New interview with Christopher Tolkien

[dreeness]

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialisation has reduced the esthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: turning my head away."

Chris must find it physically exhausting, keeping his head turned away while cashing all those enormous cheques.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Chris must find it physically exhausting, keeping his head turned away while cashing all those enormous cheques.

Did you miss this particular line?

This commercial galaxy is now worth several billion dollars, of which most does not go to Tolkien's heirs, and this complicates the management of his heritage for his family, which is polarized not over the images or objects, but over the respect for Tolkien's words.

That's been one of the points of contention between the Estate and Saul Zaentz and Co.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Chris must find it physically exhausting, keeping his head turned away while cashing all those enormous cheques.

Snide little post there

More like writing all those cheques if he were to do it personally. No idea if you can read a set of accounts but this was the first lot that popped up on a search 2007 - bout half way since the films. http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/...070405_e_c.pdf

If you do look at them you will see that the Trustees don't even take expenses which having been a finance officer for two charities I can tell you can tot up.
So these are the charities that benefitted from the cashing of "all those enormous cheques". The second figure is the previous year's donation. The Trust likes to give longterm support rather than large one off payments.

Interesting to note that the legal fees anticipated to get their dues from the films is about a years worth of donations. Shows what you can do with good PR if you can make the Tolkiens look like the bad guys in that sort of situation. Also makes you wonder what the parasites who try to freeload and cash in on Tolkien's name and work do with their profits.

