippin) was smaller than the other’ to ‘He was smaller than the others’.

We also have to take on board Bb’s point about CT’s role in this. Its one thing to change the Silmarillion texts to make them acceptable for publication, as they had never received Tolkien’s final approval, & it could be argued that maybe he would have accepted the changes CT made. But that’s a different issue, as it never came to that. He didn’t achieve a final form. In the case of this change we have Tolkien’s final approved version & CT has authorised a change which (imo) alters the meaning of a major character’s statement on an issue of central importance in the Legendarium on the flimsiest of evidence.

So its a matter of CT’s authority. This is not a case of making a change for the sake of coherence, or picking from variant readings, each of equal validity as was the case with the Sil texts. This is a matter of changing the meaning of a characters words in an established, authorised text. Does CT have the right to do that? And if he does, where does it stop? Could he make any change he wanted? And if he can change the text, why not someone else? If a new version of a chapter was discovered with greater changes in it, would it be right to replace the existing text with those later changes? Also, CT has shown (quite convincingly) that there is a later version of the Earendelnwe (as I pointed out earlier), yet that version is not used in this edition - why not? This change (& there may be more, I’m only focussing on this one because I’ve picked it up due to the fact that we’re currently reading this chapter in the read through), it seems to me, has been made with less justification than that one would have had. This touches on the Canonicity issue for me, as it changes LotR from a ‘canonical’ text & opens it up to the possibility of other changes.

Is this new version ‘better’ than the old one? Its the first revision not authorised by Tolkien himself. It seems to me that if this one is accepted then we’re crediting CT with equal rights over the text to his father. Does he actually have those rights?

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry makes some interesting points regarding authorial intention. We are veering toward the old canonicity argument here; I think it may be worthwhile then to consider things from the perspective of the author vs. text vs. reader distinction that emerged there. Apologies if some of this is less coherent than usual; I've been up since very early and am really only less than half awake. Bethberry wrote:

Without meaning in any way to deny Christopher's great knowledge and expertise, I would like to suggest that what he has done instead is to create a situation where multiple versions of texts abound, as exists with earlier literature.

This is surely the case. And this, I think, points to a flaw in the author-centric view of "canonicity" which is solved by a text-centric view. The co-existence of different versions presents a real problem if one views a work of art as a manifestation of the intention of the author. The question "which version is valid?" becomes overwhelmingly important; and the author-centric view seems to demand that there be a single, definitive answer to the question. A text-centric view does not have this problem: it simply is the case that there are a number of different texts. Some may be "better" or more enjoyable than others; some may be the product of the author at a later stage of life than others; but ultimately they are all simply texts and there is no need to determine which is singularly authoritative. It still makes sense in this view to ask which word ("need" or "do") Tolkien may have intended at various points in time, but if a clear answer is not forthcoming, this presents no serious problem to the text-centric view (nor, if it comes to it, to the reader-centric view).

I have seen Christopher criticized for publishing HoMe and thus establishing a state of affairs in which there is no single authoritative version of the Silmarillion. I think this criticism arises from the needless desire for a single version that can be taken as a manifestation of the author. The case of the Silmarillion points out just how absurd that desire can be - for the published Silmarillion (or any Silmarillion) certainly does not represent some kind of ideal authorial intention. HoMe, on the other hand, lays out the texts as they are, the goal being not to present a single Canonical Text but rather simply to tell the truth about what words various pieces of paper have written or printed on them. To prefer a single version that claims authority over a scholarly presentation of all the texts is to prefer ignorance.

Now, insofar as Christopher claims that the new edition of LotR is uniquely authoritative, I think he is mistaken - not because there is anything wrong with this edition, but simply because the whole concept of a single authoritative version is in this case not applicable. There are cases in LotR (rather few in comparison with something like the Silmarillion) where multiple versions of the text exist and none is clearly authoritative (in the sense of "most highly approved by the author"). Is this itself a problem? I don't think so. Nor is it a problem, I think, that we now know of the existence of the two versions and of the circumstances surrounding them. It could not possibly be a problem that we have more information; on the contrary, if we were to simply take the "do" as authoritative and pretend that "need" was never written, we would be falsely ascribing a certainty of authorial intention to the word. I would go as far as to say that our knowledge of the facts surrounding the two words provides evidence that neither "do" nor "need" is to be construed in such a way as to contradict the other version; for clearly Tolkien was at one point quite happy with the one and a short time later equally happy with the other.

[davem]

Maybe it would be helpful to quote from the introduction to the new edition

That the printer had quietly reset The Fellowship of the Ring, & that copies had been issued without proof having been read by the author, never became known to Tolkien; while his publisher, Rayner Unwin, learned of it only thirty eight years after the fact. Tolkien found a few of the unauthorised changes introduced in the second printing.

In 1992 Eric Thompson.. noticed small differences between the first & second impressions of FotR.

The observations of Dainis Biseniecks, Yuval Kfir, Charles Noad & other readers, sent to us directly or posted in public forums, have also been of service.

Efforts such as these follow the example of the author of LotR during his lifetime. His concern for the textual accuracy & coherence of his work is evident from the many emendations he made in later printings, & from notes he made for other emendations which for one reason or another have not previously (or have only partly) been put into effect.

The fiftieth anniversary of LotR seemed an ideal opportunity to consider the latest (1992) text in the light of information gathered in the course of decades of work in Tolkien studies...with an electronic copy of LotR searchable by keyword or phrase....Christopher Tolkien even observed to us that some apparent inconsistencies of form in his father’s work may have been deliberate: for instance, although Tolkien carefully distinguished house[ ‘dwelling’ from House ‘noble family or dynasty[/i]’

Many of the emendations in the present text are to marks of punctuation....

[/i]Most of the demonstrable errors noted by Christopher Tolkien in HoME also have been corrected, such as the distance from the Brandywine Bridge to the Ferry (ten miles rather than twenty) & the number of Merry’s ponies (Five rather than six), shadows of earlier drafts. But those errors of content, such as Gimli’s famous (& erronious) statement in Book III, ch 7, ‘Till now I have hewn naught but wood since I left Moria’, which would require rewriting to emend rather than simple correction, remain unchanged.

So many new emendations to LotR,& such an extensive review of its text, deserve to be fully documented. ,,,To this end, & to illuminate the work in other respects, we are preparing a volume of annotations to LotR for publication in 2005.[/i]

(Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull)

This may give the impression that CT was not responsible for the changes, but the real point is, many have been made as a result of his work & all have been authorised by him, so he had the final say in what happened.

[Lalwendë]

At the risk of mentioning the dreaded C word, in terms of canonicity, I would prefer to stick with the established text, for the simple reason that this is the text that most people will have access to, and hence discussion will remain straightforward. Although, I have to say, the changes do not seem extensive, but if say, a revised version of The Hobbit (in which the Riddles In The Dark chapter was once very different) were to be issued, on the premise that this would then be the version printed in future, then a certain amount of confusion would take hold between readers.

Anyway, thanks are due to davem for quoting the introduction to the new edition. I for one shall have to wait a little while to see it, as I have had to commit my pennies elsewhere, and the text reproduced is interesting. I noted that some of the alterations had been identified by readers themselves, which brings in the whole issue of readers contributing to a text, but at a considerably different level than simply reading their own meanings into it; this is an interesting idea, but not one I am wholly comfortable with.

Mention was made of an electronic copy being available, which caught my eye. My boss gave me an electronic copy recently, and he had himself noticed some inconsistencies in the text which I had not. Concerned that his electronic copy was 'wrong' in some way, he asked me to look these inconsistencies up in the books, and I found them there also. Apart from the fact that there were these differences (which I won't go into here, but I'd be interested to know if they remain in the new version...another time) it struck me that with e-books around, it would in fact be very easy for alternate versions of books to come into circulation. What was the complete context of the mention of the electronic version? I'd be interested to know to what extent the presence and use of e-books had influenced the decision to make emendations.

At least, any confusion as to why this new edition was released has been cleared up a little. I for one was stumped last week when I was asked about its purpose.

[davem]

What was the complete context of the mention of the electronic version? I'd be interested to know to what extent the presence and use of e-books had influenced the decision to make emendations.

As I understand the electronic version is not commercially available, but is the way the publisher stores the text. I can't see CT authorising it, but an electronic edition of the whole Legendarium would be perfect.

[Lalwendë]

The version I have is not, strictly speaking, commercially available, but comes under some kind of licence enabling books to be converted for people with vision impairment; my boss uses speaking software for his reading and converted his versions of The Hobbit and LOTR into text for me (which is allowable I understand).

[Mithalwen]

My own suspiscion is that when Tolkien came to read over what Christopher had written down (with the missing word) he wrote in what seemed the obviously 'correct' word, whatever his original idea had been.

If this is true, then it shows how unimportant the change is. If the alteration was significant to his concept of the elves, I am sure he would have picked up on it and done something about it.

Also I think, that the many faceted little word 'do' is being given its strongest possible reading, whereas the fact that Tolkien did not pick up on Christopher's error suggests to me that his use of "do" is likely to have been such that the change is immaterial:elves do not count the passing years for themselves, because they don't need to. Legolas was not actually drafting the definitive Elvish world view, just giving a short explanation to friends.

