Reader's Companion to LotR
Christopher Kreuzer
recently (well, in the UK at least). It is called 'The Lord of the
Rings - A Reader's Companion' and is by Wayne Hammond and Christina
Scull. It is essentially an annotated LotR. Looks good, though I am
still reading through it. I was thinking of posting a few comments, but
wanted to ask who here has a copy?
I'm also confused about the difference between this book and the
forthcoming "Guide and Companion". Does anyone know what the difference
is?
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Stan Brown
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Just wanted to start a thread about the new book that has been published
> recently (well, in the UK at least). It is called 'The Lord of the
> Rings - A Reader's Companion' and is by Wayne Hammond and Christina
> Scull. It is essentially an annotated LotR.
Query: Is it an annotated LotR (like /The Annotated Hobbit/), or a
set of annotations _to_ LotR? In other words, does it include the
full text with annotations?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Christopher Kreuzer
> Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:08:22 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> Just wanted to start a thread about the new book that has been
>> published recently (well, in the UK at least). It is called 'The
>> Lord of the Rings - A Reader's Companion' and is by Wayne Hammond
>> and Christina Scull. It is essentially an annotated LotR.
>
> Query: Is it an annotated LotR (like /The Annotated Hobbit/), or a
> set of annotations _to_ LotR? In other words, does it include the
> full text with annotations?
It is a separate book. They give page references to LotR to go with it.
But I've managed to do without looking stuff up so far, as most of the
stuff they comment on is quite easy to recognise, even out of context.
Conrad Dunkerson
> It is a separate book. They give page references to LotR to go with it.
> But I've managed to do without looking stuff up so far, as most of the
> stuff they comment on is quite easy to recognise, even out of context.
What is incredible is that the book is over 900 pages long WITHOUT
incorporating the text of LotR... though they do quote a short
identifying phrase for each passage they are commenting on, so I suppose
there is a fair portion of the LotR text included after all.
Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm>:
> Query: Is it an annotated LotR (like /The Annotated Hobbit/), or a
> set of annotations _to_ LotR? In other words, does it include the
> full text with annotations?
Thanks to Christopher and Conrad for answering my questions.
Maybe some day this book will be published here in the States. :-)
Linards Ticmanis
Is it just a work of lots of trivia and tidbits and stuff, or is there
something substantial in it?
--
Linards Ticmanis
Conrad Dunkerson
> Is it just a work of lots of trivia and tidbits and stuff, or is there
> something substantial in it?
There is a great deal of 'substantial' information in it. I could well
see discussions where something like 'RC 969' might be used to answer a
question (in this case, 'Why was Faramir called 'Lord of Emyn Arnen'?').
It goes a good long ways towards answering many of the questions
discussed in these newsgroups and even many which HAVEN'T been discussed
in these newsgroups.
That said, it is comparatively 'light' on evidence for the 'great
debates'... presenting a quick outline, a few evidences, and a personal
interpretation as opposed to the reams of conflicting citations and
possibilities we often use. It wasn't meant to be that kind of analysis.
I'm still not sure how much NEW information it contains... that is,
things JRRT wrote about Middle-earth which we didn't already know from
other sources. I know there IS such material in the book and I'm
starting to get the impression that there is a fair amount of it... but
because it is all spread out in 'random' snips and snatches as it
relates to the LotR text it is difficult to pin down the scope.
Thus far I've been using the volume as a quick reference to look up
various passages and see what it has on them. I think I won't be able
to guage the full scope of it until I read through it completely.
Wayne Hammond
> Is it just a work of lots of trivia and tidbits and stuff, or is there
> something substantial in it?
