Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Whatever Tolkien may have intended or wanted the fact is that people are writing new stories, and there's nothing that's going to stop them from doing so. And no matter how the Professor would have reacted to these tales there are lots of people reading and enjoying these new stories.

The horse, as they say, has already left that particular barn...

The fact that stories are being written and enjoyed doesn't answer the question of what status is to be accorded to these stories or how they should be read in relation to Tolkien's own Middle Earth writings. I think his intention is relevant to determing that question.

[Sauron the White]

Saucepan ... very well done indeed.

I asked this back on page 3 but it got lost in all the higher level discussion. It seems very to the point of the JRRT original quote.

So then, to honor the intentions of JRRT, I can take what he has created and use the medium of drama, or art or music to add to it?

Is this a correct assumption based on the words of JRRT?

Quote:
"But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story....I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. "

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

So then, to honor the intentions of JRRT, I can take what he has created and use the medium of drama, or art or music to add to it?

Is this a correct assumption based on the words of JRRT?

You can do what you like. Whether it would breach any legal right is a different question.

As has been noted, fan-fic, fan art and the like is produced (and published on the internet) all the time with little or no objection from the Estate or anyone else. Even where this is strictly in breach of a legal right, it is generally not worth the right holder objecting, unless it is done for profit.

If you were to publish such material on a commercial basis, however, you would be at risk of legal action, unless this were done with the permission of, and under licence from, the holder of the relevant legal rights (which will be the Estate in most cases, although the film, stage and merchandising rights to Tolkien's works are owned, I believe, by Saul Zaentz).

[Bêthberry]

Just a few short remarks . . . well, maybe longish ones. *insert winking smilie here*

SpM, I appreciate your loyerly attempt to impose some sort of clerical order on the discussion here. However, the fact that a topic might never have a definitive conclusion, as you put it, has never stopped any Downs discussion in the past and there is little reason to believe it shall in the future; nor does it provide any kind of evidence as to the value or pleasure of said discussion.

The question of encouragement is a fascinating one, for it has many facets. Encouragement can exist in specifically expressed statements, whether they be public or private. (The distinction between those two does not negate the value of either one.) Encouragement can exist in a will, as with Tolkien's trust in the judgement of CT, a person who, one can say, was expressly educated to be the reader Tolkien wanted. In this case, CT has chosen to publish postumously his father's writing.

Encouragement can exist also as a quality of the writing. This seems to be a quality which Tolkien himself valued. Not only did he write to create the kind of story he wanted to read; he also wrote in order to explore the desireability of story. He wanted to make a story we couldn't put down. There's a lovely expression of this in one of his non fiction texts and I shall return with the reference when time permits. Or not.

It is this kind of encouragement which is the least "provable" but is certainly demonstrable in the efforts of many readers to "rattrapé" that quality of desireability. (Oh, my, there goes my French again. It must be the Canadian in me fighting against the Conquest.) It is also this quality which I think intrigues the historical questions raised by Child and possibly Raynor, if I understand him correctly. Oh, and I also want to commend Child yet again for pointing out that issues and topics are infinitely more complex than that "if you ain't for us, yore agin us" mentality.

The question of canonicity was not, to my mind, ever part of the initial question, nor the imprimatur of the Estate. Nor the quality of any inspiration. Red herrings, the lot of 'em.

Raynor takes the position of many performing artists, for whom it is a prime honour to be imitated and to inspire others in art beyond that of mere imitation, because such action speaks to the success of the art. Did Tolkien ask permission to write Turin? No, because the text gave him that "authority" when it inspired his own muse/work. Yet there are others who feel it is a matter of courtesy to inform an artist when his (or her) work has been 'appropriated'. Death limits this possibility, but both ideas exist within artistic communities.

It is well, also, to recognize that this concept of "Author" does not in fact equal the person. The person exists before the text is written, but only the writing of the text makes this entity "Author" possible. What we call "Author" (as opposed to the legal paraphernalia, which relate to the person) is an identity produced by the writing. It's not that a person didn't write a text but that the concept of Author and Authorial Intention can severely hamper the pleasure of a story.

