/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20856865]

What is the one edition of Lord of the Rings to rule them all?

[Anonymous No.20856873]

Cloth bound, smyth sewn and no artwork
If only it existed

[Anonymous No.20856879]

>>20856865
You posted it

[Anonymous No.20856880]

the one that you read over and over

[Anonymous No.20856883]

>>20856865
The super mega edition that's releasing next month. Actually no; it's the super mega ultra edition that's releasing next year. Actually no, it's not that one either; it's the super mega ultra 75th anniversary edition that's releasing in a few years, or was it the 100th year annivers-

[Anonymous No.20856895]

>>20856873
Technically it has illustrations but only 15 of them and they're by Tolkien himself

[Anonymous No.20856901]

>>20856895
Yeah good point should have specified a 3 volume set, not a single volume set

[Anonymous No.20857004]

>>20856865
The first edition.

[Anonymous No.20857038]

>>20856865
To me it's this one.
> Basically the 3-volume edition Tolkien had in mind
> Has the 60th anniversary edition reviewed text
> Has Tolkien's artwork in the covers
> Red Gandalf's runes and Ring Inscription
> Has the leaves from the book of Mazarbul, handmade by Tolkien
> Maps are folded at the end of the book in a way that you can open it to the side while reading and keep track of the journey without having to go to a different page just for the map
> Good formatting, font size and spacing between texts
> Somehow looks thinner than other 3-volume editions
> Comes with the Reader's Companion so you can dive even deeper into the nuances of the text

The only downside is that it doesn't have any illustrations in the text, but I still think this is the best edition for reading/ studying LOTR

[Anonymous No.20857055]

>>20856865
the old beaten up paperback with all 3 books in it I stole from my uncle when I was 13

[Anonymous No.20857056]

>>20856865
just read it on your phone like a normal person

[Anonymous No.20858352]

>>20857038
I was considering getting this edition. Thanks for the info.

[Anonymous No.20858355]

I'm thinking about purchasing the 2004 deluxe edition, any thoughts?

[Anonymous No.20858626]

One time in a bookstore I saw a copy that was a giant red leather-bound tome, like the book in the story. Very expensive.

[Anonymous No.20858777]

How about for The Hobbit?
Debating between the Illustrated (Alan Lee) vs Annotated editions.

[Anonymous No.20858866]

>>20858355
It's a great edition if you have the money to buy it.

[Anonymous No.20858914]

>>20857038
>3-volume edition Tolkien had in mind
I thought he was the one who wanted a single volume? Otherwise that sounds good.

> Reader's Companion
Sell me on this.

[Anonymous No.20859902]

>>20857038
>> Has the 60th anniversary edition reviewed text
What are the textual differences? I've been using the same single volume version since middle school and I've been meaning to upgrade just for the physical dimensions of splitting it up, but I've been debating between that nice set for the $85 or so bucks it is and some cheap paperback 3 volume set. Also, what >>20858914 said: sell me on the reader's companion.

>>20858777
Have you read the hobbit before and already love it? If so, get the annotated version. It has a ton of illustrations from lots of different artists in a really wide variety of styles, plus the annotations are often really interesting and worth reading. (Not all, though. Some are just "a comma didn't use to be here", but most are interesting if you already love the hobbit.)

[Anonymous No.20859914]

>>20856865
>20856865
>>20856895
>>20858355
>CONSOOOM CONSOOM CONSOOOOM I MUST CONSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM AAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.20859994]

>>20859914
>high quality books are the same as cheap plastic figurines
Go back

[Anonymous No.20860014]

>>20856865
I have that edition, it's great except it arrived with the spine caved in and I was too young to realise that I probably should have asked for a replacement.
I do prefer picrel which I bought recently, though. I like separate volumes more than a single huge book, and the illustrations are gorgeous.

[Anonymous No.20860036]

>>20859994
These books aren't high quality. They're all mass-produced

[Anonymous No.20860091]

>>20860036
Quality is relative and mass produced does not mean the quality will be poor. Smith-sewn hardbacks with thick acid-free paper, illustrations, and sturdy slipcases are high quality.

