Davem, I never saw that last post of yours, but I believe you are mistaking what's been going on– that is, if as it seems you think people (other than garm, perhaps) were personally offended by your claims and arguments, rather than simply critical of them. There is a difference.

I'd also like to say this: removing these "bothersome" posts may seem like a nice peace-offering, but its effect is to make it hard for any newcomer to understand the debate. I also suspect such a newcomer might now get the impression that you had been flaming people, or alternatively, that everyone has been ganging up on you and reacting to nothing, which either way I'm sure isn't what you want.

Right, so, apologies to everyone for my brainstorm there. I've asked for the posts I deleted to be re-instated.

Anyway....where was I?

Copyright. And the real issue here is: privacy vs knowledge. The Estate is using Copyright law to protect the privacy of the family (or the FAMILY). Yet in order to do this they are preventing the publication of a serious work of biography. Is this acceptable. Of course, no-one likes to be embarrassed, or be made to look silly- or even to have grandad, or great aunt Mary shown to have been a bit silly back in the day. But is that sufficient justification to stop a biography of great uncle George's family being published? Or in other words, setting aside our own discomfort with being made to look a bit daft, & our equal discomfort with seeing our family or people we respect being discomforted in that way, is that enough of a reason to stop a book being published - bacuse what is being done here is not a trivial thing. There is zero difference bewteen preventing a book being published in the first place & burning every copy of it after its been published in the second place. The Estate, in order to protect the 'privacy' of the FAMILY have effectively 'burned' this book. From that point of view this behaviour cannot be simply brushed aside with cuddlsome statements about 'privacy'. Using Copyright law as match & petrol in this way is a very questionable procedure - burning books is a big thing (or even a BIG THING). I've tried to inject a bit of humour into the debate - & got shot down for it - to the extent that I felt it better to remove meself & me comments - but that seemed a bit dumb in a debate on censorship (despite the fact that I actually owned the copyright on my posts, which in a way justified me doing it.....& therein lies the rub...

Davem, thanks for that.:)

Now, davem, I've already stated why I think using copyright for the purpose of protecting privacy is not necessarily heinous (it just depends). I think this is pretty clearly something on which you and I are never going to agree, so we may as well leave it. (I will say, though, that I find your equation of demanding the removal of material from a book with burning every copy of it to be a fairly notable bit of hyperbole.)

More to the point is whether the suppression of scandalous, or at least embarrassing, facts is "what is being done here". Now, as far as my memory of it goes* you spent the thread talking yourself into being totally convinced it was– you started out with an "if" and ended up with a "must"– and apparently you even made up a little humorous dialogue about it. The problem is– again as I've already stated– you've got no actual evidence for this (that I'm aware of) beyond the Tolkien Estate's self-description as "the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family", if that counts as evidence; neither have you put forward any new supporting arguments for quite a while. You just keep repeating the same thing. I think you'll find that, and not the fact that you tried to be funny, is what got you "shot down", as you put it.

None of this is to say that I'm giving a stamp of approval to what the Estate has done, by the way. I've already said I think they're likely being petty and obstructive.







*davem's posts haven't yet been replaced at time of writing.

Dear me, I must try that argument with the likes of morm and Esty next time they see fit to censor my posts. That'll teach 'em!:smokin:

Ok - 'personal' stuff - for which I base my arguments on the publisher's statement: So, unless the material in question is an exchange of letters between the brothers each arguing that the other one has the cooler looking mustache, we're talking about 'personal' information which the Estate does not want in the public domain, & if that material in question was completely bland then the Estate would not care if it was out there, & the writers/publishers would not feel that the book could not be published without it.

I could (were I that way inclined) argue that I seem to be the only party even attempting to ask what the nature of this material is - no-one else seems even vaguely interested. And that is something that has puzzled me all through this thread - why is no-one else even curious about what it could be that the Estate feels is so unnacceptable that it will threaten to take a tiny publisher to court to prevent the publication of 20 pages of a book that would probably have a print run of no more than a few thousand copies & why would said tiny publisher & authors feel that the excision of 20 pages out of 300 would effectively so ruin the book that they would withdraw it altogether rather than simply cut that bit?

