AKICILJ: LotR second edition changes

[kate_nepveu]

Is there anywhere an easily-accessible description of what substantive changes Tolkien made to the text of Lord of the Rings between the first and second editions?

Also, if you wanted to recommend any works of criticism regarding LotR (other than what's on this list and Shippey's Road to Middle-earth), now would be a fine time. (LotR: A Reader's Companion, by Hammond and Scull, looked good in theory but reading the sample online at Amazon, err, not so much.)

Comments

[calimac.livejournal.com]

It's not quite as simple as the changes between editions in The Hobbit (which are detailed in The Annotated Hobbit by Douglas A. Anderson), because the UK edition and the US hardcover and paperback each went off on their own track and weren't put back together again for over 20 years, and except for replacing the author's foreword, most of the changes were very small; there was much less changed than in The Hobbit.

Most of the major changes are discussed in Hammond & Scull's LotR: A Reader's Companion, though they aren't separated out from other matters. (May I ask what you found deficient about this book? It's not intended as a work of criticism, but as the annotations for a hypothetical Annotated LotR.)

The changes are listed in full in Hammond's J.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography, but in crabbed and hard-to-decipher detail. Also that book is not easily available and is very expensive, though some academic libraries have it.

There is one article that I know of discussing the artistic effect of those changes, and it is by, er, me. It was published in a book called The Lord of the Rings 1954-2004: Scholarship in Honor of Richard E. Blackwelder, from Marquette University Press and edited, once again, by Hammond and Scull. I think it's a good book with a lot of interesting articles, but if you just want that one, I could provide an electronic copy. (Don't tell anyone, but I could also supply some photocopies from the Hammond bibliography.)

[kate_nepveu]

Re: _Reader's Companion_: just that it is annotations, not criticism, and a couple descriptions had suggested otherwise.

If you don't mind, I'd love a copy of your article. I might be able to get Chad to ILL the book for me from another college, but in the meantime I'm quite curious about the changes.

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

The book Meditations on Middle-Earth (Haber) has some interesting essays by various authors. I would not invest in buying it until you can take a look in some other way (e.g., the library), as some (e.g., the Feist entry) are really terrible, and they mostly don't really count as criticism. But I think the Michael Swanwick essay in it is terrific, worth the price of admission-- among other things, it ought to be required reading for anyone who thinks Tolkien was a Luddite (which he kind of was. But. Oh, go read the essay!)

I also notice that LeGuin's essay on rhythmic structure is on your list, but not her older essays - she also wrote a (more personal-response) essay on Tolkien in The Language of the Night, as well as (in the same collection) the totally wonderful "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie," which discusses Tolkien though he is not the main subject. I recommend Language without hesitation (with apologies if you have already read it and I somehow just missed it on your list).

[chomiji]

I second the recommendation of Language of the Night. LeGuin is a marvelous essayist, and "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" is pure win.

[kate_nepveu]

Thanks. I think I've heard Swanwick discuss something on those lines at cons, but I've placed a library request for the book, and also will check out the Le Guin next time I'm at the local branch.

[kjn]

Jenny Turner had a long critical essay about LoTR and Tolkien in The London Review of Books. It should've been published sometime in late 2001.

Ah, found it - I only had the Swedish translation, made as a heroic three-day job by a friend of mine.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I remember that essay. It starts out well enough, but Turner gets entirely on the wrong foot by assuming that the only purpose of serious literary study is to attack the subject (at least if the subject is Tolkien). She seems to think that the enchantment of fantasy is a gimmick that needs to be exposed, though she doesn't say why.

Anyone reading this should also get a fine reply, "Reasons for NOT Liking Tolkien" by Caroline Galwey (Mallorn 42, 2004, from The Tolkien Society), which explores the hidden reasons that so many mainstream critics have this tremendous hate on for Tolkien, since the critics themselves seem to think it goes without saying and never bother to explain it.

[kate_nepveu]

Bookmarked, thanks.