Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

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.

But in many cases the text we had was, quite plainly, wrong. I have not seen the new edition, but I understand a great many of the changes were simple and demonstratable errors - such as "ten miles" vs. "twenty miles". And while some the changes may be questionable - as with "do" vs. "need" - they were made, as far as I know, only when there was some apparent error. The omission of "need" was a mere error.

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.

It's hardly a crime for an author to alter his work in response to a reader's criticism! I do not see how one could blame Christopher for giving his father honest appraisals of his work.

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.

With the express and well-documented goal of correcting errors in the meaning of those statements, yes. It is not as though Christopher simply thought that "need" is better; as I argued before, I think that it is most likely that Tolkien did not reject "need" and that the alteration was due only to Christopher's copying error.

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'.

Surely you jest! That sort of change is altogether different from what Christopher has undertaken. To suggest that Christopher is merely trying to "improve" the meaning or that he would even contemplate such a change as "queer" to "strange" seems to me to be doing him a great disservice. On the contrary - his goal is clealy (whatever you may think of the particulars of his analysis) to present the text as it was intended by his father.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

But in many cases the text we had was, quite plainly, wrong. I have not seen the new edition, but I understand a great many of the changes were simple and demonstratable errors - such as "ten miles" vs. "twenty miles". And while some the changes may be questionable - as with "do" vs. "need" - they were made, as far as I know, only when there was some apparent error. The omission of "need" was a mere error.

well, we don't know whether it was an 'error' or a decision to change the wording on Tolkien's part. My point is that CT's justification is not solid enough to make that change. We just don't know why Tolkien inserted 'do' in place of 'need'. All we know is that he did change it.

It's hardly a crime for an author to alter his work in response to a reader's criticism! I do not see how one could blame Christopher for giving his father honest appraisals of his work.

I'm not saying it is a crime - Bb was asking about CT's influence on the writing of LotR. I was just making the point that Tolkien was a 'collaberative' writer, to the extent that he took on board the feelings of others & was influenced by their opinions.

Surely you jest! That sort of change is altogether different from what Christopher has undertaken. To suggest that Christopher is merely trying to "improve" the meaning or that he would even contemplate such a change as "queer" to "strange" seems to me to be doing him a great disservice. On the contrary - his goal is clealy (whatever you may think of the particulars of his analysis) to present the text as it was intended by his father.

Actually, I was jesting (note to self: Use more smileys)

The point is, these changes seem to be motivated by a desire to produce a 'perfect' LotR - but this 'perfect' LotR has never existed. We're not talking about a once perfect version which was lost & must be reconstructed.

Ok, what, exactly, is this 'LotR' which has been copyrighted? Is it the actual text - the words themselves, or is it some kind of Platonic 'ideal' LotR, a 'story'? Does the 'meaning' exist apart from the words, so that the words may be altered to enable that 'meaning' to be communicated more precisely? An author may change his text to his own satisfaction, but if, after that author's death, other's come along (even with the very best of intentions) & produce an 'extensive revision' of it in order to create a new, 'ideal' text, a text which those people believe was what that author really wanted, I think we are entitled to ask if they're right.

Now, I bow to no-one in my respect for what CT has done for us in making available his father's unpublished texts, but so far we haven't had an 'extensive revision' of anything his father published during his lifetime which was intended to replace the existing version. I do think we are entitled to an opinion on what's happened.

To extend this - suppose we found that (actually I think we may have done) Leonardo had painted the Mona Lisa with eyebrows, & knew for a fact that he wanted the portrait to have eyebrows, would we be justified in painting some on?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Ok, what, exactly, is this 'LotR' which has been copyrighted? Is it the actual text - the words themselves, or is it some kind of Platonic 'ideal' LotR, a 'story'?

Copyright does not protect ideas. Rather it protects the form in which ideas are expressed. So, the law affords no protection to the story of LotR, but rather the manner in which it is expressed in some permament form.

So, if Tolkien had told the story to another person and that person had then published a novel based on the story related to him, copyright in the story would belong to the author and not Tolkien. Similarly, if an author chooses to use the storyline presented in LotR to write their own story, they will have a separate copyright in that story provided that is is sufficiently different to constitute an original work (*cough*TerryBrookes*cough*).

As for a work which comprises additions to, or alterations of, an existing text, it will, provided that the changes are not merely trivial but are sufficiently material to make the totality of the work original, attract separate copyright protection in its own right. Personally, I don't believe that the alterations that have been made to produce the 50th Anniversary Edition, or at least those discussed in this thread, are sufficient to give rise to any rights independent of the original work.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Oh Saucepanadan.. I think you will have to class this as pro-bono

Pro bono? What a strange concept that is!

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

... and you weren't actually instructed

Au contraire, I would refer my learned friend to the following:

Originally Posted by davem

... maybe we have more legal eagles floating around, so maybe someone could clear this up?

I regard that as a clear instruction. My fee will therefore be rendered for davem's account.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I've been reading this thread with interest, but haven't had time to throw in my two cents until now. Davem's question is an intriguing one:

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 ...

I will give a wide berth to any legal questions or copyright issues. I'm married to a lawyer and know when it's best to keep my nose out of something on which I don't have the slightest expertise. But I do know something about vairant editons of LotR. As we look at the 2005 revisions, we need to keep in mind the overall publishing history of the book.

