board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Return of the King - 1967 Ballantine Books Foreword

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 18 posts ]
Author Message
Alatar
Post subject: Return of the King - 1967 Ballantine Books Foreword
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 10:33 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
A friend just gave me a copy of the 1967 US paperback edition of "Return of the King" published by Ballantine Books. It states on the cover: "Newly Revised, with a Special Foreword by the author"

Inside is the following:
Quote:
J.R.R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings
-of which this book is the final part
-is a chronicle of the great War of the Ring, which occurred in the Third Age of Middle-earth. At that time, the One Ring, the Master of all the Rings of Power, had been held for many years by the hobbits, but was eagerly sought by the Enemy who made it.
To its wearer, the One Ring gave mastery over every living creature, but since it was devised by an evil power, in the end it inevitably corrupted anyone who attempted to use it. Out of the struggle to possess and control the One Ring, with all its ominous power, there arose a war comparable both in magnitude and in the issues involved to the great wars of our own time. And in that war, the Third Age of Middle-earth came to an end....

The Return of the King completes the story told thus far in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Aware of the dangers of the One Ring, and determined that it must not fall into the hands of the Enemy, Frodo and his companions of the Ring have entered the ghastly land of Mordor where Sauron guards the Fire in which the Ring of Power was forged and which alone can destroy it. In the battle that follows, the Ring is destroyed and the power of evil is broken. But the triumph of good is never absolute. The Hobbits can return to their Shire, but a price is exacted and the Third Age of Middle-earth comes to a close. The Age of the Dominion of Men begins, and no one can yet say whether men will find the wisdom and courage to destroy their Ring of Power or whether they will be destroyed by it.
Is it true that this was written by Tolkien? It does not appear in any of my UK editions of the books and would seem to flagrantly fly in the face of his comments regarding allegory in the preface of UK Editions.
Quote:
As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, "The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.
The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would m the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.
Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. Or to take a less grievous matter: it has been supposed by some that 'The Scouring of the Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever.
The 1967 US Edition foreword not only gives away the end of the book before reading it, but also pointedly makes a connection with the World Wars and Atomic Weapons that is wholly denied in the preface of the UK edition. I accept that it is not specifically stated, but given the time of writing and the concerns of that time it seems farcical to assume that anyone would draw any other conclusion from the foreword provided apart from the obvious one, namely that the War of the Ring and the Ring of Power represented World War 2 and Atomic Weapons.

I must confess to being a little dismayed by this. I have always scoffed at those who claimed allegory and symbolism where Tolkien had baldly stated it did not exist, but this foreword seems to belie that fact. Is this something that changed over time? Are there other references to this foreword in Letters or History of Middle-earth?

I'm hoping some of the Tolkien Scholars here can throw some light on this.

Thanks,
Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Frelga
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 10:42 pm
A green apple painted red
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Out on the banks
 
I've no clue about who wrote this, but there seem to be too many inaccuracies for this to be written by the author. This part I find amusing for some reason.
Quote:
Frodo and his companions of the Ring have entered the ghastly land of Mordor where Sauron guards the Fire in which the Ring of Power was forged and which alone can destroy it.
Does NOT guard the Fire, surely?

And only ONE companion entered the "ghastly" land. :whistle:

_________________

GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 09 May , 2005 11:26 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
That was NOT, I repeat, NOT, written by Tolkien.


