CT's lawyer lays the facts down

[Hyarion]

It looks like with the news of The Children of Hurin being released, CT's lawyer is back to work making sure JRRT's son is being portrayed in a positive light. He has sent a letter to a blogger who referred to CT as a "big prick" and wrote some incorrect facts to which the lawyer has corrected. It's nice to finally get some authentic information on CT as most of the time it is just skewed by the media and I rarely know what to believe. Christopher Tolkien's Lawyer Speaks

Here's the good stuff:

1. The rights in The Hobbit are not controlled by Christopher Tolkien.
2. There was no dispute between Christopher Tolkien and his son, Simon Tolkien, as a result of Simon Tolkien going to see the first Lord of the Rings film.
3. Simon Tolkien was never on the Board of any Tolkien company and was not 'removed' from any such position by Christopher Tolkien.
4. Nor has Christopher Tolkien 'disowned' Simon Tolkien.
5. Christopher Tolkien does not guard his house with a wild boar.
6. Permission has never been sought from either Christopher Tolkien (or the Tolkien Estate) for a 'mathom-house' in New Zealand.
7. Christopher Tolkien is neither 'a lunatic' nor 'out of control'

[Mänwe]

Hyarion, It is good to see that Christopher Tolkien still does well in countering any pointless critisism. Said blogger should be shot.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Nobody should be shot. Pilloried and lampooned maybe, but not shot.

This sort of idle gossip and speculation is always rife when somebody remains out of the public eye. In fact, a certain type of journalism feeds it in vengeance when someone refuses to give interviews. C.T. likes his privacy, and unfortunately that means that a lot of foolish ideas about him aren't countered as often or as authoritatively as they ought to be. Add to that the amateurish reportage of the average weblog and you have a recipe for this sort of wild misinformation.

Perhaps we should even be thankful that someone's comments have provoked a definitive statement from those in the know. I've heard each and every one of those rumours before, and they always sounded rather fishy. It's nice to have both sides of the story.

[MatthewM]

Thanks for posting this. I really wish C.T. was more open about certain stuff...can't he just write a book already with all his LotR thoughts? Of course that won't happen, but I would love to hear an authentic right from his mouth confirmation on some things, and things he may like to share concerning J.R.R.

Anyway, I found this part in the original blog very harsh:

When Christopher's son Simon went to see the first film, he was removed from the Tolkien Company board and disowned by his father: “I never saw the films as a threat and I’ve enjoyed the movies for what they are, but I crossed my father on a Tolkien issue ... he will never speak to me again as long as he lives, he will never see my children and will never have anything to do with me.” --S.T.

I know that C.T.'s lawyer said this was completely false, but has Simon Tolkien ever spoken up about the issue? How did that mumbo jumbo BS ever get released? Has S.T. ever truly commented about this rumour?

[Child of the 7th Age]

You might want to glance at this: here.
I am having trouble with the link....just in case I will quote the portion. This is a very long article that goes on and on -- this is just a tiny part of it.

In 2001, Christopher issued a statement declaring that the "Tolkien estate would be best advised to avoid any specific association with the films." This dispelled any rumor that director Jackson had received his blessing. But not every member of the Tolkien Company, the board that maintains the relationship between the estate and the outside world, was in agreement. Simon Tolkien, one of J.R.R.'s six grandchildren, expressed interest in cooperating with the filmmakers. For Simon's traitorous views, Christopher removed his son as a trustee.

My several attempts to reach Christopher or interview an estate lawyer were handily deflected. But via telephone I did reach Simon.

"The essential thing was that I crossed my father on a Tolkien issue, and he never looked back," Simon, 44, says from London. "I never saw the films as a threat. I've enjoyed the movies for what they are."

Obviously hurt by his father's rejection, Simon hasn't spoken to him in 4 1/2 years. He's not permitted to discuss the estate. "I do have a relationship with the money, but I can't talk about it. If what you're after is someone who will tell you the estate's attitude toward this and that, I can't. I'm cut off. It's a source of grievance for me."

Of course, we don't know who is in the "right" here, or even if there is a "right". It is perhaps wise to remember that Christopher was divorced from his first wife, and that Simon is the son of that wife. I know nothing about the family situation, but it would not be unusual to have bad blood in a situation like this where divorce is involved.