From the very beginning, the text of LotR was never set in stone. Errors by publishers, Tolkien's attempts to correct them, and his own efforts to make the Legendarium more "consistent"--all this led to numerous revisions. Nor did this process stop with Tolkien's death. From 1974 on, CT sent numerous suggested "corrections" to Allen & Unwin, and later Harper-Collins. When LotR was placed in word-processing files in 1994, further efforts were made to "standardize" the text and iron out supposed errors, all this long after Tolkien's death.

Douglas Anderson's preface to the 50th Anniversary edition contains a brief history of some of these changes. But if you want a detailed list of all the variations in the text, just look at J. R. R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Biography that was compiled by Wayne Hammond in 1993. There are over 400 pages of very tiny print (Child has to hold the page two inches from her nose to make out anything!). Some of the pages contain descriptions of editions, different cover illustrations, the size of particular printruns, etc., but a lot of it is annotating hundreds, perhaps altogether thousands, of variations in the text. (This is sometimes the only way you can tell if you have a particular printing.) Not only have punctuation and words been changed, but even the maps themselves. For example, the version of the general map of Middle-earth redrawn by Christopher Tolkien for UT was used in some later editions of the LotR itself, starting with the Unicorn editions of 1983.

I don't think you can see these current revisions --360 in number--as being all that different from the earlier history of the book. Tinkering with the text, the illustrations and the maps has been going on for several decades, and each edition that comes out prides itself on being "definitive"-- the one closest to what the author really intended. This current example is little different in this regard. (I honestly think it would be possible to go through the earlier texts listed in Hammond and find other examples of the kind of question that Davem raised, that could generate debate if examined closely.) So my personal opinion is that what's happening now is not all that different from what happened before. We've managed to accept the earlier revisions with little problem, or no sense that the author's text has been violated, and I suspect the same will be true with these changes as well.

Finally, I don't think we can begin to assess the nature of these 360 changes until we see the guide that Hammond and his wife C. Scully will be putting out that will deal in depth with each change (as well as many other things). I stumbled upon a website with a forum where Hammond popped up to answer somkeone's question about the changes in the text. Like Davem, this poster expressed concern about what was going on with the new edition:

Have the 400+ "corrections" by Christopher Tolkien been listed anywhere? I'm pretty finicky about such things.

Hammond replied by exlaining they'd all be in the upcoming guide but that the sheer volume of material they'd located kept pushing back the publishing date:

Believe me, Christina and I are working very hard to finish this. The main reason for its delay is that we've found so much new information about Tolkien in libraries and archives that we've needed more time to process and describe it all. What was originally to be only one volume became two, which added complications of format and indexing. Also, along the way,.... Christina's father died, and I've continued to have a full-time library job which has become even more demanding with the years.

Anyway, we're sorry that you're having to wait for the Companion and Guide, and appreciate that you're looking forward to it.

Hammond also indicated that all future editions of the LotR would likely include these same changes "as well as corrections to any other errors that might come to light."

[davem]

Hmm, don't know if that alleviates or exacerbates the problem. Of course, printers errors should be identified & removed, but my difficulty is with changes like the one that started this thread off, which alter the (percieved) meaning of a character's statements. I accept that some changes are the result of annotations made by Tolkien in his copies of LotR, some in notes that he made. On that basis such changes could be made in order to achieve the version of LotR that he would have wanted.

But, were all these note for changes made at the same time? How do we know whether a change he wanted made in 1960 he would still have wanted made in 1972? Or whether he would have wanted those changes made if he were still alive?

Let's speculate that he was still alive now - what about 'queer' & 'gay' would he want those words replaced with 'suitable' substitutes? Or the Earendilinwe - why does this edition not include the final version which CT says should have been the one that was printed?

I've had the Companion & Guide on order since it was first announced 18 months to 2 years ago & will be fascinated to read the authors explanations. However the point still remains. Changes are being made for various reasons, some I'm fine with, others I'm not, but changes are being made without authorial approval. A 'committee' have appointed themselves to the job of producing an 'ideal' edition of a text who's author is dead. If nothing else that's a pretty 'novel' situation & worth thinking about.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Pro bono? What a strange concept that is!


Au contraire, I would refer my learned friend to the following:


I regard that as a clear instruction. My fee will therefore be rendered for davem's account.

Well, I meant not by me.... :P Just as well sinceI am not sure that Legal Aid is available to those who merely wish to satisfy their curiosity..

[Lalwendë]

Might I add a slightly tangential question here seeing as matters of copyright are being discussed? I often wonder about the copyright position of contributions to the 'Downs, particularly RPG games - many of us might want to take things we have written and use them elsewhere. Who technically owns these?

I know that in my work, anything I write belongs to HM Government - despite how much effort (or not) I may have put into it. So would posts on the 'Downs effectively belong to the owners of the 'Downs?

If this is in the wrong place, I do apologise, just wanted it to be seen by our resident experts.

[Bêthberry]

It is fascinating how many different questions we all have here. Like Child, I will stay clear of the legal one. Yet my concern was not with hers and davem's question about what constitutes a new work. My question is more closely related to something Aiwendil said:

On the contrary - his goal is clealy (whatever you may think of the particulars of his analysis) to present the text as it was intended by his father.

Everyone seems to assume that since CT was so close to his father, he knows what JRRT intended. Yet is this a reliable assumption? Instead of the difficulty of determining what one author "intended", now we have the situation of determining what two minds "intended".