[Anonymous No.20860154]

>>20859902
I havent read it yet, but I dont mind the annotations. Would you recommend an unannotated version for those new to the book?

[Anonymous No.20860193]

>>20857038
How does this compare to:
https://www.foliosociety.com/row/the-lord-of-the-rings.html
Aside from the reading guide?

[Anonymous No.20860248]

>>20860154
It depends how much you think you can resist the temptation of reading the annotations. It really breaks up the reading if you start investigating them, so I think it's a poor way to read it the first time. But if you can ignore them, then it's fine. That said, the annotated hobbit is one of my favorite books and I think it's an absolute steal for the $20 it goes for. Tons of illustrations, an analysis of reviews when it first came out, an additional story (The Quest of Erebor which should be read after LotR), great quality paper, clean printing, and four glossy pages in the middle for color illustrations (with tons of b&w ones throughout the book). I am not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure it also has all of Tolkien's illustrations that relate directly to the hobbit. It's not marketed as an illustrated version but it probably has more illustrations than any other version, completely apart from all the great annotations. Even before I finished it, I was thinking "I hope I live long enough to see an annotated LotR in this style". Take that for what it's worth.

[Anonymous No.20860259]

>>20860193
The FS Tolkien books are quite bad IMO, compared to both other editions of Tolkien books and other FS books. I wouldn't recommend them.

[Anonymous No.20861817]

>>20860014
Good taste, that set is my favorite as well. The paper is very, very high quality.

[Anonymous No.20861838]

Oh fuck man I love Lord of the Rings too fucking much

[Anonymous No.20861855]

>>20861838
The movies are better

[Anonymous No.20861924]

>>20861855
No they're not. The Two Towers is especially atrocious.

[Anonymous No.20861939]

>>20857038
>pointless secondary literature and illustrations
i hate nerds

[Anonymous No.20861941]

>>20861924
Two Towers has a fucking awesome battle scene what are you talking about

[Anonymous No.20861956]

>>20861941
I'm >>20861838 and after a recent reread of LOTR I tried rewatching the films and fell asleep during the Helm's Deep battle
I think the films are pretty bad and being very aware of the changes that were made after having completed a reread just ruins the enjoyment totally for me, likely will never rewatch them again

[Anonymous No.20861958]

>>20861956
The films make a lot of good changes like changing Aragorn from a paper thin destined hero archetype to having some depth with his reluctance to embrace his heritage

[Anonymous No.20861964]

>>20861956
Have you seen the hobbit movies? Maybe they're passable if you've never read the hobbit, but if you have, they take "bad" to whole new levels. test

[Anonymous No.20862641]

>>20856865
The one(s) that you find the most aesthetically pleasing and/or have a sentimental value. I like these paperbacks.

[Anonymous No.20862645]

>>20862641

[Anonymous No.20862651]

>>20862641
>>20862645
and this one volume edition

[Anonymous No.20863474]

>>20858914
Since he couldn't get the one-volume edition, he drawed the cover arts for the three volumes, but the publisher only chose a simplified version is the drawing for the fellowship of the ring due to financial reasons. He also wanted the ring inscription to be red, and the inclusion of the leaves from the book of Mazarbul, but those were also denied for the same reason as the cover arts. This edition contains all of that.

[Anonymous No.20863486]

>>20862645
>The original covers that Tolkien drew himself.
Unbelievably based.

[Anonymous No.20863519]

>>20856901
LotR was intended to be a single book, its first edition was split in three volumes because it was less expensive for the publisher (dunno why, something about the scarcity of cellulose for the paper mills during the post war economic crisis).

[Anonymous No.20864073]

>>20856865
>>20856895
>>20857038
>>20858355
>>20860014
>>20862645
>>20862651
> Mogs every single one of those
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Z3og0AefY

[Anonymous No.20864103]

I got these. I'd like to get a one volume some day.