Lalawende - you gave a fine example elsewhere of how LOTR might have been if written by a committee. May Eru save us from that. I was going to say more but I have a sudden and overwhelming feeling that, not being Elvish, my life is too short :cool:

[The Saucepan Man]

Its the qualifier, ‘not for themselves’ that makes the difference. Of course, without that the statement ‘they do not count the running years’ would be incorrect, as Celeborn has already shown that they can count the passage of time. But with that qualifier it is changed from a statement of objective fact to a comment about the Elves relationship to time. Ah yes, I see the point that you are driving at. And I agree. The words "not for themselves" do make a significant difference

To say that Elves do not consider the running years for themselves is quite different from saying that they need not consider the running years for themselves. The former implies that they only consider the passing years when interacting with other races (as in the case of Celeborns' greeting to Aragorn). The latter implies that they may have reason to consider the passing of years for their own purposes.

But is not "need" still the more accurate? While the passing of time may not be central to their day-to-day lives, they must surely have some conception of events occurring at an earlier or later point in time than others. Galadriel, for example, would have to recognise that, while she resided in Aman at one point in time, she does not at the time of the War of the Ring. So is it not accurate to say that, while the passing of time does not impact greatly on their daily lives, they do nevertheless have some need to consider for themselves the passing of time and the changes that this brings, albeit perhaps on a more "long-term view" than mortals?

[davem]

I suppose the question is what is they're 'relationship' to the running years'? Legolas states that under the Sun all things change, but I think there's a (subtle) difference between being aware of change & being aware of millenia, centuries, years, months, days, hours, minutes & seconds. In short, mortals would invent clocks, Elves wouldn't. We're talking about a kind of flowing, like the tide coming in & out, or the endless round of the seasons - spring to summer to autumn to winter.

This is what I get from Legolas' original words, time experienced as a kind of 'circular' or 'spiral' process rather than a 'linear' one. Its a question of which kind of perception is natural to them. For instance, we don't experience a multi dimensional space time, even though we live in one, because our brains don't work that way. We can understand that multi dimensional space-time mathematically, even attempt to visualise it. So, we can relate to it & make use of the idea scientifically, but its not how we think or experience reality.

My understanding of Legolas' 'do not' is that he's saying 'We can understand what you mean by 'time', but it means something different to us.' 'Need not' implies that the Elves are basically experiencing time in the same way as mortals, but being so long lived they just ignore its passing.

So, is 'need not' more accurate? I think that depends on how'close' Elves are to us - are they simply extremely long lived 'humans' or are they different not just biologically, but spiritually & (specifically in this case) mentally?

[Bêthberry]

davem[/b]: I think that depends on how'close' Elves are to us - are they simply extremely long lived 'humans' or are they different not just biologically, but spiritually & (specifically in this case) mentally?

I think we have to remember that elves are not extremely different biologically from humans. They can reproduce with humans, after all. ;)

But I would like to turn this question back to the reason for this fiftieth anniversary edition.

quoted by davem:

Maybe it would be helpful to quote from the introduction to the new edition
[davem then quotes]
That the printer had quietly reset The Fellowship of the Ring, & that copies had been issued without proof having been read by the author, never became known to Tolkien; while his publisher, Rayner Unwin, learned of it only thirty eight years after the fact. Tolkien found a few of the unauthorised changes introduced in the second printing.

In 1992 Eric Thompson.. noticed small differences between the first & second impressions of FotR.

The observations of Dainis Biseniecks, Yuval Kfir, Charles Noad & other readers, sent to us directly or posted in public forums, have also been of service.

Efforts such as these follow the example of the author of LotR during his lifetime. His concern for the textual accuracy & coherence of his work is evident from the many emendations he made in later printings, & from notes he made for other emendations which for one reason or another have not previously (or have only partly) been put into effect.

The fiftieth anniversary of LotR seemed an ideal opportunity to consider the latest (1992) text in the light of information gathered in the course of decades of work in Tolkien studies...with an electronic copy of LotR searchable by keyword or phrase....Christopher Tolkien even observed to us that some apparent inconsistencies of form in his father?s work may have been deliberate: for instance, although Tolkien carefully distinguished house[ ?dwelling? from House ?noble family or dynasty[/i]?

Many of the emendations in the present text are to marks of punctuation....

[/i]Most of the demonstrable errors noted by Christopher Tolkien in HoME also have been corrected, such as the distance from the Brandywine Bridge to the Ferry (ten miles rather than twenty) & the number of Merry?s ponies (Five rather than six), shadows of earlier drafts. But those errors of content, such as Gimli?s famous (& erronious) statement in Book III, ch 7, ?Till now I have hewn naught but wood since I left Moria?, which would require rewriting to emend rather than simple correction, remain unchanged.

So many new emendations to LotR,& such an extensive review of its text, deserve to be fully documented. ,,,To this end, & to illuminate the work in other respects, we are preparing a volume of annotations to LotR for publication in 2005.[/i]

(Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull)
[end of davem's quote]
This may give the impression that CT was not responsible for the changes, but the real point is, many have been made as a result of his work & all have been authorised by him, so he had the final say in what happened.



Would such an edition have been undertaken at all without Christopher Tolkien? How often do we have "definitive" or "authoritative" editions of works published fifty years after an author's death? Certainly we have "critical" or "scholarly" editions, but is it common to have editions which assume to correct errors in the effort to retrieve authorial intention?

I am probably going to be going out on a limb here and angering people who deeply respect and admire Christopher's work, but I think the relationship between Tolkien père and Tolkien fils is uttterly fascinating. Here were two creative minds engaged in the imaginative pursuit of the same Middle-earth. But what exactly was that relationship?

I don't ask this to disparage CT's work but to understand better JRRT's work. Can we assume that CT was a perfect mirror reflecting exactly what his father wished? Did any of his own preconceptions, values, intentions ever play a role in shaping the Legendarium? Has CT withheld letters from publication because in his estimation they do not reflect adequately upon JRRT's work? If I have my facts right, didn't CT close off all communication with his own son Simon because Simon choose to have some dealings with Peter Jackson? That strikes me as incredibly controlling and dominating, although I must admit I don't know all the details of the story. At what part did CT refuse to have anything to do with PJ? (Is this totally true,even?) Would the films have been different if CT had agreed to work with PJ?

I think we are dealing with a fascinating phenomenon in literature. We have, essentially, two minds responsible for the continued appearance of a work of art before the public--and not just continuing, since CT was responsible for some of the initial maps as well. It is as if, with JRRT saying that fairey stories never end, we have a second author coming along and furthering the story.

Has anyone ever seen a study of CT's role in all of this? What must it have meant to JRRT to have a keen mind share Middle earth so enthusiastically with him? I guess it is the scholar in me that wants to ask this question.

[davem]

I could see some justification for footnotes or an appendix giving alternative readings & the reasons for them, but this is different. Clearly what we have is CT (& 'committee') attempting to produce a 'perfect' LotR. But who decides what constitutes such 'perfection'. It seems that the readings & opinions of certain individuals (the Tolkien 'literati') have decided that the text we had was wrong & have taken it upon themselves to amend it.

This is, for me, one of the most significant statements in the introduction to this edition:

So many new emendations to LotR,& such an extensive review of its text, deserve to be fully documented. ,,,To this end, & to illuminate the work in other respects, we are preparing a volume of annotations to LotR for publication in 2005.

So many new emendations to LotR,& such an extensive review of its text. What are we to make of this? This is an attempt to create a perfect LotR - almost the 'Platonic' LotR.

But where does CT fit in here? Does he 'possess' the text to the extent that he can decide what it should say? Of course, since his father's death he has become a 'co-creator' of Middle-earth, in the sense that what we have beside TH, LotR, & The Road Goes Ever On are a result of his work to publish the manuscripts. For me, that was perfectly acceptable - though one could question whether he should have published anything without his father's permission.

But this new edition is different, because it is an attempt to produce a final, definitive, version. Then again, to what extent can we call CT a 'co-author' of LotR? CT mentions that Tolkien was reluctant to make certain changes in the storyline of some of the early draft versions because 'Chris liked' the events in them.

What we seem to have among a number of Tolkien 'experts' is a decision to accept CT's opinions on the texts published during Tolkien's lifetime & a willingness to amend those texts, even to the extent of (in my opinion, at least - & for whatever that's worth) changing the meaning of a character's statements.

Is this situation one that will end with CT's death, or will the same 'right' pass to his heirs?

One thing occurs - if it is permissible to make the change from 'do not' to 'need not' to 'improve' the meaning, what about other words - like 'queer' or 'gay' which have altered their meaning radically since Tolkien's death - 'queer' could be altered to 'strange', 'gay' to 'joyous' with less of an effect than 'do' to 'need'.

Perhaps it could be argued that LotR is a collaberative work, a continuing creation moving towards 'perfection' (or at least simply 'moving') but then how can one criticise the changes made by PJ, if one takes this approach? Ones only criterion would be 'aesthetics' - but if that's the case, then anyone could make any changes to the text with as much justification as CT - & then the question would arise, 'What, exactly, is The Lord of the Rings'?

