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.

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.