We've been through the many and various difficulties in deciding what to determine as Tolkien's final intention on several matters. But it seems to me that people do not stop to ask what might have been the role of CT's own interpretive pov which influenced how he understood or even remembered things about his father's work. And, after all, he is now eighty years old. I do not wish to be mean when I say that at eighty the memory can play tricks, even with those who keep impeccable records.

Child is right of course that texts constantly undergo textual corrections for printing errors. (Although Joyce's Ulysses causes even greater headaches than Tolkien's might). But if this editon will be marketed as "the edition Tolkien would have wanted", well, that raises many other kinds of questions.

I think the collaboration between CT and JRRT will prove to be a fascinating topic for literary history.

[Mithalwen]

That I imagine is one huge can of worms - especially since so many Middle Earth names have been trade marked we are all no doubt infringing shedloads of stuff when we RPG but the good news is that I imagine a successful prosecution is unlikely

[Bêthberry]

Lalwendë, I asked this question of Mithadan some time ago after a gamer came to me with the same queation about his character.

Mithadan is our Admin who is a Yankee laywer. Wait, let me rephrase that.
He practices law in the USA. Most of the time, he gets it right.

Mithadan said that anything posted on the Internet is in the public domain. No copyright. And so no, BW is not going to sell our fanfiction stories to pay for the site.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I often wonder about the copyright position of contributions to the 'Downs, particularly RPG games - many of us might want to take things we have written and use them elsewhere. Who technically owns these?

Issues surrounding copyright and the internet give rise to real headaches, given that the net is accessible worldwide.

Under UK law (and most legal systems, I should imagine), you own the copyright in anything that you post here. Others can only (automatically) acquire rights to your work in very limited circumstances, such as where it is created during the course of your employment. The site owners will own the copyright in the design of the site and, possibly, the underlying code (although it's more likely that the code is used under licence).

The UK Patent Office recommends that, if you want to protect work which you publish on the internet from commercial exploitation, you should use the international © mark. But you will have copyright in it (in most legal systems) whether or not you use that symbol, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. The practicalities of enforcing your rights where your work is commercially exploited, particularly if this occurs in another country, would however be likely to present difficulties.

By the way, in case anyone is concerned, quoting extracts from LotR or any other work, or other people's posts, on this site should present no problem as it will have marginal, if any, economic impact on the copyright owner, and should therefore fall within the "fair dealing" (under UK law at least, although I should imagine that this applies equally under most laws).

Thus endeth a further lesson in copyright law.

I now return you to your regular topic ...

Disclaimer: Whilst The Saucepan Man has endeavoured to ensure that this information is correct, in no event shall The Saucepan Man or the Barrow Downs be responsible for any loss or damage of whatever kind arising out of access to or use of or reliance on any information contained in The Saucepan Man's posts on this thread.

(Once a lawyer, always a lawyer. )

Edit (having seen Bb's post above): Hmm, a difference of opinion. perhaps US law is different ...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Everyone seems to assume that since CT was so close to his father, he knows what JRRT intended. Yet is this a reliable assumption? ......

I think the collaboration between CT and JRRT will prove to be a fascinating topic for literary history.

It is not that I think that CT is infallible, just that I think he is better placed to make the judgement than anyone living, even given his age. I mean he is a scholar as well as family.

Sometimes I get the impression that he is suspected of some sinister plot that rivals the deaths of JFK and DPOW in a niche market of conspiracy theorists. If anyone else has read "Gaudy Night" (Dorothy L. Sayers), which various threads here often make me think of, there is a similar question of integrity here. I accept that there may be more personal material extant that has not yet been made available because it is regarded as private to the family - and I think that is fair enough at least while first generation descendants are still living - ( a sin of ommission!) but I do not think that a scholar with a modicum of self respect or integrity would commit a "sin of commission" and deliberately distort the work.

[Bêthberry]

posted by Mithalwen:
If anyone else has read "Gaudy Night" (Dorothy L. Sayers), which various threads here often make me think of, there is a similar question of integrity here. I accept that there may be more personal material extant that has not yet been made available because it is regarded as private to the family - and I think that is fair enough at least while first generation descendants are still living - ( a sin of ommission!) but I do not think that a scholar with a modicum of self respect or integrity would commit a "sin of commission" and deliberately distort the work. Today 02:59 PM

My issues and concerns do not question Christopher Tolkien's integrity. I've never accused CT of deliberate misrepresentation or distortion and my points have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. The kinds of things I am referring to are the kinds of unconscious choices and decisions which come into play in any literary context. CT is an extremely privileged reader, but still a reader of his father. Who he is as a person and as a son goes into how he reads Middle-earth. We are in many ways very fortunate to have such a reader bring Middle earth to us. At the same time, I very much doubt if he can be the entirely objective scholar about his father's work. Indeed, is there any where an entirely objective scholar?

To show another context: Charlotte Bronte was exceptionally careful of her beloved sister Emily's reputation when she wrote the foreward to Wuthering Heights. In it, she naturally did everything she could to dispel the horrid Victorian suggestions about Emily. Yet in many ways the concept of authorship which Charlotte put forth about Emily has in itself created situations where some at least of the aesthetic questions about the novel are overlooked or elided. Do I blame Charlotte for this? Not in the least. But I am careful when reading her foreward to consider her words in the light of what else I know about Emily's work. Emily, I think, was a far shrewder and more honest writer than the times allowed Charlotte to admit.