[davem]

Quick addendum, & I don't know how relevant it is - not being up on Copyright Law - but in my Alan Lee illustrated edition the copyright of LotR is given as:

George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd 1954, 1966

While in the 50th Anniversary Edition its:

The Trustees of The JRR Tolkien 1967 Settlement 1954, 1966.

Does this mean the copyright has been renewed, & that it will be even longer before the books are out of copyright & the texts freely available. When does a 'revised' edition become a 'new' edition?

I notice the 'text copyright' of the recent Second Edition of the Sil has changed from the 'George Allen & Unwin' of the First Edition to:

the JRR Tolkien Copyright Trust & CR Tolkien 1977.

I'm aware of two Downers being married to Lawyers, & maybe we have more legal eagles floating around, so maybe someone could clear this up?

[Lalwendë]

I think basic copyright runs up to 50 years after the author's death, which means that it will not run out for many years to come. Also, with trusteeships, the copyright is owned by shared owners, which can further complicate matters. Tolkien's copyright will have passed to his children, and presumably thence to his grandchildren, so this will be why a trusteeship is held.

[Boromir88]

In my personal opinion I say you don't touch it. Leave it the way it is. There are mistakes in every book or novel. I would think sometimes correcting what seems to be an apparent mistake could actually make more mistakes or discrepencies . :)

[Bêthberry]

posted by davem:

CT mentions that Tolkien was reluctant to make certain changes in the storyline of some of the early draft versions because 'Chris liked' the events in them.


Can you give us some more detail about this comment from CT, davem? Are you referring to something he said in this new edition or to comments elsewhere?

And, could you elaborate on what things JRRT wanted to change but decided not to because of CT's opinion? How old would CT have been at this time?

[Mithalwen]

I am merely daughter and sister of lawyers ( despite early ambitions, when it came to the crunch I had neither the application or grades!), so I am quite ready to be corrected by the qualified. Given the Tolkien family situation, it is unsurprising that the literary estate was put in a trust (let aside tax planning reasons - it is the weekend and I don't want to remind myself that I am a bean-counter!). With four children, two of whom 'have issue', it would be impossible to divide up the published works fairly - imagine one getting LOTR while another got say Mr Bliss!. However CT would have copyright over his own editing work on the Silmarillion, UT and HoME. In 1995 the UK adopted the standard EU copyright period of 70 years so that takes us to 2041 for JRRT. Of course, CT is still alive so his copyright will outlast most of us... but how the time lapse affects access to the works is beyond my scope. While all of Tolkiens's descendants would benefit from JRRT's trust, it may be that CT's will pass to his alone. The situation is further complicated, no doubt, by Christopher's son, Adam being translator to French of HoME, by which he possibly acquires some rights in his own right :p .... lots of billable hours in that I should think ;) .... wish I hadn't crashed my A-Levels now ... being a lawyer for the Tolkien estate might have been my dream job.... lol

I seem to recall that the actual Manuscripts were sold to Marquette for tax reasons but possession of the documents doesn't confer copyright - if you write a letter, the copyright remains with you while the letter obviously doesn't!


http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/question1.htm

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but ...

The references to copyright in the various editions simply denote ownership of the rights in the work. Copyright is an asset and can be transferred just like any other asset. Since Tolkien, as the writer of LotR would automatically have been the original owner of copyright in it, he must have transferred it to his publishers. Whether it has now been transeferred by them to his estate, or whether the estate simply owns the copyright in the 50th Anniversary edition, I do not know.

In any event, I would doubt that copyright could be renewed simply by publishing an amended version of a work as this would effectively allow the right to be preserved indefinately (and therefore enable copyright owners to get round the applicable law). Perhaps copyright in the new version exists independently of copyright in the original, or perhaps it simply lasts as long as copyright in the original. The latter would produce a less complex situation but, then again, lawyers and lawmakers have never been known for eschewing complexity. ;)

I am sure that someone who specialises in this field would be able to explain better than I. Athough I could always do some research into it (for a suitable fee, of course :p ;) ).

[Mithalwen]

http://www.marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/tolkien.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2003/11/16/lord_of_the_gold_ring/


These may be of interest.

I imagine there would have to be changes significant enough to class it as a differernt work to extend the copyright? I don't imagine the changes outlined above would be enough.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK, I have done a little bit of research into this.

UK copyright law confers rights both in the original literary work (which last for 70 years after the author's death) and in published editions of literary works (which last for 25 years after the publication of the edition). These rights exist independently. Anyone wishing to publish an edition of a literary work (or adapt it in any way) will require permission from the owner of the rights in that work. With the publication of the edition, separate rights will arise but they will only apply to protect the format in which the work is published and not the work itself, which remains protected by the original copyright.

So, I would guess that Tolkien (or rather his estate) remains the owner of the rights in the original work, Lord of the Rings, and that it will continue to own those rights until 70 years following his death (unless they are, or have been, transferred - the film and merchandising rights have already been transferred). The rights in the various editions (ie their typographical arrangement) belong to the publishers and are separately protected. This protection lasts for 25 years following their publication. The differing refences to copyright in the different editions referred to above must therefore refer only to copyright in those editions.

One further complication. It is only the economic rights in the original work (essentially the rights to prevent or authorise copying, lending, adaptation etc and to receive royalties for authorised use) which can be tranferred. The moral rights (the rights to be identified as author of a work and to object to derogatory treatment of it) remain with the author and pass to his or her heirs on death.

I hope that this answers some questions.

Now, as for my fee ...

Although one question remains (unfortunately, the central one here). Does altering a few words in the text and thereby altering the meaning in some respects create a new "original work"? Hmm, perhaps some further research is on order ...

[Mithalwen]

Maybe it is a percentage? You know like the proportion of a book you are allowed to photocopy . After all a few words in a haiku are a different matter to a few words in LOTR.

Oh Saucepanadan.. I think you will have to class this as pro-bono... and you weren't actually instructed.... :P but it is appreciated... so interesting.. maybe I did miss my vocation after all... (but my mamma was relieved.. she felt there was quite enough lawyers in the family.. ;) ).

[davem]

Can you give us some more detail about this comment from CT, davem? Are you referring to something he said in this new edition or to comments elsewhere?

And, could you elaborate on what things JRRT wanted to change but decided not to because of CT's opinion? How old would CT have been at this time?

There's this, from CT's note on the original Farmer Maggot episode:

I was greatly delighted by the story of Bingo's turning the tables on Farmer Maggot, & while retain now only a dim half memory I believe I was much opposed to its loss: which may perhaps explain my father's retianing it after it had become apparent that it introduced serious difficulties.

There's another incident I recall but can't find the quote, where Bingo had killed one of Maggots dogs with a stone which Tolkien was reluctant to change for the same reason.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
It seems that the readings & opinions of certain individuals (the Tolkien 'literati') have decided that the text we had was wrong & have taken it upon themselves to amend it.


But in many cases the text we had was, quite plainly, wrong. I have not seen the new edition, but I understand a great many of the changes were simple and demonstratable errors - such as "ten miles" vs. "twenty miles". And while some the changes may be questionable - as with "do" vs. "need" - they were made, as far as I know, only when there was some apparent error. The omission of "need" was a mere error.

CT mentions that Tolkien was reluctant to make certain changes in the storyline of some of the early draft versions because 'Chris liked' the events in them.


It's hardly a crime for an author to alter his work in response to a reader's criticism! I do not see how one could blame Christopher for giving his father honest appraisals of his work.

What we seem to have among a number of Tolkien 'experts' is a decision to accept CT's opinions on the texts published during Tolkien's lifetime & a willingness to amend those texts, even to the extent of (in my opinion, at least - & for whatever that's worth) changing the meaning of a character's statements.


With the express and well-documented goal of correcting errors in the meaning of those statements, yes. It is not as though Christopher simply thought that "need" is better; as I argued before, I think that it is most likely that Tolkien did not reject "need" and that the alteration was due only to Christopher's copying error.

One thing occurs - if it is permissible to make the change from 'do not' to 'need not' to 'improve' the meaning, what about other words - like 'queer' or 'gay' which have altered their meaning radically since Tolkien's death - 'queer' could be altered to 'strange', 'gay' to 'joyous' with less of an effect than 'do' to 'need'.


Surely you jest! That sort of change is altogether different from what Christopher has undertaken. To suggest that Christopher is merely trying to "improve" the meaning or that he would even contemplate such a change as "queer" to "strange" seems to me to be doing him a great disservice. On the contrary - his goal is clealy (whatever you may think of the particulars of his analysis) to present the text as it was intended by his father.

[davem]

But in many cases the text we had was, quite plainly, wrong. I have not seen the new edition, but I understand a great many of the changes were simple and demonstratable errors - such as "ten miles" vs. "twenty miles". And while some the changes may be questionable - as with "do" vs. "need" - they were made, as far as I know, only when there was some apparent error. The omission of "need" was a mere error.

well, we don't know whether it was an 'error' or a decision to change the wording on Tolkien's part. My point is that CT's justification is not solid enough to make that change. We just don't know why Tolkien inserted 'do' in place of 'need'. All we know is that he did change it.

