[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'?