Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem

11-09-2010, 12:51 AM

elronds_daughter

11-09-2010, 09:40 AM

That's just tragic. I would've much liked to see JRR a bit through the eyes of his family. (And also know more about his family.) Why must the Estate be so possessive?

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

11-09-2010, 10:22 AM

As I haven't read the manuscript, it's hard to say precisely why the estate would block it, but I can see one legitimate reason. The book may be ostensibly about Hillary, but if it was overly emphasizing his relationship with JRRT, it could be argued by the estate that the author or publisher was using that connection as a sales hook, possibly to the point that the book was really indirect memoirs of JRRT more than a biography of the life of Hillary himself. Why, for instance, make a point of mentioning things like the autographed photo of JRRT? It would interest his fans and encourage them to buy a book they might otherwise not purchase. The estate's complaint may be one of misrepresentation, and is possibly legitimate. One would have to read the manuscript in order to know the truth, and as the public cannot make that judgment for itself at this time, the media can put whatever spin they like on the actions of the estate.

elronds_daughter

11-09-2010, 10:40 AM

You do have a point, Ibrin. I can definitely see the publishers using the Tolkien connection as a selling point. (And I realize my comment above falls under the Tolkien-fan-reading-his-brother's-bio-to-find-out-more-about-JRR category. So, case in point.)

As you said, one would need to read the manuscript to be sure, but (thinking about the aforementioned category), if even a part of their market is Tolkienites (which it certainly must be; one cannot possibly write a book about a Tolkien and not expect JRR's followers to jump on the bandwagon), they might, however unintentionally, skew it to be more a sideways biography of the Man himself rather than his brother, as advertised. In that case, I suppose the complaints of the Estate would be perfectly legitimate. I would expect that they might be willing to settle for royalties (I would, if it were me), but it may well be that they tried and the publisher refused.

And of course we'll probably never know the real reasons.

So, much as I would love to read a biography of Hilary, I suppose I can try for an all-sides view and see how the Estate might be unhappy about such a thing.

P.S. Apologies for all the parentheticals.

Mithalwen

11-09-2010, 03:01 PM

I doubt there would be many takers for the bio of an Evesham fruit farmer if he weren't JRR's brother. But I am suprised that they can stop it since there are so many unauthorised Celebrity bios that most people have to put up with.

Can you libel the dead? Surely copyright is the only thing?

It dos seem a bit extreme especially when Gardener is such a mainstay of Oxonmoot and the TS which is proud and protective of its relationship with the surviving family.

Morwen

11-09-2010, 03:10 PM

^^No, libel is only for the living.

Tuor in Gondolin

11-09-2010, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Mithalwen
Can you libel the dead?

So you've seen the movie Death on the Nile
with Peter Ustinov, Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, etc. :)

Mithalwen

11-09-2010, 03:29 PM

I have - and not only that version but I can't get the significance ..I remember whodunnit and how but nothing in the motive for libel.

Andsigil

11-09-2010, 03:38 PM

Something about this whole thing gives me the impression of the Tolkien Estate cutting off its nose to spite its face. :(

Mister Underhill

11-09-2010, 09:14 PM

Bêthberry

11-10-2010, 10:56 AM

Bizarre is right, especially considering that the Facebook page for Wheelbarrows at Dawn (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wheelbarrows-at-Dawn-Memories-of-Hilary-Tolkien/290428777491) says in a post dated 10/22/10 that "Chris Tolkien" was slated to attend the launch party.

I suspect that refers to Hilary Tolkien's grandson Christopher rather than JRR's son. I'm sure I recently read a critic who distinguished between the two by calling JRR's son Christopher and Hilary's grandson Chris, but I cannot now recall the source. Here's a family tree on Wiki: Tolkien family tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_family).

I wonder what eleventh hour dispute killed the book.

The book had already been extensively rewritten in an attempt to accommodate the wishes of the Estate.

The Tolkien Estate has managed to cultivate a reputation -- deserved or not -- as a lumbering litigious behemoth obsessed with control, an irony which I'm sure is not lost on most Tolkien fans. I wonder if they're sensitive to that or if they're just too old and too wealthy to care.

It's really disheartening to recall that the Estate also rejected Professor Michael Drout's edition of Tolkien's translation of Beowulf. And they are sitting on Tolkien's private journal or diary, something scholarship would really benefit from seeing.

It dos seem a bit extreme especially when Gardener is such a mainstay of Oxonmoot and the TS which is proud and protective of its relationship with the surviving family.

Let me second this. Anyone who attended the session on this book at Oxonmoot this past September could not miss the genuine sincerity of the authors and their personal enthusiasm for the project. These are not fringe carbetbaggers using a cheap trick to hitch a ride on Tolkien's fame. Like other members of the Tolkien Society, they are exceptionally devoted fans of the author. If I am remembering correctly, they worked with Hilary's family on the book, which is based on a recently discovered stash of Hilary's family mementoes.

I have to say I'm very glad I attended this session, particularly in light of this news. I came away with a greater appreciation of the family relationships and some interesting information not in Carpenter's biography.

And in the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that after Oxonmoot I became friends with Angie Gardner on Facebook and am also friends there with Professor Drout, although I've not had any correspondence with them about their books.

Tuor in Gondolin

11-10-2010, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Mithalwen
I have - and not only that version but I can't get the significance ..I remember whodunnit and how but nothing in the motive for libel.

Off topic, but...

In the movie Angela Lansbury is being sued by the (future) murder
victim for libel, AL's a romance novelist, and her daughter asks her
boyfriend if you can libel the dead. Of course the French detective
overhears her and she becomes a suspect.
(I was rewatching the movie this weekend).

Mithalwen

11-11-2010, 05:43 AM

As I haven't read the manuscript, it's hard to say precisely why the estate would block it, but I can see one legitimate reason. The book may be ostensibly about Hillary, but if it was overly emphasizing his relationship with JRRT, ..... The estate's complaint may be one of misrepresentation, and is possibly legitimate. One would have to read the manuscript in order to know the truth, and as the public cannot make that judgment for itself at this time, the media can put whatever spin they like on the actions of the estate.

Even if that were the case I don't think that it was misrepresentation. No offence to Hilary who was no doubt a fine and decent man but there would almost certainly no book (other than perhaps a private family memoir) were he not JRRT's brother. There have been cases here where a sibling relationship has been exploited for a book and the "celebrity" has had to tolerate it and I really can't see how the estate can block the publication of Hilary's family reminiscences about Uncle Ronald (or whatever they called him) even if they now hate any aspect of JRRT's private life emerging into the public domain. I usually am the first to defend the estate against all comers but I am baffled about this.

I can't believe that the book was so scandalous but you can't but wonder. I can't help thinking that this would have had a very limited circulation of fairly devoted fans at £30 a pop had they left well alone.

What on earth was it that was so problematic

davem

11-11-2010, 08:03 AM

Angela Gardener, the author, is a member of the downs (only one post so far http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=641364&postcount=3), but she may not feel able to discuss the matter. Just so curious to know what the score is.

Tuor in Gondolin

11-11-2010, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Mithalwen
I can't believe that the book was so scandalous but you can't but wonder. I can't help thinking that this would have had a very limited circulation of fairly devoted fans at £30 a pop had they left well alone.

What on earth was it that was so problematic

Exactly. Are UK copyright, publishing laws etc. so much stricter
then other countries? Or EU regulations. And if so could it be
published in other countries (U.S., Canada, Australia)?

Btw, I'd like to read a bio like this, but at 60+ dollars.....

Mister Underhill

11-11-2010, 09:55 AM

I suspect that refers to Hilary Tolkien's grandson Christopher rather than JRR's son. I'm sure I recently read a critic who distinguished between the two by calling JRR's son Christopher and Hilary's grandson Chris, but I cannot now recall the source. Here's a family tree on Wiki: Tolkien family tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_family).Thanks for the tree. How deliciously self-referential! That answers that, then.

It's really disheartening to recall that the Estate also rejected Professor Michael Drout's edition of Tolkien's translation of Beowulf. And they are sitting on Tolkien's private journal or diary, something scholarship would really benefit from seeing.Lamentable indeed, though I imagine all of this will come to light sooner or later. Then again, none of us are getting any younger, are we?

That taste we had of Beowulf was particularly intriguing. I did a search to see if I could recall any of the particulars of the scuttling of the project. Ironically, the most detailed information I could find was right here on the Downs -- in fact Google is so swift that your post in this very thread, Bb, was near the top of the list. Anyway, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of an outcry about Tolkien's work being kept under wraps. I suppose serious fans of both Tolkien and Beowulf comprise a relatively small demographic, but I would've expected some ongoing curiosity from Anglo-Saxon scholars at least.

I really can't see how the estate can block the publication of Hilary's family reminiscences about Uncle Ronald (or whatever they called him) even if they now hate any aspect of JRRT's private life emerging into the public domain.From what I can see, there are probably two main factors at play here that have nothing to do with the Estate actually having a winning legal case for blocking publication.

One is that the publisher (whose main operation seems to be running a specialty Tolkien bookstore whilst publishing the occasional Tolkien-related volume on the side -- I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) and the authors are all apparently dedicated Tolkienistas with at least some relationship with the family, a relationship I imagine they'd rather not sacrifice for the sake of a relatively obscure book.

And even if they weren't concerned about that, there's number two, which is the privilege of the very rich when it comes to the law. As davem mentioned upthread, the Estate has very deep pockets, and if you want to take them on in court you better have time and money of your own to spend, because they will find ways to make you work for it. An Estate with hundreds of millions of dollars versus a bookshop owner and a couple of authors, guess who's going to run out of money first?

Bêthberry

11-11-2010, 04:28 PM

Btw, I'd like to read a bio like this, but at 60+ dollars.....

Perhaps you can satisfy (or whet) your appetite with the first small volume which came out of Hilary's papers: Black and White Ogre Country: The Lost Tales of Hilary Tolkien (http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/858-Black_and_White_Ogre_Counrty.php).

I've linked to an interview with the illustrator, Jeff Murray, on Tolkien Library, but that page includes a link to Amazon uk for ordering the book. At either ₤7 or ₤9, it's hardly pricey.

There's a bit of explanation, too, of the provenance of the material.

Ironically, the most detailed information I could find was right here on the Downs -- in fact Google is so swift that your post in this very thread, Bb, was near the top of the list.

gulp! But I know nuffink of the matter except that it happened--shows you how good teh interwebs are. :confused:

I suppose serious fans of both Tolkien and Beowulf comprise a relatively small demographic, but I would've expected some ongoing curiosity from Anglo-Saxon scholars at least.

It's a very small demographic. Very few universities require Old English--which needs to be learnt as a separate language--from their English majors. I suspect I come from one of the very few North American ones that do and I know of English ones which do not as well.

Even medieval studies--which are in the dialects of middle English and look recognisable to modern English readers--are being lost because not many wish to undertake a rigorous training in reading old literature these days. :(

Also, with recent translations such as Seamus Heaney's there's less need for another, even one from a pre-eminent OE scholar.

Then again, none of us are getting any younger, are we?

At my back I always hear time's winged chariot hurrying near. ;)

PrinceOfTheHalflings

11-13-2010, 08:57 PM

My first thoughts on reading this were that it was a copyright matter - any letters/docs/personal photos from JRRT are copyright JRRT & his Estate. The Estate may simply being a bit precious. What I find curious is that the author has worked with Hilary Tolkien's family on this book, & from what I know of Angela Gardener via the Tolkien Society & buying books from Daeron's Books, I know it would have been an entirely respectful work, so I'm not sure what the Estate's objection could be, other than 'This our stuff & you can't use it!'

However, reading between the lines of the publisher's statement:

it seems a bit more complex - the issue seems to be not so much about the use of the photos/pix/letters referred to in the blurb, but about the book's making 'proper reference to his close relationship with his brother'.

Which seems a bit much - stopping a book going ahead because it touched on the relationship between Tolkien & his brother from Hilary's perspective. I don't know if any more info will be released on the exact issues but I don't think we'll ever see the book in print now - after the Estate's recent victory over New Line they have a VERY lot of money for lawyers.....

It might be that the book can't make 'proper reference to his close relationship with his brother' without using letters and other personal documents.

What the Estate can't do is simply block bios of members of the Tolkien family - it doesn't matter how many fancy lawyers you have if your case has no legal substance - sure, the Estate can issue injunctions against books they don't like, but there are loads of Tolkien related books being published every year, so it's not like they block everything.

I'm puzzling over the argument that the book was a "misrepresentation". Normally, if the book represents "false claims" or "false advertising" (eg, a book about JRRT masquerading as being about Hilary) then that would be a matter for the UK Advertising Standards Authority and also perhaps the Office of Fair Trading. There is certainly no obvious basis for a civil lawsuit - unless the authors of the book signed a contract with the Estate regarding the use of certain materials owned by the Estate. The Estate may be complaining that they were deceived as to the nature of the book when they (the Estate) agreed to the use of those materials. In fact, that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

Calcifer

11-16-2010, 07:25 AM

As authors who have worked with the Tolkien Estate in producing books containing copyrighted material, and are known to contribute to Tolkien fan forums, we have been asked to forward the following official statement:

Statement of the Tolkien Estate - Wheelbarrows at Dawn

The J R R Tolkien Estate has been made aware of a statement by ADC Publications concerning its cancellation of its proposed publication Wheelbarrows at Dawn by Angela Gardner and Neil Holford.

