Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
Despite the fact that scholars earn their living by teaching and writing literary reviews, abstracts, reports, critiques,etc. it's hardly an act of commercialisation.I know a great many who would laugh and scoff at that idea. Very few scholars become wealthy being a scholar.
|
Distinguishing between the "scholar" and the Paperback Writer may not always be an easy thing, though, particularly in the Age of Hollywood, where any visual or audio work of art is immediately viewed as a commercial product first, anything else playing second banana.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
I'm not sure every case and example is decided upon by CT. Some of them smell to me like lawyers attempting to put a chill on any idea of using Tolkien in any way. That may well be an accepted legal practice but I think it hardly speaks well of an Estate that is supposed to want people to respect the author. Just think of the children who would go home excited to read The Hobbit, for instance, thinking they'd just spent some time in Middle-earth.
|
I don't think CT is necessarily the source of all the decisions. Lawyers though, are presumably acting on
someone's instructions on how to handle different situations. Why would they be so quick to throw out the wheat with the chaff? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Try as I might, I just don't see any sinister motive between the Estate's possessiveness. Again, I'm not saying I agree with every call they make, but I have to think there's some reasoning behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
And age is no excuse for lazy thinking.
|
Possessiveness need not equal laziness.