Login

Or
Register Now


Already have an account?
Username:

Password:

Remember me

Lost Your Password?
Main Menu
Collector's Guide Table of Contents
Recent Visitors

remy
2 hours 9 minutes ago

Trotter
2 hours 37 minutes ago

Berelach
4 hours 55 minutes ago

Karl
5 hours 25 minutes ago

Tapuvae
7 hours 6 minutes ago

Urulöké
7 hours 12 minutes ago

Stu
7 hours 43 minutes ago

wellinghall
12 hours 54 minutes ago
   All Posts (Findegil)


(1) 2 3 4 ... 38 »


Re: The Appendices of The Lord of the Rings
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 200
Offline
I noticed a couple of very minor issues, which look to be to a matter of editorial changes, rather than actual incorrect text in the latest edition. As an example on page 1129 (line 17), the first edition has the word 'dealings' and the latest version says 'dealing'. I prefer 'dealings' as in the first edition, but both are correct, and it would not seem appropriate for any changes to be made in this case.


It's worth noting even "very minor issues": there may not be any effect on meaning, but one must also consider the author's intent. In regard to dealing/dealings, this is an interesting difference as it didn't enter in any of the usual places in the history of publication. I suspected that the -s may have been dropped by accident in the 1994 resetting, which has "dealing"; but then I checked the first printing of the second Allen & Unwin edition, and that has "dealing" too. From this I suspected that "dealing" may have entered in the Ballantine text, from which Allen & Unwin took the Appendices for their second edition, Tolkien's marked copy for Ballantine having been lost; but Ballantine has "dealings", following the first edition. The error "dealing" entered, then, in the Allen & Unwin second, and has persisted unnoticed.

I would call this an error on the basis of "dealings" in the first edition, which is also in the comparable text from the manuscript printed in Peoples of Middle-earth, and from "dealings" in the Ballantine text which suggests that Tolkien didn't mark it for change, and from the fact that all other instances of the word in The Lord of the Rings with similar usage have "dealings".

Wayne

Posted on: 1/3 9:17:03


Re: The Appendices of The Lord of the Rings
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 200
Offline
Re: OCR, one of the issues we describe in our blog post, as mentioned by Trotter at the start of this thread, was an aspect of layout rather than of text: an indent which seemed out of place, indeed is unique in the Tale of Years. It's not necessarily wrong as a matter of style, but because it was unusual it was questioned, and the questioning revealed two errors previously undetected. The second issue we dealt with concerns a date in the Bolger family tree (first published in 2004) which a reader noticed was different from that given in Peoples of Middle-earth, so was not a point of textual change over the course of editions and printings of LR.

Christina noticed the "wild kine" / "wild white kine" difference in Appendix A after the 2004 printings of LR. We sent in a correction for the 2005 printing, and noted it in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion, p. 809. Like so many errors, it had crept in with resetting for the 1994 HarperCollins edition.

Wayne

Posted on: 1/2 15:22:47


Re: Paperback Rings Printing Dates/Numbers
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 200
Offline
For The Fellowship of the Ring, the cover began to feature Tolkien's own art after the 40th printing (March 1973) and no later than the 43rd (September 1973). For The Two Towers, the cover changed after the 34th (August 1972) and no later than the 40th (September 1973). For The Return of the King, the cover changed with the 40th printing (September 1973), which leads me to suspect that all three volumes changed at that time.

The basic information is in the Descriptive Bibliography, p. 119, with some later correction.

Wayne

Posted on: 2015/11/11 5:00


Re: New Book Releases
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 200
Offline
I may have spotted a minor typo in The Art of LoTR - page 140 says, "A similar rendering of Minas Tirith, but with a remarkably high tower, appears in a later, circa 1946 panoramic view, fig. 136)." Should this refer to fig. 137?


Yes, it should, thanks. The error crept in, ironically, in the process of making corrections during copy-editing.

Wayne & Christina

Posted on: 2015/10/10 12:10


Re: Dye Colour 1978 1st Impression 4th Edition UK Hobbit
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 200
Offline
Christina and I have looked at our two copies of the first printing of this edition and at my working papers for the Descriptive Bibliography. My description of the top edge staining as "dark green" came originally from Douglas Anderson, based on his copy of the book, but when looking at other copies, including Christina's and the one at the British Library, I evidently found them to match.

Color descriptions of course are subjective, based on one's eyes, lighting, and condition of the item, which is why it's good to have a number of copies to physically compare. One of our copies, which has stood on a shelf for many years among other single copies of The Hobbit, has a top edge which is clearly blue, but also clearly faded. This may be due to light (room lighting, at least), or to dust which can cause chemical change; also, some dyes are more prone to fading than others.

The other copy we have, however, is part of the boxed set The Tolkien Library, has never been read, and has been protected all these years from both light and dust within a heavy slipcase. On this copy, the top edge is stained dark green - with a distinct blue element, to be sure, evident as one turns the book in the light, but then green = blue + yellow so this is to be expected.

I also compared these copies with copies of The Silmarillion, and to me the blue (or apparent blue) stains are of different values. Again, this could be subjective.

It's possible, of course, that some copies of the 1978 first impression were stained dark green, which would make sense, given its green cloth binding, while others were stained a dark blue. In any case, it's an interesting point.

Wayne

Posted on: 2015/3/13 4:59



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 38 »




© 2015 TolkienGuide.com and respective authors. Contact Us