Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Davem

I've asked for the posts I deleted to be re-instated.

Davem, thanks for that.

Originally Posted by Davem

And the real issue here is: privacy vs knowledge. The Estate is using Copyright law to protect the privacy of the family (or the FAMILY). Yet in order to do this they are preventing the publication of a serious work of biography. Is this acceptable. Of course, no-one likes to be embarrassed, or be made to look silly- or even to have grandad, or great aunt Mary shown to have been a bit silly back in the day. But is that sufficient justification to stop a biography of great uncle George's family being published? Or in other words, setting aside our own discomfort with being made to look a bit daft, & our equal discomfort with seeing our family or people we respect being discomforted in that way, is that enough of a reason to stop a book being published - bacuse what is being done here is not a trivial thing. There is zero difference bewteen preventing a book being published in the first place & burning every copy of it after its been published in the second place. The Estate, in order to protect the 'privacy' of the FAMILY have effectively 'burned' this book. From that point of view this behaviour cannot be simply brushed aside with cuddlsome statements about 'privacy'. Using Copyright law as match & petrol in this way is a very questionable procedure - burning books is a big thing (or even a BIG THING).

Now, davem, I've already stated why I think using copyright for the purpose of protecting privacy is not necessarily heinous (it just depends). I think this is pretty clearly something on which you and I are never going to agree, so we may as well leave it. (I will say, though, that I find your equation of demanding the removal of material from a book with burning every copy of it to be a fairly notable bit of hyperbole.)

More to the point is whether the suppression of scandalous, or at least embarrassing, facts is "what is being done here". Now, as far as my memory of it goes* you spent the thread talking yourself into being totally convinced it was– you started out with an "if" and ended up with a "must"– and apparently you even made up a little humorous dialogue about it. The problem is– again as I've already stated– you've got no actual evidence for this (that I'm aware of) beyond the Tolkien Estate's self-description as "the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family", if that counts as evidence; neither have you put forward any new supporting arguments for quite a while. You just keep repeating the same thing. I think you'll find that, and not the fact that you tried to be funny, is what got you "shot down", as you put it.

None of this is to say that I'm giving a stamp of approval to what the Estate has done, by the way. I've already said I think they're likely being petty and obstructive.







*davem's posts haven't yet been replaced at time of writing.

[Nerwen]

to the extent that I felt it better to remove meself & me comments - but that seemed a bit dumb in a debate on censorship (despite the fact that I actually owned the copyright on my posts, which in a way justified me doing it.....& therein lies the rub...

Dear me, I must try that argument with the likes of morm and Esty next time they see fit to censor my posts. That'll teach 'em!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

More to the point is whether the suppression of scandalous, or at least embarrassing, facts is "what is being done here".

Ok - 'personal' stuff - for which I base my arguments on the publisher's statement:

Despite many revisions and changes made at the insistence of The Tolkien Estate it appears that The Tolkien Estate will seek to take court action to prevent the release of this book regardless. Everyone involved in the publication has worked hard to meet the requests of The Tolkien Estate time and time again, however it would be misleading to release a Biography on Hilary Tolkien without proper reference to his close relationship with his brother.

So, unless the material in question is an exchange of letters between the brothers each arguing that the other one has the cooler looking mustache, we're talking about 'personal' information which the Estate does not want in the public domain, & if that material in question was completely bland then the Estate would not care if it was out there, & the writers/publishers would not feel that the book could not be published without it.

I could (were I that way inclined) argue that I seem to be the only party even attempting to ask what the nature of this material is - no-one else seems even vaguely interested. And that is something that has puzzled me all through this thread - why is no-one else even curious about what it could be that the Estate feels is so unnacceptable that it will threaten to take a tiny publisher to court to prevent the publication of 20 pages of a book that would probably have a print run of no more than a few thousand copies & why would said tiny publisher & authors feel that the excision of 20 pages out of 300 would effectively so ruin the book that they would withdraw it altogether rather than simply cut that bit?

The responses to my posts seem to be sum-upable as 'stop suggesting all this 'dodgy' stuff about the family - they have a right to their privacy', but no-one is even attempting to get at what the issue might be. There are letters which the Estate will not allow to be quoted - or paraphased - & they are requesting 20 pages of the book concerning this material be removed. And no-one seems the slightest bit curious about the whole thing. No-one seems any more bothered about it than to state 'well, they are being a bit obstructive'. And again, no-one seems to have any issue with the way Copyright is being used to stifle creativity & the dissemination of information- Tech dirt has a nice piece about the subject today http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...opyright.shtml

Copyright is being used to prevent a work of scholarship being published, because the owners of the copyrighted material do not want it in the public domain. Why not - Do they (a) intend to publish said material themselves? Fine - when? Do they (b) feel that it should not be made public at all? Fine - why?

My argument all along has been that (as far as I'm concerned) preventing the publication of a work of scholarship is a serious matter (& I'm fairly certain Tolkien himself would agree with that statement - even though he might not approve of the publication of this particular work - who knows (certainly not us now....)) & requires more than the vague statement 'Its our stuff, so nerrrr!'

I'm actually very angry about this behaviour on the part of the Estate - anyone who prevents books being published better have a very good reason - & I don't think the Estate has provided one.

[Bêthberry]

EDIT: I'm glad to see davem's posts have been restored.

Originally Posted by nerwen

. . . (I will say, though, that I find your equation of demanding the removal of material from a book with burning every copy of it to be a fairly notable bit of hyperbole.)

More to the point is whether the suppression of scandalous, or at least embarrassing, facts is "what is being done here". Now, as far as my memory of it goes* you spent the thread talking yourself into being totally convinced it was– you started out with an "if" and ended up with a "must"–

I do believe you've met your match, davem.

