Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh
I dislike the conflation of Christopher Tolkien, the Tolkien Estate and the Estate's legal representatives, and I don't like the idea that the Estate aren't entitled to defend their rights against even their fans just because we buy the product. I'll admit, though, that I've been concerned by several of the Estate's activities of late, particularly in the suppression of Wheelbarrows at Dawn (which I can't imagine said anything damaging about anyone) and the assault on the Tolkien Society a few years back over the use of the Tolkien name. I am concerned that the Estate is making enemies of people who should rightly be its friends and its reasoning looks increasingly shaky. In the absence of further information, though, I shan't be blaming any one person.
|
But Christopher (+ Adam) effectively are the Estate. Unless you're arguing that Manches are basically doing what they like & acting without any authority then you have to accept that Christopher + Adam k now & approve of their actions. If we were talking about one incident I could put this down to over zealous lawyers (are there any other kind?). However, we're not simply talking about one incident. There was the Tolkien Society thing you mention, Wheelbarrows at Dawn (a mis use of the spirit of Copyright Law because a privacy law was not available (nor should a privacy law cover incidents that happened nearly a century ago - especially considering all parties concerned are long dead). This attempt to prevent publication of a fantasy novel which uses Tolkien as a character but clearly states that its all pretend & that the author is exploring the Translator Conceit which Tolkien himself came up with - is pushing the idea of 'copyright' way beyond the legal definition (& as lawyers they should have know that - they probably did but thought Hilliard would back down) The incident over the (non-profit making) children's summer camp is fairly contemptible as far as I'm concerned.
Quote:
|
I object to people altering history for the sake of a good story, whilst still presenting the good story as history. That leads to all the dearly held national myths that keep people fighting wars five-hundred years after the original disagreement - which was like as not about who owned an egg. Shakespeare is only the worst offender in the English literary pantheon, followed no less ably by Scott and many, many others.
|
But what would you do to stop it? Braveheart (or that American movie from a few years back that showed the yanks capturing the Enigma machine) & the like are certainly annoying, but what't the alternative? Do you have the government dictating THE FACTS, & banning historical fiction? And would you trust them to do it? I heard a few years back that in US state schools children were being taught in history lessons that the Irish potato famine was caused by the British in a deliberate act of genocide. History is written by the winners (& other cliches....) Do you want censorship (even of fiction - in fact you'd finish off the genre of historical fiction at one fell swoop as no-one would be able to make anything up. In fact why stop there - why not get rid of the other annoying genre, SF - all that stuff about faster than light travel & alien civilisations - where's the evidence for them?)
[/QUOTE]
The human imagination works through stories & all stories are ultimately 'what-ifs'. You talk as if history was all hard facts that no-one disputed & that could be set out fair & square. Going back to Shakespeare & taking Richard III as an example. Everyone with an iota of common sense knows that Richard was a good king, decent bloke (for the time he lived) & nothing like the monster created by Shakespeare. However, there are still historians who will argue that he was pretty much as bad as Shakespeare presented him (Desmond Seward & Michael Hicks spring to mind). Of course, as we get closer to the present there is (usually) less dispute, but ....And of course, whatever Richard was really like Richard III is a work of genius & 'true', even if not factual (a vital distinction, IMO).
What Hilliard does in Mirkwood is take the Translator Conceit & the lack of central female characters in LotR & play around. There's no harm in it. Its a bit silly in parts, very silly in other parts & frankly dumb here & there. As I've stated, its a pot boiler. Its fun & carries you along. I wouldn't read it again, but if I can get the sequel for a couple of quid on the Kindle I'll probably buy it just to see what happens next.