In a similar way, I can point to how Elizabeth Gaskell's biography of Charlotte set a certain tone and path to Bronte studie-- a path which readers as diverse as Viriginia Woolf and Harold Bloom have been unable not to follow.

Similar 'directions' in sustaining the critical history of an author can be seen in Jane Austen's critical history, but she at least had the benefit of a scholar like Trilling to champion her. (In fact, England is fertile ground for "Author's Socieities" with quite intense divisions over rival interpreations of authors.)

There's a similar story too, to T.S Eliot's championing of John Donne over John Milton.

I could go on, but I think my picture is likely more focussed now (even if still dark). I am not in any way disparaging the work of Christopher Tolkien. I am simply saying that in any powerful voice which speaks for an author, there will be questions of direction, choice, interpretation, context. Look at the differences in the four gospels about Christ's life. Personal witness is powerful, but it remains personal witness. I am uncomfortable with a situation in which we are allowed only one form of personal witness. I am sure there will be others, some not radically different, others perhaps showing variation. To me, the life and work of Cristopher Tolkien will need to be studied as well as that of his father before we can begin to understand what was the full and rich nature of their collaboration.

EDIT: Having just seen SpM's point about English copyright law, I should of course quickly hammer up my own disclaimer *WITHOUT PREJUDICE*

There could well be differences in copyright law. I remember being told that, in American universities, the law gave complete copyright and ownership to any works of art which students produced while they were students at the university to the university. It made no difference if the work of art was produced 'on campus' or 'off campus', in the student's own private life and without any recourse to any university facilties and advice. Lo and behold, medievalism endures.

[Mithalwen]

I was making a wider comment on what I have observed at that point. Only the first two sentences were intended in response to your post BB. I shall edit in a paragraph break to make that clearer. Indeed, there is much more I would know about that realtionship but wether we ever will, I don't know. However, I was trying to point out that I believe the scholar in CT would not permit, say the destruction of documents in order to protect reputation - in fact from HoME it seems that every last "back of an envelope" has been preserved. It is a difficult balance this closeness v. objectivity thing - may be not a question of wrong and right just a difference of perspective.

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

Everyone seems to assume that since CT was so close to his father, he knows what JRRT intended. Yet is this a reliable assumption? Instead of the difficulty of determining what one author "intended", now we have the situation of determining what two minds "intended".

Ah, but I didn't say that CT knows precisely or can divine his father's wishes. I said rather that his goal is clearly to present the material as his father intended. It may seem a trivial and obvious point, but I think it needs making. Some of the fears that have been expressed concerning changes to the work (particularly concerning possible future changes) seem to me to be overreactions for just that reason. CT would never implement a change to LotR merely because he thought it would improve the text. He would, I'm sure, never contemplate any change remotely like "gay" > "happy". None of the changes he has implemented (as far as I know) are in any way like that; they have all been made based purely on textual evidence concerning what Tolkien intended the text to say.

But it seems to me that people do not stop to ask what might have been the role of CT's own interpretive pov which influenced how he understood or even remembered things about his father's work. And, after all, he is now eighty years old. I do not wish to be mean when I say that at eighty the memory can play tricks, even with those who keep impeccable records.

Actually, I fail to see how his memory is relavant at all. Where has he made a change based solely on his recollection of his father's wishes? If there is such a change in the new edition I would be rather surprised. As a matter of fact, even in reading HoMe, where his commentary is quite extensive, one hardly ever comes across a reference to a recollection of his - in fact, apart from the frequent use of "my father" to refer to JRRT one could hardly guess that the commentator even knew the author.

Every argument that I recall CT making about his father's work anywhere is one based on textual evidence rather than recollection.

I am not in any way disparaging the work of Christopher Tolkien. I am simply saying that in any powerful voice which speaks for an author, there will be questions of direction, choice, interpretation, context.

In a way, that's certainly true - as indeed it must be of anyone that approaches any author's work.

Yet I must say that I don't see it as being all that significant in this case. To refer again to HoMe - CT's commentary is almost never interpretive. The arguments he makes and the conclusions he reaches are almost exclusively concerned with matters such as the dates of composition of various texts and the literal meaning of certain passages.

Now it's certainly possible that his particular substantive interpretation of his father's work may have in some cases influenced his choices in preparing the new edition of LotR - I'll grant that. But it seems to me that the proper response is not to question the process in principle, but rather to examine his analysis of particular instances in an objective way. When a scientist publishes a paper, the reaction of his or her peers is not to ask "How might this person's particular world-view have biased his work?" but rather "Is this person's conclusion a valid one, based on the available evidence?"

I don't mean to suggest that I find the consideration of Christopher's role with regard to his father's work worthless or uninteresting. Rather, I think that there is more meat, as it were, in questioning his particular analyses objectively than in questioning his involvement in the abstract.

[mark12_30]

As a tongue-in-cheek aside:

"Peter Jackson ruined the books!"

"No, he didn't. They are sitting right there on my shelf-- unharmed-- where they've always been."



Referring back to page one: if we take "do not" to its logical extreme, it would seem that since elves don't count them, then elves don't know what year it is. But their careful chronologies would seem to bely that, would they not? And since the elves named the months, they *do* know what month it is; it seems odd that they wouldn't know what year it is.

