The Tolkien Thread (4)
This is a continuation of the topic The Tolkien Thread (3).
TalkFolio Society Devotees
Join LibraryThing to post.
1dfmorgan
I was just looking around amazon uk and spotted this, I hadn't seen any mention of this so thought that I might highlight it here:-
The Fall of Númenor: and Other Tales from the Second Age of Middle-earth: J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings on the Second Age of Middle-earth, collected for the first time in one volume.
J.R.R. Tolkien famously described the Second Age of Middle-earth as a ‘dark age, and not very much of its history is (or need be) told’. And for many years readers would need to be content with the tantalizing glimpses of it found within the pages of The Lord of the Rings and its appendices, including the forging of the Rings of Power, the building of the Barad-dûr and the rise of Sauron.
It was not until Christopher Tolkien published The Silmarillion after his father’s death that a fuller story could be told. Although much of the book’s content concerned the First Age of Middle-earth, there were at its close two key works that revealed the tumultuous events concerning the rise and fall of the island of Númenor. Raised out of the Great Sea and gifted to the Men of Middle-earth as a reward for aiding the angelic Valar and the Elves in the defeat and capture of the Dark Lord Morgoth, the kingdom became a seat of influence and wealth; but as the Númenóreans’ power increased, the seed of their downfall would inevitably be sown, culminating in the Last Alliance of Elves and Men.
Even greater insight into the Second Age would be revealed in subsequent publications, first in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth, then expanded upon in Christopher Tolkien’s magisterial twelve-volume The History of Middle-earth, in which he presented and discussed a wealth of further tales written by his father, many in draft form.
Now, adhering to the timeline of ‘The Tale of Years’ in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings, editor Brian Sibley has assembled into one comprehensive volume a new chronicle of the Second Age of Middle-earth, told substantially in the words of J.R.R. Tolkien from the various published texts, with new illustrations in watercolour and pencil by the doyen of Tolkien art, Alan Lee.
The Fall of Númenor: and Other Tales from the Second Age of Middle-earth: J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings on the Second Age of Middle-earth, collected for the first time in one volume.
J.R.R. Tolkien famously described the Second Age of Middle-earth as a ‘dark age, and not very much of its history is (or need be) told’. And for many years readers would need to be content with the tantalizing glimpses of it found within the pages of The Lord of the Rings and its appendices, including the forging of the Rings of Power, the building of the Barad-dûr and the rise of Sauron.
It was not until Christopher Tolkien published The Silmarillion after his father’s death that a fuller story could be told. Although much of the book’s content concerned the First Age of Middle-earth, there were at its close two key works that revealed the tumultuous events concerning the rise and fall of the island of Númenor. Raised out of the Great Sea and gifted to the Men of Middle-earth as a reward for aiding the angelic Valar and the Elves in the defeat and capture of the Dark Lord Morgoth, the kingdom became a seat of influence and wealth; but as the Númenóreans’ power increased, the seed of their downfall would inevitably be sown, culminating in the Last Alliance of Elves and Men.
Even greater insight into the Second Age would be revealed in subsequent publications, first in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth, then expanded upon in Christopher Tolkien’s magisterial twelve-volume The History of Middle-earth, in which he presented and discussed a wealth of further tales written by his father, many in draft form.
Now, adhering to the timeline of ‘The Tale of Years’ in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings, editor Brian Sibley has assembled into one comprehensive volume a new chronicle of the Second Age of Middle-earth, told substantially in the words of J.R.R. Tolkien from the various published texts, with new illustrations in watercolour and pencil by the doyen of Tolkien art, Alan Lee.
2LesMiserables
With my delivery yesterday, came the Folio magazine, and a smidgen of trivia which I found interesting: The Lord of the Rings is the Folio Society's best selling 3v set of all time.
3wcarter
An interesting historic interview with Tolkien on the BBC today about the background to the Lord of the Rings.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240726-the-ww1-trauma-that-inspired-the-lo...
