At its heart here it look like there is a contradiction which is sending two very different messages. One the one hand we have the oft-quoted statement from Tolkien
Quote:
Quote:
|
The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.
|
|
Which seems to indicate - at least in 1951 - that JRRT wanted others to contribute to his ME mythology at the least through other artistic expressions such as paint, music and drama.
But then we have his will over 20 years later - years of success and royalty checks and giving him something substantial to protect and give to others - where he now says its all up the legalisms of Estates and lawyers and rights and permissions.
Obviously the will takes legal precedent over the 1951 statement in a letter.
But I wonder what would be said in court if one wrote a dramatic play based on events only "sketched" from the First or Second Age, put music to it, employed artists to illustrate it and then offered it to the public. Even JRRT said that "a solitary art is not art". I agree that the legal force of the law would be employed to show the individual putting on this drama had no permission. They would most likely, most probably, lose in court.
But I would love to hear the explaination of an Estate spokesperson on the witness stand who would have to publicly resolve the obvious contradiction.
We also have the entire idea of what is DRAMA? Is it the strictly limited theater production associated with the stage? Or is it a broader definition that could be used to describe TV, films or other such things?
It really seems to me that you can couch all this in very well meaning and high sounding terms and debate all about the nuances of the various issues but , in the end, this all comes down to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. On all sides.