Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, first of all, that is the case with other writers, so why should Tokien be exempt?

And actually, letters which do not directly pertain to the writing can often yield significant clues or examples or explanations about the writer and his (or her) time.

But where does one draw the line? Where does the public man leave off and the private one begin? Is every aspect of an "artist"'s life to be held up for examination for the sake of posterity, at the expense of making public potentially embarrassing details, especially when said artist has living immediate family?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

After all, why did Carpenter print the letter which Tokien wrote to his son about women? It doesn't pertain directly to Tolkien's writing and is simply advice from a father to a son.

That letter was printed, yes. But Carpenter noted in Letters that there was a gap in the early ones that were of a highly personal nature between Tolkien and Edith. Could this not be something similar?

Originally Posted by davem

Now, I can't see there is any other option here - its either a petty act, callously destroying 3 years work for no other reason than that they don't want some perfectly harmless trivialities to be made public because they own the letters, or its because the material is something more 'significant' & they want to cover it up - which would be morally questionable, given they have gone out of their way to give us their own 'acceptable' version of JRRT.

I'd rather give CT and the Estate the benefit of the doubt. Since they did authorise Letters, I don't necessarily think they wanted to quash this book for no reason. And why would it be "morally questionable" for them to decide that a particular letter's coming to light did not serve any legitimate academic interest and disallow it? Who is in a better position, and has more right, to protect the privacy and reputation of a dead author than his family?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I'd rather give CT and the Estate the benefit of the doubt. Since they did authorise Letters, I don't necessarily think they wanted to quash this book for no reason. And why would it be "morally questionable" for them to decide that a particular letter's coming to light did not serve any legitimate academic interest and disallow it?

Its a biography, why would there be a problem with a biography containing biographical details? I don't see that the contents of a biography should be determined solely on the grounds of ' legitimate academic interest'. Biography can be art or entertainment. The question here would be whether the contents of the letter contradicted the image of JRRT the family have carefully created - if it does then it is certainly morally questionable for them disallow it, because that would show that they had deliberately attempted to mislead.

Who is in a better position, and has more right, to protect the privacy and reputation of a dead author than his family?

but this book has had the support & input of family members.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

Its a biography, why would there be a problem with a biography containing biographical details?

Perhaps the "details" in question were not seen as appropriate, or necessary to tell the story of Hilary. It wasn't supposed to be another biography of his brother, after all.

Originally Posted by davem

The question here would be whether the contents of the letter contradicted the image of JRRT the family have carefully created - if it does then it is certainly morally questionable for them disallow it, because that would show that they had deliberately attempted to mislead.

If anyone with the family has been attempting to "mislead" in order to protect the man's reputation, I have no problem with it. I would hope my family would do the same in such circumstances. That's a pretty large "if", though, and without knowing the contents of the letter ourselves this is all just speculation.

Originally Posted by davem

but this book has had the support & input of family members.

Not the support of all, apparently. And families can have disagreements. Have any of the supporters come out with what's in the letters in question? Or are they not allowed?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Have any of the supporters come out with what's in the letters in question? Or are they not allowed?

I'm kind of wondering about that too. We're arguing about a letter when we don't know what its about, how personal is it, etc. We can't see the reason for it being published/not published. I don't think they're allowed to tell: otherwise there wouldn't be such a problem. If we only knew... but then, I guess, this topic wouldn't exist.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I'm kind of wondering about that too. We're arguing about a letter when we don't know what its about, how personal is it, etc. We can't see the reason for it being published/not published. I don't think they're allowed to tell: otherwise there wouldn't be such a problem. If we only knew... but then, I guess, this topic wouldn't exist.

As I understand it we're not talking about 'a letter' but about 'correspondence' - a number of letters from Tolkien to his brother, covering part of their lives together & for which these letters are the only documentaion (the Estate have asked for 20 pages of the book to be removed, & the authors feel that that section is so significant that there is no way to remove it & still tell the story of the brother's relationship.

If I was inclined to speculation I would guess we're talking about the Father Francis-Tolkien-Edith 'triangle' situation - which neither authorised biography (Carpenter or Garth) goes into in any depth. Yet, if we read the few references in Carpenter we see that Father Francis Morgan calls the relationship 'evil & foolish' - 'evil' coming from a Catholic priest is not simply a casual turn of phrase - the context is that Father Francis had heard Tolkien had been seen 'with a girl'. As his guardian & only source of income - which Morgan threatens to withdraw, leaving Tolkien unable to continue with his education - Tolkien is in no position to disobey.

Of course, I could be completely wrong here but that seems to be the only event of significance in the young Tolkien's life that is never really discussed. Spending ones formative years being brought up by a man who sees relationships with women as 'evil & foolish' is hardly likely to engender a healthy view of women (& may be significant as regards the portrayal of female characters in his books - who seem to be Virgin Mary figures like Elbereth & Galadriel, 'Mumsy' figures like Rosie, harridans like Lobelia or Erendis, or Shield Maidens like Eowyn - unlike the more complex & 'human' male characters). However, if I am right then I could understand that anything 'negative' about the Father Francis period would not go down well with a Catholic family like the Tolkiens.