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 3:46 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I found the following on www.cni.org once upon a time. Hammond is a respected Tolkien scholar. It is interesting that he does not express doubt or concern about the origin of the forward. It may be that because of the rush to react quickly to the infringement and Tolkien's age, it has its weaknesses. I've also wondered if this wasn't Chrisopher's first attempt. Sorry about the length, but I find the whole thing fascinating. I'm actually old enough to have owned an Ace edition before it was noticed and the controversy started. I replaced it with a Ballantine set when Tolkien made his request.
Quote:
On 19 February, Charles E. Keller wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 1995 Maurice Robinson <mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> This is much the same as what happened with the first edition of
>> Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, which Ace books reprinted since
>> there was no proper notice affixed to the original British printing.
>> The later "official" Ballentine Books edition had to include a
>> request from Tolkien about "showing courtesy" to living authors by
>> buying only the editions approved by them, etc.
>>
>> The 1956/7 text thus appears to be in the public domain, and no attempt
>> to add a new copyright date to old material will suffice for its
>> protection. You could call if fraud, but I suspect a court would merely
>> disallow any infringement claims on the basis of it being an invalid
>> copyright.
>
> I attend to this discussion group to be informed about how (c) law
> works. I am not a lawyer, but the following is what I understood to
> be the law:
>
> Prior to GATT's "negation" of portions of the 1909 copyright Act, any
> (non-U.S.) work widely distributed in the U.S. without a copyright
> notice was deemed public domain. This is what occurred in the case
> of the Lord of the Rings (LotR) by J.R.R. Tolkien. When Ace published
> the work in the U.S. without any copyright claims of their own, they
> were just following the law of the day.

Mr. Keller's post raises a number of issues. I am not a lawyer and so
cannot comment on them in a professional capacity, but as the author
of the standard bibliography and publishing history of Tolkien's works,
I am perhaps more familiar than most with the Ace Books affair. Ace
Books made the argument that "they were just following the law of the
day"; but from the point of view of Tolkien, his authorized publishers,
and today his Estate, Ace were following their own erroneous
interpretation of U.S. copyright law. Donald Wollheim of Ace Books
once said in an interview (_Lighthouse_, no. 13, 1965) that "the
Tolkien saga [_The Lord of the Rings_] had never been copyrighted in
the United States. This was no secret to me -- I had known it from
the moment I'd first bought a copy of the Houghton Mifflin [first
American] edition in a book store. . . . One glance at the page
following the title page startled me. No copyright, no date of
publication." He made much the same argument in a statement included
in the biography of Tolkien by Grotta-Kurska (1976). In fact, the
first printing of the Houghton Mifflin _Fellowship of the Ring_, the
first of the three volumes of _The Lord of the Rings_, included on its
copyright page: "Copyright, 1954, by J.R.R. Tolkien. All rights
reserved including the right to reproduce this book or parts thereof
in any form. First published in the United States 1954. . . . Printed
in Great Britain". This was not so in later printings. The first
Houghton Mifflin printing of the second volume, _The Two Towers_, had
"First published in 1954", a notice of restrictions under copyright,
and "Printed in Great Britain . . ." but no copyright line per se.
The first Houghton Mifflin printing of the third volume, _The Return
of the King_, had only "Printed in Great Britain".

Wollheim (again, from his statement quoted by Grotta-Kurska) also
noticed that Houghton Mifflin had certainly imported, by 1965, more
copies of _The Lord of the Rings_ printed in Great Britain than the
copyright law allowed under the so-called "manufacturing clause,"
under which an American publisher had six months in which to register
ad interim copyright for a foreign book written in English, and five
years in which to print his own edition in the U.S., but could not
import more than 1500 copies printed abroad. It was also clear that
the Houghton Mifflin copies had not been typeset and printed in the
U.S. However, Wollheim was wrong when he claimed that Houghton
Mifflin had not taken out U.S. copyright: Houghton Mifflin duly applied
for and received _ad interim_ copyright for the first two of the three
volumes of _The Lord of the Rings_, and for those volumes initially
imported no more than the number of copies allowed under the
"manufacturing clause". They did not do the same for _The Return of
the King_, published in the U.S. in 1956: by then there was enough
demand in the U.S. that Houghton Mifflin could sell several thousand
copies at once. This was striking while the iron was hot, as it were,
for there was no guarantee that sales would continue at that level,
and in one sense this action was in Tolkien's best interests (if poor
judgment in hindsight).

Here I quote from my _J.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography_
(St Paul's Bibliographies/Oak Knoll Books, 1993): "Tolkien's authorized
publishers were already aware [before Ace Books published their edition]
that a challenge could be made to his American copyrights on technical
grounds. They thought it unlikely that any reputable publisher would
take advantage, but in early 1965 began to take steps to secure U.S.
copyright beyond question. Tolkien was asked to provide new material
for _The Lord of the Rings_, to create a new edition which could be
[newly] copyrighted. The long-promised index also could be included,
as well as new, brief introductions to the volumes if Tolkien could be
persuaded to write them. In April 1965 rumor of the Ace Books edition
reached Houghton Mifflin, and the matter of revision became urgent. A
new edition was wanted not only to copyright, but to compete
successfully against Ace Books' copies, which were cheaply priced.
Houghton Mifflin began to investigate reprint houses and asked for
Tolkien's new material by 1 July." But Tolkien could not produce the
revisions or new material by that deadline.

