Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[davem]

Yep, CT has let slip Clive, (his wild boar) on another author: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110219/00150613174/tolkien-estate-legal-spat-with-author-historical-fiction-will-publicity-rights-kill-off-historical-fiction.shtml

An author by the name of Stephen Hilliard has written a bit of historical fiction, that includes a bunch of historical characters and a fictionalized version of Tolkien. The book is supposed to be a historical novel and a form of literary criticism of Tolkien -- though I would imagine it's partly called that in order to aid with any potential "fair use" claims.

The Tolkien estate, of course, objects to the entire concept of the book, and sent a cease-and-desist letter to Hilliard, claiming that the book violated JRR Tolkien's publicity rights and "alleged that the cover art and typefaces in "Mirkwood" were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition." That may be one of the more ridiculous assertions we've seen in a long time. "Unfair competition" to whom or what? Is anyone going to buy this novel and then say "well, that satisfies my need for Tolkien's work?" It seems like a pretty extreme argument, putting in the cease-and-desist just to pad out the threats part.

Get the book here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mirkwood-Steve-Hillard/dp/0615312543/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1298314819&sr=8-2

or Kindle it in a few seconds: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mirkwood-Tolkien-Heroines-Exodus-Through/dp/B004IZLHHI/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=A3TVV12T0I6NSM&qid=1298314819&sr=8-2

Get yours now - before Clive eats it.... & then comes for you:eek:

(EDIT: I just downloaded it - I knew about the book previously but had decided not to bother getting it just yet. But now CT has just annoyed me enough to buy the thing.....I'm just off to get me boar spear......)

[Mithalwen]

Or don't waste your money on what looks like utter drivel. Any one whose opening sentence includes the word "deplaned" deserves everything they get. By which I mean a wild boar spearing the nether regions rather than royalties. But I am a bit chary of this sort of fictionalising a real person - especially one whose life is in living memory still.


And he has Edith or a presumably English travel agent writing "favorite" . Clive..I'm holding your coat... :p

[davem]

Or don't waste your money on what looks like utter drivel. Any one whose opening sentence includes the word "deplaned" deserves everything they get.

Well, I suppose you have a choice whether or not you buy the book or ...well, unless Christopher gets his way, & then you won't have any choice at all.

But I am a bit chary of this sort of fictionalising a real person - especially one whose life is in living memory still.

There have been a number of novels which use Tolkien as a character - the Imaginarium Geographica series http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Dragons-Apprentice-Imaginarium-Geographica/dp/B004FPYJY4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298320806&sr=1-1, the recent 'Looking for the King http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Dragons-Apprentice-Imaginarium-Geographica/dp/B004FPYJY4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298320806&sr=1-1 & a graphic novel which has Tolkien, Lewis & Charles Williams as the central characters http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heavens-War-Michael-Gaydos/dp/1582403309/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1298321170&sr=8-12 among others.

And far be it from me to accuse Christopher Tolkien of hypocrisy in this matter, but in his discussion of the Notion Club Papers (HoM-e vol 9) he quite openly admits that his father based the members of the Notion Club on the Inklings (all of whom were alive at the time the work was written, btw) & is quite admiring of the way it is all done...

(EDIT) I see that the Estate are requesting the 'destruction of all copies of the book' - perhaps a big bonfire, which CT could be asked to ceremonially ignite himself. ...I wonder how he would respond to a request from surviving relatives of the Inklings members his father used as characters were to request that all copies of Sauron Defeated were destroyed?

[Mithalwen]

Although Tolkien at least knew the Inklings...

But you can get as agitated as you like but I have to say the extract I could see was the second worst piece of "literature" I have read in a decade. I would have hoped publishers would be more discerning and spare me the dubious option in the first place.

But I wouldn't burn it ..pulp it and use it as bog roll far better use of a tree...:cool:

[davem]

Although Tolkien at least knew the Inklings...

But you can get as agitated as you like but I have to say the extract I could see was the second worst piece of "literature" I have read in a decade. I would have hoped publishers would be more discerning and spare me the dubious option in the first place.

But I wouldn't burn it ..pulp it and use it as bog roll far better use of a tree...:cool:

So, fine to burn 'poorly written' books? And yet, who shall decide? You? Christopher Tolkien?

Christopher is turning into a bit of a book burner, tbh, & sorry, but book burning (or 'pulping' if you're of the 'collateral damage' school of thought) is immoral & barbaric, & I'd rather have a million badly written, trashy novels out there (& there are far worse novels out there than this one appears to be) than see books being 'burned' simply because some old rich bloke decides he doesn't 'want them to be'.