The responses to my posts seem to be sum-upable as 'stop suggesting all this 'dodgy' stuff about the family - they have a right to their privacy', but no-one is even attempting to get at what the issue might be. There are letters which the Estate will not allow to be quoted - or paraphased - & they are requesting 20 pages of the book concerning this material be removed. And no-one seems the slightest bit curious about the whole thing. No-one seems any more bothered about it than to state 'well, they are being a bit obstructive'. And again, no-one seems to have any issue with the way Copyright is being used to stifle creativity & the dissemination of information- Tech dirt has a nice piece about the subject today http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...opyright.shtml

Copyright is being used to prevent a work of scholarship being published, because the owners of the copyrighted material do not want it in the public domain. Why not - Do they (a) intend to publish said material themselves? Fine - when? Do they (b) feel that it should not be made public at all? Fine - why?

My argument all along has been that (as far as I'm concerned) preventing the publication of a work of scholarship is a serious matter (& I'm fairly certain Tolkien himself would agree with that statement - even though he might not approve of the publication of this particular work - who knows (certainly not us now....)) & requires more than the vague statement 'Its our stuff, so nerrrr!'

I'm actually very angry about this behaviour on the part of the Estate - anyone who prevents books being published better have a very good reason - & I don't think the Estate has provided one.

EDIT: I'm glad to see davem's posts have been restored.


I do believe you've met your match, davem. :D

Not necessarily. There could well be a principled insistence that any aspect of personal lives, especially those which have no immediate, direct bearing on literary concerns, is of no concern to readers. It doesn't matter whether the information is positive, embarassing, scandalous, or banal. The point is simply, any and all personal information. And the authors could feel that it is important to produce a picture of normal family life that has been omitted from other bios. It doesn't have to be nefarious.

Well now, I can guess what that "m" stands for on your screen name, davem--martyr. :D ;)

Actually, as I have stated previously, anyone who attended Oxonmoot has seen some of this stuff, so our curiousity is satisfied. *imagine winking smilie here as I've used up my quota of smilies*

I guess you are that way inclined. (see above quote) *imagine rolled eyes here*

There is an inherent contradition or conflict in the Estate, as no one has explained what to do should there be a genuine literary reason for publishing something when the holder of the copyright also has a personal vested interest in withholding the information. This is also the reason why biographies or letters which are "authorised" come, whether justified or not, with at least a wiff of suspicion. This pertains to all cases and not simply the one we are discussing here.

And now, back to my previous statement that I shall have nothing further to say because I have nothing new to add. *insert smilie laughing at myself*

Not exactly. Although I haven't been responding to your posts specifically, I maintained from the start that we cannot know the full reason for this action without having read the manuscript. In order to make any kind of call on the matter, one needs to see the material in question. I cannot even attempt to place the blame (such as it may or may not be) on anyone until I have all pertinent information, which includes not only the manuscript in question but also the text of any contracts and legal agreements made between the Estate and all concerned parties. As I do not have that information, I can't say who, if anyone, is trying... Well, to be honest, without full information, I can't even say what they might be trying to do; I can only offer speculation, which no matter how strongly I may feel about it is still speculation, and personal opinion. I have my own issues with the ways in which copyright has been abused by industry, but for myself, I cannot say that this is clearly a case of abuse, simply because I know that I do not have access to all necessary information. That being the case, I prefer not to debate the issue. My choice, of course.

And yet, you went to the authors' talk at Oxonmoot because you wanted to to know about the personal lives of members of the Tolkien family. How many of us have read the biographies, the letters & the accounts of those who knew Tolkien? All 'personal information'. And if this book had seen the light of day, how many of us would have bought it?

Ok - would you mind posting some of the stuff you heard there? Unless you think the Estate might take action:p

Hmm. Do you have access to my inner motivations? Are you sure this was the reason I attended the session? After all, it was one of three sessions and I might have simply found this session the lesser of, say, for want of a more apt description, three evils. Or maybe I was curious to see the author of Black and White Ogres. Or maybe I attended it because most of my Downer buddies also attended it and at that time of the morning we relied on each other for mutual support, stimulation, and decisions. :Merisu:

When I attended the session, I agreed to respect the conditions which the author laid out for us, which was not to reproduce any of the materials. I will continue to respect her request and my word, irrespective of any subsequent events or insinuations. :p

But haven't things changed? Wasn't that request made because the book was due out & the authors didn't want any spoilers pre-publication? Obviously I'm not going to ask you to risk being dragged through the courts by the Estate (or ':mad:THE ESTATE:mad:' as I think we can all agree to call it from now on) but if you felt that getting the truth out there was important enough...

That was not the condition which the author asked us to respect. Nothing has changed.