The Ace Centre Advisory Trust 6,000
Action Aid 20,000
Action Contre la Faim 20,000 115,000
Action for Blind People 2,000 2,000
Aid to the Church in Need (UK) 3,000 4,000
Alzheimer's Society 2,000 2,000
Amnesty International UK 16,000 15,000
Association of International Cancer Research 2,000 -
Anglo-Peruvian Child Care Mission 2,000 -
Association pour la Promotion des Extraits Foliaires en Nutrition 6,000 5,000
Asylum Aid 2,000 -
Asylum Welcome 7,000 5,000
The Bat Conservation Trust 1,500 -
Bhopal Medical Appeal 6,000 -
The Big Issue Foundation 7,000 4,000
Birdlife International 10,000 10,000
Birmingham Diocesan Trust 3,000 3,000
Blaen Wern Farm Trust 7,500 6,500
The Bodleian Library - Archiving 35,000 -
The Bodleian Library - Digitisation costs 43,857 -
The Botley Alzheimer's Home 20,000 8,000
Breakthrough Breast Cancer 20,000 9,000
Brecon Mountain Rescue Team 5,000 -
British Friends of NSWAS 5,000 5,000
British Red Cross 3,000 -
British Refugee Council 5,000 2,000
British Retinitis Pigmentosa Society 2,000 2,000
CAFOD 8,000 5,000
Campaign to Protect Rural England 6,000 5,000
Cathedral of St Andrew and St Michael 5,000 -
Childaid to Russia and the Republics 3,000 4,000
Christian Peace Education Fund 3,000 4,000
Climate Outreach Information Network 9,000 10,000
Complementary Health Trust 3,000 1,000
Create (Arts) Limited 6,000 5,000
Cued Speech Association UK 2,000 2,000
Cutteslowe and District Community Association 3,000 1,000
Dames of Ypres/Benedictine Sisters - Kylesmore Abbey 5,000 5,000
DEC Niger Crisis Appeal - 100,000
DEC Asia Quake Appeal - 200,000
Dresden Trust 3,000 1,000
EducAid Sierra Leone 3,000 2,000
Emmaus Oxford 9,000 -
Enfants du Monde - Droits de I'Homme 15,000 15,000
Farm Crisis Network 2,000 -
Find Your Feet Limited 25,000 113,000
The Foundation for Children with Leukaemia 2,000 2,000
The Friends of the Connection at St Martin-in-the-Fields 10,000 10,000
Gloucester Community Church 3,000 2,000
The Grail Centre Trust 50,000 -
Guideposts Trust Limited 9,000 -
The Guild of Handicraft Trust 3,000 2,000
The GYL Project 2,500 1,500
Handicap International 15,000 -
Helen and Douglas House 3,000 -
Help the Aged 2,000 -
The Hope Foundation for Cancer Research 2,000 1,000
The Horse's Voice 3,000 1,000
The Howard League for Penal Reform 9,000 5,000
Inter Faith Network 3,000 1,000
Intercontinental Church Society 3,000 1,000
International Women's Health Coalition 10,000 -
Independence at Home (formerly Invalids at Home) 2,000 2,000
Koestler Trust 5,000 -
Lady Balogh's Psychotherapy Trust 3,000 1,000
Landmine Action 5,000 -
Let the Children Live 2,000 -
The Lincoln Clinic and Centre for Psychotherapy 3,000 1,000
Macmillan Cancer Relief 2,000 1,000
Medical Foundation for the Care of the Victims of Torture 10,000 10,000
Medecins du Monde 10,000 13,000
Medecins Sans Frontieres ( France) 25,000 15,000
Mildmay Mission Hospital 6,000 4,000
MIND (The National Association for Mental Health) 2,000 2,000
Music in Lyddington 2,000 1,000
National Children's Home 2,000 2,000
National Council on Ageing 3,000 2,000
National Deaf Children's Society - Birmingham and District Region 2,000 -
New College Oxford 5,000 -
The Oratory School 10,000 5,000
Orchestra of St. Johns Limited 6,000 4,000
Oxfam International 20,000 -
Oxford Bach Choir 6,000 3,000
Oxford Homeless Medical Fund 9,000 10,000
Oxford Parent Infant Project (OXPIP) 6,000 5,000
The Oxford Philomusica Trust 6,000 5,000
The Oxford Playhouse Trust 9,000 5,000
Oxfordshire Touring Theatre Company Ltd 1,000 -
Oxfordshire Victoria County History 6,000 -
Performing Rights Society 3,000 -
The Poetry Trust (formerly The Aldeburgh Poetry Trust) 2,000 2,000
The Porch 6,000 5,000
Practical Action (Intermediate Technology Development Group Ltd) 20,000 15,000
Prison Advice and Care Trust 2,000 -
Prisoners' Education Trust 3,000 2,000
Rainbow Centre for Children 2,000 -
Rebuilding Sri Lanka 40,000 -
Rochdale Special Needs Cycling Club 1,000 -
The Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind - 2,000
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution 3,000 -
The Royal National Institute for the Blind 3,000 9,500
The Samaritans 5,000 2,000
The Save the Children Fund 3,000 2,000
Shelter, National Campaign for Homeless People Limited 11,000 6,000
Simon Wiesenthal Centre 2,000 2,000
The Smile Train 5,000 -
Sobell House Hospice Charity 3,000 -
St Aloysius Appeal 20,000 8,000
St Hilda's College Oxford 5,000 -
St Peter's Church, Eynsham - 20,000
The Story Museum 2,000 1,000
Survive - Miva 3,000 2,000
Sustrans 3,000 -
Swansea Russian Ballet 7,500 5,500
The Tablet Trust 6,000 5,000
Talking Newspaper Association of the UK (TNAUK) 3,000 2,000
The Thomley Hall Centre Limited 6,000 5,000
Trefnu Cymunedol Cymru 10,000 5,000
Trinity College Oxford 5,000 -
Trust for Research and Education on the Arms Trade 6,000 4,000
Ty Hafan Children's Hospice 12,500 10,000
The UK Working Group on Landmines - 6,000
United Christian Broadcasters Ltd 2,000 1,000
The United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF 25,000 10,000
University of Oxford Botanic Garden and Harcourt Arboretum 7,000 -
University of Oxford Refugee Study Centre 3,000 1,000
University of Manitoba (Alan Klass Memorial Fund) 20,000 20,000
WaterAid 20,000 15,000
West London Churches Homeless Concern 6,000 4,000
The Who Cares? Trust 2,500 -
Womankind Worldwide 10,000 10,000
The Woodland Trust 15,000 10,500
World Cancer Research Fund 6,000 2,000
WWF - Canada 5,000 5,000
WWF - UK 10,000 10,000

[dreeness]

Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

No idea about how well you grasp the obvious, but them thar dastardly Hollywood moguls acquired the movie rights legally, for what at the time would've been considered a princely sum. If the first movie had bombed, that would've meant no billion-dollar Tolkien media empire.