At any rate, I look at this as sort of the reverse of "The Annotated Hobbit." ...whups, must go. ToBeContinued... [Edit] Then again, maybe not, since Bethberry made my point using different illustrations. See Bethberry's post below-- where she says I'm naughty, and must be denied mushrooms.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK. Having waffled on about the law at length, perhaps it's time I applied my mind to the issue at hand.

While I do not share davem's concerns over the change that has given rise to this thread, I do think that he is on to a matter of potential concern. As I understand it, although the film and merchandising rights were sold off long ago, the Tolkien estate retains the rights in the literary work itself. And I believe that Christopher Tolkien pretty much controls the estate. That means that (in theory, as a matter of law) he and his successors have pretty much carte blanche to carry on formulating new editions making whatever changes to it they wish.

Now, I accept that it is unlikely to be in the nature of CT to introduce any changes which he does not believe represent his father's intentions. But I disagree with Aiwendil that he would not implement a change merely because he felt that it would improve the work. Surely, the reason why he is introducing changes which he feels better reflect his father's intentions is precisely because he feels that they will 'improve' it. In other words, he considers a LotR which more closely reflects his father's intent to be a 'better' LotR.

And, whether he is right or wrong in his assessment of what his father's intentions were (and he is of course one of the best placed people in this regard), this does nevertheless provide significant scope for a change in the nature of the work. We already have one change (that which started this thread off) which some believe (quite justifiably, in my view) significantly alters the meaning of what Legolas is saying concerning the nature of his race. And that just involves the alteration of a few words. To continue down this road could potentially, given sufficient alterations, lead to a work which is fundamentally different from that which we currently have, albeit one which CT believes better reflects his father's intentions.

Unlikely? Perhaps while the work remains in CT's care. But what of those who follow him as guardians of Tolkien's legacy? Perhaps they will consider themselves entitled (morally as well as legally) to continue tinkering with the text to better acheive what they see as Tolkien's original intent. Or perhaps they will take a less scrupulous approach than CT and seek to 'improve' on it for less worthy reasons.

Admittedly this applies to any literary work. But, given the precedent that CT has set, there is arguably a greater chance of it happening with LotR. I am not, by any means, saying that it will happen - simply that it is a reasonable possibility.

Oh, and one further legal point:

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

especially since so many Middle Earth names have been trade marked we are all no doubt infringing shedloads of stuff when we RPG but the good news is that I imagine a successful prosecution is unlikely

Names are not protected by copyright and I should imagine that Middle-earth names are only trade marked in the context of merchandising (to prevent similar products using the same name). I therefore doubt that there is any potential for infringement in using Middle earth names in an RPG or a fan fic (neither of which involve commercial exploitation of the names, in any event). [Disclaimer applies]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

Hmm, don't know if that alleviates or exacerbates the problem. Of course, printers errors should be identified & removed, but my difficulty is with changes like the one that started this thread off, which alter the (percieved) meaning of a character's statements. I accept that some changes are the result of annotations made by Tolkien in his copies of LotR, some in notes that he made. On that basis such changes could be made in order to achieve the version of LotR that he would have wanted.

I heartily concur with your first sentence, in the sense that these edits are just part of a long process of revisions, which were initially begun by JRRT and then continued by his son after his death. If you are uncomfortable with the earlier process, you may be hesitent about the later one (and vice versa). Despite the hoopla over this particular publication, I honestly don't see a huge difference between what is happening now and what occurred before.....except for one thing.

Some of the edits in the present edition were not initially the product of CT himself, but of Cristina and Wayne Hammond. When I signed up for the Tolkien Collector several years ago, I wrote Cristina about their work as librarians. She included a return note where she mentioned they had been commissioned by Harper to do the editorial work for the new 50th anniversary LotR volume plus a volume of annotations to that book. She also stated that all their suggested edits would be reviewed and approved by CT. This delegation of authority doesn't surprise me. CT is getting on in years, and perhaps no longer does the nitty gritty work he used to do. But it does suggest that the circle of editors has widened: we've gone beyond the initial group of the Tolkien family to the "next generation" of editors. This, I think, is an important transition. Like Aiwendil , even if I didn't always agree with CT, I always trusted CT: he treated his father's text with integrity and didn't consciously try to substitute his own interpretations. Now we have a new group of scholars who have excellent credentials, but don't have the same ties of personal loyalty to the family.

As to what is a printer's error and what effects the meaning of a character's statement, that is a very fine line. As Davem has so aptly shown, the change of a single word can have significance. And there were so many drafts of material at different points in Tolkien's life, that some element of choice is necessarily involved.

Of the hundreds of post 1973 edits, some of these changes may constitute something more than correcting a printer's error. One of the interesting things I noticed in Hammond's bibliography is that the earlier editions, those written while JRRT was alive, have a line by line account of every edit. The later editions written after the author's death may list only one edit as being the "most important". Of course, there is a value judgment here on the part of the editor, since we don't even see the others deemed "less important." This statement from the Unwin paperback edition of 1979 is typical:

This latest edition has been reset and minor corrections have been made throughout.

Bb mentioned earlier she was concerned that this edition was being marketed as "the edition Tolkien would have wanted." But that has happened before, if not with such strong language. Ever since the snafu between Ace and Ballentine, Tolkien's works have often included some kind of statement indicating that the particular edition is to be regarded as the "authoritative" text that the author wanted. In 1983, the following more explicit statement was added by CT for the first time, undoubtedly in acknowledgment of his own continuing hand with the text. The italics are mine:

The text of this edition incorporates all corrections and revisions intended by its author and, taken with the other two volumes, constitutes the authoritative edition...

