I now pronounce you Dwarf & Hobbit...oops!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Unless as a consequence of unconsciously excluding it he consciously conceived of the inhabitants as either heterosexual or asexual. Bit like if someone painting their house can only choose from red, green or blue paint. If they 'unconsiously' exclude the green, they will end up with a red/blue colour scheme. It might be 'logically possible' for green to have been used, but you still won't find any green in the house. You're unlikely to find bits of the house unpainted because the person 'forgot' to use green paint - they will have covered everything in either red or blue. Hence, in order to bring in some green you'd have to paint over something the owner had chosen to paint red or blue. Hence you'd be changing the colour scheme & making it into one the owner hadn't chosen. The new scheme may be better, look more aesthetically pleasing, but it wouldn't be what the owner intended.

The argument makes sense, and I think it might as well be the best we can take as pattern to follow on that matter. Nevertheless, you surely wouldn't succeed with this argument against some people. Because you see, as it has been mentioned by some people before, at the moment you start your own creation on the field of Middle-Earth, you are bringing some "green color" in there. If I take the RPG, for example, my own invented character "Bartemius Butterbur of Bree, brother of Barliman", whether he is totally credible and does not contradict anything Tolkien said, is a "green color" already. There is not a bigger problem in saying that a company of adventurers entered Dol Guldur in 2968 than saying that there was homosexuality among Men in Middle-Earth. Unless, of course, being a homosexual would contradict some basic principles in ME, like if we were said that such a thing really doesn't exist. But since we do not, I think, whatever we feel about it, everyone might say that he wants in his game, fanfic, whatever, to have homosexuality in ME and no one can oblige. For those who operate just with the canon, surely not, because Tolkien doesn't mention that, as well as he doesn't mention hydras or helicopters. But from the moment a sub-creator starts to work, it is only up to him to choose what he wants to put there, it's only on him if he feels right to enrich Professor's world with Snow Elves, Acid Dragons, secret plots on the court of Denethor, homosexuality among Men, drug-sellers among Corsairs of Umbar or whatever else. All of that is equally far from the reality presented to us by Tolkien.

[the guy who be short]

The problem with davem's analogy is that Middle Earth is not a house. It's a history of several civilizations spanning thousands of years in varying degrees of detail; there are large parts where we are not explicitly told exactly what happened and have to presume what makes most sense.

It's as if the house had hidden rooms which nobody had ever explored; the rest of the house may have been red and blue, but those rooms may well have been green.

The explicit inclusion of heterosexuality and asexuality does not imply the exclusion of homosexuality, just as the explicit inclusion of mammals and birds does not imply the exclusion of bacteria.

[Bêthberry]

Like any mythology, that of Middle-earth will be retold and reinterpreted by those whose imaginations if not stomachs are whetted by its cauldron of strange stew. In such cases, those new works will stand or fall not on their debt or faithfulness to Tolkien, but on the extent to which they also provide imaginative sustenance.

[davem]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

It's as if the house had hidden rooms which nobody had ever explored; the rest of the house may have been red and blue, but those rooms may well have been green.

Yes, but the architect, builder & painter - particularly if they're the same person - would know whether there are other rooms & would be responsible for the colour.

Originally Posted by Bb

Like any mythology, that of Middle-earth will be retold and reinterpreted by those whose imaginations if not stomachs are whetted by its cauldron of strange stew. In such cases, those new works will stand or fall not on their debt or faithfulness to Tolkien, but on the extent to which they also provide imaginative sustenance.

But this 'mythology' has Tolkien's name on it, & is copyrighted. Hence it is not a 'mythology' in the true sense & can't be treated as one. The question is how faithful the players want the game to be. Of course, you can include anything you want in the game - you just wouldn't be able to claim it was Tolkien's world if you introduced things into it that weren't true to Tolkien.

Its interesting that there seems to be much more interest in both this game & the stage show than in, for instance, Rateliff's History of TH - which is actually one of the most significant events in recent times - second only to CoH. I suppose this tells us a lot about what 'fans' want & we must each draw our own conclusions.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, but the architect, builder & painter - particularly if they're the same person - would know whether there are other rooms & would be responsible for the colour.

