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

[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?