Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm curious - if the Tolkien Estate won this case & was able to prevent Tolkien being used as a character - & surely that decision would set a legal precedent which could be used by the Estates of other famous people (maybe not so nice as Tolkien) - how would that affect historical novelists? Wouldn't success in this court case result in one of the most extreme examples of cultural censorship imaginable? You'd hardly be able to write novels about any major event in the 20th century.

[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.

[Sardy]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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?

Yes.

Or more accurately, the Estate can want anything they'd like. And improper is quite a subjective notion. I think that what you meant to ask, is 'Would the Estate have legal recourse to put a stop to it?' In which the answer would (and rightly should) be 'No.'

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Sardy

I think that what you meant to ask, is 'Would the Estate have legal recourse to put a stop to it?' In which the answer would (and rightly should) be 'No.'

Actually, I was asking would they be right from a moral standpoint. My thought would be "yes".

[Sardy]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Actually, I was asking would they be right from a moral standpoint. My thought would be "yes".

Hmm... My thought would be "no" ...but that's the thing with "moral standpoints" isn't it?

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Zil

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?

You're mixing up two different issues here, literary quality and accuracy of the way a historical character is portrayed. They may overlap, but they're not the same. Should lack of literary quality be a criterium for suppressing books? Now maybe that's not such a bad idea, looking at today's book market, but who gets to set the standards?
As to your second question, the issue is not whether it would be improper/morally right/understandable for them to want to stop it (I've already said that I can sympathize with their feelings), but whether they should have the power to do so; and I'm afraid I think they shouldn't. (I mean, where do you draw the line? I suppose Hookbill should be very careful about publishing any further stories about Robot Tolkien in the Downer...)

[Formendacil]

A question, as a reader of these "debates" and scrupulous avoider of involvement in them, whose answer continues to elude me...

On what basis is the direct correlation being made of Tolkien Estate = Christopher Tolkien? I grant, of course, that he is the sole literary executor and the senior member of the Tolkien family, but he is also an 86 year old man and only one member of the Estate's governing body.

In other words, while it might be fair to say title this thread "The Tolkien Estate is at it again..." I'm missing the obvious connection that says "...and therefore we're talking about Christopher Tolkien." Nor am I really ready to take "everyone knows that a decision by the Estate is a decision by CJRT" as an answer, since everyone does not know that, as evidenced by me. Unless someone can show me evidence that the actions of the Estate on a given matter (namely, the case in question here) are due solely to the wishes and actions of a single member of the Estate, it does not seem to follow that there is any logical point in arguing about whether that person is right or wrong...

Note: this has, of course, no bearing on whether the Estate is in the right or the wrong...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

A question, as a reader of these "debates" and scrupulous avoider of involvement in them, whose answer continues to elude me...

On what basis is the direct correlation being made of Tolkien Estate = Christopher Tolkien? I grant, of course, that he is the sole literary executor and the senior member of the Tolkien family, but he is also an 86 year old man and only one member of the Estate's governing body.

.

The 'Estate' is either Christopher or Adam. I would prefer to think its Christopher - as Adam is a lot younger & if he's behind these moves it bodes very badly for a lot of people for a very long time.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

The 'Estate' is either Christopher or Adam. I would prefer to think its Christopher - as Adam is a lot younger & if he's behind these moves it bodes very badly for a lot of people for a very long time.

Interesting...

The Wikipedia article says that the directors of the Estate are Christopher, his wife Baillie, and the grandson Michael George Tolkien. Granted... this is Wikipedia (although as sources go, it's not as bad as it's vilified to be), and, granted, I have no idea how old the article is or where it gets its information from.

That being said... there's not a lot of ready information about who comprises the Tolkien Estate online, so Wikipedia gets the prime position as having the only information...