Case in point. Sometimes that identity severely strains our understanding of a text. Consider Milton's Satan. Milton didn't mean, didn't intend, for Satan to be so attractive. But Satan is. Are we to deny that experience of the reading? No, it becomes a topic for discussion. Or for art, as William Blake showed. And I don't think Blake asked Milton for permission, either. But then did Milton ask for permission?

People have been leery of reducing books to authorial intent long before M. Barthes wrote his little work. For those who might be interested in the ideas--which are merely adumbrated by that title "Death of the Author" and more complex than the title--here are some links. Pop ones also available, but time limits--really I must wean myself of this Tolkien habit and go read someone else now.

Wiki on Barthes
(Remember, Wiki isn't "authoritative" *insert winking smilie here* )

Barthe's essay (Check out other online texts, too, in case of errors. Tolkien was forever sending his publisher lists of errata.)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I've been waiting for you to cite Barthes...

And allow me to say it again briefly -- whether or not Tolkien "wanted" it, or would have "accepted" it, or "condemned" it and whether or not the estate would legally accept it is really all moot. Middle-Earth stories are being written and disseminated and read. Movies are being made, pictures painted, songs written, musicals, puppet-shows, plays...everything Tolkien anticipated (with dread or without it). My point is simply this: each individual reader gets to decide:

a) which of these new stories or revisionings of the "originals" he or she will consume, and

b) whether or not to 'accept' it as part of the 'total experience' of Middle-Earth as constructed by that individual reader.

As there is nothing anyone can do to change this fact, it seems to me rather pointless getting into a froth over it.

But this is rather beside the points now being made. Back to Barthesian hermeneutics... (I am so tempted her to bring up the word simulacra but shall forgo...for the time being).

[Lalwendë]

Ho, more good examples of just how wrong Barthes was - arguments all over the place are the result!

The plain fact is that the theory that the Author Is Dead is against Reason. It is an intellectual return to primitives beating each other over the head with haunches of reindeer meat (or clubs - but reindeer meat is more visceral an image). The logical conclusion of the notion is that Nothing Is Right, Nothing Is True, All Is Chaos. Yet no writer sets out with this aim beyond those who devote themselves to pure free-form poetry or stream of consciousness gumpf. All writers have Purpose. It might be vague, it might be complex, it might be indecipherable, but it is there. All that the Barthes theory does is allow us to abdicate all sense of intellectual rigour and 'hey man', just go with the flow.

It also, of course, ensures that academics are never out of work or short on new papers to write as there's always something else to say, even if it is a load of carp.

Hmm, how often do fans discuss whether Tolkien intended his work as Christian? Lots. We're discussing his Intent there of course. Basing discussion around his Intent does not mean we must accept his intent, indeed, we cannot agree that he did intend that. It is interesting and fruitful to talk about nevertheless. You simply do not get that if you want to follow Barthes. You just spend weeks on end going 'hmmmm' and 'after you' and nothing gets anywhere - and only the possessor of the longest words survives. Hermeneutics? Simulacra? Pretentious? Exactly.

And there's a deep irony in examining and subjecting Tolkien to a theory he would have deplored with all his heart. It was Barthes, Derrida, Foucault (their names make me feel quite ill) and his ilk who ethnically cleansed study of his great love, Etymology, from Universities worldwide. They stood for everything he hated.

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by Jacques Derrida, on Why the Chicken Crossed The Road

Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, $%^&, DEAD!

X

[Lalwendë]

Any fool could have told him that Le Chicken was just trying to get away from the farmer who wanted to stuff its liver full of fat until it exploded.

[Thenamir]

The only restriction is on publishing such fiction for profit, & by extension on attempting to make a reputation as 'Tolkien's Literary Heir'.