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240726-the-ww1-trauma-that-inspired-the-lo...
4LesMiserables
>3 wcarter: Thanks Warwick. I think I might have watched all known footage of Tolkien, and he addresses the issue of allegory here, which many commentators, even Tolkien scholars, can't seem to accept, despite the man himself giving an emphatic no to allegorical expression.
I sometimes wonder if some scholars, commentators, journalists etc. want there to be an allegorical underpinning, for their own particular personal, or professional reasons.
No matter, Tolkien has been emphatic: there is no allegory but only applicability.
He has stated that the work is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision
link here
I sometimes wonder if some scholars, commentators, journalists etc. want there to be an allegorical underpinning, for their own particular personal, or professional reasons.
No matter, Tolkien has been emphatic: there is no allegory but only applicability.
He has stated that the work is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision
link here
5Jason461
>4 LesMiserables:
This kind of gets at the heart of an age-old debate about literature and art: Does it matter what the artist thinks? If the artist says the work is about X, but everyone who reads it says it's about Y, then who is correct?
I generally hold with the readers here. Once it out of the hands of the writer, the world gets to decide what to do with it.
This kind of gets at the heart of an age-old debate about literature and art: Does it matter what the artist thinks? If the artist says the work is about X, but everyone who reads it says it's about Y, then who is correct?
I generally hold with the readers here. Once it out of the hands of the writer, the world gets to decide what to do with it.
6HonorWulf
>5 Jason461: That's kind of what Tolkien means by "applicability". Readers are free to interpret the work anyway that they want, including adding their own allegorical interpretations. What he objected to was people saying that he himself wrote the work as allegory, which he emphatically did not. At the end of the day, he's the only authoritative source for his own thoughts.
7LesMiserables
>5 Jason461: >6 HonorWulf:
Good points.
I would say that applicability means that readers are indeed free to choose how they apply his writings, however the bounds are clearly there for readers to stay within, I would argue, given Tolkien's explicit reference to the moral underpinnings of his work.
Regarding the separation of art and artist, on the whole I do agree mostly with this line of thought, but it's complicated like most things in life.
There was an extended discussion years back on the work of illustrator Eric Gill, and whether or not his work should be used, given some of his past failings as a father. Without going into the details on the Tolkien thread, it is a fascinating subject and most definitely complex.
Good points.
I would say that applicability means that readers are indeed free to choose how they apply his writings, however the bounds are clearly there for readers to stay within, I would argue, given Tolkien's explicit reference to the moral underpinnings of his work.
Regarding the separation of art and artist, on the whole I do agree mostly with this line of thought, but it's complicated like most things in life.
There was an extended discussion years back on the work of illustrator Eric Gill, and whether or not his work should be used, given some of his past failings as a father. Without going into the details on the Tolkien thread, it is a fascinating subject and most definitely complex.
8User2024
If the artist says x is what his own piece of art is about, that’s what it’s about. Majority vote doesn’t change reality, holy cow.
9Jason461
>8 User2024: The whole point of art is to experience it. Ideally, I would say, without being told ahead of time what that experience is supposed to be.
Further, until very recently, it was extremely difficult or impossible to know what an artist thought about their own work.
Further, until very recently, it was extremely difficult or impossible to know what an artist thought about their own work.
10User2024
>9 Jason461: I’m saying in the case where an artist earnestly expresses what his purpose was, it is entirely dishonest and ridiculous to argue that he is wrong.
And by the way, that is not the point of art. The purpose of art starts with the artist, not the person consuming it. Without the artist, there is no art, it cannot exist. The reverse case is not true. Even if it were true, your experience of it doesn’t change its purpose.
And by the way, that is not the point of art. The purpose of art starts with the artist, not the person consuming it. Without the artist, there is no art, it cannot exist. The reverse case is not true. Even if it were true, your experience of it doesn’t change its purpose.
