a little prob [Archive]

Galahira_May

12-30-2001, 08:28 PM

I just noted this in two different editions of the books.

Older version:

One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

Newer edition:
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Perhaps the new editors felt it necessary. :confused:

mirrille

12-30-2001, 10:08 PM

I don't understand.
Where is this written in your editions. In the text? The front as a teaser? My copy has the whole "3 rings for the elvenkings.." before the story starts. I don't know where you are talking about.

Galahira_May

12-30-2001, 10:19 PM

Its in the text itself, when Gandalf is asking Frodo if there is any writing on the ring. I was majorly confused. My bro has the newer edition, i picked up my older copy in a second hand bookstore.

HOBBIT

12-30-2001, 10:19 PM

erm...its all there. nothing in that phrase is changed in any edition..

Galahira_May

12-30-2001, 10:32 PM

but there are 2 lines of the poem originally....i dont understand *sighs*:(

Sister Golden Hair

12-30-2001, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Galahira_May
but there are 2 lines of the poem originally....i dont understand *sighs*:( From my version, which is very old:

Three rings for Elven Kings under the sky
Seven for the Dwarf Lords in their halls of stone
Nine for mortal Men doomed to die
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne

In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie

One ring to rule them all
One ring to find them
One ring to bring them all
And in the darkness bind them

In the land of Mordor
Where the shadows lie

This is the poem, as far as I know in every edition. It has never changed.

andustar

12-31-2001, 02:24 PM

I agree with you, Sister Golden Hair. Maybe if you quoted the sentances before and after so that we understand what you mean?:confused:

Galahira_May

12-31-2001, 07:08 PM

I found this contradiction in the text itself, not before the book begins.

HOBBIT

01-01-2002, 02:23 AM

watcha talking about? I just picked up my new edition here..........page 55..........hmm ITS ALL THERE. Are you talking about the new paper back edition with Frodo holding sting on the cover and Saruman, Galadriel and Aragorn (or is it Boromir) on the top of the back cover? If so, what you are refering to is on page 55....and it is indeed all there. I suggest you go back and look again. Read the whole thing...

Galahira_May

01-01-2002, 04:13 PM

Let me see if i can make this clearer...
My brother has one line on pg 55 of his edition..and i was reading aloud with him one day and it came up.

Ya know,, nevermind...pretend im visible.shoot me if ya care. :rolleyes:

HOBBIT

01-01-2002, 04:51 PM

yeah...sorry that you were mistaken. Like i said, on page 55 its all there.

Kevin McIntyre

01-01-2002, 07:57 PM

There is a change in the text in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past". When Frodo observes the writing on the ring, he say's "I can not read these fiery letters." Gandalf replies "No but I can....is what is said,close enough:" then comes the change. In my Ballantine edition of the FOTR (67th printing 1978) there is a two line excerpt of the full ring poem; however in the Houghton Mifflin single volume edition (1999) just the single line appears. In both cases Gandalf continues "it is only two lines of a verse long know to Elven-lore:" and then the entire poem is presented. Seems to me this is an error in the new edition, but who can tell. Does really make a difference though.

HOBBIT

01-01-2002, 08:18 PM

Thank you so much Kevin McIntyre you are right!

Check out page 55 in teh new edition and 81 (well in mine anyway). I couldn't understand what that other person was talking about, but you cleared it up nicely. What they mean is BEFORE the whole poem.

HOBBIT

01-01-2002, 08:21 PM

also on page 89 and 75 on some of my other editions...they have two lines....hmm I wonder why in the new edition definately on page 55 they changed it to one. Go figure.

KGamgee

01-01-2002, 08:51 PM

Mine is on page 75 and it has 2 lines, then some dialouge, then the whole thing. Everybody is CONFUSED!:confused:

HOBBIT

01-01-2002, 09:37 PM

EVERYONE READ:
No, no. NO ONE IS CONFUSED. All those page numbers I gave were of the editions that HAD the two line text before the poem thingy. The edition that has 1 line text before the poem thingy is the newest BB edition page 55. You know, the one that they basically only sell (for the most part)in book stores. Who is confused now? Check out Shadow of the past. Now I get it...you all should too.

andustar

01-11-2002, 08:58 AM

I get it too :) thanks Kevin McIntyre ! I wonder why it was changed ...

orald

01-12-2002, 11:24 PM

Kevin,I also have several editions,the latest being the Houghton Mifflin,and it gives a possible reason.It is a all in one book,it has a section entitled"NOTE ON THE TEXT"it states there has yet to be an error free edition,it goes into great detail about the painstaking process,to correct typographical,and and reference errors.Which Houghton Mifflin edition do you have?I'd love to have the nine volume set,bound in black leather,with the lidless eye ingraved in red.My oldest edition is 1971 Canadian paperback,and it doesn't have the contradiction that your version has Galahira_May,hang onto it,you never know how much someone will pay for an unusual copy years from now if its in good shape.Card collecting teaches you,they'll buy anything.

ringbearer

01-12-2002, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by orald
I'd love to have the nine volume set,bound in black leather,with the lidless eye ingraved in red.