As I said, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

I have been away from the discussions re Wheelbarrows for some time and, although I will not enter into conversation, there are a couple of things I would like to state.

All the material that we planned to go into the book was sent to TE with the first draft. There is nothing in that material that reflects badly on any member of the Tolkien family, indeed, we had every intention of using it to show the loving relationship of the two brothers. This was why I was asked to write it - to show the relationship. Some of the research into their respective lives and the lives of their friends and relations shows quite clearly the influences around JRR that seeped into his writing and into his art work.

Neil and I, on the advise of our publisher - at the request of TE - took out particular references to living family. This was quite correct and did not impune on the raison d'etre of the book.

What prevented publication was, in effect, the belief on the part of TE that we were not to refer IN ANY WAY to any fact, feeling, comment, belief or incident that was referred to in any letter by JRR. As the book was about his relationship with his brother, the situatiion became untenable.

It is very sad in many ways, but one of the most distressing things is that it is such a true book; it tells the tale of a family in turbulent times and reflects well on all concerned. I find it hurtful to the memory of both Hilary and Ronald that this book, written with respect at the request of family, should be hidden away. The papers could have been treated with far less respect in other hands.

As for the question of "rights" to publish and copyright legalese, it does, I have come to believe, come down to a matter of interpretation. Chris and Julian Tolkien, ADC Books, Neil and I would like to publish Wheelbarrows at Dawn as a Tolkien scrapbook for posterity. Tolkien Estates do not want the same book as us, is the bottom line.

The matter, as stated elsewhere, is now down to the Tolkien family.I can do no more.

Hardly anything shocking, or actually ''unusual' (in that we have seen plenty of books about the relationship between a famous person & a family member or close friend). And nothing that impinges on the privacy of any living person. And Copyright law being used to prevent facts which could not 'harm' any family member from being made public.

I've gone over the top in some of my comments, but put simply, I find the behaviour of the Estate quite appalling, & little better than book burning (yes - that is me not going over the top - if anyone wants to explain how this differs morally from burning books simply because you don't like the facts they contain please enlighten me). Nothing 'shocking' or 'intrusive' included in the books, so this is simply an example of a large, wealthy organisation destroying the hard work of decent people out of sheer pettiness, & attempting to conceal the (entirely harmless) truth about two people who have been dead more than a quarter of a century.

When publication of other books has been prevented by the Estate (the recent one on Tolkien's translation of the Book of Jonah, & Drout's on Tolkien's Beowulf) I've been inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, but, sorry, no longer. They begin not to look like the inheritors of the work of JRR Tolkien (Elves, & Hobbits, Dragons & Magical Rings, that sense of wonder which transformed the world for us readers) but a big corporate entity which likes to throw its weight around & shout 'Don't touch my stuff!'. Lost all respect for them.

So, davem, is this you backing down on your previous theory?:smokin:

(had to remove your smiley so I could use three of my own...)

Did I have a 'theory'? :p

I think I only went so far as saying 'At worst it will be something mildly embarassing such as......(& then made up some daft scenario as an example of such). Does seem like I was wrong about :mad:the Estate:mad: not caring about 'bland' stuff about Ronald & Hilary being published & so it must have been something 'significant' - seems it wasn't 'significant' in any 'bad' sense (ie something that would impinge on the privacy of any family member still alive, or reveal anything untoward about either of the brothers). I kind of hoped it would be something like that because then at least I could have understood their behaviour - even if I disagreed with it. However, it looks like they are just being petty & obstructive & pretty heartless overall.

Or to put it another way, previously I would have assigned the Estate to The Shire. Now I think they should be assigned to Orthanc, but heading East....

Hear, hear! I've already posted my disdain for this contemptible act on the part of TE in this thread. I just wanted to reiterate it.

Done. :mad:

I know we've all absorbed the message that we should be grateful to Christopher Tolkien for making his father's unpublished writings available & obviously we've gained a massive amount through the work he's done. That said, it could equally be argued that he has been very restrictive in terms of what he has allowed to be published & over who has had access to it.

This really comes down to JRR Tolkien's status as a writer - was Tolkien simply another fantasy author, or should he be ranked alongside the literary giants of the 20th century? If, as I think, Tolkien was a major literary artist then there's a very big question mark over the way access to his archive is being restricted. Full access is unlikely to be granted for many years - if at all, given that much of it is in the form of manuscripts/letters/diaries in the possession of the family. Even when it is out of copyright it could still remain locked away in perpetuo. In other words, I'm beginning to have my doubts as to whether these documents will ever be bequeathed to the nation/a museum. If, as some individuals/organisations are pushing for, copyright is extended still further - some even wanting it extended indefinitely - then we could see even the documents in possession of others (as with these letters to Hilary Tolkien) never seeing the light of day.