To quote the blurb as it correctly appears on Amazon.com and Amazon.ca
(but not, at the moment, on Amazon.co.uk):
"In The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion internationally
acclaimed scholars Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull examine
Tolkien's masterpiece chapter by chapter, offering expert insights into
its evolution, structure, and meaning. They discuss in close detail
important literary and historical influences on the development of The
Lord of the Rings, connections between that work and other writings by
Tolkien, errors and inconsistencies, significant changes to the text
during its fifty years of publication, archaic and unusual words used
by Tolkien, and words and passages in his invented languages of
Middle-earth. Thousands of notes, keyed to standard editions of The
Lord of the Rings but universally accessible, reveal the richness and
complexity of one of the most popular works of fiction in our time. In
addition to their own expertise and that of other scholars and critics,
Hammond and Scull frequently draw upon comments by Tolkien himself,
made in letters to family, friends, and enthusiasts, in draft texts of
The Lord of the Rings, and in works written in later years which
amplify or illuminate characters and events in the story. Extensive
reference is made also to writings by Tolkien not previously or widely
published, including elaborate time-schemes, an unfinished manuscript
index to The Lord of the Rings, and most notably, the important
Nomenclature or guide to names in The Lord of the Rings prepared for
the use of translators, long out of print and now newly transcribed and
printed in its entirety. With these resources at hand, even the most
seasoned reader of The Lord of the Rings will come to a greater
enjoyment and appreciation of Tolkien's magnificent achievement."
The American edition from Houghton Mifflin, identical in almost every
respect to the British hardback edition from HarperCollins, is due to
be published on December 27th. HarperCollins have published both in
hardback and paperback, and have issued the _Reader's Companion_ both
separately and with _The Lord of the Rings_ in boxed sets.
To answer Christopher's question at the start of this thread:
>I'm also confused about the difference between this book and the
>forthcoming "Guide and Companion". Does anyone know what the difference
>is?
It's unfortunate that both _The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's
Companion_ (the book of annotations just out in the U.K.) and _The
J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide_ (a two-volume reference book now
due to be published in autumn 2006) have "Companion" in the title. This
wasn't the authors' decision. Anyway, the contents are very different.
The first volume of _The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide_ will be an
extensive chronology (c. 800 pp.) of Tolkien's life and works, while
the second volume (of about equal length) will be a "who's who" of
people important in Tolkien's life, a "where's where" of places he knew
and loved, a "what's what" of themes and ideas related to his works,
analyses of his writings, lists of his poetry and art, etc., etc. It's
because of all the et ceteras, and work on the 50th anniversary _Lord
of the Rings_ and the _Reader's Companion_, that the _Companion and
Guide_ has been delayed so many times.
Wayne Hammond
Wayne Hammond
> I'm still not sure how much NEW information it contains... that is,
> things JRRT wrote about Middle-earth which we didn't already know from
> other sources. I know there IS such material in the book and I'm
> starting to get the impression that there is a fair amount of it... but
> because it is all spread out in 'random' snips and snatches as it
> relates to the LotR text it is difficult to pin down the scope.
There is a fair amount that wasn't previously published, especially the
greater part of Tolkien's unfinished index to _The Lord of the Rings_
and text from his working time-schemes, as well as the "Nomenclature"
re-transcribed from the original manuscript/typescript, superseding the
version published in the original _Tolkien Compass_ and long out of
print.
Wayne
Christopher Kreuzer
> Linards Ticmanis wrote:
>
>> Is it just a work of lots of trivia and tidbits and stuff, or is
>> there something substantial in it?
>
> There is a great deal of 'substantial' information in it. I could well
> see discussions where something like 'RC 969' might be used to answer
> a question (in this case, 'Why was Faramir called 'Lord of Emyn
> Arnen'?').
Your "RC 969" references the RC annotation for page 969 of LotR (using
their page numbering). How would you reference the pages of RC outside
of the LotR annotations? I've given two page references below in the
form (RC, x) where x is the page number in RC (this assumes that
paperback and hardback copies of RC have the same pagination). And I've
used your format RC x to refer to an RC annotation of page x of LotR.
> It goes a good long ways towards answering many of the
> questions discussed in these newsgroups and even many which HAVEN'T
> been discussed in these newsgroups.
>
> That said, it is comparatively 'light' on evidence for the 'great
> debates'... presenting a quick outline, a few evidences, and a
> personal interpretation as opposed to the reams of conflicting
> citations and possibilities we often use. It wasn't meant to be that
> kind of analysis.
By "quick outline", you mean something like the annotation RC 330 "the
shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"? :-)
[I had to quote the passage because there are 5 annotations for that
page. This is slightly annoying when a passage elsewhere in the book
refers you to the annotation for page x, and you then have to work out
which annotation, of sometimes several for that page, is being
referenced.]