ADC's statement suggests that the publication has been cancelled as a result of the Tolkien Estate's threats to take court action preventing the release of the book.

As this statement is highly misleading, the Tolkien Estate considers it important that the true facts be clarified for those concerned.

The book in question was presented by ADC as a biography of J R R Tolkien's brother Hilary. However, the publication included numerous personal letters from J R R Tolkien to his brother and from other family members that were reproduced virtually verbatim.

The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate. As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect, the Estate quite properly declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way.

However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed.

Although ADC's response was to agree to this, what it then did in practice was to paraphrase the letters, something that had been made clear from the outset would not resolve the issue.

Despite the Estate's devoting considerable resource to helping ADC, not least by suggesting specific editorial changes which would meet its concerns, ADC then announced the cancellation of the book.

=====

Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull

Bêthberry

11-16-2010, 09:33 AM

Thank you very much, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull for providing that statement for the benefit of discussion here. Please thank the members of the Tolkien Estate as well for explaining their position.

I'm sure I speak for all Downers when I say we would be delighted to see Calcifer contribute to our discussions, particularly when we can benefit from your great expertise and wide knowledge of all things Tolkien. I am reading, slowly and carefully, through your Companion and Guide and have found it as refreshing and enlightening as any Ent draught.

davem

11-16-2010, 02:57 PM

Still not sure whether the issue is

a)Simply that the authors are paraphrasing the letters - ie its not about what the letters contain, but simply because the copyright on the material belongs to the Estate, & that they object on principle to its being used.

Or

b) Whether its because the letters contain information the Estate do not want to be published - but I suspect that if the content of the letters was along the lines of 'Dear Hilary, went into Birmingham today & had tea. It rained for a bit, but then the sun came out & made the whole place seem rather Elvish. Yours Ronald' then no-one at the Estate would be bothered if it was published.

However, I accept that we'll never be told one way or the other, so further speculation seems pointless.

Narfforc, via Facebook, made me aware of this novel 'Looking for the King: An Inklings Novel '[Hardcover] http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1586175149/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link In it, Tolkien, Lewis & the other Inklings appear as supporting characters, & we've seen other novels where the same thing happens (ie 'Here, There Be Dragons (Chronicles of the Imaginarium Geographica' http://www.amazon.com/There-Dragons-Chronicles-Imaginarium-Geographica/dp/1416912282/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289942839&sr=1-1 ). I begin to feel that Tolkien is moving towards being a 'fictional' character himself, the dreamy, slightly bumbling old professor with his pipe. We may never get to know the real man.

Angie G

11-16-2010, 04:49 PM

I would like to say something on this forum about Wheelbarrows at Dawn.

My brief from Chris Tolkien was to "put Hilary Tolkien into the life of his brother in print as he had been in life." In order to do this I was given free access to all the family papers. I was asked to write a book about their lives - both together as a relationship - and in the wider world; setting them in their time and place.

The book was amended by Neil and myself, as requested by the publisher, at the behest of Tolkien Estates, three times. When we got to the point where one of the two brothers was deemed to no longer have a voice, the point of the book became null and void in its current form. This being the case the publisher and Chris Tolkien made the decision to halt publication and take stock.

This is all I wish to say at this time. Thank you for your interest.

Angie

Lalaith

11-16-2010, 04:51 PM

The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate. As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect, the Estate quite properly declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way.

I'm still a bit baffled by this. Firstly, because most 20th century literary figures eminent enough to have biographies written about them, have letters that are published as part of biographies, and it isn't generally seen as a problem by the estates of these writers.
Secondly, from whom did the authors obtain the letters in question, if not the family?
Thirdly, why could the letters not be paraphrased? If I paraphrased the plot of LotR I would not be in breach of copyright, although if I copied it word for word I clearly would.

davem

11-16-2010, 05:11 PM

Thirdly, why could the letters not be paraphrased? If I paraphrased the plot of LotR I would not be in breach of copyright, although if I copied it word for word I clearly would.

I wasn't aware that a paraphrase or synopsis is a breach of copyright either, but I'm sure a very long, exorbitantly expensive, court case would be able to determine whether that is actually the case or not. What one would need is two very rich individuals/organisations to be prepared to argue it out in front of a judge. ;)

Galadriel55

11-16-2010, 06:32 PM

Yes, paraphrasing without giving credit is plagiarism. However, if credit is given, it's OK to even paraphrase another author's work. If the words "Tolkien's letters" would be listed, I think it wouldn't be a problem. Crazy, this system, isn't it?

Morthoron

11-16-2010, 08:07 PM

Whatever the convoluted legalistic circumlocutions, it all sounds like much ado about nothing, and ridiculously litigious on the part of the Tolkien Estate. Here we have two brothers who have been dead nearly forty years. FORTY YEARS! Unless J.R.R. paraded about in women's clothing in a foxhole in France and was referred to as Jane Tolkien by his comrades, I don't think much that is earth-shaking could come out of letters from two brothers.

I have long respected the conservative nature by which the Tolkien Estate transacted their business, and protected the authorial integrity of my favorite writer; however, there comes a point when it is simply asinine, particularly in the case of a biography about Tolkien's brother which seemed to originally receive the blessings of the Estate, and the authors considered appropriate to the task after being vetted.

Personally, the objections seem trivial -- as small and mean as snobby Hobbits like Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who took pettiness to a higher level.

Sorry Tolkien Estate, you missed the boat on this one and received a self-inflicted black eye.

davem

11-17-2010, 02:34 AM

I think many of us have a tendency to tip toe around the Estate, simply because the family are at the core of it & we don't like the idea of saying 'nasty' things about Tolkien's children & grandchildren. I have to say that if the 'Tolkien Estate was simply a commercial organisation who controlled the copyright of Tolkien's works & had no connection with the family the reaction to this story would have been far less muted.

We should perhaps remember that the Tolkien Estate is not a 'fan' organisation, but an entirely commercial one & clearly places issues of copyright above 'art'. 'Tolkien' is a copyrighted product now as much as Coke or MacDonalds or Apple - & you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of their lawyers either.

Can't help but wonder whether something 'happened' when Tolkien's original publisher, Allen & Unwin, was taken over by Rupert Murdoch's Harper Collins...

Mithalwen

11-17-2010, 03:04 AM

I'm still a bit baffled by this. Firstly, because most 20th century literary figures eminent enough to have biographies written about them, have letters that are published as part of biographies, and it isn't generally seen as a problem by the estates of these writers.
Secondly, from whom did the authors obtain the letters in question, if not the family?
Thirdly, why could the letters not be paraphrased? If I paraphrased the plot of LotR I would not be in breach of copyright, although if I copied it word for word I clearly would.

The physical letters are presumably in the possession of Hilary's family whereas the copyright resides with the estate. So Hilary's family have the right to show them to whom they like the reproduction of the contents is verboten without the permission of the estate. "Eyes only" in effect.

As for paraphrasingtaking Dave's example, if I write "He wrote to Hilary that he had gone into Birmingham today & had tea. It had rained briefly , but then the sun had emerged giving the place an Elvish quality ". I don't think substituting some vocabulary, using reported speech and so on is enough for me to say that is no longer essentially Dave's writing. You could say that a film or radio script is essentially a paraphrase and both require the authority of the copyright holder.

All in all it seems rather sad that it has got to this stage. I don't blame the Estate for protecting its rights but it shows how tight the laager has been drawn if even Angie Gardner with the cooperation of Hilary's family has fallen foul. But the price of Tolkien being taken more seriously as an author is legitimate interest in his life. There is a danger of babies being thrown out with bathwater....

davem

11-17-2010, 03:25 AM

As for paraphrasingtaking Dave's example, if I write "He wrote to Hilary that he had gone into Birmingham today & had tea. It had rained briefly , but then the sun had emerged giving the place an Elvish quality ". I don't think substituting some vocabulary, using reported speech and so on is enough for me to say that is no longer essentially Dave's writing. You could say that a film or radio script is essentially a paraphrase and both require the authority of the copyright holder.

But I personally wouldn't care if a letter of mine like that was published - & if my heirs did, I feel seriously disappointed in them.

There are only two possible takes on this 1 - the Estate is being petty & simply refusing to allow even reference to correspondence which contains no more than everyday trivia, or 2 - they are being secretive, because what is contained in the letters is something they do not to be made public. Neither option reflects well on them & anything that reflects badly on them is in danger of reflecting badly on Tolkien himself. And frankly, I am now incredibly curious about what they don't want me to see ...

Mithalwen

11-17-2010, 03:36 AM

[QUOTE=davem;643234]I think many of us have a tendency to tip toe around the Estate, simply because the family are at the core of it & we don't like the idea of saying 'nasty' things about Tolkien's children & grandchildren. QUOTE]

Also maybe tempered by the fact that those of us who have had even slight contact with the family (which of course includes many who have attended an Oxonmoot) have found it a positive experience - I haven't heard a negative report personally. And we are aware of the tremendous good done with the processes of the jealously guarded rights via the Tolkien Trust.

It is a bit of a PR disaster though if it makes even informed and sympathetic Tolkienistas think that either there it some undisclosed scandal or that the estate is being draconian.

But while I am instantly suspicious of "true facts" (if it aint true it aint a fact!) , facts can have more than one perspective. For example, I happened to be doing my final teaching prac. at a Catholic school when it was reported in the paper that a catholic mass had been permitted to be celebrated in the chalpe of the Tower of London for the first time since the reformation. In the staff room there was a certain amount of chuntering about how dreadful it was that it had been forbidden so long. Now it happened that I sang in my college chapel choir and though it was a Methodist foundation, the chapel services were ecumenical and the services were led by different denominations and groups in rotation. There had been a huge fuss after the last time the Catholic service was held because it was a Mass and other than in exceptional circumstances they do not offer the sacrament to non Catholics (whereas in the Anglican tradition at least, communicant members of other denominations may receive it). So there was this awful division when the priest invited Catholics only up. Subsequently the Catholics were asked only to hold services in which an ecumenical congregation could participate equally and Vespers and Benediction were substituted. Now that could have been interpreted as a ban on the Mass but it wasn't quite that simple...

Mithalwen

11-17-2010, 03:44 AM

But I personally wouldn't care if a letter of mine like that was published - & if my heirs did, I feel seriously disappointed in them.

There are only two possible takes on this 1 - the Estate is being petty & simply refusing to allow even reference to correspondence which contains no more than everyday trivia, or 2 - they are being secretive, because what is contained in the letters is something they do not to be made public. Neither option reflects well on them & anything that reflects badly on them is in danger of reflecting badly on Tolkien himself. And frankly, I am now incredibly curious about what they don't want me to see ...

I am inclined to agree... but the issue of whether there is a copyright breach is separate to whether it is necessary or wise to protect it. After all if there were something, this would probably be the most neutralising way for it to get into the public domain... hardly likely to get a more sympathetic treatment. :(

However if those 20 pages were crucial it hardly suggests that the book was "all killer, no filler".

Galin

11-17-2010, 09:19 AM

Well, it looks to me like ADC agreed to one thing -- not to quote or paraphrase these letters -- and did another.

It's easier to make light of privacy concerns when it's someone else's privacy involved, and in any case people have various opinions on what they feel should be kept private. It seems to me that the Estate is entitled to their opinion regarding the Tolkien family's privacy -- not just JRRT's privacy, noting '.... and from other family members' in the statement above.

(...) However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed.

Although ADC's response was to agree to this, what it then did in practice was to paraphrase the letters, something that had been made clear from the outset would not resolve the issue.

from the statement provided by Hammond and Scull

Is ADC claiming that this wasn't made clear from the outset?

I haven't seen that so far in any event. Angie G's response doesn't speak to this -- for whatever reason, but repeated comments that ADC or the authors were trusted, vetted, and revised the book X many times as requested by the Estate...

... also don't speak to breaking an earlier agreement (whatever the law).

Tuor in Gondolin

11-17-2010, 09:27 AM

Just speculation, but in the Introduction to Letters Humphrey
Carpenter says:
Among the omissions is a very large body of letters he
wrote between 1913 and 1918 to Edith Bratt, who was his fiancee
and then his wife; these are highly personal in character...

Given that HC's work was "supervised" by Christopher Tolkien could
this dustup be more obsessive/compulsive micromanaging by CT?
Some sort of mild domestic and/or relatives "dirt" disagreement
which CT could fear would damage dad's reputation?

(Think the scenes in the movie Avalon where the relatives get into
a long-term feud over "you cut the turkey before I got there)." :mad:
Something like that?

Bêthberry

11-17-2010, 09:39 AM

Thank you, Angie G, for elaborating on what was your mandate or authorisation. This must indeed be bitter for you, after all your efforts, as well as frustrating for all concerned.

I must say I find this all extremely sad and disconcerting, particularly because I've become more and more impressed with Christopher Tolkien's work as I read through HoMe. Protecting the privacy of a living author is laudable, particularly in our age of paparazzi and mudrakers and personality-driven analysis. Yet once a writer enters the public domain by publishing, he becomes a legitimate study himself. It's just not possible to pretend that we can return to medieval conditions of manuscripts where all that exists is the text and the author is a great unknown.

