Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[Mithalwen]

Yo I was not being melodramatic just seeing how far your principles stretch.
Since this is not about quality or how he is depicted.

You now seem to be saying that anyone can write anything and use any material how they like and the literary quality is the only criteria? Hmm .... so it is alright for YOU to judge on literary merit ... ?

Actually there are books which have been sanitised but I think there is a fairly obvious difference between genuine novels that allegedly promote offensive ideas and creating a false history for a real person.

James Martin's autobiography was recalled and pulped because of things he said about his step mother. But if you can hang around for someone to be conveniently out of the way.... you can defame them as much as you like.

You seem to think overall that Christopher Tolkien is restraining the trade of various hard done by authors. The point is the Gaffer was in his own home. He wasn't a sqautter. You are really defending the rights of Saruman and his croney's to take over the Shire.


The estate website states: Can I / someone else write / complete / develop my / their own version of one of these unfinished tales ? (or any others)
The simple answer is NO.
You are of course free to do whatever you like for your own private enjoyment, but there is no question of any commercial exploitation of this form of "fan-fiction".
Also, in these days of the Internet, and privately produced collectors’ items for sale on eBay, we must make it as clear as possible that the Tolkien Estate never has, and never will authorize the commercialisation or distribution of any works of this type.
The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.

Whether you like it of not (and you clearly don't)the Estate owns the rights to Tolkien's works. and has the right to protect them and test the limits of those rights in the courts. Just as a householder has legal protection against squatters and burglars. The estate may have money. It may also be in the right. It seems to think it has a duty (and I think it probably does legally regardless of morality) to take action. You may have a preference to go for the "underdog" in any circumstances, but are you defending the corner shop against "the man" or the purveyor of stolen goods?.

Presumably it would be easier for the estate to ignore all these things - and if you insist on making it personal, I don't suppose Christopher Tolkiens enjoys the vitriolic personal attacks they stir up (if he is aware of them) - and hope they would sink without trace. The Gardiner book was too expensive for me to consider even if I had been more interested and this - well given the millions of Tolkien fans, the fact that noone has read and reviewed in six weeks suggests that it probably doesn't improve after the few example pages and would have sunk without much trace. Modern wisdom says you should not give such things the oxygen of publicity.
But then the precedent would have been set and the floodgates opened.


What amazes me (apart from how anyone can write so badly and get published) is why the publishers don't check out the legal side first. There must be some kind of due diligence that isn't happening. This may be testing the boundaries but the other books fell at a really basic level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

You now seem to be saying that anyone can write anything and use any material how they like and the literary quality is the only criteria? Hmm .... so it is alright for YOU to judge on literary merit ... ?

No, I'm just saying that literary merit would override subject matter if I was the judge. I wouldn't 'burn' Lolita....

Actually there are books which have been sanitised but I think there is a fairly obvious difference between genuine novels that allegedly promote offensive ideas and creating a false history for a real person.

But he's not creating a 'false history' - its a novel & clearly states that its a work of fantasy. I've just finished reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court & I never for one minute believed that Mark Twain was trying to create a false history of fifth century Britain. In both cases we're dealing with a 'tale', which, well-, or badly-written, has every right to exist. Or should Mark Twain join Mirkwood on the bonfire - along with every other historical novel (& don't forget that absolute pile of lies, Catch 22 - I happen to know that nothing like that happened in WWII!)

James Martin's autobiography was recalled and pulped because of things he said about his step mother. But if you can hang around for someone to be conveniently out of the way.... you can defame them as much as you like.

Again, this book is a fantasy, not an autobiography.

You seem to think overall that Christopher Tolkien is restraining the trade of various hard done by authors. The point is the Gaffer was in his own home. He wasn't a sqautter. You are really defending the rights of Saruman and his croney's to take over the Shire.

Nope - Christopher Tolkien is claiming that he 'owns' not simply his father's work, but his father's character & personality & should be able to prevent anyone depicting him in any way that he doesn't approve of. Should that apply to all historical personalities? Perhaps War & Peace should go on the bonfire too?