After the Ace edition was published, Tolkien naturally grew indignant,
provided the revisions wanted (soon published in the Ballantine Books
paperback edition and later in hardcover in Britain and America), and
conducted a personal campaign against Ace Books in letters to American
fans, remarking on the nature of theft. Ace did not at first pay
royalties to Tolkien or his authorized publishers, but in Tolkien's
opinion the affront went further than that. He did not in any way
acknowledge, as Mr. Keller claims,


> the work to be PD when he wrote the following in his later U.S.
> "Authorized" editions:
>
> ". . . while I am still alive, my property in justice unaffected
> by copyright laws. . ."
>
> and
>
> ". . . Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors
> will purchase it and no other. . ." [BTW, "it" is referring to a
> later copyrighted "authorized" edition.]

Tolkien said, in fuller context, in his foreword to the Ballantine Books
edition: "I feel that it [_The Lord of the Rings_] is, while I am still
alive, my property in justice unaffected by copyright laws [i.e. his
property regardless of what copyright law might say -- no less a right to
'intellectual property' than we profess today]. It seems to me a grave
discourtesy, to say no more, to issue my book without even a polite note
informing me of the project. . . . However that may be, this [Ballantine
Books] paperback edition and no other has been published with my consent
and co-operation. Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living
authors will purchase it and no other." His American fans agreed, and
had harsh words for Ace Books in print. The "War over Middle-earth"
spread into the mainstream popular press as well. Within a year, Ace
gave in to public pressure, agreed to print no more copies of _The Lord
of the Rings_, and negotiated royalties to be paid to Tolkien. No
lawsuit was filed; Ace and Tolkien's authorized publishers came to an
"amicable agreement".


> Upon seeking competent legal council prior to a public (U.S. *only*)
> Internet release of the *Ace* edition of LotR I was then informed of
> the following case. The lawyer stated that this case (cited below)
> concerned LotR and it granted a valid copyright to this work. Can
> someone (presumably with access to WestLaw) enlighten this group as
> to the *legal* basis and validity of this ruling. (*If* it is in
> fact a case involving the *Ace* 195?-60ish printed edition of LotR?
> and not some other issue entirely.)
>
> The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Eisen.
> Durwood & Co. v. Tolkien, 794 F. Supp. 85, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1150
> (S.D.N.Y. 1992) affirmed without opinion, 990 F.2d 623 (2nd Cir.
> 1993).

The case did not address the Ace Books edition (1965) specifically,
but has a direct bearing on the project Mr. Keller mentions.

The plaintiff, d/b/a Ariel Books, a book packaging firm specializing
in new editions of previously published material, sought to declare
that the U.S. copyright of _The Lord of the Rings_ was invalid and
that the work was in the public domain. The argument applied only to
the first two volumes, _The Fellowship of the Ring_ and _The Two
Towers_, not to _The Return of the King_ which involved "differing
circumstances" (see above). The dispute focused on the undisputed fact
that for a number of years, during which the extension of the _ad
interim_ copyright for the two volumes, under section 9 of the 1909
Copyright Act, constituted the sole U.S. protection of the work, large
numbers of British-produced copies were distributed without a copyright
notice in the United States. The plaintiff urged that this worked to
forfeit copyright protection. On 6 April 1992, Judge Vincent L.
Broderick of the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, disagreed; in 1993, his decision was upheld on appeal.

Judge Broderick, writing in admirably clear English, made a number of
pertinent statements:

1) Section 22 of the Copyright Act of 1909, under which Houghton
Mifflin received _ad interim_ copyright protection for five years, made
no reference to any requirement of inclusion of a copyright notice on
the works involved.