When will copyright run out in these matters? Apparently later rather than sooner scholarship will come to terms with the writer behind all that pipe smoke.

And by the way, for those curious, nothing I heard in the Oxonmoot session in any way to my mind reflected badly on JRR or other members of the family. Not that I suspect everything was covered there.

Mithalwen

11-17-2010, 09:54 AM

Tuor you are showing the dangers of selective quotation! The preceding paragraph of the introduction to the letters explains that there had to be careful selection editing due to the sheer volume and that priority was given to what was relevant to the writing, and later states that it was he and not Christopher who made the selection. Loveletters are seldom of interest to the non-participants and may be quite cringeworthy - as Maupassant said " Love has only one story - always the same" . Important to remember that many letters had no more significance than a quick phonecall or text in the days when it was the only form of non-direct communication. Not all letters were significant; not all omissions are sinister.

Galin

11-17-2010, 09:57 AM

Let's not forget there have been volumes concerning Tolkien and his work published by Christopher Tolkien, starting with Letters -- through HME, including for example (and relatively recently) Hammond and Scull's detailed Chronology of Tolkien's life.

Mithalwen

11-17-2010, 10:18 AM

He also provided some assistance to the BBC radio production at least in matter of pronunciation. However it may be unfair to personalise this and equate the estate estate with Christopher alone. However I think the key phrase is "Tolkien and his work". Christopher has spent over thirty years bringing us his father's work over 15 substantial volumes of it ...are we being greedy to demand access to that which isn't related to his work?

Galin

11-17-2010, 10:32 AM

(...) However it may be unfair to personalise this and equate the estate estate with Christopher alone.

That's true and I didn't and don't mean to do this. My post was poorly worded despite that I would guess CJRT has a notable voice in these decisions.

However I think the key phrase is "Tolkien and his work". Christopher has spent over thirty years bringing us his father's work over 15 substantial volumes of it ...are we being greedy to demand access to that which isn't related to his work?

OK but I would still highlight more than work, in letters and the Estate authorised Chronology mentioned, for instance. And not that anyone disagrees but work illuminates the Man, even though personal letters are (obviously) a different animal.

Mithalwen

11-17-2010, 11:05 AM

Oh it was a general point - though of course as Literary executor he is of course highly significant. There is a net wide tendancy to rather cast him as a pantomime villain and blame him for everything.

Yes there have been authorised stuff - I wasn't aware of the Chronology (RL has prevented me keeping up) but whether this matter crossed a line it is hard to tell from the outside. It is fair to say that the works mentioned are fairly concentrated on his work rather than private life - I suppose the exception would be the Tolkien Family Album. However on the whole they haven't cashed in as they might have done (wouldn't we all want to read Christopher's autobiography?). However I think this would have been a fairly niche market I don't think I have paid so much for a book myself.. £25 I think is my record for The road goes ever on and Artist and Illustrator.

davem

11-17-2010, 03:09 PM

I think the interesting point here is that the Family (who effectively are the Estate) have released a great deal of 'personal' information in the years since Tolkien died - Carpenter's Bio, the Letters, the Chronology & Garth's bio of Tolkien's WWI service &, of course, the Family Album - all 'authorised'. We even had Christopher. Priscilla & Father John taking part in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait discussing their father's work & reminiscing about their childhoods. Given that they have agreed to the relase of so much 'personal information it would be difficult for them to argue that they have a 'right' to keep information about their father 'private'. If they had never released any personal info about him & adopted the approach they did with the movies, then they would have a stronger position. As it is, it looks like they are attempting to control what is revealed about him - in effect to 'create' a JRR Tolkien in their own image.

Using copyright in this kind of way begs a larger question - they may have a legal right to letters & documents created by JRRT, but do they 'own the man, the 'artist'? This, to me, is a vital question - does the Estate own JRR Tolkien to the extent that they have a right to stop information about him being made public? As far as I'm aware, facts aren't copyright, or copyrightable. One could argue that quoting, or even paraphrasing, a letter from JRRT telling Hilary that he went into Birmingham for tea one Sunday in September 1935 was protected by copyright, but the FACT that JRRT went into Birmingham for tea one Sunday in September 1935 is not copyrightable.

Mithalwen

11-17-2010, 04:07 PM

Hmm then maybe it is a question of exploitation of the copyrighted material? Intellectual property may not be tangible but it doesn't mean it is a free for all and that makes the fact that the family has used it irrelevant. If you run a bed and breakfast are you supposed to tolerate squatters? If I gave someone a bag of my secret recipe fudge as a gift I would be pretty narked if they copied it and marketed it for their own benefit.

Catherine Zeta Jones' Hello v Okay law suit established rights to privacy I think even when in that case photo rights had been sold.

davem

11-17-2010, 04:22 PM

Boromir88

11-17-2010, 05:33 PM

When will copyright run out in these matters? Apparently later rather than sooner scholarship will come to terms with the writer behind all that pipe smoke.

I believe the UK laws are virtually identical. In the US, anything created after 1978 the copyright lasts during the duration of the author's life + 70 years. Same goes for anything created, but unpublished before 1978.

So, it does appear like we'll have a while yet to wait.

Mithalwen

11-18-2010, 05:10 AM

Well, as I stated earlier - we may just be dealing with the Estate putting its foot down over letters that are the equivalent of 'Dear Hilary, went into Brum for a cuppa & forgot me brolly - Doh!, Yours Ronald'. But if its the alternative, & its facts about Tolkien they are attempting to prevent getting out then I think at the very least that morally questionable, even if its legally shiny. Either say nothing, or tell the truth, warts & all.

Well no disputing that morality and legality are very different things ... but I don't think it is moral for example to take a yard when an inch has been given - which may also be the case.. I think saw somewhere that the earlier book breached copyright in which case it is hardly suprising the Estate clamped down.

Also there is a distinction between private and secret. If you have read Douglas Adams as well as Tolkien you will know that people telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ends up with learning more than anyone really wants to know about frogs ;). Speaking for myself I have few scandalous secrets but there are plenty of things I wouldn't want broadcast to the nation. Privacy may be a disappearing concept in an era when people seem happy to bleat the most intimate details of their lives into their mobile phones on trains, but the older Tolkiens are certainly of a generation that did not believe in washing linen in public even if not very dirty. I don't see that saying something places a moral obligation to tell everything and that not doing so make you dishonest de facto.

Children may have a more relaxed view than grand children even as regards what is private to the family and may feel they want to keep it that way for their lifetimes at least. I don't think that is an immoral choice if it were the case. One thing is fairly certain that whatever their private feeling, the Tolkiens as a family of scholars are unlikely to have destroyed anything no matter how personal any "facts" are unlikely to disappear if they are held only in these letter - which frankly seems unlikely in the light of the Estate's statement . Seems to be much more "a boundary dispute" and a matter of principle.

Nerwen

11-18-2010, 09:23 AM

Since we have little idea what this was really about, it's hard to know the rights and wrongs of the case. It seems very harsh, though, that the authors were, for whatever reason, forced to withdraw their book at the eleventh hour. From Angela Gardner's own statement, it looks like they went to considerable lengths to accommodate the estate, and it still wasn't enough. It's a bitter and frustrating thing to have one's hard work end up being for nothing.

However, leaving aside the question of whether the Estate has acted like a bully in this case, I'd also like to say that I agree with Mithalwen on the general principle that there's nothing unethical per se in withholding information of that kind. I mean, there are times when you could argue that it is in the public interest for some dead person's private journal (or whatever) to be made public, and that this must override the wishes and rights of that person's heirs. But I think that only applies in certain, very extreme cases.

Mind you, I say this from the perspective of someone who is herself intensely private– or perhaps "secretive" would be a better word. Or perhaps even "paranoid", if you're feeling really uncharitable.;) I mean, I'd hate to think of people dissecting my personal life after I was dead. *shudders* I understand that not everyone feels that way, but anyway, I also find that the petty day-to-day details of a writer's or artist's life (including much of the "dirty laundry") tend to be both fairly uninteresting in themselves, and very limited in the amount of light they cast on his or her work. But then, maybe I'm just jaded from having known too many artists...

But if its the alternative, & its facts about Tolkien they are attempting to prevent getting out then I think at the very least that morally questionable, even if its legally shiny. Either say nothing, or tell the truth, warts & all.
Well, that's one of those things you can't really argue about. You either hold that second statement as a principle, or you don't; I don't. (A difficult maxim to life your life by, anyway... but then I'm sure you don't mean it quite like that :D )

davem

11-18-2010, 02:52 PM

I want to clarify:

What we're talking about here is the use/abuse of copyright. Let's go back a bit "The coming into force of the Statute of Anne in April 1710 marked a historic moment in the development of copyright law. As the world's first copyright statute it granted publishers of a book legal protection of 14 years with the commencement of the statute. It also granted 21 years of protection for any book already in print. Unlike the monopoly granted to the Stationers' Company previously, the Statute of Anne was concerned with the reading public, the continued production of useful literature, and the advancement and spread of education. To encourage "learned men to compose and write useful books" the statute guaranteed the finite right to print and reprint those works. It established a pragmatic bargain involving authors, the booksellers and the public. The Statute of Anne ended the old system whereby only literature that met the censorship standards administers by the booksellers could appear in print. The statute furthermore created a public domain for literature, as previously all literature belonged to the booksellers forever.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

the Statute of Anne was concerned with the reading public, the continued production of useful literature, and the advancement and spread of education. That's the point, & the only real justification for copyright - to enable artists to continue creating & to promote the arts - obviously, if an artist spends years creating a work & then as soon as its made public people copy it & sell it on without giving anything back to the artist then the artist will either find a different means of making a living, or starve. So, the purpose of copyright is to promote creativity - for example the writing of books. One cannot argue that the publication of these letters or the contents thereof are going to prevent JRR Tolkien writing any more letters to Hilary Tolkien.

Copyright was never intended to be used as cheap & easy means of protecting one's privacy - there are other laws intended for that purpose. Of course, one problem is that one cannot libel the dead, so to expand Morthoron's comment about J.R.R. parading about in women's clothing in a foxhole in France and being referred to as Jane Tolkien by his comrades one could actually state that he did without fear of prosecution -whether its true or not, because JRRT is dead. On the other hand one could not state that Christopher Tolkien got up to similar shenanigans in the RAF, because he's not dead. One could not, either, state that JRRT paraded about in women's clothing at home & traumatised his children by these antics, because his children are still alive & even though the statement concerns JRRT principally, it also makes reference to them.

Therefore, while the Estate's action in this case is certainly 'legal' in its use of copyright law I still say its against the spirit of the law of copyright, & is effectively doing the opposite of what Copyright is intended to do, by actually preventing a book being published, even though there is not a single suggestion from the Estate that the material in question was false in any way. Preventing facts being made public, is not, & never was, the purpose of Copyright.

Boromir88

11-18-2010, 03:51 PM

The odd thing is with how much misinformation runs amok over the internet and other biographies, you would think the Estate would be behind two quality authors who went through the grind of research and effort to get the "facts" straight. Instead of clinging to copyright laws to stop a book that actually attempts to put out reliable information.

Nerwen

11-18-2010, 11:24 PM

[Note: this is a reply to a deleted post]

Davem, thanks for the clarification; however, I don't think we're quite approaching this from the same angle. I'm aware that copyright laws were never intended to block information, and I generally think it's very bad indeed when they're used for that purpose, as has been all too often the case recently (especially with their misbegotten internet offspring, the DMCA). However, I think what we're talking about is a grey area. There are considerations other than either profit or defamation– I mean, I think it reasonable if a deceased person's family doesn't want some private material published simply because it happens to be embarrassing in a sub-defamatory way, or indeed just because it is private. Again, I know this wasn't the original purpose of copyright law. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's wrong to use a law for another purpose than what it was meant for, if that purpose is not in itself wrong.

All the above, though, relates to your own hypothesis that the Estate's real motivation is to suppress some juicy bit of scandal... which remains just an hypothesis, anyway.

Having said all that, I do consider that giving people permission to use material, then withdrawing that permission at a point where it makes everything they've done pointless, is indeed "morally questionable". If that's what Tolkien Estate did, then they were in the wrong.

davem

11-19-2010, 12:43 AM

[ Again, I know this wasn't the original purpose of copyright law. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's wrong to use a law for another purpose than what it was meant for, if that purpose is not in itself wrong.

And I think that's what's gotten us all a long way down a very slippery slope with lots of nasty sharp rocks waiting at the bottom.:) There are constant attempts to extend the term & nature of 'Copyright' - some are demanding that copyright to be up for sale to the highest bidder & extended indefinitely, so that companies could purchase copyrighted material & keep it out of the public domain forever. That would be be concerning enough if we were dealing only with works of art, but when it includes personal letters & documents, then the danger to society is immense. Copyright is a bit of a bugbear with me (I check out Techdirt at least once everyday!) & my hackles rise at the casual use & abuse of it.

All the above, though, relates to your own hypothesis that the Estate's real motivation is to suppress some juicy bit of scandal... which remains just an hypothesis, anyway.

.

