Hobbit Discrepancy - Ballantine Books vs. Houghton Mifflin - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Rhudladion · 02-01-2002, 11:05 AM

Could some of you gurus shed some light on something for me?

I have two versions of The Hobbit. One is the paper-back BB (Ballantine Books) version, and the other is the hard-back HM (Houghton Mifflin) "official" version. There is a discrepancy between the two, with respect to consistency and grammar. In the chapter Roast Mutton, the BB version reads, "In the Lone-lands they had to camp when they could, but at least it had been dry." In the same chapter, the HM version reads, "In the Lone-lands they had been obliged to camp when they could, but at least it had been dry."

Then, and more importantly, a few paragraphs later in the BB version it is stated that they had not had to camp yet, but that they decided they would have to camp where they were (I don't have the precise quote here, but this paraphrase suits my purpose). So we have a logical discrepancy: Camping when they could earlier, and not having camped yet later. The HM version makes no such contradiction: the sentence about not having camped yet is simply not there.

I have heard it said that the HM version is the one to be relied on. What do you think about that claim?

Also, my first time through I read the BB version, and did not pick up on the discrepancy. I picked up on it after reading the HM version (second reading). This being the case, I'm wondering if there are any such discrepancies in the LOTR that I may not have noticed (I'm in my 2nd reading now-almost through-BB version). And if so, does anyone think they are important (the discrepancies that is)?

I realize it is unlikely that any of the "lore" has been damaged or is contradictory, but I think this is interesting in its own light.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh · 02-04-2002, 11:14 AM

Since Ballantine was an unauthorised edition I'd give first precedence to the authorised version. I always trust the latest edition from the original publishers. Some people have been known to take liberties. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Elendur · 02-04-2002, 04:15 PM

In my Ballantine Books version there is the letter by Tolkien in the very beginning where he talks about his Copywrighting problems, but to buy this version of Ballantine Books so that he would get his rightful money.

So, my version of BB is authorized by Tolkien, according to this letter in front made by him. What are you talking about BB being unauthorized?

And besides the Ballantine Books version having many errors in the text, such as saying Frondo and mispelling sometimes, it is perfectly fine. I like the paper they printed it on too - it has a nice scent. (I know that sounds weird but its true)

amyrlis · 02-04-2002, 06:11 PM

I was under the impression that Ballentine Books is the authorized American publisher and that HM is the authorized British publisher. Can't remember where I got that notion, but it's somewhere in the depths of my memory. At any rate, the BB set is plagued with typos that drove me crazy throughout! Not to mention that I really dislike the cover art. Next time I buy a set it will be HM!

Rhudladion · 02-05-2002, 10:05 AM

I hear you on both issues (typos & art). My friend and I have cut the pictures out of our copies. Aragorn looks like a soap star on the front of the RoTK.

amyrlis · 02-05-2002, 01:57 PM

Oh yes, and Legolas looks like a young Barry Manilow!

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh · 02-20-2006, 10:18 AM

Nobody, least of all me, gave a satisfactory answer to this. In fact I was completely misleading, so as penance I'm resurrecting the thread to invite some more informed responses.

I seem to remember that recent HarperCollins editions of LotR have included a note on the text that describes the various editions and their accuracy, but I don't have the book with me and I can't remember it off-hand. I've never read an American edition in its entirety, so perhaps someone else can give some details on their relative respectability, but in the meantime the following information is at least passably reliable.

The official U.K. publishers of Tolkien's work are HarperCollins, who have been so ever since they absorbed his original publishers, George Allen and Unwin.

Houghton Mifflin printed the first American editions of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and are the American publisher most mentioned in the published letters.

Ballantine are also an authorised and official publisher of Tolkien, who printed a range of paperbacks after the Ace Books incident.

I don't doubt that someone will be able to add a lot of detail to those details as well. This is more of an extended bump than a real post.

Findegil · 02-20-2006, 01:02 PM

Well the real topic is an easy one if you bother to look at the right source. The Ballentime bocks are much older editions which are only ever and anone reprinted, while the HoughtonMifflin is a newer edition. BB's seems to be the text of the 1966 edition while HM's is a later one. The BB'66 seems to be a kind intermediate reading which had some revisions of Tolkien himself mixed up with older readings. Thus you get the impression that you are first told they did camp earlier and than that they camp that night for the first time (which was even more explicit in the editions up to 1966).

All this can be found in detail in: "The Annotated Hobbit" Annotated by Douglas A. Anderson.