It's hardly a crime for an author to alter his work in response to a reader's criticism! I do not see how one could blame Christopher for giving his father honest appraisals of his work.

I'm not saying it is a crime - Bb was asking about CT's influence on the writing of LotR. I was just making the point that Tolkien was a 'collaberative' writer, to the extent that he took on board the feelings of others & was influenced by their opinions.

Surely you jest! That sort of change is altogether different from what Christopher has undertaken. To suggest that Christopher is merely trying to "improve" the meaning or that he would even contemplate such a change as "queer" to "strange" seems to me to be doing him a great disservice. On the contrary - his goal is clealy (whatever you may think of the particulars of his analysis) to present the text as it was intended by his father.

Actually, I was jesting (note to self: Use more smileys)

The point is, these changes seem to be motivated by a desire to produce a 'perfect' LotR - but this 'perfect' LotR has never existed. We're not talking about a once perfect version which was lost & must be reconstructed.

Ok, what, exactly, is this 'LotR' which has been copyrighted? Is it the actual text - the words themselves, or is it some kind of Platonic 'ideal' LotR, a 'story'? Does the 'meaning' exist apart from the words, so that the words may be altered to enable that 'meaning' to be communicated more precisely? An author may change his text to his own satisfaction, but if, after that author's death, other's come along (even with the very best of intentions) & produce an 'extensive revision' of it in order to create a new, 'ideal' text, a text which those people believe was what that author really wanted, I think we are entitled to ask if they're right.

Now, I bow to no-one in my respect for what CT has done for us in making available his father's unpublished texts, but so far we haven't had an 'extensive revision' of anything his father published during his lifetime which was intended to replace the existing version. I do think we are entitled to an opinion on what's happened.

To extend this - suppose we found that (actually I think we may have done) Leonardo had painted the Mona Lisa with eyebrows, & knew for a fact that he wanted the portrait to have eyebrows, would we be justified in painting some on?

[The Saucepan Man]

Ok, what, exactly, is this 'LotR' which has been copyrighted? Is it the actual text - the words themselves, or is it some kind of Platonic 'ideal' LotR, a 'story'?Copyright does not protect ideas. Rather it protects the form in which ideas are expressed. So, the law affords no protection to the story of LotR, but rather the manner in which it is expressed in some permament form.

So, if Tolkien had told the story to another person and that person had then published a novel based on the story related to him, copyright in the story would belong to the author and not Tolkien. Similarly, if an author chooses to use the storyline presented in LotR to write their own story, they will have a separate copyright in that story provided that is is sufficiently different to constitute an original work (*cough*TerryBrookes*cough*).

As for a work which comprises additions to, or alterations of, an existing text, it will, provided that the changes are not merely trivial but are sufficiently material to make the totality of the work original, attract separate copyright protection in its own right. Personally, I don't believe that the alterations that have been made to produce the 50th Anniversary Edition, or at least those discussed in this thread, are sufficient to give rise to any rights independent of the original work.


Oh Saucepanadan.. I think you will have to class this as pro-bonoPro bono? What a strange concept that is! ;)


... and you weren't actually instructedAu contraire, I would refer my learned friend to the following:


... maybe we have more legal eagles floating around, so maybe someone could clear this up?I regard that as a clear instruction. My fee will therefore be rendered for davem's account. :p :D

[Child of the 7th Age]

I've been reading this thread with interest, but haven't had time to throw in my two cents until now. Davem's question is an intriguing one:

Although one question remains (unfortunately, the central one here). Does altering a few words in the text and thereby altering the meaning in some respects create a new "original work"? Hmm, perhaps some further research is on order ...

I will give a wide berth to any legal questions or copyright issues. I'm married to a lawyer and know when it's best to keep my nose out of something on which I don't have the slightest expertise. But I do know something about vairant editons of LotR. As we look at the 2005 revisions, we need to keep in mind the overall publishing history of the book.

From the very beginning, the text of LotR was never set in stone. Errors by publishers, Tolkien's attempts to correct them, and his own efforts to make the Legendarium more "consistent"--all this led to numerous revisions. Nor did this process stop with Tolkien's death. From 1974 on, CT sent numerous suggested "corrections" to Allen & Unwin, and later Harper-Collins. When LotR was placed in word-processing files in 1994, further efforts were made to "standardize" the text and iron out supposed errors, all this long after Tolkien's death.

Douglas Anderson's preface to the 50th Anniversary edition contains a brief history of some of these changes. But if you want a detailed list of all the variations in the text, just look at J. R. R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Biography that was compiled by Wayne Hammond in 1993. There are over 400 pages of very tiny print (Child has to hold the page two inches from her nose to make out anything!). Some of the pages contain descriptions of editions, different cover illustrations, the size of particular printruns, etc., but a lot of it is annotating hundreds, perhaps altogether thousands, of variations in the text. (This is sometimes the only way you can tell if you have a particular printing.) Not only have punctuation and words been changed, but even the maps themselves. For example, the version of the general map of Middle-earth redrawn by Christopher Tolkien for UT was used in some later editions of the LotR itself, starting with the Unicorn editions of 1983.

I don't think you can see these current revisions --360 in number--as being all that different from the earlier history of the book. Tinkering with the text, the illustrations and the maps has been going on for several decades, and each edition that comes out prides itself on being "definitive"-- the one closest to what the author really intended. This current example is little different in this regard. (I honestly think it would be possible to go through the earlier texts listed in Hammond and find other examples of the kind of question that Davem raised, that could generate debate if examined closely.) So my personal opinion is that what's happening now is not all that different from what happened before. We've managed to accept the earlier revisions with little problem, or no sense that the author's text has been violated, and I suspect the same will be true with these changes as well.

Finally, I don't think we can begin to assess the nature of these 360 changes until we see the guide that Hammond and his wife C. Scully will be putting out that will deal in depth with each change (as well as many other things). I stumbled upon a website with a forum where Hammond popped up to answer somkeone's question about the changes in the text. Like Davem, this poster expressed concern about what was going on with the new edition:

Have the 400+ "corrections" by Christopher Tolkien been listed anywhere? I'm pretty finicky about such things.

Hammond replied by exlaining they'd all be in the upcoming guide but that the sheer volume of material they'd located kept pushing back the publishing date:

Believe me, Christina and I are working very hard to finish this. The main reason for its delay is that we've found so much new information about Tolkien in libraries and archives that we've needed more time to process and describe it all. What was originally to be only one volume became two, which added complications of format and indexing. Also, along the way,.... Christina's father died, and I've continued to have a full-time library job which has become even more demanding with the years.

Anyway, we're sorry that you're having to wait for the Companion and Guide, and appreciate that you're looking forward to it.


Hammond also indicated that all future editions of the LotR would likely include these same changes "as well as corrections to any other errors that might come to light."

[davem]

Hmm, don't know if that alleviates or exacerbates the problem. Of course, printers errors should be identified & removed, but my difficulty is with changes like the one that started this thread off, which alter the (percieved) meaning of a character's statements. I accept that some changes are the result of annotations made by Tolkien in his copies of LotR, some in notes that he made. On that basis such changes could be made in order to achieve the version of LotR that he would have wanted.

But, were all these note for changes made at the same time? How do we know whether a change he wanted made in 1960 he would still have wanted made in 1972? Or whether he would have wanted those changes made if he were still alive?

Let's speculate that he was still alive now - what about 'queer' & 'gay' would he want those words replaced with 'suitable' substitutes? Or the Earendilinwe - why does this edition not include the final version which CT says should have been the one that was printed?

I've had the Companion & Guide on order since it was first announced 18 months to 2 years ago & will be fascinated to read the authors explanations. However the point still remains. Changes are being made for various reasons, some I'm fine with, others I'm not, but changes are being made without authorial approval. A 'committee' have appointed themselves to the job of producing an 'ideal' edition of a text who's author is dead. If nothing else that's a pretty 'novel' situation & worth thinking about.

[Mithalwen]

Pro bono? What a strange concept that is! ;)


Au contraire, I would refer my learned friend to the following:


I regard that as a clear instruction. My fee will therefore be rendered for davem's account. :p :D


Well, I meant not by me.... :P Just as well sinceI am not sure that Legal Aid is available to those who merely wish to satisfy their curiosity..

[Lalwendë]

Might I add a slightly tangential question here seeing as matters of copyright are being discussed? I often wonder about the copyright position of contributions to the 'Downs, particularly RPG games - many of us might want to take things we have written and use them elsewhere. Who technically owns these?

I know that in my work, anything I write belongs to HM Government - despite how much effort (or not) I may have put into it. So would posts on the 'Downs effectively belong to the owners of the 'Downs?

If this is in the wrong place, I do apologise, just wanted it to be seen by our resident experts. :)

[Bêthberry]

It is fascinating how many different questions we all have here. Like Child, I will stay clear of the legal one. Yet my concern was not with hers and davem's question about what constitutes a new work. My question is more closely related to something Aiwendil said:


On the contrary - his goal is clealy (whatever you may think of the particulars of his analysis) to present the text as it was intended by his father.