Well, I could be flip & say - 'Who's fault's that? The Estate are not offering up any real explanation of what they don't want 'out there' - they are simply saying 'We own the copyright & we are not allowing this material out'. If this wasn't the Tolkien Estate, but Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation I don't think my reastion would be uncommon. In other words, there's a sense of 'Its the TOLKIEN Estate, therefore their behaviour can only be good & wise & done entirely for the best reasons. My response - yes, very probably. I don't think they're trying to cover up some terrible scandal that would shock the Tolkien community to the core & lead to public burnings of his books & himself in effigy. I suspect its more just a bit of mildly embarrassing stuff about Father Francis' prediliction for juggling stoats or some such.

Actually, no, it must be something beyond the range of silly but a bit embarrassing, because I doubt the authors & publishers of this book would have any issue leaving out material like that. Let's remember they have spent years researching & writing a scholarly work about Tolkien's brother & brought it right to the point of publication & clearly feel that the story cannot be told without the inclusion of this material. The Estate are making out this is just 20-odd pages out of 300 & its no big deal to remove it. The authors, after all their hard work feel that without it the book is missing an element so vital that there is no point publishing it. If I step back from an attitude of 'Oh, its the TOLKIEN Estate so there can't possibly be anything bad in what they're doing here' & look at this objectively, I see very big. very rich organisation preventing the publication of a serious work of scholarship because it contains information said very big, very rich organisation does not want in the public domain. That may just be material which is a bit embarrassing rather than deeply scandalous, but stopping this book going ahead for that reason is a bit of a scandal in itself (IMHO)

Nerwen

11-19-2010, 02:04 AM

[Note: replying to a deleted post]

Originally Posted by Nerwen
Again, I know this wasn't the original purpose of copyright law. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's wrong to use a law for another purpose than what it was meant for, if that purpose is not in itself wrong.
And I think that's what's gotten us all a long way down a very slippery slope with lots of nasty sharp rocks waiting at the bottom. There are constant attempts to extend the term & nature of 'Copyright' - some are demanding that copyright to be up for sale to the highest bidder & extended indefinitely, so that companies could purchase copyrighted material & keep it out of the public domain forever. That would be be concerning enough if we were dealing only with works of art, but when it includes personal letters & documents, then the danger to society is immense.
As I said in my first post, there are situations when it would clearly would be vital for private documents to be made public, and where this should override all considerations of copyright and privacy. If there isn't any legal provision in such a case, then there certainly ought to be. But that doesn't mean those considerations shouldn't otherwise exist. You apparently see this as an "all or nothing" deal; I don't. (I'd like to use the term "slippery slope" to describe your argument here, but, heck, you beat me to it!)

Still, Davem if society collapses into a bloody dictatorship as a result of people not being automatically able to read each others' diaries without permission, you can always blame me.:cool:

Actually, no, it must be something beyond the range of silly but a bit embarrassing, because I doubt the authors & publishers of this book would have any issue leaving out material like that. Let's remember they have spent years researching & writing a scholarly work about Tolkien's brother & brought it right to the point of publication & clearly feel that the story cannot be told without the inclusion of this material. The Estate are making out this is just 20-odd pages out of 300 & its no big deal to remove it. The authors, after all their hard work feel that without it the book is missing an element so vital that there is no point publishing it. If I step back from an attitude of 'Oh, its the TOLKIEN Estate so there can't possibly be anything bad in what they're doing here' & look at this objectively, I see very big. very rich organisation preventing the publication of a serious work of scholarship because it contains information said very big, very rich organisation does not want in the public domain. That may just be material which is a bit embarrassing rather than deeply scandalous, but stopping this book going ahead for that reason is a bit of a scandal in itself (IMHO)

I'm sorry, but look, unless there's something you haven't told us, you don't have any evidence for this, have you? Just your own conjectures. As far as any of us know, this is just a straight copyright issue. And as far as I'm concerned, you and I have been talking about a purely hypothetical situation.

Once again, I'm not even trying to defend Tolkien Estate here. I'm certainly not taking the attitude that 'Oh, its the TOLKIEN Estate so there can't possibly be anything bad in what they're doing here'. I've already said it sounds like they may well be being pointlessly obstructive. I just think it's also possible to look at things "objectively" without making a foray into what, if you'll forgive me for saying this, is starting to look rather like borderline conspiracy-theory territory. (More in the phrasing than anything else, though– cf the passage I bolded.) And anyway, as I've said several times already, I do not believe that a moral duty exists to make any and all material public. It just depends.

Again, from my point of view the possible ethical violation here lies in giving permission and then withdrawing it for no good reason, wasting the authors' time and effort in the process.

PrinceOfTheHalflings

11-19-2010, 02:48 AM

I noticed that one of the authors has posted a comment here:

http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1311&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&type=&mode=0&start=10

In particular, they say:

"We wanted to include various letters in the book, some from members of Ronald's family, or failing that to give some account of their contents to illustrate how close and loving the family was and what they talked to each other about. This has been the sticking point that it has not been possible to overcome thus far.

I should also point out that the Estate have not been demanding money for permissions or anything like that."

AND

"The publication of the book had to be cancelled as there was not time to make further changes to the book and get it printed and bound in time for the launch. What happens in the future I really don’t know. Only time will tell."

So the book may still be published in the future.

The problem the Estate has is the publication of the letters - either in their full form or in paraphrased form.

Some have suggested that it is not a violation of copyright to paraphrase material - but that depends. For example, it is not a violation of copyright to do a 1000 word paraphrase of The Lord Of The Rings, but it would definitely violate copyright to do a 1000 page paraphrase of The Lord Of The Rings, because that would simply be an obvious rewrite of the book, which most definitely would not be allowed!

Nerwen

11-19-2010, 05:10 AM

For example, it is not a violation of copyright to do a 1000 word paraphrase of The Lord Of The Rings, but it would definitely violate copyright to do a 1000 page paraphrase of The Lord Of The Rings, because that would simply be an obvious rewrite of the book, which most definitely would not be allowed!

And yet, I'm sure I've read quite a few fantasy novels that fit that description pretty closely...

Galin

11-19-2010, 07:48 AM

(...) Again, from my point of view the possible ethical violation here lies in giving permission and then withdrawing it for no good reason, wasting the authors' time and effort in the process.

The Estate notes that ADC agreed not to publish the letters or paraphrase them, and then did the latter anyway. I'm wondering why anyone was given access to this material in the first place -- mistake on someone's part? Did party A assume something party B had not actually agreed to?

It seems possible that this material was provided as research to generally help with an accurate description of familial relationships -- without however using it in a very specific way, such as publication or close paraphrasing, noting the Estate's statement includes...

'... that were reproduced virtually verbatim.'

Nerwen

11-19-2010, 08:37 AM

The Estate notes that ADC agreed not to publish the letters or paraphrase them, and then did the latter anyway.
Sorry, I should have read that more carefully.

I'm wondering why anyone was given access to this material in the first place -- mistake on someone's part? Did party A assume something party B had not actually agreed to?
Well, it happens. Or perhaps they adopted a "write now, get permission later" approach since they had little idea at the outset what material they would end up including in the final version anyway. It's not an uncommon shortcut in some fields (don't know about biography), but it can lead to grief.

Mithalwen

11-19-2010, 09:33 AM

Only time now to answer the easy point, Galin, the access issue is explained simply by the fact that copyright does not go hand in hand with ownership of the physical object. Copyright unless transferred belongs to the writer (unless they are commissioned or employed). So with a letter which by its nature usually is parted from its writer, the copyright stays with the writer and the manuscript goes to the recipient who is the legal owner of the artefact but has no right to publish the contents. So in this instance Hilary's descendent are the legal owners of the letters and of course may show them to whomsoever they wish. However noone may publish the letters without the consent of the estate. So the estate has no control over access to this material but it does over publication.

Galin

11-19-2010, 09:33 AM

The Estate notes that ADC agreed not to publish the letters or paraphrase them, and then did the latter anyway.

I should note that I'm not sure exactly when ADC agreed to this, but that in any case they appear to have agreed at some point, and yet paraphrased the letters anyway. And so far at least, no one from the publishing company has spoken to this (that I know of).

That said, I don't know that the Estate ever agreed to using these letters in the specific ways that they object to in their statement, thus my...

It seems possible that this material was provided as research to generally help with an accurate description of familial relationships -- without however using it in a very specific way, such as publication or close paraphrasing, noting the Estate's statement includes '... that were reproduced virtually verbatim.'

Ah didn't see your post Mithalwen... thanks for the information.

Mithalwen

11-19-2010, 09:42 AM

Galin I think that my cross post will answer that point. The Estate would not have provided access then quixotically withheld permission. Access to the letters was not theirs to grant. If you look at the Trust accounts you will see that some correspondents have returned or bequested their letters from JRRT to the estate but most letters he wrote will have stayed with the recipients as is the normal course of things. Now an interesting question might be if when a letter comes up for sale and it is photographed for sale say on E-bay if copyright is infringed if the contents can be read. NB None of the Downer legal eagles should take that as instruction since I haven't a bean!

Must pop out and then decide if I can persuade a certain terrier to yield his rat ;)

Galin

11-19-2010, 09:54 AM

Yes it did Mithalwen, thanks!

Nerwen

11-19-2010, 07:37 PM

If you look at the Trust accounts you will see that some correspondents have returned or bequested their letters from JRRT to the estate
For some reason I've thought for most of this discussion that that's what happened with these particular letters, but I'm not sure why, come to think of it.

This is now starting to sound to me like a bit of a storm in a teacup.:rolleyes:

davem

11-20-2010, 12:45 AM

This is now starting to sound to me like a bit of a storm in a teacup.:rolleyes:

Well, unless you've spent the last few years researching & writing a book...

Actually, I've been looking into the Estate's attitude a bit more, & I'm still not sure whether this is about privacy or pettiness:

Christopher Tolkien owns all copyrights to his father's works and the Tolkien Estate has an official editorial team that sifts through Tolkien’s paperwork and releases new sets of words from time to time.

Lúthien say she must tread carefully though when it comes to the words they publish and worries about legal issues should she include them in her dictionary because the Tolkien estate are very strict about their use.

The Tolkien estate has taken people to court in the past, most notably author Michael Perry for his book Untangling Tolkien: A Chronology and Commentary for The Lord of the Rings. Wired magazine reported back in 2001 how "Elfconners", the name given to those involved with Tolkien's unpublished writings, had acted as "informal copyright police" and attempted to prevent publications by other linguistic scholars.http://www.reghardware.com/2010/11/17/languages_of_the_geeks/page6.html

Still, the Elvish scene is riven by all-too-human controversy. In 1999, Fauskanger received an email from an associate that included scans of two Quenya texts by J.R.R. Tolkien: unpublished translations of the Lord's Prayer and "Ave Maria." After writing a dense analysis of the texts, which are some of the longest Quenya writings by Tolkien known to exist, Fauskanger sent his 60-page manuscript to Christopher Tolkien for feedback. He also asked if he could publish a facsimile of Tolkien's original handwritten texts along with his own work. In return he got a curt letter from Cathleen Blackburn, the lawyer for the J.R.R. Tolkien Estate Limited, which continues to manage Tolkien's literary properties. Blackburn told Fauskanger that he could not legally disseminate his analysis, let alone a facsimile. Old flame wars on the TolkLang list were rekindled: Can you copyright an invented language or just particular texts in that language? Fauskanger believes he was well within the boundaries of fair use, but the Norwegian has no desire to alienate the estate. He just wants to publish an exceptionally obscure text in a tiny journal for no money.#The issue is compounded by the fact that a tremendous amount of Tolkien's linguistic material remains unpublished and in the hands of a fan cabal. In the early 1990s, the estate made thousands of pages of Tolkien's notes available to a handpicked crew of linguists known loosely as the Elfconners. The group includes a NASA scientist named Carl Hostetter and a Berkeley record store clerk named Arden Smith. After promising not to share the material with others, the Elfconners were supposed to prepare and publish at least a portion of these writings. But a full decade after the Elfconners first received copies from Christopher Tolkien, the clique has published only a few early lexicons in their increasingly irregular journals - a situation that recalls nothing so much as the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy. To make matters worse, the Elfconners have behaved as informal copyright police, pressuring other linguists not to publish their dictionaries and grammars. "It's against all principles of scholarship and decency for one scholar to try to use the law to prevent another scholar from publishing," says David Salo, who has yet to publish his 366-page analysis of Sindarin for fear of an estate suit. Unfortunately, all the Elfconners approached by Wired turned down requests for interviews. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/lotr.html?pg=7&topic=&topic_set=

As has been pointed out previously this isn't the first time the Estate has prevented publication of a book which has gotten a very long way towards publication before suddenly deciding they don;t want it to go ahead (Michael Drout was about to publish Tolkien's translation of Beowulf originally working with the Estate's permission - which was then withdrawn.)

I'm not saying the Estate is behaving any better or worse than other copyright holders who regularly use copyright in a heavy-handed way, either to protect their privacy (a -mis-use of the spirit if not the letter of that law) or just to assert their rights over the material - even when it would make absolutely zero difference to them if the material was made available. Probably they aren't. But that doesn't make it right, it only makes it legal.

Mnemosyne

11-20-2010, 01:38 AM

Since I'm currently investigating issues surrounding access to those Tolkien manuscripts that currently exist in libraries (which by necessity also deal with copyright and the huge documentary editing project that is Christopher Tolkien's life), this whole kerfluffle is particularly timely. Because I'm still in the early stages of research, suffice it to say that I find the differences between Marquette University's access policy and the Bodleian's (which has been the Estate's repository of choice, although some additional LotR-based materials have made their way to Marquette) fascinating.

