The take-away here is that Tolkien tried one of his many revisions and was wise enough to know that it wasn't working out, so he abandoned it, just as he did with "The New Shadow". Tolkien, because of his own acumen and talent, remained great.
I like this take-away and it is ultimately true. Sending out feelers in a bad direction isn't much of a fault when you make the correct decision in the end. Though I am also curious to understand what changed in those thirty years to make him think that all that mattered was what Gandalf thought, or that Bilbo's most salient feature is a lack of understanding.
I agree, the revisions remove something important, I think. Luckily he didn't make it far. He did a lot of rewriting of the first chapter, but even by the second chapter it was more just little phrase changes and then he gave it up.
I have a copy of the original version — a rebound library discard lacking the endpapers, but the text is all there. When I acquired it from a used book store in the 60s, I obsessively went through my then-current version, marking all the changes. The riddle-game was the biggest, of course, but the others were fairly minor, like adding an extra month to the journey to match the geography of LotR.
I probably suffer from the opposite problem, I tend to like what I write just the way it is! Tolkien was especially susceptible to it... he was such a perfectionist and such a reviser it's amazing he finished as much as he did. There are a few points where I think he revised well here - Gandalf's eyebrows didn't have to extend beyond the brim of his hat as in the original version - but it's almost amazing how much I disagree with his revisions.
I agree that the change about Gandalf's eyebrows made perfect sense, but he undercut the dialogue... As far as you leaving your work unrevised, the piece you published on the Mets (in First Things, I think) seemed revised to absolute precision.
Yes, The Hobbit is a masterful gem of a book. I encountered at the age of 12, 60 years ago. I picked it off the shelf in the library having no idea of what I held in my hands and became immediately enchanted as I read it. At the end there was a publisher”
blurb about three other books. I scraped together some money and bought them, They came in the mail and the enchantment deepened. I have read that the original British publisher of the Hobbit had a nephew, a boy a year or two younger than me read it, the boy liked it. The Hobbit was approved for publishing and that boy launched a huge ship.
I have not time enough today to check for myself, but I can ask for a checking/clarification: In the text "If you had head a quarter of what ...", should the word "head" be "heard"?
The take-away here is that Tolkien tried one of his many revisions and was wise enough to know that it wasn't working out, so he abandoned it, just as he did with "The New Shadow". Tolkien, because of his own acumen and talent, remained great.
I like this take-away and it is ultimately true. Sending out feelers in a bad direction isn't much of a fault when you make the correct decision in the end. Though I am also curious to understand what changed in those thirty years to make him think that all that mattered was what Gandalf thought, or that Bilbo's most salient feature is a lack of understanding.
Fascinating. I had no idea Tolkien tried to do this. Thank goodness the original prevailed!
I agree, the revisions remove something important, I think. Luckily he didn't make it far. He did a lot of rewriting of the first chapter, but even by the second chapter it was more just little phrase changes and then he gave it up.
I have a copy of the original version — a rebound library discard lacking the endpapers, but the text is all there. When I acquired it from a used book store in the 60s, I obsessively went through my then-current version, marking all the changes. The riddle-game was the biggest, of course, but the others were fairly minor, like adding an extra month to the journey to match the geography of LotR.
An interesting piece about revising too much. I have been guilty of this!
I probably suffer from the opposite problem, I tend to like what I write just the way it is! Tolkien was especially susceptible to it... he was such a perfectionist and such a reviser it's amazing he finished as much as he did. There are a few points where I think he revised well here - Gandalf's eyebrows didn't have to extend beyond the brim of his hat as in the original version - but it's almost amazing how much I disagree with his revisions.
I agree that the change about Gandalf's eyebrows made perfect sense, but he undercut the dialogue... As far as you leaving your work unrevised, the piece you published on the Mets (in First Things, I think) seemed revised to absolute precision.
I like the German word for this sort of thing (because of course they have a word for it): Verschlimmbesserung.
Yes, The Hobbit is a masterful gem of a book. I encountered at the age of 12, 60 years ago. I picked it off the shelf in the library having no idea of what I held in my hands and became immediately enchanted as I read it. At the end there was a publisher”
blurb about three other books. I scraped together some money and bought them, They came in the mail and the enchantment deepened. I have read that the original British publisher of the Hobbit had a nephew, a boy a year or two younger than me read it, the boy liked it. The Hobbit was approved for publishing and that boy launched a huge ship.
I appreciate the analysis.
I have not time enough today to check for myself, but I can ask for a checking/clarification: In the text "If you had head a quarter of what ...", should the word "head" be "heard"?
Yes! Typo! I'll go in and correct it.
Good piece. I had no idea. I agree with Mr. Kuhner's reasoning and conclusions.