Interesting that Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time volumes (for which, apparantly, he gets paid by the pound) are plastered with a quote from a New York Times reviewer, "Robert Jordan has come to dominate the world Tolkien began to reveal." One can scarcely imagine the disgust such a quote engenders on this site.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It is well, also, to recognize that this concept of "Author" does not in fact equal the person. The person exists before the text is written, but only the writing of the text makes this entity "Author" possible. What we call "Author" (as opposed to the legal paraphernalia, which relate to the person) is an identity produced by the writing. It's not that a person didn't write a text but that the concept of Author and Authorial Intention can severely hamper the pleasure of a story.

Case in point. Sometimes that identity severely strains our understanding of a text. Consider Milton's Satan. Milton didn't mean, didn't intend, for Satan to be so attractive. But Satan is. Are we to deny that experience of the reading? No, it becomes a topic for discussion. Or for art, as William Blake showed. And I don't think Blake asked Milton for permission, either. But then did Milton ask for permission?

Well, yes, but even if one accepted that authorial intention is neither here nor there (hence one is perfectly ok to read LotR as an actual history book - or to put it another way 'What's reality got to do with anything?'), there is a major difference between choosing to see Sauron as a tragic hero & ignoring an author's right to object to people ripping him or her off.

And that in the end is the issue. Anyone can write fanfic & make it freely available on the net, or in fanzines (yes, a few still exist - the Tolkien Society's bi-monthly journal, Amon Hen, regularly publishes M-e fanfic). The only restriction is on publishing such fiction for profit, & by extension on attempting to make a reputation as 'Tolkien's Literary Heir'.

And yet, and yet..... All that's happened is that we've sidestepped the main question - who? Who is this 'genius' who will take up the baton? Until we get a name (or names) this discussion will never be more than academic. Let's say the Estate changed its position tomorrow - who is this author who's going to start sweating over a hot computer, producing the next M-e novel?

Is it an already published writer - do people want Steven Erikson, Neil Gaiman, Robert Jordan, Ursula Le Guin? Or do they want someone who's written a piece of fanfic they've read & enjoyed to be authorised - if so, gives us a link to it.

Or are we still on the 'If you authorise it, he will come.' kick? All the Estate has to do is give permission & this visionary artist will magically appear, manuscript in hand?

Still not getting it.....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, yes, but even if one accepted that authorial intention is neither here nor there (hence one is perfectly ok to read LotR as an actual history book - or to put it another way 'What's reality got to do with anything?'), there is a major difference between choosing to see Sauron as a tragic hero & ignoring an author's right to object to people ripping him or her off.

Yep. Alas that kind of theory allows people to plagiarise and be able to have some way of defending it intellectually. However the biggest drawback is that in seeking to 'liberate' the readers it actually alienates them. They are supposedly 'freed' and allowed to respond in their own way despite the fact that they were free to do that anyway - people were seeing Milton's Satan as seductive when Barthes was just a twinkle in Le Milkman's eye. However, now readers are under no obligation to justify their claims with any kind of evidence. So you are, quite literally, free to make any kind of claim that you wish - I can claim Tolkien was writing a Neo-Fascist meisterwerke and there's nothing you can do to disagree with that as that's my right as a reader to respond how I feel. You cannot chuck me a quote out of letters about how much Tolkien despised fascism because it's irrelevant now.

Yet this is exactly why Barthes was full of rubbish - people have feeling and reason and inevitably as humans want to refute such claims. But you can't! You must accept it!

And as humans we seek meaning. We do soul-less jobs and travel on cattle-class public transport and are subject to directives and rules, rules, rules by those supposedly 'superior' to us. We crave Meaning.

The theories of Barthes were meant to stand alongside militant Atheism in a Brave New World. But the world aint like that, humans have proved they want Soul. So they watch an odd, quirky film like Donnie Darko or Lost In Translation and the first thing they say is "But what does it all mean?"

Being told "whatever you want it to" is so alienating.

Is it an already published writer - do people want Steven Erikson, Neil Gaiman, Robert Jordan, Ursula Le Guin? Or do they want someone who's written a piece of fanfic they've read & enjoyed to be authorised - if so, gives us a link to it.

Or are we still on the 'If you authorise it, he will come.' kick? All the Estate has to do is give permission & this visionary artist will magically appear, manuscript in hand?