The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.[/I]

Whether you like it of not (and you clearly don't)the Estate owns the rights to Tolkien's works. and has the right to protect them and test the limits of those rights in the courts. Just as a householder has legal protection against squatters and burglars.

This is nothing to do with the use or mis-use of Tolkien's writings - it has to do with whether a writer has a right to use a dead person as a character in a made up setting. If you say he doesn't then I can't see how you can support the existence of any historical story from Homer down to The King's Speech - a good bit of Shakespeare would have to go (I'm a bit of a Ricardian but I don't think Richard III should join the others on the bonfire).

The estate may have money. It may also be in the right. It seems to think it has a duty (and I think it probably does legally regardless of morality) to take action. You may have a preference to go for the "underdog" in any circumstances, but are you defending the corner shop against "the man" or the purveyor of stolen goods?.

What, exactly has been 'stolen'? Define what has been 'stolen' from JRRT by the existence of this work? Is anyone likely to think that what happens in this book to a character called JRR Tolkien really happened to the real JRR Tolkien?

.. given the millions of Tolkien fans, the fact that noone has read and reviewed in six weeks suggests that it probably doesn't improve after the few example pages and would have sunk without much trace. Modern wisdom says you should not give such things the oxygen of publicity.
But then the precedent would have been set and the floodgates opened.

Not the point - this might well be the biggest pile of foetid dingoes kidneys ever to see the printing press. The point is that it is a fantasy novel that depicts a real historical character in a fantasy setting. As for 'floodgates being opened' - did you look at the list I linked to above - Tolkien has been used as a character in numerous works of fiction (even, in the chapter Thursday Nights in Carpenter's The Inklings, where, with the full approval of Christopher Tolkien one assumes the author recreates a 'typical' Inklings meeting - no single event of which can be proved to have happened at all)

What amazes me (apart from how anyone can write so badly and get published) is why the publi shers don't check out the legal side first. There must be some kind of due diligence that isn't happening. This may be testing the boundaries but the other books fell at a really basic level.

Again, this is not about the 'quality' of the book (which may be trash of the highest order for FAIK). And I don't see where 'legality' comes into this - is this the first time a historical novel has been written using a historical person as a central character - & has anyone ever been dragged through the courts for doing that?

[Mänwe]

A brief query, do you consider the greater fault to be the person/'plaintiff' or of the law for allowing such interpretation and action?

[Pitchwife]

I've had a look at the few excerpts of the book available in the Amazon preview, and I have to agree with Mith that the writing is crap - from the cliché of Tolkien's presumed spider phobia to my favourite failed metaphor, "a gulag of deepened liver spots" (infallibly picking the wrong foreign word which doesn't mean what he thinks it does; "archipelago" is what you were looking for, Mr Hillard - but I suppose you can blame Solshenitsyn for confusing you.)

But this is beside the point, and I agree with davem insofar as I'd prefer to have the chance to judge the worth or worthlessness of a book myself instead of having it preemptively pulped. What irks me most about the Estate's behaviour in this case is the argument that "the cover art and typefaces in 'Mirkwood' were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition", which is an obvious smoke screen. For those who haven't looked at the cover, it depicts a huge watercoloured tree and three tiny figures in the lower left corner which can, by their attributes of staff, bow and axe, be putatively identified as a wizard, elf and dwarf. If that's "unfair competition" for Tolkien's works, so are 90 % of generic fantasy since the 1970's, but I haven't yet heard of any legal action by the Estate against The Sword of Shannara, which pilfered from Tolkien's works to a degree no halfways self-respecting author would dare to consider today.

Now if CT said outright, "I don't want my dad to be written about (and possibly misrepresented) as a character in somebody else's fiction", that's a different matter; it's still debatable in my opinion whether that should give him the right to have the book in question suppressed, but I can sympathize with his feelings. But to hide the issue behind a strawman argument like the one quoted above is undignified - actually, I feel it's an insult to us fans, presuming we can't tell the real thing from a cheap rip-off.