[Inziladun]

Christopher is turning into a bit of a book burner, tbh, & sorry, but book burning (or 'pulping' if you're of the 'collateral damage' school of thought) is immoral & barbaric, & I'd rather have a million badly written, trashy novels out there (& there are far worse novels out there than this one appears to be) than see books being 'burned' simply because some old rich bloke decides he doesn't 'want them to be'.

Ah. Paperback writers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taADLPtyDb0) have it so rough don't they? Perhaps CT objects to people wanting to use the Tolkien name merely to give an air of importance and credibility to an otherwise inferior product? This'll no doubt come as a shock, but I'm not all that fussed about this.

[davem]

Ah. Paperback writers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taADLPtyDb0) have it so rough don't they? Perhaps CT objects to people wanting to use the Tolkien name merely to give an air of importance and credibility to an otherwise inferior product? This'll no doubt come as a shock, but I'm not all that fussed about this.

Perhaps I see a difference between a) 'X' not wanting the 'X' name used merely to give an air of importance and credibility to an otherwise inferior product & b) burning books.

Perhaps, as this kind of thing becomes more & more the norm (not just CT & the Estate, but others following in their wake) we'll eventually get to the burning of something you will find yourself 'fussed about'?

What right, exactly, does CT & the Estate have to start censoring whatever they don't approve of, demanding that those things be destroyed? None of this is about publishing copyrighted material, merely about using a person who has been dead more than a quarter of a century as a character in a novel.

This is NOT about the quality of this particular book - I've bought it but don't know if I'll get around to finishing it - it may be the most dreadful thing ever written, but why does that make it acceptable to destroy it?

[davem]

For those interested in the depiction of JRRT in fiction, this piece is worth a read http://home.earthlink.net/~dbratman/infiction.html so it can hardly be claimed that we are dealing with something out of the ordinary when we come across a fictional representation of Tolkien. And have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biographical_films - should the inheritors of the Estates of any famous person be able to control/prevent the depiction of of that person in the media?

[Bêthberry]

This almost tempts me to get a kindle.

[Mithalwen]

So, fine to burn 'poorly written' books? And yet, who shall decide? You? Christopher Tolkien?

Christopher is turning into a bit of a book burner, tbh, & sorry, but book burning (or 'pulping' if you're of the 'collateral damage' school of thought) is immoral & barbaric, & I'd rather have a million badly written, trashy novels out there (& there are far worse novels out there than this one appears to be) than see books being 'burned' simply because some old rich bloke decides he doesn't 'want them to be'.

No need to be so melodramatic. Millions of books are pulped becasue no one wants to read them. I certainly don't want to read this dire stuff (it may only be the third worst - I remember now I did read two Dan Brown's - and if someone wrote such claptrap about my dad I'd be ballistic. Basically it is telling lies about him isn't it? Not exactly my idea of a novel.

would it be ok to use JRRT in a pornographic novel for example? Make him a criminal, a satanist? A paedophile? After all he's dead. You can't libel the dead.

Presumably since this is a matter of principle you'd buy the books of someone who used JRRT as a character thus. All right for anyone to rip off Tolkien and his works as much as they like not alright for his family to care and try to stop it. Maybe if someone was doing this stuff about someone you care about then you'd try and stop it too.

You persist in making CRT out to be a monster but that is what you really want him to be - someone who didn't give a damn about his father, his work and his reputation but just let it all go in to some shoddy and exploitative free for all.

[davem]

Millions of books are pulped becasue no one wants to read them. I certainly don't want to read this dire stuff (it may only be the third worst - I remember now I did read two Dan Brown's - and if someone wrote such claptrap about my dad I'd be ballistic. Basically it is telling lies about him isn't it? Not exactly my idea of a novel.

Yes - but how many books are pulped (or never get to see the light of day at all) each year because Christopher Tolkien doesn't want people to read them? This all about the reader's choice - if this book didn't attract an audience it would be pulped, & I would have no problem at all with that. I do have a problem with any book being pulped because one rich old bully decides he doesn't want it to be available. (Yes, rich old bully - CT is able to do this, basically try to intimidate an author & publisher into doing what he wants because he's rich enough to employ the best lawyers who can drag cases through court - something that most other people cannot.)

would it be ok to use JRRT in a pornographic novel for example? Make him a criminal, a satanist? A paedophile? After all he's dead. You can't libel the dead.

