Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[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...)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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?

Who would be better qualified than family of the author?

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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?

Well, where the line is drawn is for the court to decide. And like I said, I think the Estate will likely be on the losing end here anyway.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Who would be better qualified than family of the author?

But what if we weren't talking about Tolkien - this decision, if it went in favour of the Estate would bring the person/character under copyright. It would, as I stated, make it impossible for any writer to use a historical figure (certainly one of recent times) in a fictional setting. That's not too far a step from being able to prevent any 'unauthorised' biographies. It would hand control of a huge chunk of our cultural history over to famous individuals' Estates.

This is not a power they have had before, & the Estate is pushing the boundaries. And their wealth & power could well mean that their opponents in this case actually decide not to fight the case in the end & just give in. And that would seriously deter anyone else from following them in writing not just about Tolkien but any other figure from recent history whose decendents are rich enough to do the same. The Estate's actions here (as pointed up in the Techdirt article I first linked to) could lead to major difficulties for historical novelists.


Ok, so to the book itself. I'm a bit further on, & its growing on me slightly - & read these reviews on the Amazon.com site http://www.amazon.com/Mirkwood-Novel...DateDescending particularly the first one, as this guy has written some very knowledgeable reviews of Tolkien's books in the past. Of course there's the odd wince inducing moments - where Tolkien, at an Inklings' meeting talks about 'pants' instead of trousers' (note for US writers: 'pants' are what you wear under your trousers!)

[Mänwe]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Therein lies the point of my earlier question; that the law can entertain these cases, personally, annoys/worries me more. And yes, CT might just open a 'Pandora's box' of future litigation.

[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...