Everyone seems to assume that since CT was so close to his father, he knows what JRRT intended. Yet is this a reliable assumption? Instead of the difficulty of determining what one author "intended", now we have the situation of determining what two minds "intended".

We've been through the many and various difficulties in deciding what to determine as Tolkien's final intention on several matters. But it seems to me that people do not stop to ask what might have been the role of CT's own interpretive pov which influenced how he understood or even remembered things about his father's work. And, after all, he is now eighty years old. I do not wish to be mean when I say that at eighty the memory can play tricks, even with those who keep impeccable records.

Child is right of course that texts constantly undergo textual corrections for printing errors. (Although Joyce's Ulysses causes even greater headaches than Tolkien's might). But if this editon will be marketed as "the edition Tolkien would have wanted", well, that raises many other kinds of questions.

I think the collaboration between CT and JRRT will prove to be a fascinating topic for literary history.

[Mithalwen]

That I imagine is one huge can of worms - especially since so many Middle Earth names have been trade marked we are all no doubt infringing shedloads of stuff when we RPG but the good news is that I imagine a successful prosecution is unlikely ;)

[Bêthberry]

Lalwendë, I asked this question of Mithadan some time ago after a gamer came to me with the same queation about his character.

Mithadan is our Admin who is a Yankee laywer. Wait, let me rephrase that.
He practices law in the USA. Most of the time, he gets it right. ;)

Mithadan said that anything posted on the Internet is in the public domain. No copyright. And so no, BW is not going to sell our fanfiction stories to pay for the site.

[The Saucepan Man]

I often wonder about the copyright position of contributions to the 'Downs, particularly RPG games - many of us might want to take things we have written and use them elsewhere. Who technically owns these?Issues surrounding copyright and the internet give rise to real headaches, given that the net is accessible worldwide.

Under UK law (and most legal systems, I should imagine), you own the copyright in anything that you post here. Others can only (automatically) acquire rights to your work in very limited circumstances, such as where it is created during the course of your employment. The site owners will own the copyright in the design of the site and, possibly, the underlying code (although it's more likely that the code is used under licence).

The UK Patent Office recommends that, if you want to protect work which you publish on the internet from commercial exploitation, you should use the international © mark. But you will have copyright in it (in most legal systems) whether or not you use that symbol, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. The practicalities of enforcing your rights where your work is commercially exploited, particularly if this occurs in another country, would however be likely to present difficulties.

By the way, in case anyone is concerned, quoting extracts from LotR or any other work, or other people's posts, on this site should present no problem as it will have marginal, if any, economic impact on the copyright owner, and should therefore fall within the "fair dealing" (under UK law at least, although I should imagine that this applies equally under most laws).

Thus endeth a further lesson in copyright law. :rolleyes:

I now return you to your regular topic ...

Disclaimer: Whilst The Saucepan Man has endeavoured to ensure that this information is correct, in no event shall The Saucepan Man or the Barrow Downs be responsible for any loss or damage of whatever kind arising out of access to or use of or reliance on any information contained in The Saucepan Man's posts on this thread.

(Once a lawyer, always a lawyer. ;) )

Edit (having seen Bb's post above): Hmm, a difference of opinion. perhaps US law is different ...

[Mithalwen]

Everyone seems to assume that since CT was so close to his father, he knows what JRRT intended. Yet is this a reliable assumption? ......

I think the collaboration between CT and JRRT will prove to be a fascinating topic for literary history.


It is not that I think that CT is infallible, just that I think he is better placed to make the judgement than anyone living, even given his age. I mean he is a scholar as well as family.

Sometimes I get the impression that he is suspected of some sinister plot that rivals the deaths of JFK and DPOW in a niche market of conspiracy theorists. If anyone else has read "Gaudy Night" (Dorothy L. Sayers), which various threads here often make me think of, there is a similar question of integrity here. I accept that there may be more personal material extant that has not yet been made available because it is regarded as private to the family - and I think that is fair enough at least while first generation descendants are still living - ( a sin of ommission!) but I do not think that a scholar with a modicum of self respect or integrity would commit a "sin of commission" and deliberately distort the work.

[Bêthberry]

posted by Mithalwen:
If anyone else has read "Gaudy Night" (Dorothy L. Sayers), which various threads here often make me think of, there is a similar question of integrity here. I accept that there may be more personal material extant that has not yet been made available because it is regarded as private to the family - and I think that is fair enough at least while first generation descendants are still living - ( a sin of ommission!) but I do not think that a scholar with a modicum of self respect or integrity would commit a "sin of commission" and deliberately distort the work. Today 02:59 PM

My issues and concerns do not question Christopher Tolkien's integrity. I've never accused CT of deliberate misrepresentation or distortion and my points have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. The kinds of things I am referring to are the kinds of unconscious choices and decisions which come into play in any literary context. CT is an extremely privileged reader, but still a reader of his father. Who he is as a person and as a son goes into how he reads Middle-earth. We are in many ways very fortunate to have such a reader bring Middle earth to us. At the same time, I very much doubt if he can be the entirely objective scholar about his father's work. Indeed, is there any where an entirely objective scholar?

To show another context: Charlotte Bronte was exceptionally careful of her beloved sister Emily's reputation when she wrote the foreward to Wuthering Heights. In it, she naturally did everything she could to dispel the horrid Victorian suggestions about Emily. Yet in many ways the concept of authorship which Charlotte put forth about Emily has in itself created situations where some at least of the aesthetic questions about the novel are overlooked or elided. Do I blame Charlotte for this? Not in the least. But I am careful when reading her foreward to consider her words in the light of what else I know about Emily's work. Emily, I think, was a far shrewder and more honest writer than the times allowed Charlotte to admit.

In a similar way, I can point to how Elizabeth Gaskell's biography of Charlotte set a certain tone and path to Bronte studie-- a path which readers as diverse as Viriginia Woolf and Harold Bloom have been unable not to follow.

Similar 'directions' in sustaining the critical history of an author can be seen in Jane Austen's critical history, but she at least had the benefit of a scholar like Trilling to champion her. (In fact, England is fertile ground for "Author's Socieities" with quite intense divisions over rival interpreations of authors.)

There's a similar story too, to T.S Eliot's championing of John Donne over John Milton.

I could go on, but I think my picture is likely more focussed now (even if still dark). I am not in any way disparaging the work of Christopher Tolkien. I am simply saying that in any powerful voice which speaks for an author, there will be questions of direction, choice, interpretation, context. Look at the differences in the four gospels about Christ's life. Personal witness is powerful, but it remains personal witness. I am uncomfortable with a situation in which we are allowed only one form of personal witness. I am sure there will be others, some not radically different, others perhaps showing variation. To me, the life and work of Cristopher Tolkien will need to be studied as well as that of his father before we can begin to understand what was the full and rich nature of their collaboration.

EDIT: Having just seen SpM's point about English copyright law, I should of course quickly hammer up my own disclaimer *WITHOUT PREJUDICE*

There could well be differences in copyright law. I remember being told that, in American universities, the law gave complete copyright and ownership to any works of art which students produced while they were students at the university to the university. It made no difference if the work of art was produced 'on campus' or 'off campus', in the student's own private life and without any recourse to any university facilties and advice. Lo and behold, medievalism endures.

[Mithalwen]

I was making a wider comment on what I have observed at that point. Only the first two sentences were intended in response to your post BB. I shall edit in a paragraph break to make that clearer. Indeed, there is much more I would know about that realtionship but wether we ever will, I don't know. However, I was trying to point out that I believe the scholar in CT would not permit, say the destruction of documents in order to protect reputation - in fact from HoME it seems that every last "back of an envelope" has been preserved. It is a difficult balance this closeness v. objectivity thing - may be not a question of wrong and right just a difference of perspective.

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:
Everyone seems to assume that since CT was so close to his father, he knows what JRRT intended. Yet is this a reliable assumption? Instead of the difficulty of determining what one author "intended", now we have the situation of determining what two minds "intended".


Ah, but I didn't say that CT knows precisely or can divine his father's wishes. I said rather that his goal is clearly to present the material as his father intended. It may seem a trivial and obvious point, but I think it needs making. Some of the fears that have been expressed concerning changes to the work (particularly concerning possible future changes) seem to me to be overreactions for just that reason. CT would never implement a change to LotR merely because he thought it would improve the text. He would, I'm sure, never contemplate any change remotely like "gay" > "happy". None of the changes he has implemented (as far as I know) are in any way like that; they have all been made based purely on textual evidence concerning what Tolkien intended the text to say.

But it seems to me that people do not stop to ask what might have been the role of CT's own interpretive pov which influenced how he understood or even remembered things about his father's work. And, after all, he is now eighty years old. I do not wish to be mean when I say that at eighty the memory can play tricks, even with those who keep impeccable records.


