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?

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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:

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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.

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 . 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. 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]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

[quoted by davem: 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? [/quote]

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 .... 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.../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 ).

[Mithalwen]

http://www.marquette.edu/library/col...s/tolkien.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...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]

Originally Posted by Bb

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.