[Anonymous No.20864130]

>>20857038
Might end up picking this up. Shame it doesn't have any illustrations but I'll live.

[Anonymous No.20864247]

>>20864103
I like this one. The jacket artwork really stands out from the other ones which I find rather repetitive. I also like the big folded map. The only downside is the low-quality paper.

[Anonymous No.20864315]

>>20857038
The publisher didn't want the story in a single volume in case the book didn't sell, so Tolkien had to split it into three.

[Anonymous No.20864328]

>>20860036
all books are mass produced you dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.20864395]

>>20864315
>>20863474

[Anonymous No.20864469]

>>20861964
The Tolkien cut makes it watchable. About 4h or so long. Free online.

[Anonymous No.20865411]

>>20864469
Can't believe they shit the bed so hard adapting a childrens book

[Anonymous No.20865446]

>>20861924
The movies are excellent but they're not meant to stand separate from the books.

[Anonymous No.20865973]

I own these cheap paperbacks, I just liked the covers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs0AmruS8Ro

[Anonymous No.20865977]

>>20865973
these are pretty sick too though I think I'll get them

[Anonymous No.20866109]

>>20861855
Lol no. I swear people who say this have never read the books at all or are just speedreaders. Watching the movies after reading the books just makes you realise that movies are an inferior artform to books.
I really wish TV/film was half the medium people think it is. You just can’t make anything deep with it, you just can't.

[Anonymous No.20866137]

Do you like the queens illustrations in the 1977 Folio Society edition?

[Anonymous No.20866462]

>>20856865
If I may, I'd like to ask the same question, but for the Silmarillion instead.

[Anonymous No.20866471]

>>20866462
There's an edition of the Silmarillion coming out soon that's the companion to >>20856895

[Anonymous No.20866530]

>>20866471
Oh. That's pretty nice.

[Anonymous No.20866679]

>>20864103
>>20858355
>>20856865
I have these, they are equally good.

[Anonymous No.20866709]

Has anyone got the History of Middle Earth set? Whats it like?

[Anonymous No.20866844]

>>20865973
these ones are lovely

[Anonymous No.20866858]

>>20866462
First edition hardback

[Anonymous No.20866872]

>>20866858
I have the same one, but as part of the 1978 Tolkien library box set. When I was 10 I threw out the Silmarillion's dust cover because I thought dust covers were stupid, big mistake.

[Anonymous No.20866960]

>>20860014
I have the Folio Society bindings, but I want these, because I want kino Alan Lee artwork

[Anonymous No.20867273]

Either the Easton Press leather bound editions or the Folio Society Editions.

[Anonymous No.20867281]

I still have the fuck ugly version I bought at a scholastic book fair in the mid 90s.

[Anonymous No.20867312]

>>20867281
I love it.

[Anonymous No.20867392]

This won't help OP but the Portuguese covers are pure kino.
Based on John Howe's illustrations iirc.

[Anonymous No.20867394]

>>20867273
The Folio Society edition is meh, I have it and it didn't impress me.

[Anonymous No.20867415]

>>20867392
Those covers are the fault covers since 90s in the spanish speaking world, they fascinated me. Luckily a few years ago I found the hardcover editions I english of TLOTR with those covers.

[Anonymous No.20867450]

>>20866709
This reminds me I still haven't finished reading this series. My dad bought me the first two volumes when I was in middle school but I was too dumb to understand them so I only read them properly much much later and ended up loving them.

>>20860014
My friend got me this set for my birthday last year or so. It's gorgeous. I also just discovered I have the Unfinished Tales volume from the same series.

[Anonymous No.20867774]

>>20867392
Não sou o 'OP' mas. Eu até estava a pensar em comprar o Silmarillion com o Sigurd & Gudrún traduzido s, pelo preço do packe. Mas foda-se, só vendem em capa mole e também não têm ilustrações. Em vez disso, acho que vou comprar em inglês, de capa dura.

[Anonymous No.20867827]

test