Actually, I fail to see how his memory is relavant at all. Where has he made a change based solely on his recollection of his father's wishes? If there is such a change in the new edition I would be rather surprised. As a matter of fact, even in reading HoMe, where his commentary is quite extensive, one hardly ever comes across a reference to a recollection of his - in fact, apart from the frequent use of "my father" to refer to JRRT one could hardly guess that the commentator even knew the author.

Every argument that I recall CT making about his father's work anywhere is one based on textual evidence rather than recollection.

I am not in any way disparaging the work of Christopher Tolkien. I am simply saying that in any powerful voice which speaks for an author, there will be questions of direction, choice, interpretation, context.

In a way, that's certainly true - as indeed it must be of anyone that approaches any author's work.

Yet I must say that I don't see it as being all that significant in this case. To refer again to HoMe - CT's commentary is almost never interpretive. The arguments he makes and the conclusions he reaches are almost exclusively concerned with matters such as the dates of composition of various texts and the literal meaning of certain passages.

Now it's certainly possible that his particular substantive interpretation of his father's work may have in some cases influenced his choices in preparing the new edition of LotR - I'll grant that. But it seems to me that the proper response is not to question the process in principle, but rather to examine his analysis of particular instances in an objective way. When a scientist publishes a paper, the reaction of his or her peers is not to ask "How might this person's particular world-view have biased his work?" but rather "Is this person's conclusion a valid one, based on the available evidence?"

I don't mean to suggest that I find the consideration of Christopher's role with regard to his father's work worthless or uninteresting. Rather, I think that there is more meat, as it were, in questioning his particular analyses objectively than in questioning his involvement in the abstract.

[mark12_30]

As a tongue-in-cheek aside:

"Peter Jackson ruined the books!"

"No, he didn't. They are sitting right there on my shelf-- unharmed-- where they've always been."

;)

Referring back to page one: if we take "do not" to its logical extreme, it would seem that since elves don't count them, then elves don't know what year it is. But their careful chronologies would seem to bely that, would they not? And since the elves named the months, they *do* know what month it is; it seems odd that they wouldn't know what year it is.

At any rate, I look at this as sort of the reverse of "The Annotated Hobbit." ...whups, must go. ToBeContinued... [Edit] Then again, maybe not, since Bethberry made my point using different illustrations. See Bethberry's post below-- where she says I'm naughty, and must be denied mushrooms.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK. Having waffled on about the law at length, perhaps it's time I applied my mind to the issue at hand.

While I do not share davem's concerns over the change that has given rise to this thread, I do think that he is on to a matter of potential concern. As I understand it, although the film and merchandising rights were sold off long ago, the Tolkien estate retains the rights in the literary work itself. And I believe that Christopher Tolkien pretty much controls the estate. That means that (in theory, as a matter of law) he and his successors have pretty much carte blanche to carry on formulating new editions making whatever changes to it they wish.

Now, I accept that it is unlikely to be in the nature of CT to introduce any changes which he does not believe represent his father's intentions. But I disagree with Aiwendil that he would not implement a change merely because he felt that it would improve the work. Surely, the reason why he is introducing changes which he feels better reflect his father's intentions is precisely because he feels that they will 'improve' it. In other words, he considers a LotR which more closely reflects his father's intent to be a 'better' LotR.

And, whether he is right or wrong in his assessment of what his father's intentions were (and he is of course one of the best placed people in this regard), this does nevertheless provide significant scope for a change in the nature of the work. We already have one change (that which started this thread off) which some believe (quite justifiably, in my view) significantly alters the meaning of what Legolas is saying concerning the nature of his race. And that just involves the alteration of a few words. To continue down this road could potentially, given sufficient alterations, lead to a work which is fundamentally different from that which we currently have, albeit one which CT believes better reflects his father's intentions.

Unlikely? Perhaps while the work remains in CT's care. But what of those who follow him as guardians of Tolkien's legacy? Perhaps they will consider themselves entitled (morally as well as legally) to continue tinkering with the text to better acheive what they see as Tolkien's original intent. Or perhaps they will take a less scrupulous approach than CT and seek to 'improve' on it for less worthy reasons.

Admittedly this applies to any literary work. But, given the precedent that CT has set, there is arguably a greater chance of it happening with LotR. I am not, by any means, saying that it will happen - simply that it is a reasonable possibility.

Oh, and one further legal point:


especially since so many Middle Earth names have been trade marked we are all no doubt infringing shedloads of stuff when we RPG but the good news is that I imagine a successful prosecution is unlikelyNames are not protected by copyright and I should imagine that Middle-earth names are only trade marked in the context of merchandising (to prevent similar products using the same name). I therefore doubt that there is any potential for infringement in using Middle earth names in an RPG or a fan fic (neither of which involve commercial exploitation of the names, in any event). [Disclaimer applies]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

Hmm, don't know if that alleviates or exacerbates the problem. Of course, printers errors should be identified & removed, but my difficulty is with changes like the one that started this thread off, which alter the (percieved) meaning of a character's statements. I accept that some changes are the result of annotations made by Tolkien in his copies of LotR, some in notes that he made. On that basis such changes could be made in order to achieve the version of LotR that he would have wanted.

I heartily concur with your first sentence, in the sense that these edits are just part of a long process of revisions, which were initially begun by JRRT and then continued by his son after his death. If you are uncomfortable with the earlier process, you may be hesitent about the later one (and vice versa). Despite the hoopla over this particular publication, I honestly don't see a huge difference between what is happening now and what occurred before.....except for one thing.

Some of the edits in the present edition were not initially the product of CT himself, but of Cristina and Wayne Hammond. When I signed up for the Tolkien Collector several years ago, I wrote Cristina about their work as librarians. She included a return note where she mentioned they had been commissioned by Harper to do the editorial work for the new 50th anniversary LotR volume plus a volume of annotations to that book. She also stated that all their suggested edits would be reviewed and approved by CT. This delegation of authority doesn't surprise me. CT is getting on in years, and perhaps no longer does the nitty gritty work he used to do. But it does suggest that the circle of editors has widened: we've gone beyond the initial group of the Tolkien family to the "next generation" of editors. This, I think, is an important transition. Like Aiwendil , even if I didn't always agree with CT, I always trusted CT: he treated his father's text with integrity and didn't consciously try to substitute his own interpretations. Now we have a new group of scholars who have excellent credentials, but don't have the same ties of personal loyalty to the family.

As to what is a printer's error and what effects the meaning of a character's statement, that is a very fine line. As Davem has so aptly shown, the change of a single word can have significance. And there were so many drafts of material at different points in Tolkien's life, that some element of choice is necessarily involved.

Of the hundreds of post 1973 edits, some of these changes may constitute something more than correcting a printer's error. One of the interesting things I noticed in Hammond's bibliography is that the earlier editions, those written while JRRT was alive, have a line by line account of every edit. The later editions written after the author's death may list only one edit as being the "most important". Of course, there is a value judgment here on the part of the editor, since we don't even see the others deemed "less important." This statement from the Unwin paperback edition of 1979 is typical:

This latest edition has been reset and minor corrections have been made throughout.

Bb mentioned earlier she was concerned that this edition was being marketed as "the edition Tolkien would have wanted." But that has happened before, if not with such strong language. Ever since the snafu between Ace and Ballentine, Tolkien's works have often included some kind of statement indicating that the particular edition is to be regarded as the "authoritative" text that the author wanted. In 1983, the following more explicit statement was added by CT for the first time, undoubtedly in acknowledgment of his own continuing hand with the text. The italics are mine:

The text of this edition incorporates all corrections and revisions intended by its author and, taken with the other two volumes, constitutes the authoritative edition...

The key words in this statement are "revisions", "intended", and "authoritative." Revisions signify more than corrections, and intended could cover the judgments made by CT as well as those actually done by his father. The present marketing job is more slick, but I honestly think the editing process is not too different from that reflected in these earlier editions.

Like Aiwendil , I still have basic faith in CT and the integrity of the text. And it will be interesting to see the specific 360 changes made and to raise the type of question that Davem has raised here. Yet, overall, given the fact that JRRT himself changed his view on so many things in Middle-earth so many times, we are never going to have 100 percent certainty. We have to hope that the editors chosen show integrity and circumspection. So far, that has been the case.

[Bêthberry]

Helen, truly, you are naughty. Very naughty indeed. No mushrooms for you tonight.

Aiwendil, you make several assumptions which, were I to reply to them, would take this thread off topic. For instance, I think that "textual evidence" is as liable to faults of "recollection" as are other forms of interpretation. I have seen too many cases in the sciences where not just the methology but also the "world view" of authors has been questioned, sometimes approiately so , sometimes not. One of my husband's favourite books (he's a scientist) is Lies, D**n Lies, and Statistics.

So, then, since at this time I have nothing with which to advance the discussion, I will simply say that I think, at this point in time, it is more a marketing strategy than a scholarly act to say a text has been produced as Christopher thought his father intended. I think scholarly texts discussing variations and errata can be produced but I think it is a quixotic endeavour to believe we can undo the exigencies of post war publishing and produce now the book Tolkien would have wanted fifty years ago. It is revisionary history.

