Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Bêthberry · 11-23-2004, 07:13 PM

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.

11-23-2004, 07:13 PM	#27
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,005	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, Dn 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. __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bêthberry; 11-23-2004 at 07:19 PM.