If we had a situation where copyright ran in such a way, & an archive of unpublished personal papers/poems/plays by, say, Shakespeare was in the possession of one person, who only published what he wanted, when he wanted, in the form he wanted (with whatever excisions he decided on) & only allowed access to the rest of the archive to those he 'approved' of (whether these were the best/most informed/most competent individuals or not), & laid down draconian restrictions on what they could publish, & in some cases agreeing to permit publication & then changing his mind, how 'grateful' would we feel? Somewhat, given that without his authorisation we would have nothing at all, but also we'd be quite seriously miffed (imo) that the work of a literary artist of major significance was accessible only at the whim of this copyright holder.

To use copyright law in this way - to actually prevent an author discussing the relationship between two long dead brothers (with the full permission of the family of one of those brothers), when nothing intrusive or hurtful is involved, is pretty much beyond shocking - to the point that I'm starting to feel that any writer or academic that has to do with the Estate at the present time should seriously examine their consciences.

It might be interesting to discuss Christopher Tolkien's approach to his father's work - of course, JRRT handed the unpublished material to Christopher to do with as he would, but what he has done with it has been very interesting. Some years back I started a thread 'Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...' http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11338 on the changes made to the 50th anniversary edition of LotR. These were fairly significant in some ways, quite minor in others, but in total they run to between 300-400 alterations to the text. There is also a new index compiled by Hammond & Scull replacing the one authorised by JRRT himself - all (obviously) without the permission of the author. This re-writing of posthumous works is questionable from an artistic pov - & says a great deal about CT's attitude to his father's work. On a personal level I don't like the new editions (more for the approach taken by CT & the editors than for the final product - though as I've argued in the earlier thread there are some changes that I feel are simply wrong artistically & without any real justification - my initial post from that thread:

Well now that I’m properly paranoid about writing my paper about LotR and Tolkien for European History, here’s my thoughts:

First about copyright:
To my very limited understanding it is the same. Which means that it will be some time in 2043 before copyright expires if the current laws are kept. As time goes on I think we’ll probably see more pressure being put on the government to extend copyright’s far past the time they currently are which will anger many people but the corporations are the ones that have the lobbying money.

The primary thing of interest to me is the fact that its not even scandalous. Why should it matter then that the authors want to portray two brothers’ relationship? I am fairly certain that nothing in that book could be any worse then what my classmates and I wrote in our papers last term. In fact, my peers would probably prefer me to find something scandalous about Tolkien - the joys of having AP classes with teenage boys whose idea of history is unsubstantiated rumors about Catherine the Great. :rolleyes: Of course those were written about people and events prior to 1800.

So, why is our culture so accepting of people long dead being remembered primarily for their scandals, but we are accepting of certain public figures who died just a short time ago having their reputations protected by their families. And why are we so willing to allow the Tolkien estate in particular to protect J.R.R. Tolkien’s memory? I have a strong disliking of historical figures being white washed. I don’t want to hear about somebody who was perfect. I want to hear about the real human being.

And now I’m going to go freak out about copyright laws and my paper.

Just saw this on The Tolkien Shop and thought davem would be interested in it.

It is a photocopy of Tolkien's last will and testament and it is for sale. Of its contents:

I don't know anything about the site.

Hmmm...Ten pounds for a photocopy -- what a deal! Now, is it a numbered photocopy where only a certain amount were copied and then the will was destroyed? ;)

A will becomes a public document when probate is granted. Anyone can get a copy for a fiver.

There ya go! I think you just told us something about the site, Mith. ;)

I think there's any number of theories, conspiracy and otherwise, one can come up with, Morth :D

But doesn't this love of scandal that so many seem to have explain why people can develop over-the-top paranoia about privacy and protecting reputation? I mean, really, you seem to be arguing against yourself here, Lady Brooke.

What an enterprising lot! I wonder what other great bargains they offer?

Frodo /Sauron fingers by the dozen, pieces of the true Ent, Saruman's sparkling chuddies? I still have a bit of Tolkien's old garden wall somewhere if anyone is interested....

Anyone in the UK can. It's a bit harder if you live anywhere else in the world...