[Bêthberry]

Hilliard isn't taking this lightly:

First Amendment and Fair Use

[davem]

Well, I've finished Chapter 1 & I'm sufficiently interested to go to chapter 2 - if only because I've nothing else on. Its a potboiler of course, but its hardly 'offensive' so far. And its fun to see familiar ideas taken up & played around with.

What if the 'Translator Conceit' wasn't actually a 'conceit' & Tolkien really had translated the Legendarium from ancient manuscripts, & what if there were more - what if things had been concealed, deliberately covered up? And what if that Other World on which the Tolkien's tales were based was actually 'rea'l & could break through into this one?

I think those are sufficiently interesting ideas, & worth playing around with. Nothing so far that convinces me that CT has any kind of a case - though I doubt he's read the book. But then, if you're rich enough to be able to get your lawyers to destroy anything you think might, possibly, if seen in the right light, from the right angle, bother you even very, very slightly, then why bother doing anything but get it destroyed - & if you can take the writer & publisher down as well - for their presumption, to humble their 'pride' in daring to 'offend' you, all well & good.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by davem

I think those are sufficiently interesting ideas, & worth playing around with. Nothing so far that convinces me that CT has any kind of a case - though I doubt he's read the book. But then, if you're rich enough to be able to get your lawyers to destroy anything you think might, possibly, if seen in the right light, from the right angle, bother you even very, very slightly, then why bother doing anything but get it destroyed - & if you can take the writer & publisher down as well - for their presumption, to humble their 'pride' in daring to 'offend' you, all well & good.

Plus you'll be in great historical company, you'll join the ranks of such people as the first emperor of China who had all of the history books in China destroyed (so that Chinese history would begin with him) or the Islamic general who was resposible for the final destruction of the Library of Alexandria on the grounds that all of its books either agreed with the Koran (in which case they were superfluous) or disagreed with it (in which case they were blasphemous).

[Inziladun]

From the admittedly little I've gleaned about this book online, I think it's sensational garbage, though it could no doubt be turned into a blockbuster of a film.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Presumably it would be easier for the estate to ignore all these things - and if you insist on making it personal, I don't suppose Christopher Tolkiens enjoys the vitriolic personal attacks they stir up (if he is aware of them) - and hope they would sink without trace.

It would be very easy, I think, for CT to throw up his hands and grant carte blache to every hack novelist and screenwriter to do what they would with Tolkien and all he created. Think of the money, if that really was the source of the Estate's concern! The fact that they are "overprotective" tells me that greed is not likely to be the driving force behind the Estate's stance.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

What amazes me (apart from how anyone can write so badly and get published) is why the publishers don't check out the legal side first. There must be some kind of due diligence that isn't happening. This may be testing the boundaries but the other books fell at a really basic level.

Aside from checking into the legalities, did Hillard run all this by the Estate beforehand, as a courtesy, at the very least? If not, perhaps that's part of CT's problem with it.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

What irks me most about the Estate's behaviour in this case is the argument that "the cover art and typefaces in 'Mirkwood' were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition", which is an obvious smoke screen. For those who haven't looked at the cover, it depicts a huge watercoloured tree and three tiny figures in the lower left corner which can, by their attributes of staff, bow and axe, be putatively identified as a wizard, elf and dwarf.

I actually agree that that alone is a pretty thin cause for contention. Maybe there is more to it, but if so, I wish they'd make the true reasons known.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

From the admittedly little I've gleaned about this book online, I think it's sensational garbage, though it could no doubt be turned into a blockbuster of a film.

Again, the quality of the work is not the issue, the response of the Tolkien Estate to it is.

It would be very easy, I think, for CT to throw up his hands and grant carte blache to every hack novelist and screenwriter to do what they would with Tolkien and all he created. Think of the money, if that really was the source of the Estate's concern! The fact that they are "overprotective" tells me that greed is not likely to be the driving force behind the Estate's stance.