2) "Great Britain had already adhered to the Universal Copyright
Convention which came into force for the United States in 1955. Under
section 9 of the Copyright Act of 1909 as of that time, this entitled
the work, which had a subsisting _ad interim_ copyright, to copyright
protection in the United States without complying with various
formalities including that of printing a copyright notice." The 1909
Act specified that upon the coming into force of the UCC in a foreign
state or nation, every book of a citizen or subject thereof in which
_ad interim_ copyright was subsisting on the effective date of said
coming into force should have copyright for 28 years from the date of
first publication abroad, without the necessity of complying with
further formalities specified in section 23 of the Act -- among which
was "printing of the copyright notice".

3) The plaintiff abandoned any claim that importation of copies printed
abroad in disregard of the (now lapsed) "manufacturing clause" (section
16 of the 1909 Act as amended) resulted in loss of copyright. "In any
event," Judge Broderick noted, "section 16 of the 1909 Act nowhere
states that forfeiture of copyright would result from its violation."

There is much more that I need not get into, except to say that Judge
Broderick bolsters his decision with numerous citations and analogies.


> What is the current (c) status of the Ace printed edition? Are
> digitized works based on the Ace edition in the PD?

It would seem to me -- on the basis at least of common sense and
courtesy (I cannot profess to know all the twists of law) -- that if
Tolkien did not forfeit U.S. copyright for any reason, then the Ace
Books edition was not legally issued, and could not now be legally
issued, on paper or in digital form, any more than it would be legal
to republish without authorization the revised edition of _The Lord
of the Rings_, the American copyright for which has never been in
question.


> Does the fact that the digitized Ace copy was to be *freely* available
> (as opposed to a commercial venture) affect the PD status?

It is my understanding that it makes no difference whether a publication
is freely available or a commercial venture: it is still a publication,
and if unauthorized amounts to theft. After all, if a work, even an
earlier edition of a work, is freely available over the Internet, some
who otherwise would have purchased copies in print might not do so,
resulting in lost royalties and profits. Copyright must apply even in
the digital medium, to protect authors and publishers. Restricting
distribution of a digitized Ace edition only to the U.S. would seem
equally irrelevant as far as the law is concerned -- if indeed such a
thing is possible (at least it brings the definition of "distribution"
into question) in a network accessible from anywhere in the world.

I would urge Mr. Keller, or whoever else intends, or intended, to
distribute the Ace Books edition to the Internet, not to do so without
first contacting the attorney for the Tolkien Estate: Mrs. Cathleen
Blackburn, Morrell, Peel & Gamlen, 1 St Giles', Oxford OX1 3JR, U.K.;
tel. 01865-242468, fax 01865-792053; no e-mail address.

Wayne G. Hammond
Wayne.G.Hammond@williams.edu

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 4:47 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I have a friend working in publishing who knows of someone who, he/she tells me, got a number of books published by a major Tolkien publisher by the simple expedient of telling them that if they did not do so, he would publish an illustrated LotR. There was apparently nothing to prevent him but the "gentlemen's agreement" that has long prevailed, and this fellow was not, it seems, a gentleman. And he had connections to some prominent illustrators.

The publisher lost nothing by it, I'm told—the books were very successful.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 6:44 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
Prim,

Over the years I have run into on-line text of LOTR that I assume is from the unprotected edition. I have passed them by, based on Tolkien's request. I'm not sure how I feel these days. He is no longer a "living author."

I would love a searchable Hobbit, LOTR, Sil, Tales, HOME, and Letters. I feel cheated that I stuffed it all into my head and it has fallen out.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 7:52 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I, too, would love those. I wish they were available for purchase somehow.

I am not terribly interested in further enriching Christopher Tolkien, but I feel compelled out of respect for J. R. R. Tolkien to follow the spirit of the law as you've done.