This sounds Wonderfull! Is it available? If you know a web site, send me a link through a PM!

orald

01-13-2002, 12:44 AM

sorry ringbearer,its a seven volume set,I guess this is the way Tolkien originally intended for them to be published.This pic doesn't do them justice.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0618037667/reviews/104-9805469-2230356

ringbearer

01-13-2002, 12:50 AM

Thanks! I've seen that one(sigh...I was hoping for soft leather...like a Bible...wouldn't that be great!)

bropous

01-13-2002, 01:11 AM

LOL, ringbearer, the way some folks are reacting to the way the film version was made, you'd think it WAS the Bible!

Kevin McIntyre

01-13-2002, 01:21 AM

isn't it?

ringbearer

01-13-2002, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by bropous
LOL, ringbearer, the way some folks are reacting to the way the film version was made, you'd think it WAS the Bible!

I was not kidding...I have heard rumors of "Red, soft-leather bound editions! I used "The Bible" to help describe what I am looking for.

ringbearer

01-13-2002, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
isn't it?

NO! IT IS NOT!:)

Kevin McIntyre

01-13-2002, 01:33 AM

yea I know. the bible has no plot

ringbearer

01-13-2002, 01:37 AM

Off topic, but...does it need one?

bropous

01-13-2002, 02:54 AM

The Bible has no plot? Heck, I'm an atheist and even I will admit it has a plot... ;)

ringbearer

01-13-2002, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by bropous
LOL, ringbearer, the way some folks are reacting to the way the film version was made, you'd think it WAS the Bible!

This post seems to cotradict your previous one...just because you
CAPPED Bible...there has to be something there...but I do not wish to enter this type of discussion of beliefs...aw shucks, us Christians are just hurt by the word atheist ...perhaps, you meant agnostic ...I hope. I can understand agnosticism.

Ñólendil

01-13-2002, 03:43 AM

Bropous hasn't made a post on this thread that I can see in which 'Bible' is not capitalized.

Pray, don't start another religious debate.

bropous

01-13-2002, 12:20 PM

no, ringbearer, I meant what I said and I said what I meant. I'm atheist, that's just my personal beliefs, and I capitalized "Bible" out of respect for others' deeply-held religious beliefs.

No debate starter here, you have your beliefs and I have mine, and I gave up putting down religions a long, long time ago...I just respect that people believe differently and there is no need to insult them for their beliefs, nor to tell them that they do not believe what they profess, good friend. ;)

Now, call Tolkien a "poor scholar" and it's a-jihad time! LOL!!!

luinilwen

01-15-2002, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by orald
sorry ringbearer,its a seven volume set,I guess this is the way Tolkien originally intended for them to be published.This pic doesn't do them justice.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0618037667/reviews/104-9805469-2230356

my guess is the seventh book is all the appendices. that set would cost me about $150 aussie dollars :( well out of the price range of a student with no income... *sigh*

Arathorn

01-15-2002, 04:21 AM

That would be around 3500 Phil Pesos.

Not bad but I plan to spend that on about 3 copies of the upcoming FOTR DVD to be given to special friends for Christmas. Wouldn't it be great to watch it aound lunchtime on saturday and run to the cinema for the next offering?;)

luinilwen

01-15-2002, 04:55 AM

hehe cute idea. i'm guessing FOTR opened on boxing day in manila as well as in australia. i was thinking of waiting until all three movies are out so then i can buy the trilogy pack, like the star wars pack ep's 4-6.

i don't know how i'm going to wait a year for the next movie, but i guess i have to wait that long (or longer) for the harry potter books to come out.

Menelvagor

01-15-2002, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by ringbearer

I was not kidding...I have heard rumors of "Red, soft-leather bound editions! I used "The Bible" to help describe what I am looking for.

I saw that one in Waldenbooks the other day! It was in plastic so I don't know about it's bible-leather-like qualities, but it has one of the two trees in gold on the spine. God, I'd love to have that one, alas I too, Luniliwen, am a student with no income.:)