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

[Boromir88]

I have to say that such tiny differences in wording can, and do make an immense difference to the meaning of a text.

Exactly Lalwende, also the tone in which you say it is important. When we are on the internet "posting/iming/e-mailing..etc" you don't get a tone, so it's hard to understand how I'm coming across. It could seem as if I'm angry at someone, but really I'm not. Depending upon the tones that one uses, influences what type of mood one is in, and it's hard to do that when you are communicating over the internet.

There is obviously a difference between the "do not" and "need not," as SpM has given us some wonderful examples the clear word should be "need not." The question is whether this effects the nature of the elves.

The destinction is elves simply "don't count the years," or they "need not count the years," which implies, they don't need to, but suggesting that some elves do indeed count the years. So, the way I think it is, it has an effect of whether the elves do not, or need not count the years. But, that doesn't effect the elves very nature because, whether they "do not," or whether they "need not" both come off as, counting the "passing years" isn't a big deal of theirs. "Do not" clearly comes off as elves simply don't count the years, it's not something that's important to them. "Need not," to me, I see as, ok they don't "need" to but they may, if they wish to have interactions with mortals. Still, it comes off as not a big deal to them. SpM, has already pointed out that there are those elves who do "count the passing years," again to have interactions with the humans. But, then there are those elves, who just don't care about mortals, and simply don't count the years.

Lothlorien
"Welcome!" the Elf then said again in the Common Language, speaking slowly. "We seldom use any tongue but our own ; for we dwell now in the heart of the forest, and do not willingly have dealings with any other folk. Even our own kindred in the North are sundered from us. But there are some of us still who go abroad for the gathering of news and the watching of our enemies, and they speak the languages of other lands."

So, some elves NEED to do things like "count the passing years," and speak other languages, if they wish to gather news from outer lands, or have interactions with other languages. But, then there are those who NEED NOT to, which means they can, but they simply don't care about communicating with mortals, or others not of their kind, so they don't speak in the other languages, and they don't count the passing years. To me, this shows as if it's not a big deal to the elves, if they want to communicate with other peoples, then they NEED to do these things, but if they simply wish not to, then they NEED NOT do it. It just comes off to me as not an important thing amongst the elves, and not something that effect their whole nature.

[davem]

Well, Legolas says they 'do not/need not count the running years, not for themselves, so the issue is not whether they can or can't count the running years per se - obviously they can do that - but whether they count them for themselves. To say they do not count them for themselves implies either something in their nature - the 'running years' do not register on them personally - or, that they have made a deliberate descision not to count them for themselves.

Changing it to need not means either that the 'running years' do register on them but that they can somehow ignore that, or that its all dependent on circumstances - sometimes they'll register the passing years, sometimes they won't.

It changes a 'definite' into an 'indefinite', a 'certainly' into a 'maybe', a 'will' into a 'perhaps', & so it alters completely what Legolas is saying.

My own suspiscion is that when Tolkien came to read over what Christopher had written down (with the missing word) he wrote in what seemed the obviously 'correct' word, whatever his original idea had been.

[Bêthberry]

This discussion brings to mind a discussion I once had concerning the nature of medieval texts and the kind of "close reading" which used to be taught in schools and universities.

Medieval texts are fragmented texts in that full and complete editions such as we now are accustomed to have been lost to the vissitudes of time. With scribal transmission, we also have variations in texts, variations which cannot be resolved by recourse to "authorial intention" . The upshot of this earlier discussion was that the medievalist with whom I was talking argued that we cannot use methods of textual analysis derived from "modern texts" for medieval ones. Medieval narratives work differently and they deserve different approaches. (I think likely what has happened now is that more 'medieval' aproaches to narrative are being used on 'modern literature', but that's beside the point and I've really stated this very broadly for the sake of delineation rather than definition.)