Respectfully
Findegil

02-01-2002, 11:05 AM	#1
Rhudladion Haunting Spirit Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 63	Hobbit Discrepancy - Ballantine Books vs. Houghton Mifflin Could some of you gurus shed some light on something for me? I have two versions of The Hobbit. One is the paper-back BB (Ballantine Books) version, and the other is the hard-back HM (Houghton Mifflin) "official" version. There is a discrepancy between the two, with respect to consistency and grammar. In the chapter Roast Mutton, the BB version reads, "In the Lone-lands they had to camp when they could, but at least it had been dry." In the same chapter, the HM version reads, "In the Lone-lands they had been obliged to camp when they could, but at least it had been dry." Then, and more importantly, a few paragraphs later in the BB version it is stated that they had not had to camp yet, but that they decided they would have to camp where they were (I don't have the precise quote here, but this paraphrase suits my purpose). So we have a logical discrepancy: Camping when they could earlier, and not having camped yet later. The HM version makes no such contradiction: the sentence about not having camped yet is simply not there. I have heard it said that the HM version is the one to be relied on. What do you think about that claim? Also, my first time through I read the BB version, and did not pick up on the discrepancy. I picked up on it after reading the HM version (second reading). This being the case, I'm wondering if there are any such discrepancies in the LOTR that I may not have noticed (I'm in my 2nd reading now-almost through-BB version). And if so, does anyone think they are important (the discrepancies that is)? I realize it is unlikely that any of the "lore" has been damaged or is contradictory, but I think this is interesting in its own light.

02-04-2002, 11:14 AM	#2
The Squatter of Amon Rûdh Spectre of Decay Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bar-en-Danwedh Posts: 2,178	Since Ballantine was an unauthorised edition I'd give first precedence to the authorised version. I always trust the latest edition from the original publishers. Some people have been known to take liberties. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] __________________ Man kenuva métim' andúne?

02-04-2002, 04:15 PM	#3
Elendur Wight Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Arnor Posts: 200	In my Ballantine Books version there is the letter by Tolkien in the very beginning where he talks about his Copywrighting problems, but to buy this version of Ballantine Books so that he would get his rightful money. So, my version of BB is authorized by Tolkien, according to this letter in front made by him. What are you talking about BB being unauthorized? And besides the Ballantine Books version having many errors in the text, such as saying Frondo and mispelling sometimes, it is perfectly fine. I like the paper they printed it on too - it has a nice scent. (I know that sounds weird but its true) __________________ Son of Isildur.

02-04-2002, 06:11 PM	#4
amyrlis Wight Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Helcaraxe Posts: 210	I was under the impression that Ballentine Books is the authorized American publisher and that HM is the authorized British publisher. Can't remember where I got that notion, but it's somewhere in the depths of my memory. At any rate, the BB set is plagued with typos that drove me crazy throughout! Not to mention that I really dislike the cover art. Next time I buy a set it will be HM! __________________ "Pull the blinders from my eyes, let me see these endless skies And drown here where I stand in the beauty of the land."

02-05-2002, 01:57 PM	#6
amyrlis Wight Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Helcaraxe Posts: 210	Oh yes, and Legolas looks like a young Barry Manilow! __________________ "Pull the blinders from my eyes, let me see these endless skies And drown here where I stand in the beauty of the land."

02-05-2002, 10:05 AM	#5
Rhudladion Haunting Spirit Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 63	I hear you on both issues (typos & art). My friend and I have cut the pictures out of our copies. Aragorn looks like a soap star on the front of the RoTK.

02-20-2006, 10:18 AM	#7
The Squatter of Amon Rûdh Spectre of Decay Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bar-en-Danwedh Posts: 2,178	I hereby resurrect this thread Nobody, least of all me, gave a satisfactory answer to this. In fact I was completely misleading, so as penance I'm resurrecting the thread to invite some more informed responses. I seem to remember that recent HarperCollins editions of LotR have included a note on the text that describes the various editions and their accuracy, but I don't have the book with me and I can't remember it off-hand. I've never read an American edition in its entirety, so perhaps someone else can give some details on their relative respectability, but in the meantime the following information is at least passably reliable. The official U.K. publishers of Tolkien's work are HarperCollins, who have been so ever since they absorbed his original publishers, George Allen and Unwin. Houghton Mifflin printed the first American editions of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and are the American publisher most mentioned in the published letters. Ballantine are also an authorised and official publisher of Tolkien, who printed a range of paperbacks after the Ace Books incident. I don't doubt that someone will be able to add a lot of detail to those details as well. This is more of an extended bump than a real post. __________________ Man kenuva métim' andúne?

02-20-2006, 01:02 PM	#8
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	Well the real topic is an easy one if you bother to look at the right source. The Ballentime bocks are much older editions which are only ever and anone reprinted, while the HoughtonMifflin is a newer edition. BB's seems to be the text of the 1966 edition while HM's is a later one. The BB'66 seems to be a kind intermediate reading which had some revisions of Tolkien himself mixed up with older readings. Thus you get the impression that you are first told they did camp earlier and than that they camp that night for the first time (which was even more explicit in the editions up to 1966). All this can be found in detail in: "The Annotated Hobbit" Annotated by Douglas A. Anderson. Respectfully Findegil