They don't seem to be very computer-savvy over there in Tolkien Estate Land. It may unfortunately take the death of Christopher for anything significant to change.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 9:04 am
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
IS, thanks for that indepth article on the matter and I appreciate the effort, but I'm more concerned with the Foreword quoted above. The section you quoted here is not present in my copy:
Quote:
Tolkien said, in fuller context, in his foreword to the Ballantine Books
edition: "I feel that it [_The Lord of the Rings_] is, while I am still
alive, my property in justice unaffected by copyright laws [i.e. his
property regardless of what copyright law might say -- no less a right to
'intellectual property' than we profess today]. It seems to me a grave
discourtesy, to say no more, to issue my book without even a polite note
informing me of the project. . . . However that may be, this [Ballantine
Books] paperback edition and no other has been published with my consent
and co-operation. Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living
authors will purchase it and no other." His American fans agreed, and
had harsh words for Ace Books in print. The "War over Middle-earth"
spread into the mainstream popular press as well. Within a year, Ace
gave in to public pressure, agreed to print no more copies of _The Lord
of the Rings_, and negotiated royalties to be paid to Tolkien. No
lawsuit was filed; Ace and Tolkien's authorized publishers came to an
"amicable agreement".
I assume this was present in the paperback of Fellowship but it is not in my copy of RotK. All that remains of that section is a single quote as follows:
Quote:
This paperback edition and no other has been published with my consent and co-operation. Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other."
The section quoted in my first post (and hand-typed I might add... ) is definitely suggested to have been written by Tolkien but I find it unlikely. This is the section I am most interested in. Did Tolkien write the following:
Quote:
J.R.R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings
-of which this book is the final part
-is a chronicle of the great War of the Ring, which occurred in the Third Age of Middle-earth. At that time, the One Ring, the Master of all the Rings of Power, had been held for many years by the hobbits, but was eagerly sought by the Enemy who made it.
To its wearer, the One Ring gave mastery over every living creature, but since it was devised by an evil power, in the end it inevitably corrupted anyone who attempted to use it. Out of the struggle to possess and control the One Ring, with all its ominous power, there arose a war comparable both in magnitude and in the issues involved to the great wars of our own time. And in that war, the Third Age of Middle-earth came to an end....

The Return of the King completes the story told thus far in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Aware of the dangers of the One Ring, and determined that it must not fall into the hands of the Enemy, Frodo and his companions of the Ring have entered the ghastly land of Mordor where Sauron guards the Fire in which the Ring of Power was forged and which alone can destroy it. In the battle that follows, the Ring is destroyed and the power of evil is broken. But the triumph of good is never absolute. The Hobbits can return to their Shire, but a price is exacted and the Third Age of Middle-earth comes to a close. The Age of the Dominion of Men begins, and no one can yet say whether men will find the wisdom and courage to destroy their Ring of Power or whether they will be destroyed by it.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 10:26 am
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
Concerning allegory, it is worth noting that it is a different thing from metaphor and symbolism. Tolkien says in his foreword that LOTR as a story is not an allegory at a times where too many people in his opinion viewed it as a historical allegory (about the cold war or WWII). But LOTR does contain metaphorical elements that can be applied by any reader to our world. Tolkien in his letters very often refer to these metaphorical elements: the Elves standing for Men with superior artistic abilities; the Ring as a symbol of deathlessness; Frodo as a kind of Saint, etc...

It was Tolkien's view, as he explained in his essay The Monsters and the Critics, that the use in a story of metaphorical and mythical creatures and objects allow such story to be applicable to any historical times, as they are outside of History from the onset. Only the Bible had managed to reconcile the myths and History in his mind.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 10:30 am
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Sorry, I just spotted Voronwe's response. Are you sure about that Voronwe? I know it seems unlikely but the book certainly suggests that Tolkien wrote it. Do you have a reference where Tolkien denies writing it?

Semprini, I understand the distinction but I feel that the quoted text leans very much into the allegory argument as opposed to the applicability argument.

Thanks,
Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 12:08 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
Alatar>>>but I feel that the quoted text leans very much into the allegory argument as opposed to the applicability argument.

You know I am not even sure about that (although I would be very surprised if Tolkien had actually written the quoted text).