What does this have to do with Tolkien? Well, more and more as I look at his oeuvre, I see a writer whose work not just takes its themes and structure from medieval (and earlier) texts. I see a writer who own stance as "author" is being 'medievalised.' Whose texts are being 'medievalised.'

First we had Christopher Tolkien 'tieing in' pieces of The Silm to make a coherent story. Then we had him edit HoMe and UT. Now we have Christopher producing a book which he believes respresents an authoritative version (if I understand davem's point here. I haven't seen the edition).

Without meaning in any way to deny Christopher's great knowledge and expertise, I would like to suggest that what he has done instead is to create a situation where multiple versions of texts abound, as exists with earlier literature. What we have essentially are two authors, one of whom was primary and the second of whom is the interpretive author. In short, I think Christopher's work takes us farther and farther away from a single authorial intention. And it takes Tolkien Pere's work further away from such modernist ideas as coherent, consistent character.

In short, I don't think we have any Ariadne's thread which will help us out of this labyrinth. Just more and more frayed ends.

[Boromir88]

Let's look at the full sentence, maybe that can get us somewhere farther here.

Slow, because they do not count the running years, not for themselves.

Ok, the first phrase "they do not count the running years," then it follows up with, "not for themselves." So, now where I'm going is, the added "not for themselves," means they DO count the running years, they just don't do it for themselves. It's clear that some elves do count the running years. This sentence just says, they don't count the running years for themselves. Time is not important to the elves, but it's important if they wish to communicate with the other races, so there for they DON'T count it for themselves, but they DO count it in order to gather news from other places. Maybe the phrase is suggesting, they DON'T count the years for themselves, since they are ageless, and it's suggesting that they just don't count "how old they are," but they keep track of time to communicate with other peoples.

Therefor, I come to the conclusion that "do not" and "need not" are interchangeable, if you take it the way I just showed. If the sentence was just "They do not coun the running years," then that would mean they don't count it. But, it adds in the "not for themselves," which shows they don't count it for themselves, but they do count it for other reasons.

Edit: I know I just contradicted myself, but that's because I wasn't looking at the whole sentence before. I think the added "not for themselves," changes the meaning of the sentence. Making "do not," and "need not," interchangeable, since they don't count it for themselves.

[Lalwendë]

I've posted, hopefully, if it works, a link to my post the other day on the
nature of Elven time . I think that the actual crucial point to begin with here lies in the words 'running years'. What are the running years? I think that these are the years of mortals, which must seem to zip by to Elves. An Elven year, apparently, runs for 144 years of mortal time - an age which most mortals do not seem to get to. If you can imagine it, someone as renowned as say, Bilbo would have his life over in a year.

So, if the Elves do not count the running years, not for themselves, this is emphatic. They simply do not count those years in their own reckoning. But if the Elves need not count the running years, not for themselves, then it's something that by dint of being immortal, it's not necessary for them to do. In which case, the new (old, aargh!) version actually explains more about the nature of Elven time. But the 'old' version (do not) also makes sense, it simply says less about the nature of immortality.

Boromir 88 - I'm in agreement with you all the way on the importance of written words. The tiniest difference or mistake in a text can have the most enormous effect. Words are quite dangerous things, they've been known to start wars when misused. Well, you can't imagine how much this discussion is amusing to me, it reminds me so much of endless discussions about semantics in meetings. Yet, I am enjoying it...

[davem]

I hope everyone will bear with me here, because I’m going to repeat some of my earlier points, but I want to try & clarify my position.

There are different kinds of changes made in this new edition. The first kind is the change from:

’Thank goodness you don’t keep any boats on the west bank!’ said Frodo. ‘Can horses cross the river?’

‘They can go twenty miles north to Brandywine Bridge - or the can swim,’ answered Merry. (A Conspiracy Unmasked)

to ‘They can go ten miles north’, which is fine, because its correct, & should have been changed, but it was missed in the proof-reading stage.

