20 Feb, 2020
2020-2-20 4:11:45 PM UTC
It certainly looks to be, for sure!
I always thought that a one-book illustrated edition of The Lord of the Rings to be utterly stupid - how do the publishers expect readers to read the book? It's too impractical! A one-book edition of The Lord of the Rings without illustrations is cumbersome as it is! With illustrations, 3 books makes much more sense.
The covers of The Lord of the Rings books is exactly the same as the 1992 illustrated hardbacks by Alan Lee. The Hobbit, meanwhile, always showed Alan Lee's Smaug on the cover. I wish that the covers of these, were also the same images used previously for the illustrated editions: Smaug for The Hobbit, Dwarrowdelf for The Fellowship of the Ring, Orthanc for The Two Towers and Minas Tirith for The Return of the King.
These also look to match Alan Lee's Great Tales hardbacks (The Children of Hurin , Beren and Luthien and The Fall of Gondolin). Because of this (and the size dimensions), these will not be 'oversized' hardbacks, but rather standard hardback size. Also, I have a feeling that it will be a 'mix' of paper type - standard for text and any pencil sketches, with photo-paper ('plates') used for the illustrations. Speaking of illustrations, I'm also curious if The Fellowship of the Ring illustrated frontispiece illustration of the Nazgul will appear as a three-page foldout sheet, the way it did for the 60th anniversary illustrated one-book edition. And, to go further, could we also expect foldout maps? The Children of Hurin and The Fall of Gondolin had them - but not Beren and Luthien for some stupid reason.
These questions will be answered in time once these books are published and we've had a chance to look at them.
...but what about The Silmarillion?
The Silmarillion was illustrated by Ted Nasmith, rather than by Alan Lee. In 1998, the original edition appeared with 18 illustrations Then, in 2004, a second edition appeared with about 50 illustrations - I think the exact number was 48. There was also a paperback edition in 2008 which had some, but not all, the illustrations - 16 in total. But, why I mention The Silmarillion is this - there's no new 'matching' edition to go with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings! The oversized edition from 2004 is still in print/back in print, though due to the size dimensions; it won't 'match' with the new editions The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Another thing to think of, if there was a matching edition of The Silmarillion which one would it be? These editions of The Lord of the Rings appear to be quite similar to the original ones from 1992. Would The Silmarillion be similar to the 1998 edition ('Maglor Casts a Silmaril into the Sea' as the cover, and has 18 illustrations), the 2004 edition ('White Ships to Valinor' as the cover, 48 illustrations) or the 2008 paperback ('Ships of the Faithful' as the cover, 16 illustrations)? One final thing to bear in mind is this - the editions from 1998 and 2008 featured a mix of paper (regular for text, photo style for the illustrations), while the 2004 edition was printed entirely on photo paper (like the 2002 illustrated editions of The Lord of the Rings); thus allowing the capability to include more images.
3988
1729752