Not with t'interwebs and a creditcard? £16 if you need someone to do a search for you but since we know where and when.... Why not get a death cert too and be really intrusive....

I don't see it as being such. In a way, if there is nothing scandalous then it makes sense to release the information, so that people will not start rumors. Also Tolkien is dead which in my mind exempt him from being worried about such things as reputation.

There are plenty of non scandalous things that people wish to to keep private. I am not money laundering but I would object to my bank account details being published without consent. Or my private correspondence. Or that of my deceased parents.

The failure to distinguish between secret an private and the assumption that anything not in the public domain must be scandalous I find abhorrent. People have the right to privacy and to protect their intellectual property as much as any other kind

I fear I'm not being very coherent with my thoughts in this thread. Yes, people have a right to privacy. However when you chose to publish a book or do anything else to become famous you surrender some of that. I do not support scandalous information being released just because it's scandalous, however, I know many people who do. It's a fact of life that, especially with the recent invention of Myspace and Facebook, some people want to know everything they can about everyone else.

The main thing that bothers me is not the fact that they want to keep some things private but the vehemence with which they do so. Nobody is denying the facts in this case, that Tolkien wrote a letter to one of his relatives, that relative had a book written about him, and the Tolkien Estate blocked the release of the book because it contained the contents of that letter. And that's what bothers me. If I had a secret that I didn't want to become public knowledge, I would not write it down in a letter and mail it to somebody. In fact, I assume that anything I write about my personal life may be published in the newspaper if I one day decide to run for a political office or something. I don't care if technically it can be argued that the letter cannot be published because it's my intellectual property. If you give somebody a document on which you've written anything, unless you have a prior arrangement that the person will not show it to anybody and burn it after reading, there is always the chance that it will end up public knowledge. Yes, it can be argued that the Tolkien's children have a right to keep their father's personal life private. It can also be argued that the Tolkien Estate is trampling over the freedoms of the letter recipient's family by forbidding this book to be published.

I think LadyBrooke has a point. It just takes a bit af comon sense to see how personal a letter is and should it be published. I wouldn't want some of my emails to be known, but I don't really mind about others.

But we aren't seeing common sense are we? Even here we have seen arguments that pretty much amount to that one must either wear a bourka or go naked in public.

I don't think for a moment that publishing a book especially about a fantasy world voids your right to personal privacy. If Tolkien had got famous by being a papparazzo or founding Wikileaks you might have a point on grounds of hypocrisy but Tolkien never tried to be famous. He did what he did for it's own sake. He surely would never have embraced the modern cult of vacuous celebrity or endorsed the making public of every last thought that passes through ones head or photograph of every moment of ones life. Can you imagine Tolkien tweeting? That many people have no regard to their own privacy (I am tempted to say have no shame) shouldn't deprive others of theirs.

I think someone of Tolkien's generation would have expected a private letter to a family member to stay private. Letters are more rare and significant now perhaps but back then it was the only practical method of communication - even when I was a child and teenager, not so very long ago (though shatteringly just before Lady Brooke was born - congratulations btw), I was expected to ask before using the phone because of the cost. Would you find it intrusive if you had your private phone calls recorded and published? I know I would.

Yes it is sad for the authors if they have wasted work but they were exploiting resources they had no right to. The copyright laws regarding letters is hardly obscure. Given the history I am not suprised that the Estate protects its rights and privacy by what ever means available. If the laws it uses weren't designed for that purpose so what? You use the tools available. The professional body I used to belong to had a member who brought it into disrepute by major fraud and embezzlement. They could have used the associations rules on such things to expell him but it would have taken a long time and been expensive. Much simpler to expel him on grounds of non-payment of subscription.:cool:

The Tolkien family are not monsters. I am sure a lot of fans resent the estate protecting its rights re the Hobbit because it delayed the films. A lot of charities will be very grateful they did. Intellectual property isn't trivial because it is intangible. It protects the livelihoods of artists and writers. So the recipient has no right to profit from a letter. If I (as I sometimes do) send a card made from one of my original photographs) I woudn't expect to expect that recipient to reproduce that card and sell it for their benefit without so much as a by your leave.