I just wanted to butt in to say that Fauskanger's analysis of the Our Father and Hail Mary did make their way up on his site and can be downloaded into a nice, hefty, 67-page Word file. His introductory remarks to the Quenya course also contain arguments about why you can't copyright a language, which I first read entirely ignorant of their context. But if they were in fact C&D'd I doubt they'd be up there.

And since the publication of the Wired article, Vinyar Tengwar and Parma Eldalamberon have come out with quite a few more issues, both new grammatical information and vocabulary--including Tolkien's sexy wordlist (turns out the Elves have a word for "hermaphrodite"). But they still hold the monopoly and will continue to publish at their own pace.

This is not at all, of course, to negate davem's point--namely, that this isn't the first time this has happened, and that the Estate's copyright policies have led to a lot of angst on the part of honest scholars. I just wanted to update some of the information in the article.

I hope to return to this thread when I have more information, if I'm not daunted away by it all first.

garm

11-20-2010, 02:42 AM

Personally speaking, I am daunted - I happen to know a bit about the issues raised here, including details of the Perry book. This is not private knowledge, by the way. Anyone who's spent some time reading about Tolkien can glean this info.

Reports such as those pointd to by davem tend to be one-sided. I could comment - I've been meaning to, but I'm put off by the idea of being on the receiving end of a rant. This is a pity - I know I've not been active here very much, but davem's 'righteous indignation' as he may see it has put me off the Barrowdowns for good.

I'm sorry I've had to say this - there have been some enlightening posts by others here, who do try and hold a balance, but the overall effect of this thread seems sour (to me) and I fear that any facts I could bring to the discussion would be lost in a torrent of, well, opinion based to a large extent on one-sided internet chatter.

I don't have the energy for that sort of grief. I'm off. Thanks for listening.

garm

ps - purely as a matter of fact, the Perry book was published.

PrinceOfTheHalflings

11-20-2010, 03:11 AM

As has been pointed out previously this isn't the first time the Estate has prevented publication of a book which has gotten a very long way towards publication before suddenly deciding they don;t want it to go ahead

I don't think they "suddenly decided" anything.

Nerwen

11-20-2010, 04:02 AM

[Note: replying to a deleted post]

I'm not saying the Estate is behaving any better or worse than other copyright holders who regularly use copyright in a heavy-handed way, either to protect their privacy (a -mis-use of the spirit if not the letter of that law) or just to assert their rights over the material - even when it would make absolutely zero difference to them if the material was made available. Probably they aren't. But that doesn't make it right, it only makes it legal.

And I've said, they're quite possibly being petty and obstructive. But that doesn't make it immoral, just annoying. (I don't suppose there's much point stating again where I stand on the privacy issue.) As for the Wired article– well, again, I have no idea what the rights and wrongs of that business were and are; however from its general tone and use of loaded words like "clique" and "cabal" I think it might be as well to take it with a grain of salt.

Bêthberry

11-20-2010, 11:48 AM

Hi Folks!

Real life is kind of busy today, so I can't participate in the discussion, which like all of our discussions here shows how many Downers can dance on the spot of a period. :D

I don't think anyone has written anything worthy of being upset over. I've been impressed with how Nerwen and davem have parried and thrust without bringing out flamethrowers or ranting. (And I speak as someone who has knocked heads with davem in the past.)

Tolkien may be near and dear to all our hearts, but so also is intellectual debate. Thanks to everyone for developing an interesting discussion on copyright issues.

davem

11-20-2010, 03:01 PM

Good to see some people can distinguish between an arugment (albeit forcefully expressed perhaps :p) & a 'rant'. I hope I've explained my stance, & we still have had no further 'official' clarification as to what the issue is. I am annoyed that yet again we have a big, wealthy organisation mis-using Copyright law to prevent information being published - if they'd resorted to privacy laws then I'd have more respect for them. And I think its clear by now that this is about the material contained in the letters as opposed to the copyrighted letters themselves - The Estate's statement (via Calcifer) is
However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed. Taken in conjunction with the publisher's original 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, the Estate is threatening legal action to prevent publication of the book unless 20 pages which the author's feel is essential to the book is removed. They are using copyright law to achieve this - & that is totally against the original intent & spirit of that law.

Now, if Garm has more information as to what's happening here I'd be more than happy to hear it, & if it really explains what is behind all this I'd be grateful - my arguments here have been based on the information provided by both parties in the dispute.

Morthoron

11-20-2010, 04:00 PM

However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed.

The emphasis in the above quote is mine.

The seemingly cavalier attitude of the Estate regarding the removal of a "only" 20 pages of material is rather disconcerting. Depending on which are removed, even a single page could be disastrous for a publication. I, myself, could remove 20 pages from a book -- like The Fellowship of the Ring or The Return of the King, for instance -- and totally alter the book's intentions. Therefore, to say "only 20 pages out of a total of some 300" seems deleterious to me, and reason enough to completely stall the publication of a book -- which may well have been the intention all along (that is, if I were thinking like a cynical person).

davem

11-20-2010, 05:44 PM

I wonder if there's any chance Calcifer could clarify something in the 'official' statement:

The book in question was presented by ADC as a biography of J R R Tolkien's brother Hilary. However, the publication included numerous personal letters from J R R Tolkien to his brother and from other family members that were reproduced virtually verbatim.

The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate. As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect, the Estate quite properly declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way.

However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed.

First they seem to be saying the issue is with the personal letters being reproduced 'virtually verbatim', & that they "declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way." So, the issue seems to be the way the material was reproduced....

But then in the following paragraph they state they required 20 pages of material to be removed - ie, not re-written, or the material to be presented in a different way, but for it not to exist in the book at all.

So, in the statement they seem to be saying first the issue was the form the material was presented in, & then to immediately contradict themselves & state that it wasn't the actually the form it was presented in but the material itself that was the issue...

Seems that the issue is actually not the way it was produced at all, whether that was to be verbatim, virtually verbatim, in paraphrase, or in precis, but that it was to be even referred to in any way at all. If that is the case its hardly surprising that authors & publisher felt unable to proceed with the book. Key point around which this whole issue seems to revolve is in the words:
As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect

Or, as I've been arguing all along - the Estate is using Copyright law as a quick, cheap & easy way to protect their privacy by preventing the publication of family documents. If a genuine issue of invasion of privacy is involved then privacy laws exist under which this matter could be dealt with, but it seems that the Estate don't feel able to take that route (possibly because the individuals concerned are dead & they wouldn't succeed), so they've resorted to Copyright law as the only option.

Bêthberry

11-20-2010, 06:16 PM

Or, as I've been arguing all along - the Estate is using Copyright law as a quick, cheap & easy way to protect their privacy by preventing the publication of family documents. If a genuine issue of invasion of privacy is involved then privacy laws exist under which this matter could be dealt with, but it seems that the Estate don't feel able to take that route (possibly because the individuals concerned are dead & they wouldn't succeed), so they've resorted to Copyright law as the only option.

The flaw in your argument, davem is that not all the members of the family are dead.

As Calcifer's statement from the Estate says,

As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family.

Galin

11-20-2010, 09:44 PM

(...) So, in the statement they seem to be saying first the issue was the form the material was presented in, & then to immediately contradict themselves & state that it wasn't the actually the form it was presented in but the material itself that was the issue...

That's not how I read it :)

The book in question was presented by ADC as a biography of J R R Tolkien's brother Hilary. However, the publication included numerous personal letters from J R R Tolkien to his brother and from other family members that were reproduced virtually verbatim.

As I read it, this sums up the end result of what ADC did: the publishers reproduced the letters virtually verbatim by paraphrasing them closely.

The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate. As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect, the Estate quite properly declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way.

'In this way' as in reproduced virtually verbatim, or 'paraphrased' (but can include the actual letters obviously). What about the sequence?

However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed.

This arguably refers to the actual letters, because...

Although ADC's response was to agree to this, what it then did in practice was to paraphrase the letters, something that had been made clear from the outset would not resolve the issue.

... ADC agreed to remove something -- the paraphrasing? that doesn't seem right because what it then did was to paraphrase the letters.

Now I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation, and I don't see that one need necessarily conclude that there is any contradiction here.

And even if I'm wrong about that much, I still see no necessary contradiction here: other possible negotiations of how these letters might or might not be used need not even be contextual in this part of the statement -- the Estate need only be referring to existing problematic 'ways' that were presented to them... two ways that would have to be removed in order to publish.

davem

11-21-2010, 02:56 AM

The flaw in your argument, davem is that not all the members of the family are dead.

.

Which is why we have libel, slander & privacy laws - to protect the living: if Copyright was intended to include protecting privacy then you wouldn't need the others. If these letters were implying dodgy stuff involving living members of the family then the family would have a range of legal options they could make use of. To use copyright to prevent material being made public, implies that it is not material that relates to anyone living, but stuff that they don't want to come out about Ronald or Hilary 'Dear Hilary, I was just thinking the other day about the jolly times we had dressing as Elizabethen ladies & cycling through the lanes round Sarehole after dark, throwing ferrets through people's windows....Happy days!'
Estate's response: Blimey! we have to stop this hitting the presses! Isn't that libelous?
Laywer: Er, no - you can't libel the dead! Besides, it looks like they might have done it - there were reports around the time of people in Sarehole waking up to find their front windows smashed & dazed ferrets on their fireside rugs.
Estate: Well, that's as maybe but surely other young bucks in those days did similar things? Look, just tell them the letters are copyrighted & they can't use them.
Laywer: Are you sure, that's not what copyright is for?
Estate: Just do it - A) its a bit embarrassing for the family for their dad & uncle to be seen as cross dressing ferret-tossers & B) we don't want the descendants suing us for the broken windows.

Its probably nothing more than something with a minor embarrassment factor at worst. I'm not even necessarily arguing that whatever it is should be published - just that using copyright in these circumstances is a bit off. After all the Estate have never implied that whatever it is that being referred to isn't true.

Bêthberry

11-21-2010, 07:19 AM

Its probably nothing more than something with a minor embarrassment factor at worst. I'm not even necessarily arguing that whatever it is should be published - just that using copyright in these circumstances is a bit off. After all the Estate have never implied that whatever it is that being referred to isn't true.

You are up to your old tricks again, in simply regurgitating innuendo and supposition and for that reason I'm becoming very bored with this.

I've already pointed out that nothing I heard or saw in any way was the least bit dodgy.

It is possible that the Family simply does not want any kind of reference to the children's and grandchildren's lives as they believe that has no merit in any literary questions about Tolkien's writing.

What I see is a very sad situation in which one member of the family invited the authors to undertake a particular kind of study using the material they owned. And that study has been repeatedly, despite significant changes and edits, rejected by the Family Estate, which owns copyright but not the material itself.

So I see two authors who have spent considerable time now with no likelihood of renumeration. I see scholars and fans of Tolkien losing access to information about his life, no matter how banal or trivial or personal. And I see a Family Estate that lacks unanimity. That must be very hurtful.

I had always wondered about the sibling relationship, how the elder was able to attend university and achieve a university career while the younger did not. In a class-ridden society, those occupational differences were substantial. (Yet in spite of that difference, the two families maintained close contact.) It is a sociological question to me, not a family question. Tolkien getting into Oxford strikes me as a story very similar to that of Patrick Bronte getting into Cambridge a hundred years earlier.

I'm trained as a scholar and I know countless stories of situations like this.

And having heard from the authors, the publisher and the Estate, that's all I'm going to say about this very unfortunate event.

Galin

11-21-2010, 07:55 AM

You [davem] are up to your old tricks again, in simply regurgitating innuendo and supposition and for that reason I'm becoming very bored with this.

By the way, davem has now deleted a post which followed post 60 (mine) and included an invented conversation indulging in the speculation being referred to here.

That's what Bethberry is (partially) quoting above. People are free to delete posts of course, but davem's deletion changes the context of Bethberry's response.

And I might as well add that I doubt even Fauskanger and Salo would consider the Wired article not to be one sided.

davem

11-21-2010, 07:58 AM

You are up to your old tricks again, in simply regurgitating innuendo and supposition and for that reason I'm becoming very bored with this.

Ok - I've removed any potentially 'bothersome' stuff of mine from the thread & I'll opt out of this discussion from now on.

By the way, davem has now deleted a post which followed post 60 (mine) and included an invented conversation indulging in the speculation being referred to here.

Yes - all of them. sorry of anything has been lost to the discussion but I probably shouldn't have joined in this discussion at all. There are some aspects of it I care too much about & some I don't care about at all but couldn't resist commenting on & that's a fatal combination.

Galin

11-21-2010, 08:27 AM

I would like to add that I don't really like to try and play at one of the 'thread police' and feel a bit petty for doing so.

On the other hand the deletion seemed a tad unfair to Bethberry and I hadn't realized you (davem) had deleted other material as well.

My apologies for jumping the gun davem. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt in any case, that you would note the deletion yourself.

Morthoron

11-21-2010, 08:56 AM

How amusing that a thread regarding deletions should result in deletions. Now, we have an incomplete thread as well as an incomplete book. ;)

Bêthberry

11-21-2010, 02:28 PM

davem, I regret very much that you deleted all your posts here. (There is an edit button, you know. ;) )

Your point of view--as with everyone's-- is one which needs to be heard. Now there are many quotes from your posts interlaced with other posters' comments without the full context and that is a shame.