11Jason461
>10 User2024:
I mean, that's one end of the idea. Sure. I've been on both sides of the equation here. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance. Sometimes, the world decides that the art means something different than the artist meant it to. That's fine. It happens all the time. A lot of artists happly embrace this.
If you're making art with the intent of putting it in front of the audience, then you have to be ready for the idea that the audience might decide you've failed at doing X but have successfully done Y.
I mean, that's one end of the idea. Sure. I've been on both sides of the equation here. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance. Sometimes, the world decides that the art means something different than the artist meant it to. That's fine. It happens all the time. A lot of artists happly embrace this.
If you're making art with the intent of putting it in front of the audience, then you have to be ready for the idea that the audience might decide you've failed at doing X but have successfully done Y.
12coynedj
To me, a reader/viewer/listener can decide what he/she thinks it means, to them. But that attribution of meaning is strictly for that one person alone; that reader should not claim that their viewpoint is "what it's about" for others. For that, one should default to the artist's intentions. I've made assumptions of meaning that go against the artist's stated intentions myself on more than one occasion, but I make no claim of that meaning's universality.
13What_What
>12 coynedj: Well said.
14St._Troy
The acts of production and reception are not merely separate but qualitatively different; neither can replace the other.
15User2024
My favorite anecdote pertaining to this subject is Lou Reed’s response to a certain popular interpretation of his song, Perfect Day.
From Wikipedia:
Some commentators have further seen the lyrical subtext as displaying Reed's romanticized attitude towards a period of his own addiction to heroin. This popular understanding of the song as an ode to addiction led to its inclusion in the soundtrack for Trainspotting, a film about the lives of heroin addicts. However, this interpretation, according to Reed himself, is "laughable". In an interview in 2000, Reed stated, "No. You're talking to the writer, the person who wrote it. No that's not true. I don't object to that, particularly...whatever you think is perfect. But this guy's vision of a perfect day was the girl, sangria in the park, and then you go home; a perfect day, real simple. I meant just what I said."
From Wikipedia:
Some commentators have further seen the lyrical subtext as displaying Reed's romanticized attitude towards a period of his own addiction to heroin. This popular understanding of the song as an ode to addiction led to its inclusion in the soundtrack for Trainspotting, a film about the lives of heroin addicts. However, this interpretation, according to Reed himself, is "laughable". In an interview in 2000, Reed stated, "No. You're talking to the writer, the person who wrote it. No that's not true. I don't object to that, particularly...whatever you think is perfect. But this guy's vision of a perfect day was the girl, sangria in the park, and then you go home; a perfect day, real simple. I meant just what I said."
16mr.philistine
>15 User2024: You have activated LT Touchstone for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - is this an accident or your idea of 'sangria in the park'?
17User2024
>16 mr.philistine:
I don’t even know what that means. It must be an accident. What is LT touchstone?
Edit: I see a definition, but don’t know what I did to activate it.
I don’t even know what that means. It must be an accident. What is LT touchstone?
Edit: I see a definition, but don’t know what I did to activate it.
18Watry
>17 User2024: You seem to have a rogue 4 hanging out between 'addicts' and 'However'. My guess is that you copy/pasted the bits from Wikipedia, and the hyperlink for the footnote confused the system.
19LesMiserables
>12 coynedj: Good point. Giving we are on a Tolkien thread, I might lean upon his whole notion of sub-creation. It might be considered arrogant to take someone else's creation and attribute an alternative meaning to that given by the architect.
20Jeremy53
>15 User2024: I seem to be in the minority here. To me, Art only matters at the end of the consumer. Once art is created and goes out into the world, it is what other make of it - as an artist you have no control over that.
(This is coming from a recording artist)
To use an obvious example, I don’t care that Shostakovich’s 8th quartet mimics the sound of machine guns. If I didn’t know that backstory / reference, would I interpret them that way? Maybe, maybe not. But most likely at least something violent and imposing. So, emotion effected. It doesn’t matter if people draw the literal connection or not.