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)


Nice list of charities, as smokescreens go anyway... "Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged."

Not that ol' Chris is a villain, that would be too significant. More of a Frank Sinatra Junior, or maybe something a bit more abject.


"Hypocritical money-grubbing elitist reptile" works.

parasites who try to freeload and cash in on Tolkien's name and work

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by dreeness

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)

No need for Google.

hy·poc·ri·sy   [hi-pok-ruh-see]
noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3.
an act or instance of hypocrisy.

How is CT guilty of hypocrisy? He had nothing to do with the sale of the movie rights, and doesn't approve of the way PJ's movies were done. There's no pretense there. The movies were done despite his wishes, and he feels the Estate should at least reap some of the benefit, since they couldn't be stopped. Hypocrisy would be present if, say, CT had been actively courting companies for a film treatment, then gave interviews about how evil was the idea of LOTR movies.

Originally Posted by dreeness

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

I don't think Christopher has ever claimed any of his father's "reassembled" works to be a "masterpiece". He's been quite frank about the limitations of such works as Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion. Would you prefer that they had never seen the light of day? And if you don't like the job CT did, who would you have preferred as an editor?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

No-one is shooting anyone. Calling something a blank does not make it one.

No idea about how well you grasp the obvious, but them thar dastardly Hollywood moguls acquired the movie rights legally, for what at the time would've been considered a princely sum. If the first movie had bombed, that would've meant no billion-dollar Tolkien media empire.

No-one has denied this or does deny it. But part of this legal agreement was that Tolkien, and later his estate, was entitled to some of the profits. It looks like you are one who does not grasp the obvious.

But here's Chris Tolkien, all like... Hollywood is a satanic scabrous brothel, a loathsome sump of vile whoremongers peddling lowbrow filth to the hoi-polloi. ...And I shall have my percentage!

You support the legal right of the film-makers but deny the legal right of Christopher Tolkien? If you want to keep this on the level of legality alone, the law is the law. Is it your contention that if Christopher Tolkien does not like the films he should either give up his legal rights or be a hypocrite?

Which is hypocrisy, to use the technical term. (You can google it.)

Claiming that legal rights only applies to some people and not to others is indeed hypocrisy.

Not that ol' Chris is a villain, that would be too significant. More of a Frank Sinatra Junior, or maybe something a bit more abject.


"Hypocritical money-grubbing elitist reptile" works.

Name-calling doesn’t work at all. Do you think it OK to employ name-calling against Christopher Tolkien and not against the film-makers? Call me names too if you wish. It won’t matter. Most people will see that it is only empty name-calling by someone who has no other argument.

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

No it wouldn’t.

Christopher Tolkien has the same legal right you go on about to write books about his father’s works as the film makers have to make their films. Christopher Tolkien’s books have sold unexpectedly well. I have not seen most of them pushed as a “lost masterpiece”. I have seen the films pushed as masterpieces.

Christopher Tolkien has a legal claim to a share of the profits of the films (if any). The claim of the film makers is that they have as yet made no money from the films. The courts disagreed.

If you believe that the courts were wrong, then explain how they were wrong. If your claim is on the legal level, then keep it on that level. Legally it would not matter if Christopher Tolkien were an axe-murderer and pederast and abominable writer. As executor of the Tolkien estate he has the right and duty to protect the estate. Similarly the film investors have the right and duty to protect their investment.

