[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

You now seem to be saying that anyone can write anything and use any material how they like and the literary quality is the only criteria? Hmm .... so it is alright for YOU to judge on literary merit ... ?

No, I'm just saying that literary merit would override subject matter if I was the judge. I wouldn't 'burn' Lolita....

Actually there are books which have been sanitised but I think there is a fairly obvious difference between genuine novels that allegedly promote offensive ideas and creating a false history for a real person.

But he's not creating a 'false history' - its a novel & clearly states that its a work of fantasy. I've just finished reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court & I never for one minute believed that Mark Twain was trying to create a false history of fifth century Britain. In both cases we're dealing with a 'tale', which, well-, or badly-written, has every right to exist. Or should Mark Twain join Mirkwood on the bonfire - along with every other historical novel (& don't forget that absolute pile of lies, Catch 22 - I happen to know that nothing like that happened in WWII!)

James Martin's autobiography was recalled and pulped because of things he said about his step mother. But if you can hang around for someone to be conveniently out of the way.... you can defame them as much as you like.

Again, this book is a fantasy, not an autobiography.

You seem to think overall that Christopher Tolkien is restraining the trade of various hard done by authors. The point is the Gaffer was in his own home. He wasn't a sqautter. You are really defending the rights of Saruman and his croney's to take over the Shire.

Nope - Christopher Tolkien is claiming that he 'owns' not simply his father's work, but his father's character & personality & should be able to prevent anyone depicting him in any way that he doesn't approve of. Should that apply to all historical personalities? Perhaps War & Peace should go on the bonfire too?

The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.[/I]

Whether you like it of not (and you clearly don't)the Estate owns the rights to Tolkien's works. and has the right to protect them and test the limits of those rights in the courts. Just as a householder has legal protection against squatters and burglars.

This is nothing to do with the use or mis-use of Tolkien's writings - it has to do with whether a writer has a right to use a dead person as a character in a made up setting. If you say he doesn't then I can't see how you can support the existence of any historical story from Homer down to The King's Speech - a good bit of Shakespeare would have to go (I'm a bit of a Ricardian but I don't think Richard III should join the others on the bonfire).

The estate may have money. It may also be in the right. It seems to think it has a duty (and I think it probably does legally regardless of morality) to take action. You may have a preference to go for the "underdog" in any circumstances, but are you defending the corner shop against "the man" or the purveyor of stolen goods?.

What, exactly has been 'stolen'? Define what has been 'stolen' from JRRT by the existence of this work? Is anyone likely to think that what happens in this book to a character called JRR Tolkien really happened to the real JRR Tolkien?

.. given the millions of Tolkien fans, the fact that noone has read and reviewed in six weeks suggests that it probably doesn't improve after the few example pages and would have sunk without much trace. Modern wisdom says you should not give such things the oxygen of publicity.
But then the precedent would have been set and the floodgates opened.

Not the point - this might well be the biggest pile of foetid dingoes kidneys ever to see the printing press. The point is that it is a fantasy novel that depicts a real historical character in a fantasy setting. As for 'floodgates being opened' - did you look at the list I linked to above - Tolkien has been used as a character in numerous works of fiction (even, in the chapter Thursday Nights in Carpenter's The Inklings, where, with the full approval of Christopher Tolkien one assumes the author recreates a 'typical' Inklings meeting - no single event of which can be proved to have happened at all)

What amazes me (apart from how anyone can write so badly and get published) is why the publi shers don't check out the legal side first. There must be some kind of due diligence that isn't happening. This may be testing the boundaries but the other books fell at a really basic level.

Again, this is not about the 'quality' of the book (which may be trash of the highest order for FAIK). And I don't see where 'legality' comes into this - is this the first time a historical novel has been written using a historical person as a central character - & has anyone ever been dragged through the courts for doing that?