(Note, I'm not speaking about my post which refers to the invented conversation; because I have email notifications of all of this thread, I could simply edit my post to include it, but I didn't wish to copy the material when I wrote the post and still do not wish to do so now. I objected to the invented conversation not because it was "bothersome" subject matter but because you had already played that card.)

It is my understanding that on our forum software deleted posts can still be read or accessed by the moderators and administrators who can reverse the deletions. (If I'm wrong about this I'm sure I will be told.) Please reconsider your decision and ask one of our moderators to restore at least the majority of your posts.

And for the record, I don't consider one-sided articles necessarily to be beyond the pale as they can easily be criticised, refuted, and dismissed.

Nerwen

11-21-2010, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bêthberry
You are up to your old tricks again, in simply regurgitating innuendo and supposition and for that reason I'm becoming very bored with this.
Ok - I've removed any potentially 'bothersome' stuff of mine from the thread & I'll opt out of this discussion from now on.
Davem, I never saw that last post of yours, but I believe you are mistaking what's been going on– that is, if as it seems you think people (other than garm, perhaps) were personally offended by your claims and arguments, rather than simply critical of them. There is a difference.

I'd also like to say this: removing these "bothersome" posts may seem like a nice peace-offering, but its effect is to make it hard for any newcomer to understand the debate. I also suspect such a newcomer might now get the impression that you had been flaming people, or alternatively, that everyone has been ganging up on you and reacting to nothing, which either way I'm sure isn't what you want.

davem

11-25-2010, 01:42 AM

Right, so, apologies to everyone for my brainstorm there. I've asked for the posts I deleted to be re-instated.

Anyway....where was I?

Copyright. 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). I've tried to inject a bit of humour into the debate - & got shot down for it - 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...

Nerwen

11-25-2010, 07:01 AM

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

Davem, thanks for that.:)

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

11-25-2010, 10:06 AM

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!:smokin:

davem

11-25-2010, 03:27 PM

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/20101123/03020511984/how-do-you-measure-benefits-copyright.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

11-26-2010, 10:05 AM

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

. . . (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. :D

. . . 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. :D ;)

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*

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

11-26-2010, 11:34 AM

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.

davem

11-26-2010, 03:48 PM

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:p

Bêthberry

11-26-2010, 08:41 PM

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. :Merisu:

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

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. :p

davem

11-27-2010, 01:58 AM

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. :p

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 ':mad:THE ESTATE:mad:' 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

11-27-2010, 10:02 AM

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.

Angie G

12-01-2010, 05:21 PM

I have been away from the discussions re Wheelbarrows for some time and, although I will not enter into conversation, there are a couple of things I would like to state.

All the material that we planned to go into the book was sent to TE with the first draft. There is nothing in that material that reflects badly on any member of the Tolkien family, indeed, we had every intention of using it to show the loving relationship of the two brothers. This was why I was asked to write it - to show the relationship. Some of the research into their respective lives and the lives of their friends and relations shows quite clearly the influences around JRR that seeped into his writing and into his art work.

Neil and I, on the advise of our publisher - at the request of TE - took out particular references to living family. This was quite correct and did not impune on the raison d'etre of the book.

What prevented publication was, in effect, the belief on the part of TE that we were not to refer IN ANY WAY to any fact, feeling, comment, belief or incident that was referred to in any letter by JRR. As the book was about his relationship with his brother, the situatiion became untenable.

It is very sad in many ways, but one of the most distressing things is that it is such a true book; it tells the tale of a family in turbulent times and reflects well on all concerned. I find it hurtful to the memory of both Hilary and Ronald that this book, written with respect at the request of family, should be hidden away. The papers could have been treated with far less respect in other hands.

As for the question of "rights" to publish and copyright legalese, it does, I have come to believe, come down to a matter of interpretation. Chris and Julian Tolkien, ADC Books, Neil and I would like to publish Wheelbarrows at Dawn as a Tolkien scrapbook for posterity. Tolkien Estates do not want the same book as us, is the bottom line.

The matter, as stated elsewhere, is now down to the Tolkien family.I can do no more.

davem

12-02-2010, 12:54 AM

What prevented publication was, in effect, the belief on the part of TE that we were not to refer IN ANY WAY to any fact, feeling, comment, belief or incident that was referred to in any letter by JRR. As the book was about his relationship with his brother, the situatiion became untenable.

Hardly anything shocking, or actually ''unusual' (in that we have seen plenty of books about the relationship between a famous person & a family member or close friend). And nothing that impinges on the privacy of any living person. And Copyright law being used to prevent facts which could not 'harm' any family member from being made public.

I've gone over the top in some of my comments, but put simply, I find the behaviour of the Estate quite appalling, & little better than book burning (yes - that is me not going over the top - if anyone wants to explain how this differs morally from burning books simply because you don't like the facts they contain please enlighten me). Nothing 'shocking' or 'intrusive' included in the books, so this is simply an example of a large, wealthy organisation destroying the hard work of decent people out of sheer pettiness, & attempting to conceal the (entirely harmless) truth about two people who have been dead more than a quarter of a century.

When publication of other books has been prevented by the Estate (the recent one on Tolkien's translation of the Book of Jonah, & Drout's on Tolkien's Beowulf) I've been inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, but, sorry, no longer. They begin not to look like the inheritors of the work of JRR Tolkien (Elves, & Hobbits, Dragons & Magical Rings, that sense of wonder which transformed the world for us readers) but a big corporate entity which likes to throw its weight around & shout 'Don't touch my stuff!'. Lost all respect for them.

Nerwen

12-02-2010, 02:03 AM

So, davem, is this you backing down on your previous theory?:smokin:

davem

12-02-2010, 02:28 AM

So, davem, is this you backing down on your previous theory? (had to remove your smiley so I could use three of my own...)

Did I have a 'theory'? :p

I think I only went so far as saying 'At worst it will be something mildly embarassing such as......(& then made up some daft scenario as an example of such). Does seem like I was wrong about :mad:the Estate:mad: not caring about 'bland' stuff about Ronald & Hilary being published & so it must have been something 'significant' - seems it wasn't 'significant' in any 'bad' sense (ie something that would impinge on the privacy of any family member still alive, or reveal anything untoward about either of the brothers). I kind of hoped it would be something like that because then at least I could have understood their behaviour - even if I disagreed with it. However, it looks like they are just being petty & obstructive & pretty heartless overall.

Or to put it another way, previously I would have assigned the Estate to The Shire. Now I think they should be assigned to Orthanc, but heading East....

Morthoron

12-02-2010, 07:18 AM

I've gone over the top in some of my comments, but put simply, I find the behaviour of the Estate quite appalling, & little better than book burning (yes - that is me not going over the top - if anyone wants to explain how this differs morally from burning books simply because you don't like the facts they contain please enlighten me). Nothing 'shocking' or 'intrusive' included in the books, so this is simply an example of a large, wealthy organisation destroying the hard work of decent people out of sheer pettiness, & attempting to conceal the (entirely harmless) truth about two people who have been dead more than a quarter of a century.

...Lost all respect for them.

Hear, hear! I've already posted my disdain for this contemptible act on the part of TE in this thread. I just wanted to reiterate it.

Done. :mad:

davem

12-03-2010, 08:21 AM

I know we've all absorbed the message that we should be grateful to Christopher Tolkien for making his father's unpublished writings available & obviously we've gained a massive amount through the work he's done. That said, it could equally be argued that he has been very restrictive in terms of what he has allowed to be published & over who has had access to it.

This really comes down to JRR Tolkien's status as a writer - was Tolkien simply another fantasy author, or should he be ranked alongside the literary giants of the 20th century? If, as I think, Tolkien was a major literary artist then there's a very big question mark over the way access to his archive is being restricted. Full access is unlikely to be granted for many years - if at all, given that much of it is in the form of manuscripts/letters/diaries in the possession of the family. Even when it is out of copyright it could still remain locked away in perpetuo. In other words, I'm beginning to have my doubts as to whether these documents will ever be bequeathed to the nation/a museum. If, as some individuals/organisations are pushing for, copyright is extended still further - some even wanting it extended indefinitely - then we could see even the documents in possession of others (as with these letters to Hilary Tolkien) never seeing the light of day.

If we had a situation where copyright ran in such a way, & an archive of unpublished personal papers/poems/plays by, say, Shakespeare was in the possession of one person, who only published what he wanted, when he wanted, in the form he wanted (with whatever excisions he decided on) & only allowed access to the rest of the archive to those he 'approved' of (whether these were the best/most informed/most competent individuals or not), & laid down draconian restrictions on what they could publish, & in some cases agreeing to permit publication & then changing his mind, how 'grateful' would we feel? Somewhat, given that without his authorisation we would have nothing at all, but also we'd be quite seriously miffed (imo) that the work of a literary artist of major significance was accessible only at the whim of this copyright holder.

To use copyright law in this way - to actually prevent an author discussing the relationship between two long dead brothers (with the full permission of the family of one of those brothers), when nothing intrusive or hurtful is involved, is pretty much beyond shocking - to the point that I'm starting to feel that any writer or academic that has to do with the Estate at the present time should seriously examine their consciences.

davem

12-03-2010, 03:29 PM

It might be interesting to discuss Christopher Tolkien's approach to his father's work - of course, JRRT handed the unpublished material to Christopher to do with as he would, but what he has done with it has been very interesting. Some years back I started a thread 'Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...' http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11338 on the changes made to the 50th anniversary edition of LotR. These were fairly significant in some ways, quite minor in others, but in total they run to between 300-400 alterations to the text. There is also a new index compiled by Hammond & Scull replacing the one authorised by JRRT himself - all (obviously) without the permission of the author. This re-writing of posthumous works is questionable from an artistic pov - & says a great deal about CT's attitude to his father's work. On a personal level I don't like the new editions (more for the approach taken by CT & the editors than for the final product - though as I've argued in the earlier thread there are some changes that I feel are simply wrong artistically & without any real justification - my initial post from that thread:

’For the Elves the world moves, & it moves both very swift & very slow. Swift, because they themselves change little, & all else fleets by: it is a grief to them. Slow, because they do not count the running years, not for themselves. The passing seasons are but ripples ever repeated in the long long stream. Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last’.

The phrase as my father wrote it was ‘because they need not count the running years’, but in copying I missed out the word need. Looking through my copy, but without consulting his own manuscript, he wrote in do; & do survives in FR.(CT, The Treason of Isengard)

Ok, now, the obvious response would be that the published version is correct - ‘the Elves do not count the running years’, but in the 50th Anniversary edition, just published, the original version is reinstated, & in that edition the Elves are back to not needing to count the years.

Based on the assumption that this is to stand as the ‘official’ version of the text from now on - the changes have been authorised by CT himself, & the new HB edition of LotR, out in December, will carry the 50th anniversary text (& we can assume that all subsequent HB & PB version will do the same) - what effect does this have?

First, I suppose we have to ask whether Tolkien saw do & need as meaning the same thing. Almost certainly he didn’t: he was a Professor of English, & would have known the two words have completely different connotations. To say the Elves do not do ‘X’ is not the same as saying they need not do ‘X’’. ‘Do not’ is emphatic, it implies that they never count the running years. Why? Because of some agreement (tacit or otherwise) among them? Because their brains function differently from those of other races, & they ‘can’t’ count the running years? Because they’ve lost the knack?

Whatever, Legolas, for the last fifty years, has been telling us that ‘the Elves do not count the running years’. From now on, because of a change not authorised by Tolkien, he will tell us that ‘the Elves do not need to count the running years’.

Not needing to do something implies a choice in the matter - the individual Elf is free to decide whether he or she will count the running years or not.

Ok, you may argue, this is not as great a change as replacing do with need in other situations - Gandalf’s letter to Frodo, for instance, if :

PS. Do NOT use It again, not for any reason whatever! Do not travel by night!

was replaced by: ‘You need not use it again. You need not travel by night’?

But is it that simple?

Yet, if Tolkien, in reading over CT’s fair copy of the manuscript, wrote in do rather than need, why would he do that? Had he had second thoughts, & decided that do expressed his understanding of the Elves’ experience of time better than the original need did - the chapter was still in flux after all? Or was he simply in a rush & didn’t bother to check the original notes (this is CT’s explanation).

For myself, not only do I think that the ‘original’ version sounds better in the context of Legolas’ explanation (need sounds too ‘speculative’ - not really much of an ‘explanation’ at all - he seems effectively to be saying ‘This might be the reason or it might not’), but it also goes against my own understanding of the position the Elves are in at the end of the Third Age - basically, it gives them too much control over their situation, by implying that they can make choices over their ‘perceptions’, which really implies they can choose the way they think about the world, & that to a great degree they could fit in & adapt - they need not be isolated, they need not leave Middle-earth.

Its this increased implication of having a choice in the matter which makes me uncomfortable in this change from [‘i]do[/i] not’ to ‘need not’. My own sense is that even if it was a choice originally not to count the running years, by the end of the Third Age it was a matter of choice no longer - the Elves did not count the running years any longer’

(Whatever Christopher Tolkien may say.)