This is not about 'allowing ' anyone to do what they want with Tolkien's writings - its about whether someone who died more than a quarter of a century ago can be used as a character in a historical novel, & whether that persons Estate has a right to dictate whether or not that can be done - & that is the issue in dispute here. Legally the author has not done anything wrong - he's actually only done what numerous other authors have done with historical figures. The Estate is claiming new rights of control, attempting to extend copyright into a new area, which would have massive implications for authors of historical fiction dealing with recent history.

Aside from checking into the legalities, did Hillard run all this by the Estate beforehand, as a courtesy, at the very least? If not, perhaps that's part of CT's problem with it.

Probably not - anymore than any other historical novelist writing a novel involving any other deceased person would have checked with their Estate. Because up to now its not been considered necessary.

EDIT: WHAT I FIND FRUSTRATING IN THIS MATTER

I (& please check this out via a search if you don't believe me) have been one of CT's greatest supporters on this forum. I still feel he is deserving of respect for all he's done re his father's unpublished works.

However, this unquestioning support for CT, this belief that wherever there is a 'conflict' between CT & another author (or series of authors - 1) Drout with his thwarted attempt to publish Tolkien's translations of Beowulf - which CT originally gave him permission for & subsequently withdrew. 2) the recent publication of Tolkien's translation of the Book of Jonah, which the Estate stopped. 3) the recent biography of Hilary Tolkien which they also stopped, & now 4) the attempt to destroy all copies of this book) its always the other party that's wrong is hardly logical. As if CT & the Estate are living saints who simply CANNOT be in error & who are deserving of unconditional, unquestioning support.

Sorry, there are too many examples now of this kind of behaviour on the Estates's part, & this continued unquestioning support requires one to adopt a position of believing that there are 'dark forces' out to assault CT & the Estate & make them suffer out of sheer malice. If this was the only incident of such an attempt on the Estate's part to stop publication of a book about Tolkien I'd be inclined - as in the past - to give them the benefit of the doubt, but frankly, for all I'm grateful for CT's work on his father's part, it begins to look like pettyness & bullying.

[Sardy]

As an author who, on occasion, has used historical figures as characters (Hitler, Jesus, Einstein... and not always portrayed in the most flattering or historically accurate light) - I just wanted to toss my hat into the ring and say that Davem is correct in his evaluations and assertions. As an active and adamant supporter of 1st Amendment rights, I agree 100% that no book should ever be censored because of the beliefs, prejudices, sensibilities, perceived offense or even hurt feelings of any person or group.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

Again, the quality of the work is not the issue, the response of the Tolkien Estate to it is.

Why should the quality of works by other authors using Tolkien's name and imaginative products not be a consideration for the Estate when deciding whether or not to authorize them? If I wanted to make a comic book featuring Tolkien as a costumed superhero who went around punching chipmunks and eating raw fish, would it be improper for the Estate to want to put a stop to it?

Originally Posted by davem

However, this unquestioning support for CT, this belief that wherever there is a 'conflict' between CT & another author (or series of authors - 1) Drout with his thwarted attempt to publish Tolkien's translations of Beowulf - which CT originally gave him permission for & subsequently withdrew. 2) the recent publication of Tolkien's translation of the Book of Jonah, which the Estate stopped. 3) the recent biography of Hilary Tolkien which they also stopped, & now 4) the attempt to destroy all copies of this book) its always the other party that's wrong is hardly logical. As if CT & the Estate are living saints who simply CANNOT be in error & who are deserving of unconditional, unquestioning support.

I already said I think the stated reason for opposing this is thin. As has been noted here, the Estate hasn't always stood against references to and appearances of Tolkien in other works. Since the PJ movies have shown the Tolkien name to be a gigantic cash cow, is it out of the question that there have in the last few years been so many horrendous works in various media that simply want to capitalize on the man and his work? Maybe CT is tired enough that instead of sorting through every proposal and request, trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, he's now just erring (sometimes unjustly, perhaps) on the side of conservatism?
I suspect the Estate will lose this in the end, since they did pick such and unsteady place to take a stand.
Bottom line is, I don't see CT as a perfect white knight who does no wrong, but neither do I see him as a dragon jealously guarding his hoard, roasting all who come near.