BTW, do you have the page reference for the bits where you said there
was "new stuff" on the Uruk-hai question? I looked in the obvious
places, but seem to have missed it.
> I'm still not sure how much NEW information it contains... that is,
> things JRRT wrote about Middle-earth which we didn't already know from
> other sources. I know there IS such material in the book and I'm
> starting to get the impression that there is a fair amount of it...
> but because it is all spread out in 'random' snips and snatches as it
> relates to the LotR text it is difficult to pin down the scope.
The impression I get is that lots of it is glossing words (as the blurb
says), and using quotes from /Letters/ to illustrate certain points,
plus quite a number of references to how the text changed over the years
(either Tolkien adding changes, or Tolkien or later editors correcting
printing mistakes).
And then, as you say, among all that (some of which is very interesting,
and some of which won't be new at all to seasoned readers), there is
some very interesting new stuff, plus enough obscure stuff that even the
seasoned reader will sit up and take notice.
I've just read the bit about Gandalf being "servant of the Secret Fire"
and wielder of "the flame of Anor", which was very interesting.
> Thus far I've been using the volume as a quick reference to look up
> various passages and see what it has on them. I think I won't be able
> to guage the full scope of it until I read through it completely.
I'm thinking of using highlighters of different colours to mark out
different sorts of annotations. I've never been able to bring myself to
truly scribble on my copies of LotR, but maybe I can bring myself to
annotate these annotations!
And as you said earlier, not everything is mentioned; there is stuff
missing, though whether that was to save space (the authors say they
couldn't include everything they wanted to include) or whether there are
genuine omissions, or whether stuff that might have been mentioned is
too speculative, I'm not sure. But the authors do ask people to send in
corrections and suggestions for further annotations (RC, xiv).
I also noticed a funny mistake by Tolkien in his potted description of
the plot of LotR (the previously unpublished, except in French, portions
of the letter to Milton Waldman): "The story reaches its end [...] in
the celebration of victory in which all the Nine Companions are
reunited." (RC, 748)
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1132539143.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Wayne
Hammond" <Wayne.G...@williams.edu> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
About my Christmas wish-list . . . ;-)
Thank you for the explanations.
> It's unfortunate that both _The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's
> Companion_ (the book of annotations just out in the U.K.) and _The
> J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide_ (a two-volume reference book
> now due to be published in autumn 2006) have "Companion" in the
> title.
And not only that, but Foster's /The Complete Guide to Middle-earth/
has 'guide' in the title and is often referred to simply as 'the
guide', and there is one /The Complete Tolkien Companion/ by J.E.A.
Tyler making it even more confusing ;-)
With that in mind, we might as well make an intelligent choice from the
outset of what to call these two new books.
If I may be as bold, I suggest that we abbreviate the titles to simply
"RC" (/The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion/) and "C&G" (/The
J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide/).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left
the path of wisdom.
- Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Wayne Hammond
> Your "RC 969" references the RC annotation for page 969 of LotR (using
> their page numbering). How would you reference the pages of RC outside
> of the LotR annotations? I've given two page references below in the
> form (RC, x) where x is the page number in RC (this assumes that
> paperback and hardback copies of RC have the same pagination). And I've
> used your format RC x to refer to an RC annotation of page x of LotR.
On the Lambengolmor newsgroup, for discussion of Elvish, the convention
for citing the _Reader's Companion_ immediately became "RC:[page number
of the _Companion_]", which seems to me clear and direct. The paperback
edition of RC has the same pagination as the hardback, it's simply
photographically reduced from the hardback setting.
> > That said, it is comparatively 'light' on evidence for the 'great
> > debates'... presenting a quick outline, a few evidences, and a
> > personal interpretation as opposed to the reams of conflicting
> > citations and possibilities we often use. It wasn't meant to be that
> > kind of analysis.
You can imagine how long the RC would be -- how many volumes! -- if we
had tried to account for every interpretation and analysis that has
been put forward, in print or online. Also we wanted to focus, as far
as possible, on the evidence that Tolkien provided, and his own
comments on the various issues, rather than on interpretation.