The quoted text refers to "Tolkien's LOTR". Thus it seems to have been written by a reader or a discoverer of LOTR (Tolkien himself implies in some of his meta-literary texts about Middle-Earth that he is only the discoverer of LOTR, which has been written by Hobbits) who is applying to LOTR his own views about what LOTR is about. And this reader happens to say that in LOTR "arose a war comparable both in magnitude and in the issues involved to the great wars of our own time". This is a comparison with the then current times pertaining more to applicability than to allegory IMO. It identifies similarities between two wars, one fictitious, the other real, as if the fictitious war could teach us lessons about the real wars of this world. And LOTR does say something about power and real wars IMO. This is not the same thing as saying that LOTR is an allegory of WW2 with Sauron as Hitler or an allegory of the cold war with Sauron as Stalin.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 2:48 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5169
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Alatar, purely my opinion. :) Though rather strongly expressed.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 4:56 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Sorry, I just realised I left out an important part.

On the very first page is the following text:

Quote:
This is the only complete and authorised U.S. paperbound edition of the trilogy, "The Lord of the Rings", containing all of the original text and maps, a new Foreword, additional Prologue, Glossary and Index by the author, J.R.R. Tolkien.

[See Next Page]
The next page then has the text
Quote:
J.R.R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings
-of which this book is the final part
-is a chronicle of the great War of the Ring, which occurred in the Third Age of Middle-earth. At that time, the One Ring, the Master of all the Rings of Power, had been held for many years by the hobbits, but was eagerly sought by the Enemy who made it.
To its wearer, the One Ring gave mastery over every living creature, but since it was devised by an evil power, in the end it inevitably corrupted anyone who attempted to use it. Out of the struggle to possess and control the One Ring, with all its ominous power, there arose a war comparable both in magnitude and in the issues involved to the great wars of our own time. And in that war, the Third Age of Middle-earth came to an end....

The Return of the King completes the story told thus far in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Aware of the dangers of the One Ring, and determined that it must not fall into the hands of the Enemy, Frodo and his companions of the Ring have entered the ghastly land of Mordor where Sauron guards the Fire in which the Ring of Power was forged and which alone can destroy it. In the battle that follows, the Ring is destroyed and the power of evil is broken. But the triumph of good is never absolute. The Hobbits can return to their Shire, but a price is exacted and the Third Age of Middle-earth comes to a close. The Age of the Dominion of Men begins, and no one can yet say whether men will find the wisdom and courage to destroy their Ring of Power or whether they will be destroyed by it.
Again, I find it unlikely that Tolkien wrote these words, but that is certainly what's implied.

Sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse here....

Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 5:12 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Does it say "Foreword" at the top, Alatar? If it doesn't, then it isn't the Foreword by Tolkien. It sounds to me like a blurb, which would have been written by some anonymous employee of the publisher. It would probably have been the first page of the book, just inside the cover, except that they wanted to give that position to the notice that this was the authorized edition.

Generally everything written by the author of a book—everything that's considered actually a part of the book—comes after the title page.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 5:29 pm
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
Alatar, that bit is most definitely not written by Tolkien. I have those same editions, and the "Special Foreword by the author" refers to the bit that starts "This tale grew in the telling."

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 6:56 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
All I have is an almost 40 year old memory of there being text in the paperback that was interpreted as contradicting Tolkien's earlier statement, although I agree with Semprini that it's not necessarily a contradiction.

My Ballantines are long gone. My oldest edition is hardback from no later than the mid '70s. It is the 12th printing of the revised (second edition) and only contains the "real" Tolkien forward.

I do remember the words Alatar is quoting. Since the whole discussion would have preceded the internet by many years, I doubt if there is much evidence.

As stated in the article I quoted, there was a lack of promptness on Tolkien's part in reacting to the Ace publication, so maybe Tolkien hadn't prepared his forward in time for printing in the early edition(s) and someone created a temporary substitute.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 7:24 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I agree that the section in question seems more like a 'blurb' than a foreward. It would be especially odd, I think, for Tolkien himself to begin a foreward referring to his own work this way:

J.R.R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings
-of which this book is the final part



My reaction is very strongly that it doesn't sound like Tolkien, and I am equally dismayed by the contradictions it contains (to the other foreward we are more familiar with).


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 10 May , 2005 8:23 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Thank God for that... I really was very annoyed by it. My gut instinct was that Tolkien would not have written that but I just wanted some confirmation.

All is well with the world once again.

Alatar

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 18 posts ]
Return to “Literary Rambles: There & Back Again...”
Jump to: