Hi Mariah! I definitely think that Tolkien's interest in his fan's thoughts has a lot to do with why he is held in such high esteem as an author. I remember Dr. Halbrooks reading a lot of Tolkien's letters in class, and I know not all of these are to fans, but many authors (or celebrities in general) do not see connecting with fans as something important to their career, but it most certainly is. The fact that he even considers fan suggestions to make revisions is wild and unheard of for the most part nowadays.
I like the idea of a collaborative line of interpretation between reader and writer that helps revolutionize a piece of work. The use of Tolkien and Taylor in the same post is something interesting yet (I believe) needed for understanding to really drive your point home and it was done well.
This is a really interesting line of thinking! As I was reading your post, I found myself thinking about other slightly more contemporary literature including Harry Potter. In regard to Tolkien's revisions, I find it interesting to compare changes in a new edition to the way that the HP universe has expanded since the initial success of the original books and movies (Cursed Child, Newt Scamander, etc.). I think I appreciate Tolkien's transparency here, acknowledging the questions and productive criticisms of fans and readers and integrating them in a way that furthers efforts to engage with the world he created, without the series embellishment of new storylines and characters, prequels and arguable too many sequels. I think he considers changes in this edition to be an improvement (otherwise they wouldn't have been made), but I feel that he has likely stayed very true to the original structures, ideas, and characteristics of the world he created in the original publication, which I appreciate very much (and think has been lost in some more recent ongoing, money-grabbing productions).
Very thought provoking work here, Mariah! As a young lad sitting criss-cross-applesauce on the carpet and gazing up at the box television to watch Fellowship of the Ring for the 20th time, I never once thought that I'd connote Tolkien to Taylor Swift (even in the slightest of manners) but here we are! As you mention, for Tolkien to be as celebrated an author as he no doubt is, it is highly interesting that he would take fan criticism into consideration. However, something Dr. Halbrooks said in class came to me as I was finishing up your post. Tolkien largely wrote Lord of the Rings as a continuation of the work he and his comrades underwent while he was in the war. In the Foreword to the Second Edition, Tolkien somberly notes: "By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead." The work, though overwhelmingly laborious, to write LOTR was one of an intrinsic passion for history but also one of a great love for the brothers he lost. With this development in mind, then, Tolkien's acceptance of criticism rings all the more true to me. He wanted to ensure the tale was worthy.
Hi, Mariah. Nice post here! As I have neither read nor seen the films regarding The Lord of the Rings, I am interested in the question you pose. Instead of publishing an article or something along those lines commenting on the feedback he received, Tolkien chosen to create a new edition of his novel. As for the question you pose, I do not believe I have a correct answer. However, it seems that the action Tolkien took allows the reader to be further invited into the world he created. They are no longer fans of his world, but apart of it. Maybe this was his thought process, or maybe he was just a perfectionist. Either way, nice post! (Side note: I am sorry to hear about your wisdom teeth recovery. I actually woke up in the middle of my surgery, trying to reach for the tools in my mouth...haunting, lol. I hope you are feeling better!).
Mariah, you've raised some really interesting points, both about Tolkien and TSwift. I wonder to what degree Tolkien's lot as not just a narrator but historian, linguist, etc.--and so someone very deeply ingrained into academia and not just literature--plays a role in his decision to revise. Plenty of other popular writers have been criticized for holes and confusions and the like but have not (to my knowledge) made any efforts to make revisions. Is changing a story after it's been written good or bad--do we view it the same way (as Tolkien might have?) as, for example, our efforts to "revise" established history or even science as new information comes to light?
I agree that your question doesn't have any easy answer, so I don't suggest that mine is one. However, I'd like to think of literature as a give and take from both author and reader. Even if an author doesn't revise a particular text, they might keep reader feedback in mind for the next story they write. It is a bit different when the one text is revised, but I think it's still worth considering that maybe...they both have power, to some degree.