The pull-out maps are very tantalizing--I remember enjoying Squatter's first edition maps so much--but when I read of the gorgeous and costly leather covering, well, I wonder if such a project would ever have been attempted had the movies not been produced.

Call me cynic if you will, but I have plenty of other windmills of my own to tilt at so who am I stop anyone here. After all, what barrow does not have several bones to chew on, and some never to let go? :)

EDIT: Whoops, family arriving at the door meant I crossposted with both of my esteemed colleagues here, Child and Sauce. I didn't see their posts before I put this one up.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I think it is a quixotic endeavour to believe we can undo the exigencies of post war publishing and produce now the book Tolkien would have wanted fifty years ago. It is revisionary history.

Bb,

You have said it very well in just a few words. Taken as a whole, I do not see the string of these revisions, even those dating from 1974 on, as "marring" Tolkien's core text or meaning. But neither do I see them as a great restoration of his original vision. That can never be totally captured.


As to whether the publishers would have come out with these books without the movie, I am fairly certain they would have, even lacking PJ. From the sixties onward, Unwin, Harper, and Houghton Mifflin (to say nothing of a host of others like Easton, the Guild, and the Folio Society) periodically issue new "deluxe" or special commemorative editions, many with slipcovers, for both Hobbit and LotR and even now for HoMe. I have several, for example, commemorating the 25th and 50th anniversary of the Hobbit when there were no thoughts of any movie. It's possible the print run would have been smaller--1,500 instead of 2,500--but I do think the publishers would mark this occasion just as they've marked others in the history of the book, as collectors scamper to snarf them up.

As you may be able to tell, I have caught a bad case of the "collecting bug". :rolleyes:

[Bêthberry]

Bb,

You have said it very well in just a few words. Taken as a whole, I do not see the string of these revisions, even those dating from 1974 on, as "marring" Tolkien's core text or meaning. But neither do I see them as a great restoration of his original vision. That can never be totally captured.

Child, I hope you saw my edit that I had written those words and that post before I read yours and Sauce's good points.


As you may be able to tell, I have caught a bad case of the "collecting bug". :rolleyes:

Ah, well, just to show a variety of collecting bugs, here are some things
I am thinking of collecting from the Bodleian library catalogue. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=361833&postcount=698)

Well, not the journal. But the calendar and polar bear cards for the Tolkien art reprints maybe.

I think the question of how the editorial boards extend, with Sauce's query as to whether later heirs of the Tolkien estate will have the same right of ecitorialship as CT, is a good one. Those lawyers. always working out ways of more billable hours.

[The Saucepan Man]

Those lawyers. always working out ways of more billable hours.Indeedy - and the clock's still running on this one. Double time past midnight. ;)

As a matter of law, anyone who seeks to edit the text only does so with the permission of the copyright holder, namely Tolkien's estate. As a contrary point to the one that I made earlier, it is possible that in time, without CT's influence, these 'editorial boards' will be have less licence to amend.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Now, I accept that it is unlikely to be in the nature of CT to introduce any changes which he does not believe represent his father's intentions. But I disagree with Aiwendil that he would not implement a change merely because he felt that it would improve the work.

Allow me to clarify. I believe that the criterion CT uses is always that the action is question is justified if and only if it represents his father's intentions better than all alternatives. When I discuss a hypothetical change that he "merely feels will improve the work" I mean one that does merely that and does not, in his view, bring the work closer to his father's intention.

One could say, I suppose, that he believes his father's intention was that the work be as good as possible, and so he could justify to himself any change that he believes improves the work. But that would really be a kind of dishonesty, at least in spirit. Every argument of Christopher's that I've ever seen has always struck me as extraordinarily objective, and I think that in most cases his analyses are quite correct.

Unlikely? Perhaps while the work remains in CT's care. But what of those who follow him as guardians of Tolkien's legacy? Perhaps they will consider themselves entitled (morally as well as legally) to continue tinkering with the text to better acheive what they see as Tolkien's original intent. Or perhaps they will take a less scrupulous approach than CT and seek to 'improve' on it for less worthy reasons.


If and when this happens it will be most unfortunate. But it has not happened yet. It seems a bit premature to start worrying about it - especially since, as you point out, this ought to be just as much a concern for any literary work. I do not think that CT's precedent makes some future distortion of the text much more likely.

Bethberry wrote:
Aiwendil, you make several assumptions which, were I to reply to them, would take this thread off topic. For instance, I think that "textual evidence" is as liable to faults of "recollection" as are other forms of interpretation. I have seen too many cases in the sciences where not just the methology but also the "world view" of authors has been questioned, sometimes approiately so , sometimes not. One of my husband's favourite books (he's a scientist) is Lies, D**n Lies, and Statistics.

Well, I don't wish to get into empiricism or constructivism or Bayes's theorem, so I will say nothing more about science.

But with regard to Christopher. Perhaps I'm being obtuse; but I do not see how any of his arguments or analyses are based on recollection in such a way as to make them subject to faults of memory - unless we are to suppose that he reads a sentence and immediately forgets it.

Child of the 7th Age wrote:
Taken as a whole, I do not see the string of these revisions, even those dating from 1974 on, as "marring" Tolkien's core text or meaning. But neither do I see them as a great restoration of his original vision.

Indeed; I think it fairly silly to suppose that "marring" or "restoring" Tolkien's vision is a matter of a few minor changes to the text - or even 360.

[mark12_30]

Indeed; I think it fairly silly to suppose that "marring" or "restoring" Tolkien's vision is a matter of a few minor changes to the text - or even 360

That's why I brought up The Annotated Hobbit. Few besides dyed-in-the-wool Tolkien fanatics are even aware of its existence. Scholars and avid fans have a copy, it's fun for discussion & debate, but it represents a very small percentage of the copies of The Hobbit overall and it's not the one you read to your kids.

[The Saucepan Man]

If and when this happens it will be most unfortunate. But it has not happened yet. It seems a bit premature to start worrying about it - especially since, as you point out, this ought to be just as much a concern for any literary work. I do not think that CT's precedent makes some future distortion of the text much more likely.Yet it does seem to me that the treatment of LotR raises a legitimate cause for discussion and, yes, perhaps even concern. I am no literary scholar and have little knowledge of the textual development of literary works. But how many other works have the same wealth of interpretive material (HoME, Unfinished Tales, the Letters) available? How many have undergone the same textual development, to the extent of alterations in the wording that can be (justifiably) interpreted as changing the meaning of significant elements? I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that, by virtue of CT's assumed role in this (worthy though it may be), LotR is in somewhat of a rare, if not unique, position in this regard.

[davem]

But what we have here is not 'The Annotated LotR' - which I would be more than happy to see. As I said earlier, if this edition had given the different readings as footnotes or in an extra appendix I wouldn't have had any problem. Its changing the actual text that bothers me, especially as the specific changes are not indicated. They have simply been made & the 'original' wording has been lost.

[Allotheria]

I've come to this very late, but I felt a burning need to stick my two penn'orth in, despite not being in full possession of all the facts (story of my life)

It is certainly true to say that the difference betwen "do not" and "need not" has come to be seen as a significant one - a lot of that has to do with the plain english campaign - and I'm all for that, especially in a public service context.

But Tolkien is not a public service. It's a work of art - and it's there that these issues start to get more complex.

I think it would be hard to argue anything other than that most of Tolkien's work is an attempt to capture the spirit of writings from an earlier time - mythical and folkloreish - indeed, it seems to me to be the *point* of his work. And it's from this standpoint that the do not / need not debate becomes a thing of beauty really. Let me explain - in old texts (and many of them word of mouth texts) do not can *mean* need not, and vice versa. The language of earler times was less complex than our language - words had to work harder for a living and often had many more meanings than they do now. The classic example is the immaculate conception (bear with me) - the bible says that Jesus was borne of a virgin's womb, and modern religions have interpreted that to mean something magical and mystical. But, of course, the word "virgin" (or the Aramaic equivalent of it) meant many things - a young woman, a beautiful woman, a good woman etc etc etc.

Another example - there is a beautiful English folk song called Death and the Lady. There's no definitive version of it, though. In it, death comes to a young maiden to take her away to heaven. In one version I have, he says:

"Fair lady lay your robes aside
No longer glory in your pride.
And now sweet maid make no delay,
Your time is come, you must away"

In another

"Fair Lady, throw those costly robes aside,
No longer may you glory in your pride;
Take leave of all your carnal vain delight,
I'm come to summon you away this night."

In yet another

"I'll have no gold, I'll have no pearl
I want no costly rich robes to wear
I cannot spare you a little while
Nor give you time your life to lament
Nor give you time your life to lament"

But the meaning is the same in all of them. And why? Because, being a folk song its message is universal and all embracing. And what I find beautiful about Tolkien's work is that it is universal and all embracing too. And it's a great thing to me that dilemmas like this arise, because it means that he has succeeded in creating a mythology that seems to have the characteristics of coming from an earlier time.