> [I had to quote the passage because there are 5 annotations for that
> page. This is slightly annoying when a passage elsewhere in the book
> refers you to the annotation for page x, and you then have to work out
> which annotation, of sometimes several for that page, is being
> referenced.]
We understood that when devising the reference system, but had to allow
for the possibility of different typesettings of RC (originally the
paperback edition was to be reset and reformatted), with different page
breaks, in which cross-references to specific pages would have to be
changed to suit. In such cases the index would have to be altered, of
course, but that's self-contained.
> And as you said earlier, not everything is mentioned; there is stuff
> missing, though whether that was to save space (the authors say they
> couldn't include everything they wanted to include) or whether there are
> genuine omissions, or whether stuff that might have been mentioned is
> too speculative, I'm not sure. But the authors do ask people to send in
> corrections and suggestions for further annotations (RC, xiv).
We were originally asked for a book of about 450 pages; they got 976.
We could have kept going, and now that it's out, other points are being
brought to our attention. But the book couldn't be so long as to be
unreasonably expensive, and HarperCollins wanted to include it in boxed
sets with LR itself, thus it needed to be about the thickness of one
volume of LR (when in three volumes). It's a combination: we left some
things of lesser import out to save space, and inevitably we overlooked
some things that we might have included, and as I say, some things were
just too speculative to include.
> I also noticed a funny mistake by Tolkien in his potted description of
> the plot of LotR (the previously unpublished, except in French, portions
> of the letter to Milton Waldman): "The story reaches its end [...] in
> the celebration of victory in which all the Nine Companions are
> reunited." (RC, 748)
We hadn't thought of that, but then we weren't annotating the letter,
which we include as an appendix.
Wayne
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>> Your "RC 969" references the RC annotation for page 969 of LotR
>> (using their page numbering). How would you reference the pages of
>> RC outside of the LotR annotations? I've given two page references
>> below in the form (RC, x) where x is the page number in RC (this
>> assumes that paperback and hardback copies of RC have the same
>> pagination). And I've used your format RC x to refer to an RC
>> annotation of page x of LotR.
>
> On the Lambengolmor newsgroup, for discussion of Elvish, the
> convention for citing the _Reader's Companion_ immediately became
> "RC:[page number of the _Companion_]", which seems to me clear and
> direct. The paperback edition of RC has the same pagination as the
> hardback, it's simply photographically reduced from the hardback
> setting.
When I showed somone my copy, their first comment was on the size of the
print... :-)
>>> That said, it is comparatively 'light' on evidence for the 'great
>>> debates'... presenting a quick outline, a few evidences, and a
>>> personal interpretation as opposed to the reams of conflicting
>>> citations and possibilities we often use. It wasn't meant to be
>>> that kind of analysis.
>
> You can imagine how long the RC would be -- how many volumes! -- if we
> had tried to account for every interpretation and analysis that has
> been put forward, in print or online. Also we wanted to focus, as far
> as possible, on the evidence that Tolkien provided, and his own
> comments on the various issues, rather than on interpretation.
Does the 'Companion and Guide' (as opposed to the RC) venture more into
looking at the various interpretations? That's the impression I got from
the "...'what's what' of themes and ideas related to his works, analyses
of his writings..." bit in your description of the 'Companion and
Guide'.
<snip>
>> I also noticed a funny mistake by Tolkien in his potted description
>> of the plot of LotR (the previously unpublished, except in French,
>> portions of the letter to Milton Waldman): "The story reaches its
>> end [...] in the celebration of victory in which all the Nine
>> Companions are reunited." (RC, 748)
>
> We hadn't thought of that, but then we weren't annotating the letter,
> which we include as an appendix.
It does seem strange though. Can it really just be a mistake by Tolkien?
He does mention the death of Boromir earlier in the letter. And the use
of the word 'Companions' is consistent with his use of the phrase
'Company of the Ring' (indeed, you contrast company and fellowship in
your comment on the phrase "Fellowship of the Ring" [RC:646]).