Hi Mariah! I definitely think that Tolkien's interest in his fan's thoughts has a lot to do with why he is held in such high esteem as an author. I remember Dr. Halbrooks reading a lot of Tolkien's letters in class, and I know not all of these are to fans, but many authors (or celebrities in general) do not see connecting with fans as something important to their career, but it most certainly is. The fact that he even considers fan suggestions to make revisions is wild and unheard of for the most part nowadays.
I like the idea of a collaborative line of interpretation between reader and writer that helps revolutionize a piece of work. The use of Tolkien and Taylor in the same post is something interesting yet (I believe) needed for understanding to really drive your point home and it was done well.
This is a really interesting line of thinking! As I was reading your post, I found myself thinking about other slightly more contemporary literature including Harry Potter. In regard to Tolkien's revisions, I find it interesting to compare changes in a new edition to the way that the HP universe has expanded since the initial success of the original books and movies (Cursed Child, Newt Scamander, etc.). I think I appreciate Tolkien's transparency here, acknowledging the questions and productive criticisms of fans and readers and integrating them in a way that furthers efforts to engage with the world he created, without the series embellishment of new storylines and characters, prequels and arguable too many sequels. I think he considers changes in this edition to be an improvement (otherwise they wouldn't have been made), but I feel that he has likely stayed very true to the original structures, ideas, and characteristics of the world he created in the original publication, which I appreciate very much (and think has been lost in some more recent ongoing, money-grabbing productions).
Very thought provoking work here, Mariah! As a young lad sitting criss-cross-applesauce on the carpet and gazing up at the box television to watch Fellowship of the Ring for the 20th time, I never once thought that I'd connote Tolkien to Taylor Swift (even in the slightest of manners) but here we are! As you mention, for Tolkien to be as celebrated an author as he no doubt is, it is highly interesting that he would take fan criticism into consideration. However, something Dr. Halbrooks said in class came to me as I was finishing up your post. Tolkien largely wrote Lord of the Rings as a continuation of the work he and his comrades underwent while he was in the war. In the Foreword to the Second Edition, Tolkien somberly notes: "By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead." The work, though overwhelmingly laborious, to write LOTR was one of an intrinsic passion for history but also one of a great love for the brothers he lost. With this development in mind, then, Tolkien's acceptance of criticism rings all the more true to me. He wanted to ensure the tale was worthy.
Hi, Mariah. Nice post here! As I have neither read nor seen the films regarding The Lord of the Rings, I am interested in the question you pose. Instead of publishing an article or something along those lines commenting on the feedback he received, Tolkien chosen to create a new edition of his novel. As for the question you pose, I do not believe I have a correct answer. However, it seems that the action Tolkien took allows the reader to be further invited into the world he created. They are no longer fans of his world, but apart of it. Maybe this was his thought process, or maybe he was just a perfectionist. Either way, nice post! (Side note: I am sorry to hear about your wisdom teeth recovery. I actually woke up in the middle of my surgery, trying to reach for the tools in my mouth...haunting, lol. I hope you are feeling better!).
Mariah, you've raised some really interesting points, both about Tolkien and TSwift. I wonder to what degree Tolkien's lot as not just a narrator but historian, linguist, etc.--and so someone very deeply ingrained into academia and not just literature--plays a role in his decision to revise. Plenty of other popular writers have been criticized for holes and confusions and the like but have not (to my knowledge) made any efforts to make revisions. Is changing a story after it's been written good or bad--do we view it the same way (as Tolkien might have?) as, for example, our efforts to "revise" established history or even science as new information comes to light?
I agree that your question doesn't have any easy answer, so I don't suggest that mine is one. However, I'd like to think of literature as a give and take from both author and reader. Even if an author doesn't revise a particular text, they might keep reader feedback in mind for the next story they write. It is a bit different when the one text is revised, but I think it's still worth considering that maybe...they both have power, to some degree.