LadyBrooke

01-16-2011, 12:08 AM

Well now that I’m properly paranoid about writing my paper about LotR and Tolkien for European History, here’s my thoughts:

First about copyright:
I believe the UK laws are virtually identical. In the US, anything created after 1978 the copyright lasts during the duration of the author's life + 70 years. Same goes for anything created, but unpublished before 1978.

So, it does appear like we'll have a while yet to wait.

To my very limited understanding it is the same. Which means that it will be some time in 2043 before copyright expires if the current laws are kept. As time goes on I think we’ll probably see more pressure being put on the government to extend copyright’s far past the time they currently are which will anger many people but the corporations are the ones that have the lobbying money.

The primary thing of interest to me is the fact that its not even scandalous. Why should it matter then that the authors want to portray two brothers’ relationship? I am fairly certain that nothing in that book could be any worse then what my classmates and I wrote in our papers last term. In fact, my peers would probably prefer me to find something scandalous about Tolkien - the joys of having AP classes with teenage boys whose idea of history is unsubstantiated rumors about Catherine the Great. :rolleyes: Of course those were written about people and events prior to 1800.

So, why is our culture so accepting of people long dead being remembered primarily for their scandals, but we are accepting of certain public figures who died just a short time ago having their reputations protected by their families. And why are we so willing to allow the Tolkien estate in particular to protect J.R.R. Tolkien’s memory? I have a strong disliking of historical figures being white washed. I don’t want to hear about somebody who was perfect. I want to hear about the real human being.

And now I’m going to go freak out about copyright laws and my paper.

Bêthberry

02-02-2011, 01:26 PM

Just saw this on The Tolkien Shop (http://www.tolkienshop.com/contents/en-uk/d228.html) and thought davem would be interested in it.

It is a photocopy of Tolkien's last will and testament and it is for sale. Of its contents:

Photocopy of the last will and testament Tolkien had made in July 1973, six weeks before he died. In it we get details on his wealth, his donations and under which conditions Christopher became his literary executor. Tolkien signed each page of the will. Prefaced with the proof that the document was registered in the District Probate Registry of the High Court of Justice at Oxford.

I don't know anything about the site.

Morthoron

02-02-2011, 01:38 PM

Hmmm...Ten pounds for a photocopy -- what a deal! Now, is it a numbered photocopy where only a certain amount were copied and then the will was destroyed? ;)

Mithalwen

02-02-2011, 01:52 PM

Just saw this on The Tolkien Shop (http://www.tolkienshop.com/contents/en-uk/d228.html) and thought davem would be interested in it.

It is a photocopy of Tolkien's last will and testament and it is for sale. Of its contents:

I don't know anything about the site.

A will becomes a public document when probate is granted. Anyone can get a copy for a fiver.

Bêthberry

02-02-2011, 02:52 PM

A will becomes a public document when probate is granted. Anyone can get a copy for a fiver.

There ya go! I think you just told us something about the site, Mith. ;)

Now, is it a numbered photocopy where only a certain amount were copied and then the will was destroyed? ;)

I think there's any number of theories, conspiracy and otherwise, one can come up with, Morth :D

Nerwen

02-03-2011, 05:52 PM

I am fairly certain that nothing in that book could be any worse then what my classmates and I wrote in our papers last term. In fact, my peers would probably prefer me to find something scandalous about Tolkien - the joys of having AP classes with teenage boys whose idea of history is unsubstantiated rumors about Catherine the Great. Of course those were written about people and events prior to 1800.

So, why is our culture so accepting of people long dead being remembered primarily for their scandals, but we are accepting of certain public figures who died just a short time ago having their reputations protected by their families.

But doesn't this love of scandal that so many seem to have explain why people can develop over-the-top paranoia about privacy and protecting reputation? I mean, really, you seem to be arguing against yourself here, Lady Brooke.

Nerwen

02-03-2011, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mithalwen
A will becomes a public document when probate is granted. Anyone can get a copy for a fiver.
There ya go! I think you just told us something about the site, Mith.
What an enterprising lot! I wonder what other great bargains they offer?

Mithalwen

02-03-2011, 06:01 PM

Frodo /Sauron fingers by the dozen, pieces of the true Ent, Saruman's sparkling chuddies? I still have a bit of Tolkien's old garden wall somewhere if anyone is interested....

PrinceOfTheHalflings

02-04-2011, 03:42 AM

A will becomes a public document when probate is granted. Anyone can get a copy for a fiver.

Anyone in the UK can. It's a bit harder if you live anywhere else in the world...

Mithalwen

02-04-2011, 04:24 AM

Not with t'interwebs and a creditcard? £16 if you need someone to do a search for you but since we know where and when.... Why not get a death cert too and be really intrusive....

LadyBrooke

02-07-2011, 04:56 PM

But doesn't this love of scandal that so many seem to have explain why people can develop over-the-top paranoia about privacy and protecting reputation? I mean, really, you seem to be arguing against yourself here, Lady Brooke.

I don't see it as being such. In a way, if there is nothing scandalous then it makes sense to release the information, so that people will not start rumors. Also Tolkien is dead which in my mind exempt him from being worried about such things as reputation.

Mithalwen

02-07-2011, 05:41 PM

There are plenty of non scandalous things that people wish to to keep private. I am not money laundering but I would object to my bank account details being published without consent. Or my private correspondence. Or that of my deceased parents.

The failure to distinguish between secret an private and the assumption that anything not in the public domain must be scandalous I find abhorrent. People have the right to privacy and to protect their intellectual property as much as any other kind

LadyBrooke

02-07-2011, 11:12 PM

I fear I'm not being very coherent with my thoughts in this thread. Yes, people have a right to privacy. However when you chose to publish a book or do anything else to become famous you surrender some of that. I do not support scandalous information being released just because it's scandalous, however, I know many people who do. It's a fact of life that, especially with the recent invention of Myspace and Facebook, some people want to know everything they can about everyone else.

The main thing that bothers me is not the fact that they want to keep some things private but the vehemence with which they do so. Nobody is denying the facts in this case, that Tolkien wrote a letter to one of his relatives, that relative had a book written about him, and the Tolkien Estate blocked the release of the book because it contained the contents of that letter. And that's what bothers me. If I had a secret that I didn't want to become public knowledge, I would not write it down in a letter and mail it to somebody. In fact, I assume that anything I write about my personal life may be published in the newspaper if I one day decide to run for a political office or something. I don't care if technically it can be argued that the letter cannot be published because it's my intellectual property. If you give somebody a document on which you've written anything, unless you have a prior arrangement that the person will not show it to anybody and burn it after reading, there is always the chance that it will end up public knowledge. Yes, it can be argued that the Tolkien's children have a right to keep their father's personal life private. It can also be argued that the Tolkien Estate is trampling over the freedoms of the letter recipient's family by forbidding this book to be published.

Galadriel55

02-08-2011, 06:17 AM

I think LadyBrooke has a point. It just takes a bit af comon sense to see how personal a letter is and should it be published. I wouldn't want some of my emails to be known, but I don't really mind about others.

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 07:44 AM

But we aren't seeing common sense are we? Even here we have seen arguments that pretty much amount to that one must either wear a bourka or go naked in public.

I don't think for a moment that publishing a book especially about a fantasy world voids your right to personal privacy. If Tolkien had got famous by being a papparazzo or founding Wikileaks you might have a point on grounds of hypocrisy but Tolkien never tried to be famous. He did what he did for it's own sake. He surely would never have embraced the modern cult of vacuous celebrity or endorsed the making public of every last thought that passes through ones head or photograph of every moment of ones life. Can you imagine Tolkien tweeting? That many people have no regard to their own privacy (I am tempted to say have no shame) shouldn't deprive others of theirs.

I think someone of Tolkien's generation would have expected a private letter to a family member to stay private. Letters are more rare and significant now perhaps but back then it was the only practical method of communication - even when I was a child and teenager, not so very long ago (though shatteringly just before Lady Brooke was born - congratulations btw), I was expected to ask before using the phone because of the cost. Would you find it intrusive if you had your private phone calls recorded and published? I know I would.

Yes it is sad for the authors if they have wasted work but they were exploiting resources they had no right to. The copyright laws regarding letters is hardly obscure. Given the history I am not suprised that the Estate protects its rights and privacy by what ever means available. If the laws it uses weren't designed for that purpose so what? You use the tools available. The professional body I used to belong to had a member who brought it into disrepute by major fraud and embezzlement. They could have used the associations rules on such things to expell him but it would have taken a long time and been expensive. Much simpler to expel him on grounds of non-payment of subscription.:cool:

The Tolkien family are not monsters. I am sure a lot of fans resent the estate protecting its rights re the Hobbit because it delayed the films. A lot of charities will be very grateful they did. Intellectual property isn't trivial because it is intangible. It protects the livelihoods of artists and writers. So the recipient has no right to profit from a letter. If I (as I sometimes do) send a card made from one of my original photographs) I woudn't expect to expect that recipient to reproduce that card and sell it for their benefit without so much as a by your leave.

Inziladun

02-08-2011, 08:22 AM

I don't think for a moment that publishing a book especially about a fantasy world voids your right to personal privacy. If Tolkien had got famous by being a papparazzo or founding Wikileaks you might have a point on grounds of hypocrisy but Tolkien never tried to be famous. He did what he did for it's own sake. He surely would never have embraced the modern cult of vacuous celebrity or endorsed the making public of every last thought that passes through ones head or photograph of every moment of ones life. Can you imagine Tolkien tweeting? That many people have no regard to their own privacy (I am tempted to say have no shame) shouldn't deprive others of theirs.

For me, this is the heart of the matter. Tolkien had no desire or expectation that he would one day be a household name. He didn't live in a time where people routinely post private details of their lives in a manner which could be viewed by millions around the world instantly, and when fame, or, if that can't be easily attained, mere infamy, is sadly an overwhelming obsession with millions of people. Today, we are shadowed by constant surveillance: our interactions online are carefully monitored and preserved; our bags and bodies are given the fine-tooth comb treatment when we want to fly on planes, and video cameras are literally everywhere. Any of us reading this might expect something we've said on this forum, or Facebook, or Twitter, to be read by very many people. But letters back then were very private matters, between the writer and the recipient only. Unless one is a publicity hound, or an aspiring politician, there would be no expectation at all from one of Tolkien's time that his personal correspondence would be an object of interest. With that in mind, I think it's rather generous of the Estate to have allowed The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien publication.

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 09:01 AM

Indeed and most of the letters are highly relevant to his work and worldview - although I believe Humphrey Carpenter got free rein. I rather suspect the Estate has drawn the laager round as a result of greater intrusions and they might well have not cooperated now which would have been a great loss.

Also let us not forget that modern celebrities pay agents, image consultants and media advisors and indeed lawyers vast sums to protect their rights and control the way they are portrayed. Tolkien carried on with the day job and only went exdirectory when he got too many middle of the night phone calls.

Bêthberry

02-08-2011, 10:51 AM

Just a couple of quick replies . . .

Mithalwen, one of the issues concerning this book is that the authors had the permission of the owners of the Letters, so they were not, as you say above, "exploiting resources they had no right to." They believed they had that right. Later, the owners of the copyright denied or withdrew permission. So obviously there are differences amongst the Tolkien heirs about what constitutes privacy and unfortunately this little book got caught.

Inziladun, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

But letters back then were very private matters, between the writer and the recipient only. Unless one is a publicity hound, or an aspiring politician, there would be no expectation at all from one of Tolkien's time that his personal correspondence would be an object of interest. With that in mind, I think it's rather generous of the Estate to have allowed The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien publication.

Even by Tolkien's day, academics were reading authors' letters and private diaries for relevance to the written work and for understanding of the creative process. One doesn't have to be sympathetic to psychoanalytic criticism to understand this. It would have been naive of Tolkien to believe that his letters would be irrelevant to his readers or have no bearing on his art; indeed many of his letters clearly demonstrate his intense desire to explain his work. It was not generous of the Estate to allow publication of the selected letters; it was part of the responsibility of a literary executor to allow for such scholarship.

There is a real and significant difference between such scholarship and the kind of celebrity publicity you are describing and it does a grave disservice to academe to ignore that difference.

I learnt a great deal about Charlotte Bronte's writing by reading and examining the style of her letters--I learnt just how well she was able to vary her voice in writing. And can only bemoan the fact that one of her correspondants destroyed her letters, deeming them too inflamatory or radical for the time. She, too, wanted to protect Bronte's reputation.

Inziladun

02-08-2011, 11:00 AM

Even by Tolkien's day, academics were reading authors' letters and private diaries for relevance to the written work and for understanding of the creative process. One doesn't have to be sympathetic to psychoanalytic criticism to understand this. It would have been naive of Tolkien to believe that his letters would be irrelevant to his readers or have no bearing on his art; indeed many of his letters clearly demonstrate his intense desire to explain his work. It was not generous of the Estate to allow publication of the selected letters; it was part of the responsibility of a literary executor to allow for such scholarship.

I can see your point. However, all Tolkien's letters were not an explanation or a discussion of his public writings or the creative process involved. Does the mere fact that he was a writer strip away the man's privacy regarding personal letters that have no bearing on his "public" life, especially when he cannot now voice his opinion on the matter?

Bêthberry

02-08-2011, 11:58 AM

I can see your point. However, all Tolkien's letters were not an explanation or a discussion of his public writings or the creative process involved. Does the mere fact that he was a writer strip away the man's privacy regarding personal letters that have no bearing on his "public" life, especially when he cannot now voice his opinion on the matter?