(This is coming from a recording artist)
To use an obvious example, I don’t care that Shostakovich’s 8th quartet mimics the sound of machine guns. If I didn’t know that backstory / reference, would I interpret them that way? Maybe, maybe not. But most likely at least something violent and imposing. So, emotion effected. It doesn’t matter if people draw the literal connection or not.
21User2024
>20 Jeremy53:
It’s not that people aren’t free to interpret as they please, but in the case where the “true” meaning of a work is in question, it comes down to objectivity.
You may want to interpret Mein Kampf as a 21st-century love story… it will never make it so.
It’s not that people aren’t free to interpret as they please, but in the case where the “true” meaning of a work is in question, it comes down to objectivity.
You may want to interpret Mein Kampf as a 21st-century love story… it will never make it so.
22Jason461
> Art is about objectivity? That's a statement that the overwhelming majority of artists would argue with. Myself included.
And of course you choose the most extreme possible example as a way to "back up" your assertion.
This is what I tell my students about interpreting art: Imagine all the seats in a giant stadium. Each one has a slightly different view of the game. None of the interpretations of the game they see are wrong. Those are all right answers. Now, the fans outside the stadium (pretend TV doesn't exist) can only hear the cheers and boos. They might guess, but they don't have nearly enough information to interpret the happenings. Those are the wrong answers.
There is no one right answer about the meaning of a work of art. But there are wrong answers. Both of those things can be and are true.
And of course you choose the most extreme possible example as a way to "back up" your assertion.
This is what I tell my students about interpreting art: Imagine all the seats in a giant stadium. Each one has a slightly different view of the game. None of the interpretations of the game they see are wrong. Those are all right answers. Now, the fans outside the stadium (pretend TV doesn't exist) can only hear the cheers and boos. They might guess, but they don't have nearly enough information to interpret the happenings. Those are the wrong answers.
There is no one right answer about the meaning of a work of art. But there are wrong answers. Both of those things can be and are true.
23LesMiserables
The Oxonmoot 2024
https://www.tolkiensociety.org/society/events/oxonmoot/
Has anyone attended the Tolkien Society's Oxonmoot's?
https://www.tolkiensociety.org/society/events/oxonmoot/
Has anyone attended the Tolkien Society's Oxonmoot's?
24St._Troy
>22 Jason461: Sure...but conflating any one of the many individual seat views with the singular on-stage event itself is a mistake.
25bacchus.
>10 User2024: And by the way, that is not the point of art. The purpose of art starts with the artist, not the person consuming it. Without the artist, there is no art, it cannot exist. The reverse case is not true. Even if it were true, your experience of it doesn’t change its purpose.
I beg to disagree. One can only imagine how artistic the Mona Lisa would be if Leonardo had left us with an explicit explanation of its meaning. And what if we knew precisely what Sophocles intended with the tragic flaws of Oedipus, or if Euripides had clearly noted down his personal views on the gods and fate in Medea? Art thrives on ambiguity and interpretation; on the very personal connection it fosters between the work and its audience.
EDIT:
A more nuanced elaboration can be found in the essay “The death of the author”. The argument being that meaning lies “not in its origin but in its destination”.
https://interestingliterature.com/2021/10/barthes-death-of-the-author-summary-an...
I beg to disagree. One can only imagine how artistic the Mona Lisa would be if Leonardo had left us with an explicit explanation of its meaning. And what if we knew precisely what Sophocles intended with the tragic flaws of Oedipus, or if Euripides had clearly noted down his personal views on the gods and fate in Medea? Art thrives on ambiguity and interpretation; on the very personal connection it fosters between the work and its audience.
EDIT:
A more nuanced elaboration can be found in the essay “The death of the author”. The argument being that meaning lies “not in its origin but in its destination”.
https://interestingliterature.com/2021/10/barthes-death-of-the-author-summary-an...
26User2024
>25 bacchus.:
So artistry lies in ambiguity? That’s simply not true, and I suspect this line of thought is why some people consider as art randomly splattered spots of paint…
So artistry lies in ambiguity? That’s simply not true, and I suspect this line of thought is why some people consider as art randomly splattered spots of paint…
27bacchus.