The key words in this statement are "revisions", "intended", and "authoritative." Revisions signify more than corrections, and intended could cover the judgments made by CT as well as those actually done by his father. The present marketing job is more slick, but I honestly think the editing process is not too different from that reflected in these earlier editions.

Like Aiwendil , I still have basic faith in CT and the integrity of the text. And it will be interesting to see the specific 360 changes made and to raise the type of question that Davem has raised here. Yet, overall, given the fact that JRRT himself changed his view on so many things in Middle-earth so many times, we are never going to have 100 percent certainty. We have to hope that the editors chosen show integrity and circumspection. So far, that has been the case.

[Bêthberry]

Helen, truly, you are naughty. Very naughty indeed. No mushrooms for you tonight.

Aiwendil, you make several assumptions which, were I to reply to them, would take this thread off topic. For instance, I think that "textual evidence" is as liable to faults of "recollection" as are other forms of interpretation. I have seen too many cases in the sciences where not just the methology but also the "world view" of authors has been questioned, sometimes approiately so , sometimes not. One of my husband's favourite books (he's a scientist) is Lies, D**n Lies, and Statistics.

So, then, since at this time I have nothing with which to advance the discussion, I will simply say that I think, at this point in time, it is more a marketing strategy than a scholarly act to say a text has been produced as Christopher thought his father intended. I think scholarly texts discussing variations and errata can be produced but I think it is a quixotic endeavour to believe we can undo the exigencies of post war publishing and produce now the book Tolkien would have wanted fifty years ago. It is revisionary history.

The pull-out maps are very tantalizing--I remember enjoying Squatter's first edition maps so much--but when I read of the gorgeous and costly leather covering, well, I wonder if such a project would ever have been attempted had the movies not been produced.

Call me cynic if you will, but I have plenty of other windmills of my own to tilt at so who am I stop anyone here. After all, what barrow does not have several bones to chew on, and some never to let go?

EDIT: Whoops, family arriving at the door meant I crossposted with both of my esteemed colleagues here, Child and Sauce. I didn't see their posts before I put this one up.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I think it is a quixotic endeavour to believe we can undo the exigencies of post war publishing and produce now the book Tolkien would have wanted fifty years ago. It is revisionary history.

Bb,

You have said it very well in just a few words. Taken as a whole, I do not see the string of these revisions, even those dating from 1974 on, as "marring" Tolkien's core text or meaning. But neither do I see them as a great restoration of his original vision. That can never be totally captured.


As to whether the publishers would have come out with these books without the movie, I am fairly certain they would have, even lacking PJ. From the sixties onward, Unwin, Harper, and Houghton Mifflin (to say nothing of a host of others like Easton, the Guild, and the Folio Society) periodically issue new "deluxe" or special commemorative editions, many with slipcovers, for both Hobbit and LotR and even now for HoMe. I have several, for example, commemorating the 25th and 50th anniversary of the Hobbit when there were no thoughts of any movie. It's possible the print run would have been smaller--1,500 instead of 2,500--but I do think the publishers would mark this occasion just as they've marked others in the history of the book, as collectors scamper to snarf them up.

As you may be able to tell, I have caught a bad case of the "collecting bug".

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Bb,

You have said it very well in just a few words. Taken as a whole, I do not see the string of these revisions, even those dating from 1974 on, as "marring" Tolkien's core text or meaning. But neither do I see them as a great restoration of his original vision. That can never be totally captured.

Child, I hope you saw my edit that I had written those words and that post before I read yours and Sauce's good points.

As you may be able to tell, I have caught a bad case of the "collecting bug".

Ah, well, just to show a variety of collecting bugs, here are some things
I am thinking of collecting from the Bodleian library catalogue.

Well, not the journal. But the calendar and polar bear cards for the Tolkien art reprints maybe.

I think the question of how the editorial boards extend, with Sauce's query as to whether later heirs of the Tolkien estate will have the same right of ecitorialship as CT, is a good one. Those lawyers. always working out ways of more billable hours.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bb

Those lawyers. always working out ways of more billable hours.

Indeedy - and the clock's still running on this one. Double time past midnight.

As a matter of law, anyone who seeks to edit the text only does so with the permission of the copyright holder, namely Tolkien's estate. As a contrary point to the one that I made earlier, it is possible that in time, without CT's influence, these 'editorial boards' will be have less licence to amend.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:

Now, I accept that it is unlikely to be in the nature of CT to introduce any changes which he does not believe represent his father's intentions. But I disagree with Aiwendil that he would not implement a change merely because he felt that it would improve the work.

Allow me to clarify. I believe that the criterion CT uses is always that the action is question is justified if and only if it represents his father's intentions better than all alternatives. When I discuss a hypothetical change that he "merely feels will improve the work" I mean one that does merely that and does not, in his view, bring the work closer to his father's intention.

One could say, I suppose, that he believes his father's intention was that the work be as good as possible, and so he could justify to himself any change that he believes improves the work. But that would really be a kind of dishonesty, at least in spirit. Every argument of Christopher's that I've ever seen has always struck me as extraordinarily objective, and I think that in most cases his analyses are quite correct.