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.

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.

But it tells us oodles about Tolkien and helps us understand his relation to his time. It also gives us a view of what Oxford must have been like and so is historically relevant for studies of university life in the early twentieth century and what it must have been like for women. Since Tolkien was a significant member of the academy, his letters have a value beyond simply his own writing. They have sociological and historical value.

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 12:22 PM

Just a couple of quick replies . . .

Mithalwen, one of the issues concerning this book is that the authors had the permission of the owners of the Letters, so they were not, as you say above, "exploiting resources they had no right to." They believed they had that right. Later, the owners of the copyright denied or withdrew permission. So obviously there are differences amongst the Tolkien heirs about what constitutes privacy and unfortunately this little book got caught.

I have to disagree with you. I stand by what I said. Ignorance of the law is no defence. That they never had the right to publish or exploit the letters seems clear from Calcifer's post. It isn't a result of a body "Tolkien Heirs" changing their mind and the authors being hapless victims. There are two groups of heirs with different and potentially conflicting rights. Hilary's heirs are the owners of the physical letters. They can sell them, show them to who they like burn them if they want however detrimental that would be to future scholarship. They never had copyright over them and so could not pass it on. However much they believed it it wasn't the case. It isn't an obscure piece of law. If I as a layperson know it then a publisher should. It seems very basic to check these things if their inclusion is vital to the viability of a project.

The estate for what ever reason did not grant permission, that is their right. They are not responsible for third parties wasting their time over a misapprehension.

Bêthberry

02-08-2011, 01:25 PM

I have to disagree with you. I stand by what I said. Ignorance of the law is no defence. That they never had the right to publish or exploit the letters seems clear from Calcifer's post. It isn't a result of a body "Tolkien Heirs" changing their mind and the authors being hapless victims. There are two groups of heirs with different and potentially conflicting rights. Hilary's heirs are the owners of the physical letters. They can sell them, show them to who they like burn them if they want however detrimental that would be to future scholarship. They never had copyright over them and so could not pass it on. However much they believed it it wasn't the case. It isn't an obscure piece of law. If I as a layperson know it then a publisher should. It seems very basic to check these things if their inclusion is vital to the viability of a project.

The estate for what ever reason did not grant permission, that is their right. They are not responsible for third parties wasting their time over a misapprehension.

A valid point, Mithalwen, but you overlook the fact that one earlier book had already been allowed, Black and White Ogre Country (http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=Black+and+White+Ogre+Country+Review ). So the case is perhaps not quite as black and white as you make it. :)

I don't want to belabour this point, as I don't know all the reasons and saw only some of the items, and as I reposted to discuss the general question of privacy and academic research. What I do know is that, as I said earlier, this decision follows on other situations where copyright was withdrawn, such as with the Beowulf translation, so clearly there are multiple issues at play.

I just see it as very unfortunate, all round.

garm

02-08-2011, 01:38 PM

Mithalwen - well said! (btw - I tried to PM you, but your inbox is full. Could you PM me, please? Thanks)

Mithalwen

02-08-2011, 02:52 PM

A valid point, Mithalwen, but you overlook the fact that one earlier book had already been allowed, Black and White Ogre Country (http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=Black+and+White+Ogre+Country+Review ). So the case is perhaps not quite as black and white as you make it. :)

I just see it as very unfortunate, all round.

Was it allowed or did it slip through the net? Even so I am sure you would agree that it would be a dangerous to assume that because something is consented to once that consent will always be given...

I do understand that scholars are interested in the letters of their subjects but I also fear that people claiming they have the right to know everything on those grounds will be counterproductive since subjects will self censor and not keep diaries and write letters at least not with an awareness of possible publication that would also be self censorship.

LadyBrooke

02-08-2011, 04:00 PM

I don't have time to do a long detailed analysis as I'm getting ready to go out for my birthday dinner so I'll make this quick.

Really, I'm not even that curius about what was in that letter. I don't care what he wrote to Hilary. It seems to me that all the parties involved in this are making it seem like this letter contains what surely must be earth shattering information when in reality, it probably more closely resembles my cousin and I's discussion at Christmas where nothing important was discussed. In the end, it's just making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yes, I believe that the Estate should have let the book go forward, especially since they've probably done more to destroy their privacy by making this into a big issue then releasing the book would have. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the congrataltions, Mith! I'm excited to finally be an adult. :D

davem

02-08-2011, 04:11 PM

I think whatever Tolkien may or may not have wanted to happen to the information in the letters at the time he wrote them is fairly academic - unless one imagines him to be sitting on a cloud somewhere fretting about what is or isn't contained in a biography of his brother. I honestly think Tolkien's own feelings/wishes are impossible to guess at - it may well be that he would have no problem at all with this material is (whatever it may be) coming out. It seems like the 'Estate' (ie Christopher Tolkien) is the one with the problem.

There are two possibilities here - 1) this material is entirely mundane - the brothers reminiscing about childhood events, everyday trivia, & this is a simple case of CT pointing the Lawyers at the authors (& his members of his own family, let us remember) & shouting 'Get orf my Land!'. Unacceptable to my mind, given the work put into this book by sincere people - I've met the author (in passing at Oxonmoot) & I know that she is not some hack looking to make a fast buck by writing a tacky book on JRRT. And I can't believe that Hilary's children/grandchildren feel any less respect for him than CT feels for his father. If this is about the kind of 'trivia' I'm talking about its very petty on CT's part to stop it being published - whether he has a 'right' to do this or not.

The other possibility is that it is something more 'serious' that the family do not wish to be made public, because it would 'embarass' those family members who are still around, or (at the far extreme) harm the reputation of Tolkien in some way. That becomes more difficult, because, as I've pointed out, the family have authorised a number of biographical works (Letters, Caprenter's bio, Garth's book on Tolkien &WWI), in effect creating an 'authorised' version of JRR Tolkien. Now, if there is more to JRRT than they have told us - & if that 'more' would alter our understanding/perception of him (for good or ill) then I don't see how the family could justifiably object - if a man was, say, a drunken cross-dressing wife-beater, who was at the same time a painter of genius who loved animals, his family would be justified in a) refusing to talk about his personal life at all, & avoiding any authorised biography at all (& thus protecting their sensitivities), or b) being entirely honest & open & authorising a warts & all biography which gave a true insight into the whole man. Where they would not be 'morally' justified would be in publishing an authorised biography which focused entirely on the animal loving painter & failed to mention the drinking, cross-dressing & wife-beating. In such a case, you either say nothing, or you tell the truth - either is justifiable - but lying by telling only half the truth would be unacceptable.

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.

Inziladun

02-08-2011, 04:42 PM

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?

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?

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

02-08-2011, 05:01 PM

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

02-08-2011, 08:01 PM

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.

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.

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

02-08-2011, 09:47 PM

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

02-09-2011, 02:32 AM

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.

Galin

02-09-2011, 07:43 AM

Hasn't Angie G seen the letters, or is at least aware of the content in enough measure, and already reported (in post 92)...

All the material that we planned to go into the book was sent to TE with the first draft. There is nothing in that material that reflects badly on any member of the Tolkien family, indeed, we had every intention of using it to show the loving relationship of the two brothers.

Bêthberry

02-09-2011, 09:25 AM

Morthoron

02-09-2011, 09:30 AM

I do understand that scholars are interested in the letters of their subjects but I also fear that people claiming they have the right to know everything on those grounds will be counterproductive since subjects will self censor and not keep diaries and write letters at least not with an awareness of possible publication that would also be self censorship.

Letter writing is a lost art, Mith. Between e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, blogs and various other communication adjuncts, I don't believe we'll see correspondence on the level of Tolkien, D.H. Lawrence, Gertrude Stein, or any literary letter-writer of note. In fact, most current authors expound in detail on their own sites.

So, I look forward to "The Unabridged E-mails of Neil Gaiman" or "The Compleat Blography of Umberto Eco" in the future.

davem

02-09-2011, 10:38 AM

None of the material I saw at the Oxonmoot session related to Father Francis' intervention in Tolkien's teen age love affair with Edith, that I can recall now at least anyway.

It's all just letters between family members and family memorabilia.

So this is all CT's 'Get orf my land' act - smash up three years of people's hard work just 'cos he owns the copyright on the material. Nothing shocking or offensive, or even mildly controversial?

Don't know which alternative makes him look worse - covering up a 'dark' family secret, or just being petty about his 'stuff'.

Mind you, I haven't been too impressed with his behaviour since he authorised so many (300-400) changes to LotR, & left us only able to buy new copies of the work in an edition that his father (obviously) never approved.

(EDIT - I'm wondering if the attitude of Fr Morgan to women & its effect on Tolkien's work is worth further discussion anyway.....)

tumhalad2

02-09-2011, 07:24 PM

Fr Francis' attitude toward women and the effect of that attitude on Tolkien would be an interesting topic to look at. To me, it seems unfortunate that Tolkien was beholden to such an obviously unhealthy character. Human sexuality is not "evil", but it is quite possible that the 'good' father's influence may have inculcated within Tolkien a negative, or at least conflicted, view of human sexuality. But without knowing Tolkien's actual thoughts on the matter, it's difficult to be certain about anything here.

Mithalwen

02-10-2011, 06:53 AM

So this is all CT's 'Get orf my land' act - smash up three years of people's hard work just 'cos he owns the copyright on the material. Nothing shocking or offensive, or even mildly controversial?

Don't know which alternative makes him look worse - covering up a 'dark' family secret, or just being petty about his 'stuff'.

As far as I understand it the first book breached copyright without permission. If that is so it is not petty in my opinion to be protective when the same people seek permission presumably retrospectively for a second work.

If the work were subsequent to permission being granted and permission were subsequently withdrawn then you might have a point. But that isn't the case is it?

If you build a house without planning permission you run a strong risk of having to demolish it. If you buy stolen goods even in good faith you don't gain ownership.

Personally I don't see that the emotional blackmail of presenting a fait accompli and saying but we have spent so much time is morally superior to " being petty about his stuff". It isn't the Estate that has created this situation. It just seems you want to beat up Christopher Tolkien with any stick that comes to hand.

Obviously JRRT didn't approve the changes but he did approve of Christopher and appoint him to be his literary executor. If you don't approve fine. The changes are documented. I am not aware of all previous editions being recalled and pulped. However if you are questioning CRT's validity as editor and executor you are not obliged to take notice of his revisions or read the posthumously published works.

However if you think only what Tolkien published in his lifetime is valid then you cannot criticise his son for not allowing a free for all on everything he ever wrote. I really cannot see how if it is wrong to make justified changes to a published work, many of which are merely capitalisations or hyphens, because they could not have been approved of by a dead writer how you can endorse open publication without consent of matter which the author never intended to publish at all. It is absolutely definate that they don't have JRRT's approval.

davem

02-10-2011, 12:15 PM

As far as I understand it the first book breached copyright without permission. If that is so it is not petty in my opinion to be protective when the same people seek permission presumably retrospectively for a second work.

If the work were subsequent to permission being granted and permission were subsequently withdrawn then you might have a point. But that isn't the case is it?

But what is he being 'protective' of - obviously its possible its something which the family do not wish to be made pubic because it would 'embarrass' surviving members of the family or intrude on their privacy in some way, but from those (the writer included) who have seen the material that seems not to be the case - though I suspect they must cover the Fr Francis period to some extent. The other alternative is that it is just general stuff with zero embarrassment value. That being the case, CT, for all he may have a 'right' to stop publication, is under no obligation to do so. He could opt for the 'nice human being' scenario & just let them go ahead & publish. Quite honestly, its what I would do in a similar situation.

Personally I don't see that the emotional blackmail of presenting a fait accompli and saying but we have spent so much time is morally superior to " being petty about his stuff". It isn't the Estate that has created this situation. It just seems you want to beat up Christopher Tolkien with any stick that comes to hand. I think they've played their part

Obviously JRRT didn't approve the changes but he did approve of Christopher and appoint him to be his literary executor. If you don't approve fine. The changes are documented. I am not aware of all previous editions being recalled and pulped. However if you are questioning CRT's validity as editor and executor you are not obliged to take notice of his revisions or read the posthumously published works.

I am questioning his actions as regards the changes to LotR - which are fairly substantial, & change the meaning of passages in the book in some cases. I can't see that many of them are justified. I think its perfectly valid to question/criticise any changes to a well loved work - particularly when that revision is done without the approval of the author & when that revised work then replaces the one the author did approve.

However if you think only what Tolkien published in his lifetime is valid then you cannot criticise his son for not allowing a free for all on everything he ever wrote. I really cannot see how if it is wrong to make justified changes to a published work, many of which are merely capitalisations or hyphens, because they could not have been approved of by a dead writer how you can endorse open publication without consent of matter which the author never intended to publish at all. It is absolutely definate that they don't have JRRT's approval.

But they haven't changed anything JRRT wrote - they are merely looking to make what he wrote available. And I have seen absolutely no eveidence that the changes made to LotR are in any way justified - the only change that could have been justified by any supporting evidence would have been to include the missing verse of the Earendilinwe - & CT decided against including that. I'm not talking about fixing typos in the work, btw, I'm talking about actually altering the text itself in a pointless attempt to make it 'perfect'.