For me, this is the heart of the matter. Tolkien had no desire or expectation that he would one day be a household name. He didn't live in a time where people routinely post private details of their lives in a manner which could be viewed by millions around the world instantly, and when fame, or, if that can't be easily attained, mere infamy, is sadly an overwhelming obsession with millions of people. Today, we are shadowed by constant surveillance: our interactions online are carefully monitored and preserved; our bags and bodies are given the fine-tooth comb treatment when we want to fly on planes, and video cameras are literally everywhere. Any of us reading this might expect something we've said on this forum, or Facebook, or Twitter, to be read by very many people. But letters back then were very private matters, between the writer and the recipient only. Unless one is a publicity hound, or an aspiring politician, there would be no expectation at all from one of Tolkien's time that his personal correspondence would be an object of interest. With that in mind, I think it's rather generous of the Estate to have allowed The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien publication.

Indeed and most of the letters are highly relevant to his work and worldview - although I believe Humphrey Carpenter got free rein. I rather suspect the Estate has drawn the laager round as a result of greater intrusions and they might well have not cooperated now which would have been a great loss.

Also let us not forget that modern celebrities pay agents, image consultants and media advisors and indeed lawyers vast sums to protect their rights and control the way they are portrayed. Tolkien carried on with the day job and only went exdirectory when he got too many middle of the night phone calls.

Just a couple of quick replies . . .

Mithalwen, one of the issues concerning this book is that the authors had the permission of the owners of the Letters, so they were not, as you say above, "exploiting resources they had no right to." They believed they had that right. Later, the owners of the copyright denied or withdrew permission. So obviously there are differences amongst the Tolkien heirs about what constitutes privacy and unfortunately this little book got caught.

Inziladun, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Even by Tolkien's day, academics were reading authors' letters and private diaries for relevance to the written work and for understanding of the creative process. One doesn't have to be sympathetic to psychoanalytic criticism to understand this. It would have been naive of Tolkien to believe that his letters would be irrelevant to his readers or have no bearing on his art; indeed many of his letters clearly demonstrate his intense desire to explain his work. It was not generous of the Estate to allow publication of the selected letters; it was part of the responsibility of a literary executor to allow for such scholarship.

There is a real and significant difference between such scholarship and the kind of celebrity publicity you are describing and it does a grave disservice to academe to ignore that difference.

I learnt a great deal about Charlotte Bronte's writing by reading and examining the style of her letters--I learnt just how well she was able to vary her voice in writing. And can only bemoan the fact that one of her correspondants destroyed her letters, deeming them too inflamatory or radical for the time. She, too, wanted to protect Bronte's reputation.

I can see your point. However, all Tolkien's letters were not an explanation or a discussion of his public writings or the creative process involved. Does the mere fact that he was a writer strip away the man's privacy regarding personal letters that have no bearing on his "public" life, especially when he cannot now voice his opinion on the matter?

Well, first of all, that is the case with other writers, so why should Tokien be exempt?

And actually, letters which do not directly pertain to the writing can often yield significant clues or examples or explanations about the writer and his (or her) time.

After all, why did Carpenter print the letter which Tokien wrote to his son about women? It doesn't pertain directly to Tolkien's writing and is simply advice from a father to a son.

But it tells us oodles about Tolkien and helps us understand his relation to his time. It also gives us a view of what Oxford must have been like and so is historically relevant for studies of university life in the early twentieth century and what it must have been like for women. Since Tolkien was a significant member of the academy, his letters have a value beyond simply his own writing. They have sociological and historical value.

I have to disagree with you. I stand by what I said. Ignorance of the law is no defence. That they never had the right to publish or exploit the letters seems clear from Calcifer's post. It isn't a result of a body "Tolkien Heirs" changing their mind and the authors being hapless victims. There are two groups of heirs with different and potentially conflicting rights. Hilary's heirs are the owners of the physical letters. They can sell them, show them to who they like burn them if they want however detrimental that would be to future scholarship. They never had copyright over them and so could not pass it on. However much they believed it it wasn't the case. It isn't an obscure piece of law. If I as a layperson know it then a publisher should. It seems very basic to check these things if their inclusion is vital to the viability of a project.

The estate for what ever reason did not grant permission, that is their right. They are not responsible for third parties wasting their time over a misapprehension.

A valid point, Mithalwen, but you overlook the fact that one earlier book had already been allowed, Black and White Ogre Country. So the case is perhaps not quite as black and white as you make it. :)

I don't want to belabour this point, as I don't know all the reasons and saw only some of the items, and as I reposted to discuss the general question of privacy and academic research. What I do know is that, as I said earlier, this decision follows on other situations where copyright was withdrawn, such as with the Beowulf translation, so clearly there are multiple issues at play.

I just see it as very unfortunate, all round.