Hope that makes sense. It sort of does to me (which is nothing short of a miracle)

"Finger pointing, eyebrows low, mouth in the shape of the letter 'O' - red means stop! Do not go! NO! NO! NO!"
:cool:

[davem]

Dragging this one up, because of something I've just come across on the website (http://bcn.net/~whammond/writing.html) of Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull (the editor's of this 'perfect' edition).

In the section on new books I found this:

In the meantime, we have completed editorial work on the 50th anniversary edition of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, in conjunction with Christopher Tolkien, to ensure the most accurate version to date. This was published in 2004.

Fine so far - that's what they sold the edition on. But they continue:

A reprint is to appear in 2005: this will have further corrections, some of which are to typos in the 2004 edition, others to errors that came to our attention earlier this year.

Get that? So, this 'perfect' edition, with its 450 corrections & emendations is now found to contain typos & requires further corrections!

Ok - cue smug grins from all those who didn't spend £100 (or the $ equivalent) on the deluxe edition - or even £35 on the 'standard' hardback edition, but that's not the point of my dragging up this old thread again.

No, the point is, this is a very silly sidetrack that Tolkien studies is going down. We're getting to a point now where we will no longer know what is the 'correct' text & what isn't. As we discussed earlier in this thread, changing a single word can alter the meaning of a passage profoundly. How many of these 'changes & emendations' are based on a reading of the published text (in however many versions of it there are), how many are based on CT's reading of his father's manuscripts - which may be mis-readings on his part (plus how many intermediate stages in the composition of LotR were lost, or are waiting to be discovered in the future)?

This project, for all its good intentions, is clearly flawed - in fact, its obviously pointless, or worse, is actually damaging, because pretty soon there will be so many different 'LotR's out there that we'll either end up having to forget discussing the book in any kind of depth & detail, or we'll have to limit discussions to specific editions & only those in possession of those editions will be able to join in anything but 'general' discussions.

[Child of the 7th Age]

This project, for all its good intentions, is clearly flawed - in fact, its obviously pointless, or worse, is actually damaging, because pretty soon there will be so many different 'LotR's out there that we'll either end up having to forget discussing the book in any kind of depth & detail, or we'll have to limit discussions to specific editions & only those in possession of those editions will be able to join in anything but 'general' discussions.

Davem -

:rolleyes:

Like you, I wish the Hammonds would put their time to better use. I would rather see them concentrate on the Index and Guide, which has been promised to us for nearly two years, instead of all these minor editorial changes.

I appreciate your frustration, but I would disagree with one of your points. I don't believe these editorial changes are of such magnitude that we risk the danger of having "two" Lord of the Rings. I don't see a slew of minor changes in wording and punctuation amounting to the type of substantial revision you are alluding to. I'll admit that I could be proved wrong. If someone could show me a laundry list of changes that will truly affect the meaning of the story, then I will change my tune.

Other than that, I think we are simply dealing with more of the same that's been going on since the time when the book was first published. LotR HAS never and WILL never reach a final pristine form such (as it supposedly once took inside Tolkien's head) despite the tinkering that's gone on for over fifty years. The 440-page descriptive bibliography by Hammond and Anderson in tiny, tiny type lists literally thousands of publishing changes for all of Tolkien's writings from their earliest date of publication through 1993. Some of the earliest changes in LotR were made by Tolkien himself, others were accidental or deliberate changes by the various publishing companies, and still others were requested by CT. Hammond is not JRRT, but neither was CT. It is another mind and hand intervening, hopefully with a gentle touch. Plus, there were so many variations in the different editions of the book up to 1993 that it is virtually mind-boggling. (From the point of view of a book collector, some of these minor changes are actually helpful since it's the only way some variant editions can be identified.) Change is nothing new.

I noticed in your link that the Hammonds and Oak Knoll Books are finally thinking of an updated version of the descriptive bibliography that would presumably contain the textual changes in LotR from 1993 through to the present. This would be very helpful, not just to people who are into purchase of older editions but for anyone hoping to understand the history of the published text. I honestly think that we are alright as long as editorial changes are brought out into the open rather than being swept under the rug. That way they can be discussed and assessed if their importance warrants such treatment.

Davem - You wouldn't by any chance have a touch of Elvish blood? ;) I sense a reluctance to welcome any changes, even when such textual tinkering is at least paraded under the rubric that it is an attempt to return to the "original, true" text. (And could this not at least in certain cases actually be true?)

[Lalwendë]

Harumph.

The cynic in me sees how convenient it is that errors were found in the expensive new edition published last year, errors which just had to be corrected. While it might be good to get to a 'perfect edition' I wonder how much extra money the publishers will make from Tolkien fans who want to ensure they have got a copy of said 'perfect edition'? :(

From studying literature I know just how many works are available in many different 'varieties', and it is an enormous pain, not to say an enormous expense, when the 'required' edition is not the £1 'classic' available from remaindered bookstores but the £10 version with extensive academic notes. I would hazard a guess that the 'version' of LotR which is used in discussions will always remain simply whichever version is most popular, which ever version is most easily (and cheaply) obtainable. Most paperback editions are still using the text that was available in the late 70's/early 80's.

Still, I'm one of the suckers who will spend my cash on different editions so the publishers can see me coming. ;) Though I do tend to get them second hand - including the edition with lovely covers and a slew of typos....

[davem]

I appreciate your frustration, but I would disagree with one of your points. I don't believe these editorial changes are of such magnitude that we risk the danger of having "two" Lord of the Rings. I don't see a slew of minor changes in wording and punctuation amounting to the type of substantial revision you are alluding to. I'll admit that I could be proved wrong. If someone could show me a laundry list of changes that will truly affect the meaning of the story, then I will change my tune.

Its not so much that I think we'll end up with two (or more) competing editions of LotR. Its mainly frustration that we keep being 'sold' (literally & metaphorically) 'perfect' editions of LotR which subsequently turn out to be nothing of the kind. If the publishers were to put out an e-text with free updates that would be fine, but every time they or the editors mess up or decide they have a 'more accurate' version of the text they print it & charge us for it. Over here we have what's called the Trades Descriptions Act, which requires companies, manufacturers & suppliers of goods & services to do what they say & holds them legally accountable if they fail to do so. I think we've about reached a point with LotR where the publishers & editors stop trying to 'con' us & just honestly say 'In this edition we've tried to put right errors but not only may we not have put them right we may even have introduced some new ones. We've made changes to the text, which we think are correct, but we may be completely wrong.'

My hope is that the new 900 page 'LotR: A Readers Guide' which is out in a few weeks will detail all the typos & changes they are talking about.

Davem - You wouldn't by any chance have a touch of Elvish blood? I sense a reluctance to welcome any changes, even when such textual tinkering is at least paraded under the rubric that it is an attempt to return to the "original, true" text. (And could this not at least in certain cases actually be true?)

I do like 'everything set out fair & square, with no contradictions'. As to these editorial obsessings being an attempt to return to the '"original, true" text. (And could this not at least in certain cases actually be true?) - maybe they are & maybe they aren't. Personally, I'm lost as to whether there is such a thing, whether that's what they're really up to, or even whether this obsession with producing the 'definitive' LotR is entirely healthy.

All I do know for sure is that, as you state, LotR HAS never and WILL never reach a final pristine form such (as it supposedly once took inside Tolkien's head) despite the tinkering that's gone on for over fifty years.. So what's the point in this constant tinkering?

There is still a great deal of unpublished writing - The Fall of Arthur, The New Volsunga Saga, the translation of Beowulf, the other letters, the diaries - which may be of incredible importance to Tolkien Studies (the newly published Smith essay will lead us down some very interesting roads), yet all we seem to be getting are these tinkerings with established texts.

Edit. What I normally do is just grab the nearest copy of LotR - out of about a dozen or so editions - when I want to check anything, or I'm preparing for a CbC post. If I want to read it for pleasure I go to my 1976 paperbacks, which we're my original gateway to Middle-earth (they aren't the actual ones I bought back then, but the same edition boxed set Lalwende found for me on ebay). I think the first edition of LotR that you read is always going to be the 'definitive' LotR for you - whether it has typos, errors, even tears & creases - and that's something that is completely ignored by the 'tinkerers' - even if their hearts are in the right place.

[davem]

I've just got the new 3 volume 50th Anniversary edition of LotR & in Return of the King (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0261102370/qid=1139145441/sr=8-6/ref=pd_ka_6/026-1149373-6107634) there's a revised index (this wasn't in the 2004 50th Anniversary edition but is entirely new).

Hammond & Scull have started from scratch & the new index is 38 pages long, as opposed to 24 pages in the original. What I'm wondering is whether the original index, which Tolkien agreed on (it was actually prepared by Nancy Smith & revised by Tolkien) should be considered part of the text itself & therefore not touched, or whether it is supplimmentary, & not to be considered 'canonical'?

We didn't do a thread on the Index in the CbC discussion, but should we have? This is another example of something being excised from the original & replaced by 'experts' - who have their hearts in the right place, no doubt. As the editors say, the old index was in many ways unsatisfactory, but it was the Index Tolkien gave us, it was his work (as reviser at least), & we can only assume that it is now lost for good, as all new editions will contain the new one.

Any thoughts - or am i just being an old pedant?