Quote:
|
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 -
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?)