>26 User2024: It very often does. Ambiguity doesn’t imply lack of meaning or intention. One of the most compelling aspects of art is its ability to be interpreted in multiple ways. I’m not aiming for a zero sum definition of what art is meant to be here. I’m only pointing out that rigid simplistic arguments like “true/not true” overlook a lot of the complexities in favor of what I believe is an unnecessary goal - defining what art should be.
28User2024
>22 Jason461:
It’s simply not true that there isn’t a right answer about what a piece of art means. The position you claim falls apart the moment someone interprets a piece of art as something grossly disgusting to the artist himself. Of course I chose an “extreme” example — extreme examples often illustrate principles clearly.
Edit: I’m not saying that people can’t interpret art however they please. What I’m saying is that when that interpretation clashes with the artist’s stated purpose, the artist wins.
Edit again: how can art not have a definition? If art is everything, then art is nothing.
It’s simply not true that there isn’t a right answer about what a piece of art means. The position you claim falls apart the moment someone interprets a piece of art as something grossly disgusting to the artist himself. Of course I chose an “extreme” example — extreme examples often illustrate principles clearly.
Edit: I’m not saying that people can’t interpret art however they please. What I’m saying is that when that interpretation clashes with the artist’s stated purpose, the artist wins.
Edit again: how can art not have a definition? If art is everything, then art is nothing.
30User2024
>29 Cat_of_Ulthar:
You misunderstand poetry to a depressing degree if you think its purpose and/or merit is in its ambiguity.
You misunderstand poetry to a depressing degree if you think its purpose and/or merit is in its ambiguity.
31Cat_of_Ulthar
>30 User2024: Ambiguity is making you think of different interpretations and possibilities. Language, as poets know, is ambiguous. Words do not have fixed meanings, language changes, reality is malleable in the poet's crucible.
32User2024
>31 Cat_of_Ulthar:
I will respectfully disagree. And some of that is just factually incorrect. Many poets I know will argue that language can and should be lethally precise. Again, if language and words can mean anything and everything, then language and words mean nothing.
Edit to clarify that I do in fact only know two poets.
Indeed! It’s the specificity of word choice and sentence structure because they together project a specific meaning and evoke a particular feeling that a poet is after. I argue that ambiguity is anti-poetic.
If a poet chooses to subvert language, it’s even more critical that his purpose not be ambiguous.
I will respectfully disagree. And some of that is just factually incorrect. Many poets I know will argue that language can and should be lethally precise. Again, if language and words can mean anything and everything, then language and words mean nothing.
Edit to clarify that I do in fact only know two poets.
Indeed! It’s the specificity of word choice and sentence structure because they together project a specific meaning and evoke a particular feeling that a poet is after. I argue that ambiguity is anti-poetic.
If a poet chooses to subvert language, it’s even more critical that his purpose not be ambiguous.
33abysswalker
>32 User2024: oh come now. The reasonable argument is never that any interpretation is valid, but that there is rarely a single valid or final take. That is, there is a (non-infinite, sometimes small, but definitely multiple) range of interpretations. Arguably, context is also required to interpret any work of art. A trivial proof of this is that one needs the ability to read the language a poem is written in (that ability is part of the audience, not part of the creator). That trivial example should also make a more subtle point though, which is that the meaning of words changes over time, which means either the meaning will change or you need to add additional info to preserve "original intent" meaning, something else the audience needs to add to the experience (where else could it come from?).
Additionally, events occurring even after the death of the author can substantially change the meaning of a work of art, so intent is clearly insufficient. For example, the swastika is both a Celtic and Buddhist symbol. The powerful Nazi association with that symbol now simply changes how one experiences those older creations, whatever the ancient Celt craftsperson intended.
Lots of other more subtle arguments as well, such as one work of art being used as part of another (think about how samples are used in pop music, or allusions in classic literature).