Another kind of change happens in this chapter (The Great River), where the line ‘Nonetheless they saw no sign of an enemy that day nor the next.’ is altered (apparently correctly) to ‘They saw no sign of any enemy’. This doesn’t really change the meaning of the statement.

But I still say that changing ‘theydo not count the running years’ to ‘they need not count the running years’ alters the meaning & implication of Legolas’ statement.

Its the qualifier, ‘not for themselves’ that makes the difference. Of course, without that the statement ‘they do not count the running years’ would be incorrect, as Celeborn has already shown that they can count the passage of time. But with that qualifier it is changed from a statement of objective fact to a comment about the Elves relationship to time.

Despite what other’s have argued (very cogently) I think there is a difference between ‘do not’ & need not’ for this very reason - Legolas is speaking (& I think the whole context confirms this) about the Elves relationship to time - how they think about it, how they relate to it & what it means to them.

As I said, I can’t see that CT’s statement that his father simply inserted the word do to fill a lacuna in the copy he made for him, & that his father’s original need should stand doesn’t hold up. At this time Tolkien hadn’t come up with a definitive text - he was still working on it, & its likely that he decided on reading through the text that do expressed his thoughts better than need.

Whatever. The issue is whether there is enough evidence to justify the change back to need. I can’t see that there is enough evidence - certainly not as much as in the other two kinds of case I mentioned. Or even in the case of the change from ‘He (Pippin) was smaller than the other’ to ‘He was smaller than the others’.

We also have to take on board Bb’s point about CT’s role in this. Its one thing to change the Silmarillion texts to make them acceptable for publication, as they had never received Tolkien’s final approval, & it could be argued that maybe he would have accepted the changes CT made. But that’s a different issue, as it never came to that. He didn’t achieve a final form. In the case of this change we have Tolkien’s final approved version & CT has authorised a change which (imo) alters the meaning of a major character’s statement on an issue of central importance in the Legendarium on the flimsiest of evidence.

So its a matter of CT’s authority. This is not a case of making a change for the sake of coherence, or picking from variant readings, each of equal validity as was the case with the Sil texts. This is a matter of changing the meaning of a characters words in an established, authorised text. Does CT have the right to do that? And if he does, where does it stop? Could he make any change he wanted? And if he can change the text, why not someone else? If a new version of a chapter was discovered with greater changes in it, would it be right to replace the existing text with those later changes? Also, CT has shown (quite convincingly) that there is a later version of the Earendelnwe (as I pointed out earlier), yet that version is not used in this edition - why not? This change (& there may be more, I’m only focussing on this one because I’ve picked it up due to the fact that we’re currently reading this chapter in the read through), it seems to me, has been made with less justification than that one would have had. This touches on the Canonicity issue for me, as it changes LotR from a ‘canonical’ text & opens it up to the possibility of other changes.

Is this new version ‘better’ than the old one? Its the first revision not authorised by Tolkien himself. It seems to me that if this one is accepted then we’re crediting CT with equal rights over the text to his father. Does he actually have those rights?

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry makes some interesting points regarding authorial intention. We are veering toward the old canonicity argument here; I think it may be worthwhile then to consider things from the perspective of the author vs. text vs. reader distinction that emerged there. Apologies if some of this is less coherent than usual; I've been up since very early and am really only less than half awake. Bethberry wrote:

Without meaning in any way to deny Christopher's great knowledge and expertise, I would like to suggest that what he has done instead is to create a situation where multiple versions of texts abound, as exists with earlier literature.

This is surely the case. And this, I think, points to a flaw in the author-centric view of "canonicity" which is solved by a text-centric view. The co-existence of different versions presents a real problem if one views a work of art as a manifestation of the intention of the author. The question "which version is valid?" becomes overwhelmingly important; and the author-centric view seems to demand that there be a single, definitive answer to the question. A text-centric view does not have this problem: it simply is the case that there are a number of different texts. Some may be "better" or more enjoyable than others; some may be the product of the author at a later stage of life than others; but ultimately they are all simply texts and there is no need to determine which is singularly authoritative. It still makes sense in this view to ask which word ("need" or "do") Tolkien may have intended at various points in time, but if a clear answer is not forthcoming, this presents no serious problem to the text-centric view (nor, if it comes to it, to the reader-centric view).