Unlikely? Perhaps while the work remains in CT's care. But what of those who follow him as guardians of Tolkien's legacy? Perhaps they will consider themselves entitled (morally as well as legally) to continue tinkering with the text to better acheive what they see as Tolkien's original intent. Or perhaps they will take a less scrupulous approach than CT and seek to 'improve' on it for less worthy reasons.

If and when this happens it will be most unfortunate. But it has not happened yet. It seems a bit premature to start worrying about it - especially since, as you point out, this ought to be just as much a concern for any literary work. I do not think that CT's precedent makes some future distortion of the text much more likely.

Bethberry wrote:

Aiwendil, you make several assumptions which, were I to reply to them, would take this thread off topic. For instance, I think that "textual evidence" is as liable to faults of "recollection" as are other forms of interpretation. I have seen too many cases in the sciences where not just the methology but also the "world view" of authors has been questioned, sometimes approiately so , sometimes not. One of my husband's favourite books (he's a scientist) is Lies, D**n Lies, and Statistics.

Well, I don't wish to get into empiricism or constructivism or Bayes's theorem, so I will say nothing more about science.

But with regard to Christopher. Perhaps I'm being obtuse; but I do not see how any of his arguments or analyses are based on recollection in such a way as to make them subject to faults of memory - unless we are to suppose that he reads a sentence and immediately forgets it.

Child of the 7th Age wrote:

Taken as a whole, I do not see the string of these revisions, even those dating from 1974 on, as "marring" Tolkien's core text or meaning. But neither do I see them as a great restoration of his original vision.

Indeed; I think it fairly silly to suppose that "marring" or "restoring" Tolkien's vision is a matter of a few minor changes to the text - or even 360.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Indeed; I think it fairly silly to suppose that "marring" or "restoring" Tolkien's vision is a matter of a few minor changes to the text - or even 360

That's why I brought up The Annotated Hobbit. Few besides dyed-in-the-wool Tolkien fanatics are even aware of its existence. Scholars and avid fans have a copy, it's fun for discussion & debate, but it represents a very small percentage of the copies of The Hobbit overall and it's not the one you read to your kids.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

If and when this happens it will be most unfortunate. But it has not happened yet. It seems a bit premature to start worrying about it - especially since, as you point out, this ought to be just as much a concern for any literary work. I do not think that CT's precedent makes some future distortion of the text much more likely.

Yet it does seem to me that the treatment of LotR raises a legitimate cause for discussion and, yes, perhaps even concern. I am no literary scholar and have little knowledge of the textual development of literary works. But how many other works have the same wealth of interpretive material (HoME, Unfinished Tales, the Letters) available? How many have undergone the same textual development, to the extent of alterations in the wording that can be (justifiably) interpreted as changing the meaning of significant elements? I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that, by virtue of CT's assumed role in this (worthy though it may be), LotR is in somewhat of a rare, if not unique, position in this regard.

[davem]

But what we have here is not 'The Annotated LotR' - which I would be more than happy to see. As I said earlier, if this edition had given the different readings as footnotes or in an extra appendix I wouldn't have had any problem. Its changing the actual text that bothers me, especially as the specific changes are not indicated. They have simply been made & the 'original' wording has been lost.

I've come to this very late, but I felt a burning need to stick my two penn'orth in, despite not being in full possession of all the facts (story of my life)

It is certainly true to say that the difference betwen "do not" and "need not" has come to be seen as a significant one - a lot of that has to do with the plain english campaign - and I'm all for that, especially in a public service context.

But Tolkien is not a public service. It's a work of art - and it's there that these issues start to get more complex.

I think it would be hard to argue anything other than that most of Tolkien's work is an attempt to capture the spirit of writings from an earlier time - mythical and folkloreish - indeed, it seems to me to be the *point* of his work. And it's from this standpoint that the do not / need not debate becomes a thing of beauty really. Let me explain - in old texts (and many of them word of mouth texts) do not can *mean* need not, and vice versa. The language of earler times was less complex than our language - words had to work harder for a living and often had many more meanings than they do now. The classic example is the immaculate conception (bear with me) - the bible says that Jesus was borne of a virgin's womb, and modern religions have interpreted that to mean something magical and mystical. But, of course, the word "virgin" (or the Aramaic equivalent of it) meant many things - a young woman, a beautiful woman, a good woman etc etc etc.

Another example - there is a beautiful English folk song called Death and the Lady. There's no definitive version of it, though. In it, death comes to a young maiden to take her away to heaven. In one version I have, he says:

"Fair lady lay your robes aside
No longer glory in your pride.
And now sweet maid make no delay,
Your time is come, you must away"

In another

"Fair Lady, throw those costly robes aside,
No longer may you glory in your pride;
Take leave of all your carnal vain delight,
I'm come to summon you away this night."

In yet another

"I'll have no gold, I'll have no pearl
I want no costly rich robes to wear
I cannot spare you a little while
Nor give you time your life to lament
Nor give you time your life to lament"

But the meaning is the same in all of them. And why? Because, being a folk song its message is universal and all embracing. And what I find beautiful about Tolkien's work is that it is universal and all embracing too. And it's a great thing to me that dilemmas like this arise, because it means that he has succeeded in creating a mythology that seems to have the characteristics of coming from an earlier time.

Hope that makes sense. It sort of does to me (which is nothing short of a miracle)

"Finger pointing, eyebrows low, mouth in the shape of the letter 'O' - red means stop! Do not go! NO! NO! NO!"