All that said, if we had to partial out the variance explained by various factors, intent has to be a big one, maybe the biggest, to getting the most out of some text; it's just not the only factor. One of my favorite authors (Nietzsche) was for a long time misunderstood due to selective presentation, bad translation, and simple ignorance. So there are clearly wrong takes. It took a lot of work by a lot of good scholars to (mostly) undo that damage, but there still is no single correct reading.
Additionally, events occurring even after the death of the author can substantially change the meaning of a work of art, so intent is clearly insufficient. For example, the swastika is both a Celtic and Buddhist symbol. The powerful Nazi association with that symbol now simply changes how one experiences those older creations, whatever the ancient Celt craftsperson intended.
Lots of other more subtle arguments as well, such as one work of art being used as part of another (think about how samples are used in pop music, or allusions in classic literature).
All that said, if we had to partial out the variance explained by various factors, intent has to be a big one, maybe the biggest, to getting the most out of some text; it's just not the only factor. One of my favorite authors (Nietzsche) was for a long time misunderstood due to selective presentation, bad translation, and simple ignorance. So there are clearly wrong takes. It took a lot of work by a lot of good scholars to (mostly) undo that damage, but there still is no single correct reading.
35User2024
>33 abysswalker:
So if some interpretations are valid, just not one, and others are not… who decides which ones are valid if not the artist?
I don’t disagree with other stuff you said, but it’s all countering straw men with regard to me and my actual points.
So if some interpretations are valid, just not one, and others are not… who decides which ones are valid if not the artist?
I don’t disagree with other stuff you said, but it’s all countering straw men with regard to me and my actual points.
36What_What
This whole thread has gone off on a tangent, I think. All the original point was making is that while others are allowed to have their own interpretation of what art means to them, you can't attribute that to the creator's intention because it may either be unstated, or in Tolkien's case quite clear and contradictory to what some say it was.
37bacchus.
>34 cpg: Thank you for this.
Available here,
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55524/page/n1/mode/1up
Available here,
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55524/page/n1/mode/1up
38Cat_of_Ulthar
Getting back to Tolkien; do you enjoy the poems in The Hobbit and LoTR or do you skip them? If the former, you might be interested in this forthcoming collection:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/aug/24/beyond-bilbo-jrr-tolkiens-...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/aug/24/beyond-bilbo-jrr-tolkiens-...
39LesMiserables
>38 Cat_of_Ulthar: Yes I do enjoy his work immensely. Thanks for the link.
40LesMiserables
Reading the Letters of JRRT at the moment. Really fascinating. A great well of references to other authors, works etc.
41LesMiserables
Has anyone read letter 131 of the The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien: Revised and Expanded edition? Quite illuminating and wonderfully instructive around the Ages of Middle Earth and the central happenings that unfold.
My original paperback of the letters doesn't include the full letter, but the new and expanded edition above, of around 200 extra pages does and is available on audible, kindle, pb etc.
There is a copy of it here minus appendix.
My original paperback of the letters doesn't include the full letter, but the new and expanded edition above, of around 200 extra pages does and is available on audible, kindle, pb etc.
There is a copy of it here minus appendix.
42boldface
>41 LesMiserables:
Yes, it's indispensable, really, coming as it does straight from the author's mouth. The first half (to the paragraph beginning "The Second Age ends . . .") is printed in all recent editions of The Silmarillion, as part of the introductory matter.
Yes, it's indispensable, really, coming as it does straight from the author's mouth. The first half (to the paragraph beginning "The Second Age ends . . .") is printed in all recent editions of The Silmarillion, as part of the introductory matter.
43LesMiserables
Anyone else like the illustrations of Pauline Baynes in Tolkien's works?
Tolkien identified his imaginings very closely with her art, and later Pauline and her husband became close friends of JRR. And Edith.
I noted that Folio have only used her illustrations on the Narnia collection.
Tolkien identified his imaginings very closely with her art, and later Pauline and her husband became close friends of JRR. And Edith.