Not sure about that. Did the builder of the Hippodrome imagine his bronze horses would one day adorn St Mark's in Venice? Did Vanburgh imagine that the 9th Duke of Marlborough would stick a Sky Plus aerial on the roof of Blenheim Palace?*

*Not that I know said Duke did so, of course, am just being flippant

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Its interesting that there seems to be much more interest in both this game & the stage show than in, for instance, Rateliff's History of TH - which is actually one of the most significant events in recent times - second only to CoH. I suppose this tells us a lot about what 'fans' want & we must each draw our own conclusions.

a quick reply for now re: the stage production: iirc, there was widespread derision here on the Downs and elsewhere in Tolkiendom about the Toronto production long before opening night. Now that the show has moved to London, at least the UK Downers have stopped crying over spilt milk and are off to lap the London production up.

Originally Posted by davem

But this 'mythology' has Tolkien's name on it, & is copyrighted. Hence it is not a 'mythology' in the true sense & can't be treated as one

There is no copyright on the imagination, copyright being a legal fiction.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There is no copyright on the imagination, copyright being a legal fiction.

But breaching it can still get you locked up. Tolkien spent most of his life creating his Legendarium & legally (something he was very careful to uphold) he, & subsequently his literary heirs held/hold the legal rights to the written work. Now, to the extent that the movie rights have been sold (& I'm assuming that the game rights are an extension of the movie rights) the holders can do pretty much as they will with them. However, many of us will not consider what is done by the owners of those rights to be authentic if it departs from Tolkien's creation.

And I would suspect that the company responsible for the game are just as jealous in their guardianship of their 'rights' - for which they probably paid a good deal....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

But breaching it can still get you locked up.

I'll take that as a typical form of davemian hyperbole, as copyright is mainly a civil action rather than criminal action, the recent nasty business over filesharing notwithstanding, resulting in financial fines rather than imprisonment.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien spent most of his life creating his Legendarium & legally (something he was very careful to uphold) he, & subsequently his literary heirs held/hold the legal rights to the written work.

Copyright does eventually run out, although Disney is trying hard to keep up the Mickey Mouse copyright.

However, the really interesting aspect of copyright is just what is copyrighted and what is not. Copyright covers the expression of the idea, not the idea itself. Thus, while Disney still wants to control the pictorial representation of M. Mouse, that copyright does not limit others from writing about or drawing anthropomorphic mice as long as they don't appear to mimic M. Mouse. (gotta love Wiki, for all its faults. )

Does this mean that Ents are copyrighted, but not walking trees? Obviously elves cannot be copyrighted as they existed long before Tolkien. Ditto, dwarves, trolls, etc. Hobbits might well be Tolkien's but anyone can write about short, hairy folks likely as long as they don't have long geneologies and flower names and sweet, innocent dispositions.

Now, the name "Middle earth" comes from Old English. Does Tolkien have copyright on that word? Or can anyone use it, claiming derivation from Old English? (And usually copyright is based on a minimum of eight words.) Amount, proportion, nature and purpose of the copying are all brought into consideration. Also, some jurisdictions allow for parodic and satiric adaptations of the original work, a point which would excuse BD's own REB fanfics from infringement issues (as if there weren't other myriad arguments in its defense.)

Originally Posted by davem

Now, to the extent that the movie rights have been sold (& I'm assuming that the game rights are an extension of the movie rights) the holders can do pretty much as they will with them. However, many of us will not consider what is done by the owners of those rights to be authentic if it departs from Tolkien's creation.

The copyright issue is really something different from your last claim here, about "authenticity", which, if I understand you correctly, implies the entire idea itself of Tolkien's Legendarium.

[Lalwendë]

You can copyright anything seemingly - a Yorkshire pub is currently being sued by KFC for calling its Christmas Day meal a 'family feast'...

I think what's being missed here is that this is a Game. It's not the books nor is it a film adaptation - it's a game, and a fully interactive one in which participants will create content and characters, plotlines and relationships. Presumably they can do more or less what they want within loose parameters, rather like in World of Warcrack - and such games are in a constant state of flux anyway, their interactivity means they alter by the second. So you have to wonder exactly what degree of 'authenticity' the game creators/admins are hoping to control anyway!

As soon as the data is loaded onto computers it will take any control over content right out of the hands of Tolkien and Tolkien purists anyway - so what the problem is I fail to 'get'. Some clever spark will find a way to hack the game anyway and find a way to allow 'gay marriages' - hackers found ways to make The Sims 'adult' so no doubt they will be able to do it with this too.