I have seen Christopher criticized for publishing HoMe and thus establishing a state of affairs in which there is no single authoritative version of the Silmarillion. I think this criticism arises from the needless desire for a single version that can be taken as a manifestation of the author. The case of the Silmarillion points out just how absurd that desire can be - for the published Silmarillion (or any Silmarillion) certainly does not represent some kind of ideal authorial intention. HoMe, on the other hand, lays out the texts as they are, the goal being not to present a single Canonical Text but rather simply to tell the truth about what words various pieces of paper have written or printed on them. To prefer a single version that claims authority over a scholarly presentation of all the texts is to prefer ignorance.

Now, insofar as Christopher claims that the new edition of LotR is uniquely authoritative, I think he is mistaken - not because there is anything wrong with this edition, but simply because the whole concept of a single authoritative version is in this case not applicable. There are cases in LotR (rather few in comparison with something like the Silmarillion) where multiple versions of the text exist and none is clearly authoritative (in the sense of "most highly approved by the author"). Is this itself a problem? I don't think so. Nor is it a problem, I think, that we now know of the existence of the two versions and of the circumstances surrounding them. It could not possibly be a problem that we have more information; on the contrary, if we were to simply take the "do" as authoritative and pretend that "need" was never written, we would be falsely ascribing a certainty of authorial intention to the word. I would go as far as to say that our knowledge of the facts surrounding the two words provides evidence that neither "do" nor "need" is to be construed in such a way as to contradict the other version; for clearly Tolkien was at one point quite happy with the one and a short time later equally happy with the other.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

My own suspiscion is that when Tolkien came to read over what Christopher had written down (with the missing word) he wrote in what seemed the obviously 'correct' word, whatever his original idea had been.

If this is true, then it shows how unimportant the change is. If the alteration was significant to his concept of the elves, I am sure he would have picked up on it and done something about it.

Also I think, that the many faceted little word 'do' is being given its strongest possible reading, whereas the fact that Tolkien did not pick up on Christopher's error suggests to me that his use of "do" is likely to have been such that the change is immaterial:elves do not count the passing years for themselves, because they don't need to. Legolas was not actually drafting the definitive Elvish world view, just giving a short explanation to friends.

Lalawende - you gave a fine example elsewhere of how LOTR might have been if written by a committee. May Eru save us from that. I was going to say more but I have a sudden and overwhelming feeling that, not being Elvish, my life is too short

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Its the qualifier, ‘not for themselves’ that makes the difference. Of course, without that the statement ‘they do not count the running years’ would be incorrect, as Celeborn has already shown that they can count the passage of time. But with that qualifier it is changed from a statement of objective fact to a comment about the Elves relationship to time.

Ah yes, I see the point that you are driving at. And I agree. The words "not for themselves" do make a significant difference

To say that Elves do not consider the running years for themselves is quite different from saying that they need not consider the running years for themselves. The former implies that they only consider the passing years when interacting with other races (as in the case of Celeborns' greeting to Aragorn). The latter implies that they may have reason to consider the passing of years for their own purposes.

But is not "need" still the more accurate? While the passing of time may not be central to their day-to-day lives, they must surely have some conception of events occurring at an earlier or later point in time than others. Galadriel, for example, would have to recognise that, while she resided in Aman at one point in time, she does not at the time of the War of the Ring. So is it not accurate to say that, while the passing of time does not impact greatly on their daily lives, they do nevertheless have some need to consider for themselves the passing of time and the changes that this brings, albeit perhaps on a more "long-term view" than mortals?

[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'?