Not a chance. It's ruddy hard work getting a name and a reputation as a writer, let alone as a decent writer. No-one reputable is going to put that on the line to risk writing a book that will be torn to shreds by the fan community. Even those few who might look forwards to something about Middle-earth not written by Tolkien being commercially available in Wal-mart or wherever would rip it apart - inevitable as the reader would want to see if they could have done a better job themselves.

They'd be very lucky to get a hack writer. More likely it would be an inexperienced one.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The Author is dead! But long live the disembodied Internet discussion board participant!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bb

SpM, I appreciate your loyerly attempt to impose some sort of clerical order on the discussion here. However, the fact that a topic might never have a definitive conclusion, as you put it, has never stopped any Downs discussion in the past and there is little reason to believe it shall in the future; nor does it provide any kind of evidence as to the value or pleasure of said discussion.

Far be it from me to attempt to bring this debate to any conclusion. There is, however, perhaps some merit in pointing out that some issues are incapable of any definitive conclusion, given the tendency of some to characterise their opinions as such, without necessarily imposing any finality on the debate.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Far be it from me to attempt to bring this debate to any conclusion. There is, however, perhaps some merit in pointing out that some issues are incapable of any definitive conclusion, given the tendency of some to characterise their opinions as such, without necessarily imposing any finality on the debate.

Your clarification makes an eminently worthy case and cause. I must say that in this instance I applaud the author's intention.

Originally Posted by Thenamir

Interesting that Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time volumes (for which, apparantly, he gets paid by the pound) are plastered with a quote from a New York Times reviewer, "Robert Jordan has come to dominate the world Tolkien began to reveal." One can scarcely imagine the disgust such a quote engenders on this site.

With such talk of domination, some readers might be forgiven for thinking that Jordan is Sauron returned.

[Sauron the White]

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

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

Why? The Letter was private correspondence, not intended for publication, so cannot be taken to have any weight legally. Also, Tolkien clearly states in the letter that, while that had been his intention at some point in the past, it no longer is ('my crest has long since fallen').

I am now assuming that the proposed new work(s) will be written by this unnamed 'genius'.

Could you please tell me who you think is going to write this 'play'? Please, ONE name, one author who you think will do a decent job.

Of course, I don't expect to get one - because whoever you name someone is going to object, & say they aren't the right person for the job. You see, the problem you have is that while in a fantasy world you can simply invent a writer of genius, in the real world you can't. Suitable writers don't just appear when you snap your fingers, or because you fancy reading a new M-e novel. Asking 'what would happen if someone wrote a 'dramatic play' (sic) based on First/Second Age events?' is a bit like asking 'What would happen if aliens landed in front of the White House & turned George Bush into a three headed chicken?' I can't prove that such an event is impossible, but before I spend time & energy speculating on how the free world would cope with a three headed chicken with its claw on The Button, I'd want some evidence its anything like a real possibility.....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

Indeed. Which is why I feel strongly. For all that people chunner about mythologies, being an intellectual hippy, Barthes, whatever, it does come down to wanting to earn some cash. And if anyone has a moral right to cash made from Tolkien's work it is the family alone - he struggled to bring them up and they deserve some financial legacy, and it's not as if they are living the life of riley like Paris Hilton, they give the bulk of it to charity.

As for dramatisations - there have been many, many more than you would think. For example, I know of one of The Hobbit by Rony Robinson - no Tolkien expert, just a BBC Radio Sheffield DJ.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

Wouldn't that more precisely be ₤?

But seriously (I always give reverence to Serious Cat), was Milton in it for the money? I seem to recall something about justifying the ways of God to man. Or the visionary Blake? Why must you assume the money would be the only motivator? It certainly wasn't uppermost in Tolkien's mind.

Originally Posted by davem

Could you please tell me who you think is going to write this 'play'? Please, ONE name, one author who you think will do a decent job.

Perhaps we could ask Fordim to set up a poll. I nominate Mithadan for one of the names. And then maybe our Silm project collective.