Originally Posted by davem

. . . if that material in question was completely bland then the Estate would not care if it was out there, & the writers/publishers would not feel that the book could not be published without it.

Not necessarily. There could well be a principled insistence that any aspect of personal lives, especially those which have no immediate, direct bearing on literary concerns, is of no concern to readers. It doesn't matter whether the information is positive, embarassing, scandalous, or banal. The point is simply, any and all personal information. And the authors could feel that it is important to produce a picture of normal family life that has been omitted from other bios. It doesn't have to be nefarious.

I could (were I that way inclined) argue that I seem to be the only party even attempting to ask what the nature of this material is - no-one else seems even vaguely interested. And that is something that has puzzled me all through this thread - why is no-one else even curious about what it could be . . .

Well now, I can guess what that "m" stands for on your screen name, davem--martyr.

Actually, as I have stated previously, anyone who attended Oxonmoot has seen some of this stuff, so our curiousity is satisfied. *imagine winking smilie here as I've used up my quota of smilies*

. . . but no-one is even attempting to get at what the issue might be. There are letters which the Estate will not allow to be quoted - or paraphased - & they are requesting 20 pages of the book concerning this material be removed. And no-one seems the slightest bit curious about the whole thing. No-one seems any more bothered about it than to state 'well, they are being a bit obstructive'.

I guess you are that way inclined. (see above quote) *imagine rolled eyes here*

My argument all along has been that (as far as I'm concerned) preventing the publication of a work of scholarship is a serious matter (& I'm fairly certain Tolkien himself would agree with that statement - even though he might not approve of the publication of this particular work - who knows (certainly not us now....)) & requires more than the vague statement 'Its our stuff, so nerrrr!'

I'm actually very angry about this behaviour on the part of the Estate - anyone who prevents books being published better have a very good reason - & I don't think the Estate has provided one.

There is an inherent contradition or conflict in the Estate, as no one has explained what to do should there be a genuine literary reason for publishing something when the holder of the copyright also has a personal vested interest in withholding the information. This is also the reason why biographies or letters which are "authorised" come, whether justified or not, with at least a wiff of suspicion. This pertains to all cases and not simply the one we are discussing here.

And now, back to my previous statement that I shall have nothing further to say because I have nothing new to add. *insert smilie laughing at myself*

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Not necessarily. There could well be a principled insistence that any aspect of personal lives, especially those which have no immediate, direct bearing on literary concerns, is of no concern to readers. It doesn't matter whether the information is positive, embarassing, scandalous, or banal. The point is simply, any and all personal information. And the authors could feel that it is important to produce a picture of normal family life that has been omitted from other bios. It doesn't have to be nefarious.

And yet, you went to the authors' talk at Oxonmoot because you wanted to to know about the personal lives of members of the Tolkien family. How many of us have read the biographies, the letters & the accounts of those who knew Tolkien? All 'personal information'. And if this book had seen the light of day, how many of us would have bought it?

Actually, as I have stated previously, anyone who attended Oxonmoot has seen some of this stuff, so our curiousity is satisfied. *imagine winking smilie here as I've used up my quota of smilies*

Ok - would you mind posting some of the stuff you heard there? Unless you think the Estate might take action

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And yet, you went to the authors' talk at Oxonmoot because you wanted to to know about the personal lives of members of the Tolkien family.

Hmm. Do you have access to my inner motivations? Are you sure this was the reason I attended the session? After all, it was one of three sessions and I might have simply found this session the lesser of, say, for want of a more apt description, three evils. Or maybe I was curious to see the author of Black and White Ogres. Or maybe I attended it because most of my Downer buddies also attended it and at that time of the morning we relied on each other for mutual support, stimulation, and decisions.

Ok - would you mind posting some of the stuff you heard there? Unless you think the Estate might take action

When I attended the session, I agreed to respect the conditions which the author laid out for us, which was not to reproduce any of the materials. I will continue to respect her request and my word, irrespective of any subsequent events or insinuations.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

When I attended the session, I agreed to respect the conditions which the author laid out for us, which was not to reproduce any of the materials. I will continue to respect her request and my word, irrespective of any subsequent events or insinuations.

But haven't things changed? Wasn't that request made because the book was due out & the authors didn't want any spoilers pre-publication? Obviously I'm not going to ask you to risk being dragged through the courts by the Estate (or 'THE ESTATE' as I think we can all agree to call it from now on) but if you felt that getting the truth out there was important enough...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

But haven't things changed? Wasn't that request made because the book was due out & the authors didn't want any spoilers pre-publication?

That was not the condition which the author asked us to respect. Nothing has changed.

As I said, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by davem

I could (were I that way inclined) argue that I seem to be the only party even attempting to ask what the nature of this material is - no-one else seems even vaguely interested.

Not exactly. Although I haven't been responding to your posts specifically, I maintained from the start that we cannot know the full reason for this action without having read the manuscript. In order to make any kind of call on the matter, one needs to see the material in question. I cannot even attempt to place the blame (such as it may or may not be) on anyone until I have all pertinent information, which includes not only the manuscript in question but also the text of any contracts and legal agreements made between the Estate and all concerned parties. As I do not have that information, I can't say who, if anyone, is trying... Well, to be honest, without full information, I can't even say what they might be trying to do; I can only offer speculation, which no matter how strongly I may feel about it is still speculation, and personal opinion. I have my own issues with the ways in which copyright has been abused by industry, but for myself, I cannot say that this is clearly a case of abuse, simply because I know that I do not have access to all necessary information. That being the case, I prefer not to debate the issue. My choice, of course.