I noted that Folio have only used her illustrations on the Narnia collection.
44HonorWulf
>43 LesMiserables: Yes! I think she captured the whimsy of Tolkien better than anyone.
45boldface
>44 HonorWulf:
That's it exactly. Compare, for example, her illustrations for The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (1962) with the brooding sketches of Alan Lee in the 2008 Tales from the Perilous Realm. There is so much whimsical detail in the Baynes drawings. Her paintings for the book edition of Bilbo's Last Song (1990) are exquisite - some almost recalling the Limbourg Brothers' miniatures in a fifteenth-century illuminated manuscript.
That's it exactly. Compare, for example, her illustrations for The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (1962) with the brooding sketches of Alan Lee in the 2008 Tales from the Perilous Realm. There is so much whimsical detail in the Baynes drawings. Her paintings for the book edition of Bilbo's Last Song (1990) are exquisite - some almost recalling the Limbourg Brothers' miniatures in a fifteenth-century illuminated manuscript.
46HonorWulf
>45 boldface: That Tom Bombadil book was my very first exposure to Tolkien!
47LesMiserables
>46 HonorWulf: I think I was introduced to the Hobbit by my primary 6 teacher. I would have been about 9 I think, around 3 years after JRRT died.
48HonorWulf
>47 LesMiserables: Seventh grade for me! The paperback with the Barbara Remington cover.
49LesMiserables
>48 HonorWulf: Alas. I have lost almost all my original copies. The earliest I have managed to carry through the years have been Farmer Giles/Tom B from 82', The Silmarillion from 79' and The Complete guide to Middle Earth by Robert Foster from 77'.
50HonorWulf
>49 LesMiserables: Me as well. Time and children have not been kind to my paperbacks.
51LesMiserables
>50 HonorWulf: This is true. I'm still discovering signatures and scribbles on long unopened books that my 5 have adorned unbeknown to me. It's never a disappointment regardless of the imprint, more of a delightful surprise actually.
52HonorWulf
>51 LesMiserables: That's my oldest daughter (now an adult bibliophile). Hall of fame book scribbler who graduated to full margin notes and underlines as she got older. Give her a book and out will come a fully annotated research paper.
53betaraybill
Just ‘cuz I’m delaying working out…
I was looking at three versions of LOTR just now. They are:
The 3-volume Lord of the Rings Hardcover – Special Edition, October 2024
The standard Folio Society slipcased set
The Lord of the Rings Deluxe Illustrated by the Author: Special Edition
Quick thoughts:
The edition published this year is pretty slick. But you know what? I’m not as keen as I used to be regarding illustrations by Alan Lee, John Howe, and similar artists.
The volume illustrated by Professor Tolkien is quite impressive. Has there been any talk of this getting reissued as a three-volume set?
The Folio Society set didn’t appeal to me for a number of years, but I find it more to my liking now. Sometimes all the bells and whistles in more deluxe volumes make for overkill. I just wish The LOTR was bound in red, and The Hobbit in green. :)
So, merry madcaps, whatcha think? Maybe your answers will inspire me to increase my benching from 255 to 260lbs! :)
I was looking at three versions of LOTR just now. They are:
The 3-volume Lord of the Rings Hardcover – Special Edition, October 2024
The standard Folio Society slipcased set
The Lord of the Rings Deluxe Illustrated by the Author: Special Edition
Quick thoughts:
The edition published this year is pretty slick. But you know what? I’m not as keen as I used to be regarding illustrations by Alan Lee, John Howe, and similar artists.
The volume illustrated by Professor Tolkien is quite impressive. Has there been any talk of this getting reissued as a three-volume set?
The Folio Society set didn’t appeal to me for a number of years, but I find it more to my liking now. Sometimes all the bells and whistles in more deluxe volumes make for overkill. I just wish The LOTR was bound in red, and The Hobbit in green. :)
So, merry madcaps, whatcha think? Maybe your answers will inspire me to increase my benching from 255 to 260lbs! :)