One other thing I was wondering, if I may ask, is how did you decide on
questions of hyphenation, when standardising the textual variants of
spelling, capitalisation and so on? The particular example I had in mind
was the word 'greensward'. I've lost the page reference (*), but I seem
to remember a comment where you said that you regularized the spelling
to greensward (with the variants presumably being 'green-sward' and
'green sward'. I am sure there are very good arguments for spelling it
greensward (though Parth Galen would seem to make a case for it being
two words), but I find the loss of the hyphen makes it more difficult to
decide how to pronounce the word if you encounter it for the first time
(greens-ward, as in for-ward, or green-sward). I believe 'sward' is
pronounced sw-ah-d (where 'ah' is like 'r'), as opposed to swore-d, but
I may be imagining this.
(*) Found it! It is the change listed for page 334, in the bit about
changes for the 2005 edition of LotR [RC:808]. This may seem incredibly
ironic, but the way the line breaks happened here, the comment appears
to be saying, in essence, that no change has happened: "He bowed, and
turned away, and hastened back up the green-sward > He bowed, and turned
away, and hastened back up the green-sward ['green-sward >
'greensward']". It appears that the layout of the book (which uses
hyphens when a word breaks over two lines) has resulted in an
unfortunate (almost malicious) placing of a line break that has
reinserted the hyphen that was taken out of 'green-sward'!
[I guess this is the point where curses are rained down on the person
who, way back when, originally thought of using hyphens to break words
between two lines... Who knows, maybe publishers have a different name
for the line that breaks words between two lines, but they look the same
to me.]
That was an incredibly niggling comment, wasn't it? In mitigation, I
will say that my overall reaction so far to /Reader's Companion/ has
been:
"Christmas has come early!" :-)
Conrad Dunkerson
> Your "RC 969" references the RC annotation for page 969 of LotR (using
> their page numbering). How would you reference the pages of RC outside
> of the LotR annotations?
Hadn't thought about it, but what Wayne said makes sense... the RC page
numbers themselves are a more unique scheme (provided future versions
continue to keep the same page numbering). Possibly something like 'RC
634-969 Prince of Ithilien' for more precise referencing (as I see you
use below).
> By "quick outline", you mean something like the annotation RC 330 "the
> shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"? :-)
Right... like that. It covers the bases, but NOTHING like some other
analyses of that passage. As Wayne said, putting in that level of
detail for every disputed point would have made the book prohibitively long.
> BTW, do you have the page reference for the bits where you said there
> was "new stuff" on the Uruk-hai question? I looked in the obvious
> places, but seem to have missed it.
Not where you'd expect.
"...the index covers only the names of places, natural features, and
buildings." RC lxxxi
This description of the contents of JRRT's unfinished index would seem
to rule out the 'Uruks = Uruk-hai' entry from UT having been written by
JRRT. However, I noticed that later in the book there is mention of an
index entry for Amroth as 'a Prince of the Sylvan Elves in the Elder
Days' (paraphrasing from memory)... which might suggest that the index
did include a few things other than place names and such.
> I'm thinking of using highlighters of different colours to mark out
> different sorts of annotations. I've never been able to bring myself to
> truly scribble on my copies of LotR, but maybe I can bring myself to
> annotate these annotations!
Yes, I definitely foresee much of the same. I plan to get a hardcopy
version when it comes out in the US for that purpose. Already I've
added 'Bolg and Azog' to my paperback copy in the section discussing the
longevity of Orcs (in connection with the Gorbag / Shagrat
conversation). Highlighting to make the various 'Index' /
'Nomenclature' / 'Scheme' references stand out makes sense.
Wayne Hammond
> "...the index covers only the names of places, natural features, and
> buildings." RC lxxxi
>
> This description of the contents of JRRT's unfinished index would seem
> to rule out the 'Uruks = Uruk-hai' entry from UT having been written by
> JRRT. However, I noticed that later in the book there is mention of an
> index entry for Amroth as 'a Prince of the Sylvan Elves in the Elder
> Days' (paraphrasing from memory)... which might suggest that the index
> did include a few things other than place names and such.
The index entry for _Amroth_ is still for the place name. It explains
that the place name derived from a personal name!
Wayne
Wayne Hammond
> Does the 'Companion and Guide' (as opposed to the RC) venture more into
> looking at the various interpretations? That's the impression I got from
> the "...'what's what' of themes and ideas related to his works, analyses
> of his writings..." bit in your description of the 'Companion and
> Guide'.