[davem]

Dragging this one up, because of something I've just come across on the website of Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull (the editor's of this 'perfect' edition).

In the section on new books I found this:

In the meantime, we have completed editorial work on the 50th anniversary edition of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, in conjunction with Christopher Tolkien, to ensure the most accurate version to date. This was published in 2004.

Fine so far - that's what they sold the edition on. But they continue:

A reprint is to appear in 2005: this will have further corrections, some of which are to typos in the 2004 edition, others to errors that came to our attention earlier this year.

Get that? So, this 'perfect' edition, with its 450 corrections & emendations is now found to contain typos & requires further corrections!

Ok - cue smug grins from all those who didn't spend £100 (or the $ equivalent) on the deluxe edition - or even £35 on the 'standard' hardback edition, but that's not the point of my dragging up this old thread again.

No, the point is, this is a very silly sidetrack that Tolkien studies is going down. We're getting to a point now where we will no longer know what is the 'correct' text & what isn't. As we discussed earlier in this thread, changing a single word can alter the meaning of a passage profoundly. How many of these 'changes & emendations' are based on a reading of the published text (in however many versions of it there are), how many are based on CT's reading of his father's manuscripts - which may be mis-readings on his part (plus how many intermediate stages in the composition of LotR were lost, or are waiting to be discovered in the future)?

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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

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?)

[Lalwendë]

Harumph.

The cynic in me sees how convenient it is that errors were found in the expensive new edition published last year, errors which just had to be corrected. While it might be good to get to a 'perfect edition' I wonder how much extra money the publishers will make from Tolkien fans who want to ensure they have got a copy of said 'perfect edition'?

From studying literature I know just how many works are available in many different 'varieties', and it is an enormous pain, not to say an enormous expense, when the 'required' edition is not the £1 'classic' available from remaindered bookstores but the £10 version with extensive academic notes. I would hazard a guess that the 'version' of LotR which is used in discussions will always remain simply whichever version is most popular, which ever version is most easily (and cheaply) obtainable. Most paperback editions are still using the text that was available in the late 70's/early 80's.

Still, I'm one of the suckers who will spend my cash on different editions so the publishers can see me coming. Though I do tend to get them second hand - including the edition with lovely covers and a slew of typos....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

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.

Its not so much that I think we'll end up with two (or more) competing editions of LotR. Its mainly frustration that we keep being 'sold' (literally & metaphorically) 'perfect' editions of LotR which subsequently turn out to be nothing of the kind. If the publishers were to put out an e-text with free updates that would be fine, but every time they or the editors mess up or decide they have a 'more accurate' version of the text they print it & charge us for it. Over here we have what's called the Trades Descriptions Act, which requires companies, manufacturers & suppliers of goods & services to do what they say & holds them legally accountable if they fail to do so. I think we've about reached a point with LotR where the publishers & editors stop trying to 'con' us & just honestly say 'In this edition we've tried to put right errors but not only may we not have put them right we may even have introduced some new ones. We've made changes to the text, which we think are correct, but we may be completely wrong.'

My hope is that the new 900 page 'LotR: A Readers Guide' which is out in a few weeks will detail all the typos & changes they are talking about.

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?)

I do like 'everything set out fair & square, with no contradictions'. As to these editorial obsessings being an attempt to return to the '"original, true" text. (And could this not at least in certain cases actually be true?) - maybe they are & maybe they aren't. Personally, I'm lost as to whether there is such a thing, whether that's what they're really up to, or even whether this obsession with producing the 'definitive' LotR is entirely healthy.

All I do know for sure is that, as you state,

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.

. So what's the point in this constant tinkering?

There is still a great deal of unpublished writing - The Fall of Arthur, The New Volsunga Saga, the translation of Beowulf, the other letters, the diaries - which may be of incredible importance to Tolkien Studies (the newly published Smith essay will lead us down some very interesting roads), yet all we seem to be getting are these tinkerings with established texts.

Edit. What I normally do is just grab the nearest copy of LotR - out of about a dozen or so editions - when I want to check anything, or I'm preparing for a CbC post. If I want to read it for pleasure I go to my 1976 paperbacks, which we're my original gateway to Middle-earth (they aren't the actual ones I bought back then, but the same edition boxed set Lalwende found for me on ebay). I think the first edition of LotR that you read is always going to be the 'definitive' LotR for you - whether it has typos, errors, even tears & creases - and that's something that is completely ignored by the 'tinkerers' - even if their hearts are in the right place.

[davem]

I've just got the new 3 volume 50th Anniversary edition of LotR & in Return of the King there's a revised index (this wasn't in the 2004 50th Anniversary edition but is entirely new).

Hammond & Scull have started from scratch & the new index is 38 pages long, as opposed to 24 pages in the original. What I'm wondering is whether the original index, which Tolkien agreed on (it was actually prepared by Nancy Smith & revised by Tolkien) should be considered part of the text itself & therefore not touched, or whether it is supplimmentary, & not to be considered 'canonical'?

We didn't do a thread on the Index in the CbC discussion, but should we have? This is another example of something being excised from the original & replaced by 'experts' - who have their hearts in the right place, no doubt. As the editors say, the old index was in many ways unsatisfactory, but it was the Index Tolkien gave us, it was his work (as reviser at least), & we can only assume that it is now lost for good, as all new editions will contain the new one.

Any thoughts - or am i just being an old pedant?