LOTR 50th anniversary Deluxe vs LOTR 2021 Illustrated Deluxe

姜太一 wrote:

Hello,

What is your opinion on the LOTR 50th anniversary Deluxe edition (9780007182367) vs the LOTR 2021 Illustrated Deluxe edition (9780008471293)?

I don't own either one, though I have other copies of The Lord of The Rings.

If you had to buy only one which would you choose?

Would there be any significant reason to buy both editions? (I may given enough time anyways haha)

I'm sort of learning toward the 50th anniversary but wanted to ask you experts if there are any issues with this edition?

Thank you for your time,
姜太一

I can only comment on the early LEGO, SpA prints of the 2004- (50th) Deluxe, but I personally like those a *lot* more than the recent Author Illustrated Deluxe. The paper (was - and perhaps still is, depending on who is printing it) much better than that used in the AI deluxe. I also just don't have a lot of time for the Author Illustrated series, given that Tolkien only illustrated one of his major works, and that was The Hobbit. He did a *great* job of it and it pains me to see it spoiled by the addition of extra illustrations that are not of the same standard, just to bump up the illustration count and sell more books.

The illustrations used in the recent editions of the other works are (IMHO) not of publication quality (for the most part) and are not especially cohesive. I think for this reason alone, the older deluxe editions are better. You are getting material that was intended for publication by the author (or at least the editor) and it doesn't feel like a bit of a mess. Sometimes less is more.

To be clear, I really enjoy these "not originally for publication" illustrations, but the Hammond & Scull books are the place I personally want to find them, rather than placed within the text.

I didn't personally find my 1st impression(s) of 9780008471293 to be well-made books (as both had faults), but if you like the "marmite" aesthetics and the downsides don't put you off, then make sure you buy at a very heavy discount. It is very overpriced at full RRP (particularly the WM version). I genuinely do like my 1st and 2nd prints of 9780007182367 and neither had any faults that I noticed.

The late Stu

Thank you very much for your information. It was very useful and confirmed my gut feeling to go with the 50th anniversary for now

Mr. Underhill

Thank you for the links 🙂

Hello all. I've come with a similar question as OP, but have a few more specifics to ask. I hope someone can help.

For context, I am a bibliophile and book collector, a writer, a literary type, and a lover of imaginative literature from all ages. It just so happens I haven't read LOTR. That is due to change this year. Several years back I ended up with the Houghton Mifflin 50th Anniversary Edition. Now there is this Illustrated Edition catching my eye (the William Morrow from 2021 would be the one I can afford). I know some of you at least will understand the odd and finicky decision to potentially trade in the one I already have for a "better" version for my first reading of a classic, so don't let the fact that I already have one in hand influence your advice too much.

My questions are regarding text, quality, and the author's intention. I will say I find the minimalism of the jacketless Illustrated edition slightly more appealing than my Anniversary book (What I don't like is that it says "50th Anniversary Edition" on the slipcase-- not classy, not old-school, not Anglo-Saxon). I can't tell how close in size they are-- I wouldn't want to read type significantly smaller than what's in the Anniversary ed. Frankly I don't think the ring inscription on the Illustrated's trim looks very good, an idea that was maybe better on paper (so to speak). Similarly, having some text printed in red is fun, but the decision to use it for all the made-up languages doesn't make sense to me; it seems like they'd pop out at you way too much. But these are matters of taste. In terms of the size, the weight, the paper quality, the printing, what specifically makes one of these books better than another?

The illustrations are intriguing. First of all, how many are there? What I want to know most is if Tolkien desired to have the book printed with illustrations (specifically, those illustrations). I will look at a book of JRRT's art during my reading but I would consider it quite secondary (almost even irrelevant) to the text unless he created it specifically to be a part of the book. The same goes for text printed in red ink. Was that an idea JRRT floated at some point, or the notion of a modern book designer trying to gussy the thing up for a new edition to sell? I believe the maps were part of Tolkien's original intention (though I wonder about the red ink), but what about the other inserts and extras? My Anniversary edition has plates producing damaged pages from an ancient (fictional) book or something. I understand these are also reproduced in the Illustrated edition, along with a king's letter (or something?). Were these things part of Tolkien's ideal publication of the book as he envisioned it, or, again, are they merely souvenirs to entice book buyers?

Finally and most importantly, are there differences in the actual text? I understand many corrections were made for the 50th Anniversary Edition. Were there further corrections these 17 years later? Has the text gone backwards with new corruptions and errors? Or is it apparently identical?

Thanks for your help with such minutiae. If you can't tell me these things, no one can. (Be assured I'd close with a snappy LOTR quote if I'd read the thing!)

I'll start by saying that I'm not a fan of this edition. The paper quality and printing are both poor. In the hand it just feels a bit shoddy. I would keep the book you already have. Any textual differences are insignificant. Tbh, you could pick pretty much any second edition Lord of the Rings and be absolutely fine with the text.

What I want to know most is if Tolkien desired to have the book printed with illustrations (specifically, those illustrations).

He did not intend the book to be illustrated. The illustrations used in the book (32 of them) were not intended for publication. Some are publication quality and reflect the final text and some are not of publication quality and are not representative of the final text. Note that the leaves from the Book of Mazarbul were intended for inclusion and are a nice addition (though they are not exclusive to this edition).

Similarly, having some text printed in red is fun, but the decision to use it for all the made-up languages doesn't make sense to me;

The amount of red text is very small. The inscription on the ring, chapter titles and page numbers. The Lord of the Rings doesn't contain extended sections of made-up languages. The alphabets (Tengwar, etc) described in the appendices are not red.

Echoing the sentiments already in this thread: the Tolkien Illustrated LOTR (i) has many illustrations that the author did not intend for publication and are not really of publication-level quality, and (ii) is of marginal quality overall for the price.

It looks nice sitting on my shelf, that is its best quality. I'm personally nervous about reading my copy because I know it will bother me if the gilding flakes off and this is what happened to my Tolkien Illustrated Hobbit after one reading with very careful handling. I did read the Tolkien Illustrated Silmarillion cover-to-cover and it still looks brand-new.

If I wanted a deluxe edition of LOTR to actually read, I'd go with the 2004 HC.

The late Stu wrote:

He did not intend the book to be illustrated. The illustrations used in the book (32 of them) were not intended for publication. Some are publication quality and reflect the final text and some are not of publication quality and are not representative of the final text. Note that the leaves from the Book of Mazarbul were intended for inclusion and are a nice addition (though they are not exclusive to this edition).

I think it has mostly been covered but one other point about some of these illustrations not "representative of the final text". When GA&U had decided that Milein Cosman would illustrate Farmer Giles of Ham, Tolkien was not happy at all with the decision, and said so in Carpenter's Letter #116 (J.R.R. Tolkien to Allen & Unwin Ltd., 5 August 1948). He found some of the illustrations "lack of resemblance to their text more marked." Given his exacting self-critique, I doubt he would have passed many of his own illustrations for use in The Lord of the Rings, certainly without much revision.

Fans on Reddit, Twitter and such appeared to enjoy the edition, but some Tolkien fans think that putting the ring-verse on a wedding band, or having it inked on ones skin is a cool way to honour Tolkien. No accounting for taste, or missing the point entirely.