Well, we're citing commentary that seems to us most important for the
particular subject under discussion, and pointing to a wide variety of
sources. That's "various interpretations" though by no means all of
them.
> It does seem strange though. Can it really just be a mistake by Tolkien?
> He does mention the death of Boromir earlier in the letter. And the use
> of the word 'Companions' is consistent with his use of the phrase
> 'Company of the Ring' (indeed, you contrast company and fellowship in
> your comment on the phrase "Fellowship of the Ring" [RC:646]).
Sure it can be a mistake. Tolkien did nod occasionally.
> One other thing I was wondering, if I may ask, is how did you decide on
> questions of hyphenation, when standardising the textual variants of
> spelling, capitalisation and so on? The particular example I had in mind
> was the word 'greensward'. I've lost the page reference (*), but I seem
> to remember a comment where you said that you regularized the spelling
> to greensward (with the variants presumably being 'green-sward' and
> 'green sward'. I am sure there are very good arguments for spelling it
> greensward (though Parth Galen would seem to make a case for it being
> two words), but I find the loss of the hyphen makes it more difficult to
> decide how to pronounce the word if you encounter it for the first time
> (greens-ward, as in for-ward, or green-sward). I believe 'sward' is
> pronounced sw-ah-d (where 'ah' is like 'r'), as opposed to swore-d, but
> I may be imagining this.
The hyphen was taken out of "green-sward" because it was a stray, it
wasn't meant to be there. _Greensward_ is never hyphened. This wasn't a
question of Tolkien's usage, though if it had been, we would have
searched the text of LR for instances of the variant forms, to see if a
clear preference by Tolkien suggested itself; and if necessary, we
would have checked manuscripts, typescripts, and proofs of LR in the
Marquette collection, and maybe other published writings. The precise
vowel sound in _sward_ undoubtedly varies from region to region, but
according to the Concise Oxford it's supposed to be -aw.
> (*) Found it! It is the change listed for page 334, in the bit about
> changes for the 2005 edition of LotR [RC:808]. This may seem incredibly
> ironic, but the way the line breaks happened here, the comment appears
> to be saying, in essence, that no change has happened: "He bowed, and
> turned away, and hastened back up the green-sward > He bowed, and turned
> away, and hastened back up the green-sward ['green-sward >
> 'greensward']". It appears that the layout of the book (which uses
> hyphens when a word breaks over two lines) has resulted in an
> unfortunate (almost malicious) placing of a line break that has
> reinserted the hyphen that was taken out of 'green-sward'!
It is ironic -- we hadn't noticed that! -- but it also confirms the
wisdom of describing the textual change after the pair of quotations.
> [I guess this is the point where curses are rained down on the person
> who, way back when, originally thought of using hyphens to break words
> between two lines... Who knows, maybe publishers have a different name
> for the line that breaks words between two lines, but they look the same
> to me.]
No, not at all. The "green-sward > greensward" after the quotations
makes everything clear.
> That was an incredibly niggling comment, wasn't it?
Yes, but not unusual in this business, and in fact very Tolkienian.
Wayne
Conrad Dunkerson
> The index entry for _Amroth_ is still for the place name. It explains
> that the place name derived from a personal name!
So... Cerin Amroth or Dol Amroth.
Blast! :]
Guthlaf
time a re-read LotR but I still found it useful by itself.
The previously unpublished correspondance, notes and also the comments
provided by Christopher Tolkien make the book worth its weight in gold.
Looking forward to the Companion and Guide. It's a pity it has been delayed
again, but I'm sure I'll be at the bookshop first thing in the morning when
it is released
David
Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GQ3gf.12279$Lw5....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Chris Kern
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:30:43 -0500 from Stan Brown
><the_sta...@fastmail.fm>:
>> Query: Is it an annotated LotR (like /The Annotated Hobbit/), or a
>> set of annotations _to_ LotR? In other words, does it include the
>> full text with annotations?
>
>Thanks to Christopher and Conrad for answering my questions.
