Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

[davem]

I could see some justification for footnotes or an appendix giving alternative readings & the reasons for them, but this is different. Clearly what we have is CT (& 'committee') attempting to produce a 'perfect' LotR. But who decides what constitutes such 'perfection'. It seems that the readings & opinions of certain individuals (the Tolkien 'literati') have decided that the text we had was wrong & have taken it upon themselves to amend it.

This is, for me, one of the most significant statements in the introduction to this edition:

So many new emendations to LotR,& such an extensive review of its text, deserve to be fully documented. ,,,To this end, & to illuminate the work in other respects, we are preparing a volume of annotations to LotR for publication in 2005.

So many new emendations to LotR,& such an extensive review of its text. What are we to make of this? This is an attempt to create a perfect LotR - almost the 'Platonic' LotR.

But where does CT fit in here? Does he 'possess' the text to the extent that he can decide what it should say? Of course, since his father's death he has become a 'co-creator' of Middle-earth, in the sense that what we have beside TH, LotR, & The Road Goes Ever On are a result of his work to publish the manuscripts. For me, that was perfectly acceptable - though one could question whether he should have published anything without his father's permission.

But this new edition is different, because it is an attempt to produce a final, definitive, version. Then again, to what extent can we call CT a 'co-author' of LotR? CT mentions that Tolkien was reluctant to make certain changes in the storyline of some of the early draft versions because 'Chris liked' the events in them.

What we seem to have among a number of Tolkien 'experts' is a decision to accept CT's opinions on the texts published during Tolkien's lifetime & a willingness to amend those texts, even to the extent of (in my opinion, at least - & for whatever that's worth) changing the meaning of a character's statements.

Is this situation one that will end with CT's death, or will the same 'right' pass to his heirs?

One thing occurs - if it is permissible to make the change from 'do not' to 'need not' to 'improve' the meaning, what about other words - like 'queer' or 'gay' which have altered their meaning radically since Tolkien's death - 'queer' could be altered to 'strange', 'gay' to 'joyous' with less of an effect than 'do' to 'need'.

Perhaps it could be argued that LotR is a collaberative work, a continuing creation moving towards 'perfection' (or at least simply 'moving') but then how can one criticise the changes made by PJ, if one takes this approach? Ones only criterion would be 'aesthetics' - but if that's the case, then anyone could make any changes to the text with as much justification as CT - & then the question would arise, 'What, exactly, is The Lord of the Rings'?

[davem]

Quick addendum, & I don't know how relevant it is - not being up on Copyright Law - but in my Alan Lee illustrated edition the copyright of LotR is given as:

George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd 1954, 1966

While in the 50th Anniversary Edition its:

The Trustees of The JRR Tolkien 1967 Settlement 1954, 1966.

Does this mean the copyright has been renewed, & that it will be even longer before the books are out of copyright & the texts freely available. When does a 'revised' edition become a 'new' edition?

I notice the 'text copyright' of the recent Second Edition of the Sil has changed from the 'George Allen & Unwin' of the First Edition to:

the JRR Tolkien Copyright Trust & CR Tolkien 1977.

I'm aware of two Downers being married to Lawyers, & maybe we have more legal eagles floating around, so maybe someone could clear this up?

[Lalwendë]

I think basic copyright runs up to 50 years after the author's death, which means that it will not run out for many years to come. Also, with trusteeships, the copyright is owned by shared owners, which can further complicate matters. Tolkien's copyright will have passed to his children, and presumably thence to his grandchildren, so this will be why a trusteeship is held.

[Boromir88]

In my personal opinion I say you don't touch it. Leave it the way it is. There are mistakes in every book or novel. I would think sometimes correcting what seems to be an apparent mistake could actually make more mistakes or discrepencies .

[Bêthberry]

posted by davem:

CT mentions that Tolkien was reluctant to make certain changes in the storyline of some of the early draft versions because 'Chris liked' the events in them.

Can you give us some more detail about this comment from CT, davem? Are you referring to something he said in this new edition or to comments elsewhere?

And, could you elaborate on what things JRRT wanted to change but decided not to because of CT's opinion? How old would CT have been at this time?

[Mithalwen]

I am merely daughter and sister of lawyers ( despite early ambitions, when it came to the crunch I had neither the application or grades!), so I am quite ready to be corrected by the qualified. Given the Tolkien family situation, it is unsurprising that the literary estate was put in a trust (let aside tax planning reasons - it is the weekend and I don't want to remind myself that I am a bean-counter!). With four children, two of whom 'have issue', it would be impossible to divide up the published works fairly - imagine one getting LOTR while another got say Mr Bliss!. However CT would have copyright over his own editing work on the Silmarillion, UT and HoME. In 1995 the UK adopted the standard EU copyright period of 70 years so that takes us to 2041 for JRRT. Of course, CT is still alive so his copyright will outlast most of us... but how the time lapse affects access to the works is beyond my scope. While all of Tolkiens's descendants would benefit from JRRT's trust, it may be that CT's will pass to his alone. The situation is further complicated, no doubt, by Christopher's son, Adam being translator to French of HoME, by which he possibly acquires some rights in his own right .... lots of billable hours in that I should think .... wish I hadn't crashed my A-Levels now ... being a lawyer for the Tolkien estate might have been my dream job.... lol

I seem to recall that the actual Manuscripts were sold to Marquette for tax reasons but possession of the documents doesn't confer copyright - if you write a letter, the copyright remains with you while the letter obviously doesn't!


http://www.intellectual-property.gov.../question1.htm

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but ...

The references to copyright in the various editions simply denote ownership of the rights in the work. Copyright is an asset and can be transferred just like any other asset. Since Tolkien, as the writer of LotR would automatically have been the original owner of copyright in it, he must have transferred it to his publishers. Whether it has now been transeferred by them to his estate, or whether the estate simply owns the copyright in the 50th Anniversary edition, I do not know.

In any event, I would doubt that copyright could be renewed simply by publishing an amended version of a work as this would effectively allow the right to be preserved indefinately (and therefore enable copyright owners to get round the applicable law). Perhaps copyright in the new version exists independently of copyright in the original, or perhaps it simply lasts as long as copyright in the original. The latter would produce a less complex situation but, then again, lawyers and lawmakers have never been known for eschewing complexity.

I am sure that someone who specialises in this field would be able to explain better than I. Athough I could always do some research into it (for a suitable fee, of course ).