Your argument seems to me to be that because you think that Christopher Tolkien has done a poor job of managing his father’s legacy the courts should have accepted that the films have as yet made no profit. But one has nothing to do with the other. And sales of the books put out by Christopher Tolkien indicate, taken by themselves, that he is doing a good job.

The courts decided that the film investors were lying. That is not a blank. Under the legal agreement which J. R. R. Tolkien signed Christopher Tolkien is entitled to money according to the courts.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Whoa, pard. Best to load up with something other than blanks before you start shooting the messenger.

You have offered nothing but bitter bits of personal opinion and misinformed invective, whereas Mith offered concrete information in her rebuttal; therefore, it is you who have brought a pop-gun to the intellectual duel.

Originally Posted by dreeness

Would that be like someone who vacuums up every last motley scrap of paper JRR ever touched, hastily glues it together and sells the resulting garbled mess as a lost masterpiece?

Christopher Tolkien's research has proved invaluable to me in numerous projects. The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author. The published material in the History of Middle-earth series alone is an enriching resource that I treasure and find indispensible.

I don't know why you have such an axe to grind, but it seems to me you have seriously misjudged the intent of Christopher Tolkien as executor of his father's unpublished material, and you are utterly misguided regarding the scholarly value and reading enjoyment of Christopher Tolkien's publications. He has shown the utmost integrity and a love for his father's work that I find exemplary.

Your posts, on the other hand, leave much to be desired.

[Mithalwen]

Any facts in there? Sources for quotations?

On what basis do you feel you have the right to address Christopher Tolkien as "Ol'Chris"? say he is insignificant and abject?

Cheers Morth, jallanite and Inzil.. no need for me to reiterate your splendid comments.

[dreeness]

Would you prefer that they had never seen the light of day?

(Yes.)

Claiming that legal rights only applies to some people and not to others is indeed hypocrisy.

(Yep, worst thing I never said.)

Your argument seems to me to be that because you think that Christopher Tolkien has done a poor job of managing his father’s legacy the courts should have accepted that the films have as yet made no profit.

(Except maybe for that.)

Name-calling doesn’t work at all. Do you think it OK to employ name-calling against Christopher Tolkien and not against the film-makers?

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)

Is it your contention that if Christopher Tolkien does not like the films he should either give up his legal rights or be a hypocrite?

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

The scope of the documentation C. Tolkien has done is unprecedented for the literary works of a single author.

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)

On what basis do you feel you have the right to address Christopher Tolkien as "Ol'Chris"? say he is insignificant and abject?

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)



(Still not at all clear about the "parasites" comment. Who are the alleged parasites? Peter Jackson? New Zealand? Honda?)

Cheers Morth, jallanite and Inzil.. no need for me to reiterate your splendid comments.

(Oh go on, give yourself a cheer too, you're astounding!)

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)

Please, do not use the Constitution as a crutch for your ignorant drivel. It's embarrassing.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Yes.)

Don't read them.

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)

No, I would not like to see what you've called anyone, just as much as I do not like to see what you've called CJRT.

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

You - once again - fail to see that CJRT is not made rich by the movies. He is getting very very very little of the money that the films make. It is not a question of profit. Let me give you an alternative analogy:

X says that Y can use some of his ideas. Y makes good money on the ideas. X comes to Y and says, "give me some credit for the idea!"

While hating how the "idea" was messed around with by the movies, games, and etc, what is wrong with demanding the due for giving the original spark - especially if by the contract that gave the movie rights part of the profit goes to the Tolkiens?

(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; American readers may also wish to note the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.)

Respect has nothing to do with any declarations or courts.

(Oh go on, give yourself a cheer too, you're astounding!)

If you would please wipe this attitude out when you talk to Mith who, unlike you, gave proper argumentation and evidence? If you don't like what she says, say what you don't like about it and why you don't like it. Don't put on all those airs and assume you are automatically right.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(Oh dear... Would you like to see some of the awful things that I've called Saul Zaentz? I could provide links, or to save time maybe you could just make some things up.)

Maybe you could just stop the vicious name-calling.

... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

That was a very poor analogy, considering what has already been posted here about charitable donations made by Christopher Tolkien on behalf of the Tolkien Estate.

Christopher Tolkien was already rich, made so by his father’s writing —which includes sale of film rights—and he has already donated large amounts. He has the same rights of freedom of speech as anyone else. It is the film producers who have been convicted of crying all the way to the bank claiming, “We still haven’t made any money!”, not Christopher Tolkien.

If Christopher Tolkien avoided criticizing the film companies, would that have been not hypocritical? It seems to me that not saying what you really think is also called hypocritical.

It is your hypocrisy that staggers me.

You continue to avoid the fact that the film companies lost legally and were forced to pay Christopher Tolkien. Having got at least some of the money to which he is legally entitled, he is also entitled to laugh all the way to the bank having beaten the film companies. No hypocrisy at all.

You apparently would prefer that Christopher Tolkien had done nothing and allowed the film companies to continue in their lies. But that too would be called hypocrisy. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)

The word unprecedented is arguable, but only arguable. Even work by Mark Twain unpublished in his lifetime has not to that degree been entirely edited and commented on by one person.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by dreeness

Smiley emoticons do not replace sentient content, nor do they mask an apparent lack of courtesy. As a new member of the forum, I am wondering why you have decided to take an altogether contrarian attitude here.

If it is your intention to alienate yourself from the rest of us, then congratulations, you are well on your way to pariah status.

Originally Posted by dreeness

("Unprecedented"? In all literary criticism, everywhere? That does seem unlikely.)

I am uninterested in what "seems unlikely" to you. We are not talking about your innate ability to divine an opinion. Your level of prescience is already in question.

If you have an actual example of such extraordinary documentation, research and editing of unpublished works of an author compiled by a single person, I'd like to hear it. Pepys? Boswell? I have quite an extensive library of literary criticism and research and I've seen nothing like it. If you have something valid to offer rather than snide and unsubstantiated contentions, then do so; if not, then there is no debate.

I would consider The Silmarillion, the 12 volumes of The History of Middle-earth, The Children of Hurin, and The Legend of Sigrid and Gudrun to be "unprecedented", but then again J.R.R. Tolkien himself was unprecedented in the depth and scope of his subcreation. And I am grateful to Christopher Tolkien for making this documentation available to the public.

[Mithalwen]

Still not at all clear about the "parasites" comment. Who are the alleged parasites? Peter Jackson? New Zealand? Honda?

Those who use things they have no legal entitlement to use them or welch on the contract to use them.

[Bêthberry]

Thanks for posting the English translation of the interview, davem. I had a link to the French but the type was not clear enough for me with my very rusty French.

I have a few questions about the translation, such as when Sedulia defends the right to call Christropher Tolkien a professor, rather than use his correct title of Lecturer or Fellow. It doesn't do to fall back on "but in America we say" when there is a legitimately meaningful difference. I also wonder why--and this is perhaps in the original--much is made of Christopher Tolkien's "upper class" accent. Is that a point which is supposed to influence our understanding of his position?

It is very good to be reminded that the producers used that despicable line about 'not having shown profits yet' as a way to deny the Estate their legitimate profits. It provides a perspective on why the lawyers are being so assiduous about the rights of the Estate. As I recall, that line has also been used by the producers of Jimi Hendrick's music to deny his heirs any money from his estate. There's a culture of legal nitpicking and entitlement these days that amounts to greed and abuse by those in authority who feel empowered over those who may lack power. I'm glad the Estate won their case. Perhaps if The Scouring of the Shire had not been omitted from the films the producers might have understood the squalour of their position.