>
>Maybe some day this book will be published here in the States. :-)
If you order it from amazon.co.uk it's only $31 (roughly) including
shipping for the hardcover version and even cheaper for the paperback
version. I paid almost $30 a piece for my hardcover HoME books so
that seems like a pretty good deal to me.
-Chris
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Sure it can be a mistake. Tolkien did nod occasionally.
For some reason I first encountered that phrase as something like "Even
Homer nods". I'm now wondering if it was originally applied to Homer, or
even if it is most often applied to Homer, rather than just being a
general description of a tired person nodding off to sleep and making a
mistake.
Wayne Hammond <Wayne.G...@williams.edu> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>> One other thing I was wondering, if I may ask, is how did you decide
>> on questions of hyphenation, when standardising the textual variants
>> of spelling, capitalisation and so on? The particular example I had
>> in mind was the word 'greensward'. I've lost the page reference (*),
>> but I seem to remember a comment where you said that you regularized
>> the spelling to greensward (with the variants presumably being
>> 'green-sward' and 'green sward'. I am sure there are very good
>> arguments for spelling it greensward (though Parth Galen would seem
>> to make a case for it being two words), but I find the loss of the
>> hyphen makes it more difficult to decide how to pronounce the word
>> if you encounter it for the first time (greens-ward, as in for-ward,
>> or green-sward). I believe 'sward' is pronounced sw-ah-d (where 'ah'
>> is like 'r'), as opposed to swore-d, but I may be imagining this.
>
> The hyphen was taken out of "green-sward" because it was a stray, it
> wasn't meant to be there. _Greensward_ is never hyphened. This wasn't
> a question of Tolkien's usage, though if it had been, we would have
> searched the text of LR for instances of the variant forms, to see if
> a clear preference by Tolkien suggested itself; and if necessary, we
> would have checked manuscripts, typescripts, and proofs of LR in the
> Marquette collection, and maybe other published writings. The precise
> vowel sound in _sward_ undoubtedly varies from region to region, but
> according to the Concise Oxford it's supposed to be -aw.
When did greensward appear as its own word? I could only find this for
sward (which I guess is synonymous), as opposed to greensward (not
having the OED to hand):
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sward
Which traces the history of the word back to things like rind of bacon
and walrus skin! It also includes this interesting bit: "cf. O.N.
grassvörðr, Dan. grønsvær "greensward")."
And a bit of trivia: the plan for New York's Central Park was called the
Greensward Plan!
<snip>
> No, not at all. The "green-sward > greensward" after the quotations
> makes everything clear.
Yes, that does make it clear. Thanks.
Stan Brown
sent to the cited author.]
Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:31:47 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> For some reason I first encountered that phrase as something like "Even
> Homer nods". I'm now wondering if it was originally applied to Homer, or
> even if it is most often applied to Homer, rather than just being a
> general description of a tired person nodding off to sleep and making a
> mistake.
From the invaluable /Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable/, well
worth picking up from a used-book shop:
"Homer sometimes nods. Even the best of us is liable to make
mistakes. The line is from Horace's /De Arte Poetica/ (359):
"Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus,
Verum operi longo fas est obrepere somnum.
"(I think it shame when the worthy Homer nods; but in so long a work
it is allowable if drowsiness comes on.)"
Steuard Jensen
<TNVgf.13901$Lw5....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> When did greensward appear as its own word? I could only find this for
> sward (which I guess is synonymous), as opposed to greensward (not
> having the OED to hand):
Happily, I _do_ have the OED to hand (as my university has a
subscription). The earliest use of the word that they cite was in
1600, in the form "green sord"; in 1616 it appears as a single word in
the form "greenswarth". They give other quotations, too; among those,
the modern "greensward(s)" seems to have stabilized as of 1661.
Steuard Jensen
ssmmbfcs
Wayne Hammond ha escrito:
> The American edition from Houghton Mifflin, identical in almost every
> respect to the British hardback edition from HarperCollins, is due to
> be published on December 27th. HarperCollins have published both in
> hardback and paperback, and have issued the _Reader's Companion_ both
> separately and with _The Lord of the Rings_ in boxed sets.
>
Will Houghton Mifflin publish only separately the Reader's Companion or
will be also a boxed set version?