New Tolkien Books:updates

[davem]

I've just got an email from Amazon about the 70th Anniversary Hobbit. They estimate that rather than delivery being today or tomorrow, it will be next February! Now, the boxed set, including Rateliff's History of TH as well as the 70th anniversary edition, is supposed to be out this month - & if its the case that TH will only be available separately next February something is definitely wrong - those of us who got the HoTH volumes as they appeared are being penalised. Of course, Amazon could be wrong - that said, this edition of TH has been promised for the last six months & has been constantly put back by the publishers.

Further bad news is that the CoH audio book, promised by Harper Collins for publication three days ago (3rd Sept), is now due out on November 5th, & the h/b Tales from the Perilous Realm (including Roverandom, Giles, Smith, Niggle & AoTB) has been promised from August 6th & still not appeared.

End rant......

[davem]

http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/...xe_edition.php

Anyway....an update on my rant.

Recieved an email from Amazon that TH has dispatched. Don't know who's mistake it was to send the 'Feb. delivery notification - misinfo from H-C or Amazon getting their dates wrong - I'd lean towards it being H-C. Tales from the Perilous Realm is now listed as being published Sept 1st 2008.

[davem]

http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/...er_Collins.php

[davem]

Well, I've just got The Hobbit 70th anniversary edition. Nice matte cover. Its the cheaper 'perfect' binding, rather than the sewn in signatures of the recent LotR, Sil & UT editions, but it does include the 'Mirkwood' illustration. Sadly, the fold out Thror's Map included in the deluxe edition, with the Moon Runes printed in reverse on the back so that they show through when held up to the light (as Tolkien intended) is not included. Certainly worth adding to your collection for all that.

[Child of the 7th Age]

My Houghton Mifflin 70th Anniversary Hobbit arrived today. Davem -- I assume you purchased the Harper Collins edition? Mine sounds similar to yours. After all these recent "glitzy" collector's edition, this one is more like a little grey mouse. Very comfortable to read. I rather like it, especially the muted tones of the cover that remind me a little of the Harper Collins History of the Hobbit. Does yours have the first chapter of LotR tucked into the back and the short foreward by Christopher dated 1987?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

My Houghton Mifflin 70th Anniversary Hobbit arrived today. Davem -- I assume you purchased the Harper Collins edition? Mine sounds similar to yours. After all these recent "glitzy" collector's edition, this one is more like a little grey mouse. Very comfortable to read. I rather like it, especially the muted tones of the cover that remind me a little of the Harper Collins History of the Hobbit. Does yours have the first chapter of LotR tucked into the back and the short foreward by Christopher dated 1987?

I think that, as with CoH, both HM & HC have gone for the same design & contents. Of course, including the Long Expected Party chapter in there opens up the whole can of worms about whether TH is part of the Legendarium proper.....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I think that, as with CoH, both HM & HC have gone for the same design & contents. Of course, including the Long Expected Party chapter in there opens up the whole can of worms about whether TH is part of the Legendarium proper.....

No, it doesn't because

1. The Silm as a satisfactorily completed book was just a gleam in JRRT's and CT's eyes when TH and LotR were published, so the original inclusion of LEP had nothing to do with any kind of statement about the Legendarium.

2. Inclusion of LEP was related to the fact that Tolkien started LotR as a sequel to TH. Even if LotR grew beyond that intention, the original intention is not negated.

3. Inclusion of such chapters as LEP was a publishing strategy related to marketing. It was designed to inspire readers to buy more books (and maybe even pad a smallish book to make it seem more substantial). It was not designed to make a statement about any kind of authorial universe, about which readers at the time knew nothing.

4. Removing LEP from an edition of TH which is not represented as an exact reprinting of the original first edition and which includes several other items would represent a revision to the history of publication of TH. It happened. Discussing it of course is legitimate--many people do enjoy the wriggling aspect of argument--but to erase it is the worst sort of historical revisionism.