I think some legitimate complaints can be made against Christopher, despite his dedication. For example, as this article indicates, only four scholars have been given direct access to the linguistic papers. There is tremendous unhappiness about this among other linguists, since the material has been released very, very slowly. You can find websites where this is discussed, not by crackpots but legitimate scholars. Other scholars have complained about uneven access to the materials, with certain old favorites getting the nod. I am no expert on this, and undoubtedly there are different viewpoints here. Certainly, the blog cited above is ridiculous, and the author of this newspaper article is no fan of CT, but legitimate concerns could exist.

[MatthewM]

Wow...that is really harsh. It's interesting that he is the son of CT's divorced wife, but come on now...if that is true, I have lost a lot of respect for CT. Would J.R.R. be so strict in regards to something like that? I mean...ST is CT's son, no matter the mother...

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I think some legitimate complaints can be made against Christopher, despite his dedication. For example, as this article indicates, only four scholars have been given direct access to the linguistic papers. There is tremendous unhappiness about this among other linguists, since the material has been released very, very slowly. You can find websites where this is discussed, not by crackpots but legitimate scholars. Other scholars have complained about uneven access to the materials, with certain old favorites getting the nod. I am no expert on this, and undoubtedly there are different viewpoints here. Certainly, the blog cited above is ridiculous, and the author of this newspaper article is no fan of CT, but legitimate concerns could exist.

Hmm. I am divided between respect for private property and the betterment of the masses here. Is it really that wrong of CT to control the works of his father from hordes of legitimate scholars with nevertheless unknown agendas that we can only guess?

Ultimately what will be the final result of their research used for? Does it say, help humanity worldwide to understand the syntax of discovered but indecipherable ancient languages and as such serves as an advancement in mankind? Or does it simply serve an elite few in these world for mere amusement and interest?

Originally Posted by Hyarion

Here's the good stuff:

It's times like this that make me realize what a sheltered life I lead in some respects. I swear I had never even heard any rumors about any of those seven points that are now being contradicted! (Why on earth would anyone use a wild boar to guard his house? Wouldn't it make more sense to use a tame boar that could distinguish its master and members of his family from any other stray humans that happened to get dangerously close to it? )


I think I can honestly say that I have never gone out of my way to try to learn any details, good or bad, of Christopher Tolkien's personal life. Why bother?

(No, I don't read the tabloids -- or even "People" magazine, as a rule -- to keep up-to-date with the latest juicy rumors about celebrities, either. I've always been weird that way.)

I do sympathize with the man's desire (according to what others have said in this thread) to have some personal privacy. Going off on a bit of a tangent, I remember reading something interesting about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the aftermath. The claim was that Daniel Patrick Moynihan (later a U.S. Senator from New York) was working as a White House staffer at the time of JFK's death, and that he quickly realized this was going to become the centerpiece of all sorts of wild conspiracy theories. With that in mind, he tried to persuade the surviving members of the Kennedy family to let copies of the full autopsy report be handed out to the press and the general public, which they were not legally required to do.

However, the Kennedys had never had this sort of thing happen to them before, came from a rich family that tended to have a bit more faith in official reports and verdicts than the average American, didn't take Moynihan seriously when he suggested that keeping anything relevant private would just inspire big conspiracy theories and general suspicion of the government's "honesty" in figuring out what had really happened, etc. Also, the Kennedys felt that the gruesome details of JFK's death as analyzed in the autopsy report were really nobody else's business. So they refused to give permission for it to be publicly released. Years later, Senator Moynihan, looking back on it, allegedly felt that this sort of thing (maybe not just the autopsy report, but other stuff as well) threw fuel on the fire to make Americans scratch their heads and ask each other, "What are they hiding? Why all the cover-up? Why can't outsiders look at certain reports, documents, etc., to see if there's anything really, really peculiar being hidden away from the light of day?"

Senator Moynihan's feeling appeared to be, according to what I read somewhere, that the Kennedy family's strong desire for "privacy" in their time of grief only made it that much likelier that people would develop elaborate theories of cover-ups and try to invade their privacy in the future with thousands of rude questions. (However, that doesn't mean they didn't have the legal and moral right to withhold the details of the autopsy report if they felt like it!)

[Lalwendë]

Let's clear something up about Wild boar. My friend's brother owns a manor house in the Pyrenees and wild boar live in the woods there (their dog lost its mind from the scent of boar everywhere, driven mad by hunting instinct), so maybe someone saw some wild boar in the woods near CT's house. Certainly nobody would allow them to run wild near their house! A wild boar is certainly not a pet or a substitute guard dog, it can't be 'trained', and one can easily kill a full grown adult.