Quote:
Originally Posted by mhagain
The contradiction is only apparent.
|
See Galin’s discussion of J. R. R. Tolkien’s actual use of the name
Ereinion. If Galin is right here, then Gil-galad at the time that Tolkien named him Ereinion was indeed the “Scion of Kings”.
Yes, legally Christopher Tolkien had the right to do anything he wished with his father’s work. However legally any commentator has the right to criticize what Christopher Tolkien has done, whether that commentator’s criticism is just or not, just as he or she has the legal right to criticize the writings of any other author as long as he or she does not descend to provably libelous statements.
Your statement I still find offensive. The statement was:
Based on that I don't think we've much choice but to accept the published Silmarillion as being anything other than in accordance with JRRT's wishes, which distils the debate down to whether or not it's what JRRT would have done had he lived.
Your use of the word
we indicates that I, not just you, have no choice but to accept whatever Christoper Tolkien has written. Yet you yourself note that Christopher Tolkien himself “came to view many of those decisions as incorrect”. I don’t think you meant Christopher Tolkien was in any way legally overstepping the limits set by his father’s will. Indeed, had Christopher Tolkien produced a work almost entirely of his own invention (instead of the published
Silmarillion he did produce) that would not have transgressed anything in the will. And I don’t see that when Christopher Tolkien “came to view many of those decisions as incorrect” he was suggesting that he had written anything that was
legally incorrect.
Your attempt to show that Christopher Tolkien has done nothing illegal (and indeed could have done nothing illegal regardless of what he did write) has no relevance to complaints that have been made about Christopher Tolkien’s writings, complaints I feel are largely unjustified.