I often think of the history of medieval texts when I look at how Middle-earth has fed so many different imaginations. This interest is a tribute to Tolkien's desire to write a story that would interest him, and hopefully interest others. The text invites entry into the world; this could well be a quality that other authors have not pursued. But the effect is also an ironic consequence of something Tolkien himself noted in his essay on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"

It ["Sir Gawain"] is one of the masterpieces of fourteenth-century art in England, and of English Literature as a whole. It is one of those greater works which not only bear the trampling of the Schools [Tolkien's capitalisation], endure becoming a text [again, T's italics], indeed (severest test) a set text, but yield more and more under this pressure. For it belongs to that literary kind which has deep roots in the past, deeper even than its author was aware. It is made of tales often told before and elsewhere, and of elements that derive from remote times . . . like Beowulf, or some of Shakespeare's plays, such as King Lear or Hamlet.

I have often wondered if Tolkien was, in part, inspired by this observation of a quality in his favourite stories to attempt to capture it in his stories. Whether that is the case or not is not for this thread to discuss, but another comment from his essay I think can be used to describe the broad use of Middle-earth in so many other genres.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, "Sir Gawain"

His story is not about those old things, but it receives part of its life, its vividness, its tension from them. That is the way with the greater fairy-stories--of which this is one.

How many versions exist of "Little Red Riding Hood"? "Cinderella"? "Goldilocks and Three Bears"? "Sleeping Beauty"? "Hansel and Gretel"? "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves"? "Beauty and the Beast"?

Like Christopher Tolkien, I don't particularly like the movies (although my dislike is milder than his). Yet at the same time I have to wonder if this explosion of versions of Middle-earth isn't in fact a literary phenomenon like the kind seen in medieval stories. It becomes a tribute to Tolkien's writing, both his scholarly and his fictive interests.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by dreeness

(... A prominent antiwar activist inherits shares in a company that produces missile guidance systems. He finds this morally abhorrent. He could promptly sell his shares. Or donate 100% of his dividends to Peace Studies programs at universities. Or he could keep the money, but continue to rail against the very company that is making him rich. But that would be "crying all the way to the bank"; that would be, in a word, hypocritical.)

(That was an analogy.)

Not the best analogy really. I'm a civil servant and a leftie and our Government is a bunch of neo-cons. I'm not about to give up my job though, as I need to feed the family - and more pertinently to this issue, we are not expected to support the Government, we are impartial in our working life and free in our personal opinions. Just as Christopher Tolkien may well have to manage cheques earnt from selling Lego Frodos and Arwen Tea Towels (I'd like one of these, wonder where I can get one???) as part of his job, yet with a peg on his nose. Not everyone can afford the luxury of self righteousness over things like that. Such is life.

And no, I don't worship at the altar of Christopher Tolkien, nor the Estate who have done some quite odious things (giving to charidee doesn't give you an exemption clause from being decent to small businesses etc). He has also got himself a job for life and I have concerns about 'sole gatekeepers' to literary estates after the debacle over the control Ted Hughes's sister had over the Plath literary estate. But you have to be realistic, he's human! And the Estate was entitled to that cash.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I took it, as you suggest, in the sense of "dead academic of medieval things" vs. "living, less-educated children of the 30-second soundbite and Hollywood glitz", and in that respect I didn't read it as a post-modern idea at all. Within the context of the article, it seemed less to me to suggest that people today can't get the message; rather that they probably won't--not because it is inaccessible but because they are habituated to receiving things in the Hollywood mode--and Jackson has now given them the Hollywood mode.

I often think that with writers such as Tolkien who produced very vivid, readable epics, the received wisdom that a 'Hollywood' treatment can alter things doesn't always hold true. Even after those blockbusting films which introduced characters such as Gollum and Gandalf to the mainstream mindset (how many people do you know who use 'Hobbits' as a general term for anyone short?) those images have not been set in stone. Looking at fan art works you can see this - people still ahve their own vision.

That, I think, is because the writing, and in particular, the visual message implied in the langauge, is so strong. It's shared with George RR Martin too. JK Rowling, as much as I love her to pieces, doesn't share this, sadly. Or perhaps it is down to maturity of audience?

It could be an interesting discussion, to root out whether the films really have altered our mental Middle-earth landscape, and to what extent...

I do sneakily like the idea that it's all out of Tolkien's hands though, as that's where actual mythology begins.