Presumably since this is a matter of principle you'd buy the books of someone who used JRRT as a character thus. All right for anyone to rip off Tolkien and his works as much as they like not alright for his family to care and try to stop it. Maybe if someone was doing this stuff about someone you care about then you'd try and stop it too.

Er...you started this post accusing me of being melodramatic... The way Tolkien is depicted in this novel is, from what I can see, entirely respectful - the author got the idea for the book from reading LotR to his children, & he says quite clearly that he's a fan of Tolkien.

That said, your original objection seemed to be to the quality of the writing/story whereas now it seems to be to the subject matter. Tolkien as Satanist or criminal, or paedophile.....Probably it would depend on the quality of the book & what the author was trying to do - I'd judge the book on its merits & object to CT or anyone else trying to stop me reading it.

You persist in making CRT out to be a monster but that is what you really want him to be - someone who didn't give a damn about his father, his work and his reputation but just let it all go in to some shoddy and exploitative free for all.

The point is that he (yet again) is using his money to stop a book being published simply because he doesn't like what's in it. I do expect him to "give a damn about his father, his work and his reputation" - I just refuse to accept that that gives him carte blanche to censor whatever he disapproves of. Perhaps he needs to re-read LotR - particularly the bits about the corruption of the Ring :

I think my master was right. I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights. You'd stop them digging up the gaffer and turning him adrift. You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work.'
'I would,' she said. 'That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!

EDIT:

Or to take the argument further - we've seen a number of fundamentalist churches burn copies of LotR & other books (Harry Potter, His Dark Materials - even The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe) in the past, because they firmly believed that the books were 'evil' & promoted 'occultism'. We've also seen numerous accusations of 'racism' about LotR & Tolkien himself & I'm sure there are people who would feel that the book should be destroyed for that reason - would that be ok - would you support them in any attempt to get all copies of LotR destroyed - if they were genuinely upset and/or offended by the work?

If we were all to get the right to destroy books/films/art that offended/upset us, or didn't attain to our elevated aesthetic standards, then frankly there wouldn't be much left. This is not about whether CT should be upset about the way his father is depicted in fiction, but what he should be able to do about it.

Millions of books are pulped becasue no one wants to read them.

Perfectly true - just as millions of people are killed on the roads every year - but that wouldn't justify CT getting behind the wheel of his car & intnentionally running over anyone he didn't like.

[Mithalwen]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

[davem]

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

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

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

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

James Martin's autobiography was recalled and pulped because of things he said about his step mother. But if you can hang around for someone to be conveniently out of the way.... you can defame them as much as you like. Again, this book is a fantasy, not an autobiography.

You seem to think overall that Christopher Tolkien is restraining the trade of various hard done by authors. The point is the Gaffer was in his own home. He wasn't a sqautter. You are really defending the rights of Saruman and his croney's to take over the Shire. Nope - Christopher Tolkien is claiming that he 'owns' not simply his father's work, but his father's character & personality & should be able to prevent anyone depicting him in any way that he doesn't approve of. Should that apply to all historical personalities? Perhaps War & Peace should go on the bonfire too?


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

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

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


The estate may have money. It may also be in the right. It seems to think it has a duty (and I think it probably does legally regardless of morality) to take action. You may have a preference to go for the "underdog" in any circumstances, but are you defending the corner shop against "the man" or the purveyor of stolen goods?. What, exactly has been 'stolen'? Define what has been 'stolen' from JRRT by the existence of this work? Is anyone likely to think that what happens in this book to a character called JRR Tolkien really happened to the real JRR Tolkien?


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

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

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

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

[Mänwe]

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

[Pitchwife]

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

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

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

[Bêthberry]

Hilliard isn't taking this lightly:

First Amendment and Fair Use (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/jrr-tolkien-estate-threatens-lawsuit-101528)

[davem]

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

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

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

[Alfirin]

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

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

[Inziladun]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

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

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



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

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



Aside from checking into the legalities, did Hillard run all this by the Estate beforehand, as a courtesy, at the very least? If not, perhaps that's part of CT's problem with it. Probably not - anymore than any other historical novelist writing a novel involving any other deceased person would have checked with their Estate. Because up to now its not been considered necessary.

EDIT: WHAT I FIND FRUSTRATING IN THIS MATTER

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

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

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

[Sardy]

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

[davem]

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

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

[Inziladun]

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

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

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

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

[Sardy]

If I wanted to make a comic book featuring Tolkien as a costumed superhero who went around punching chipmunks and eating raw fish, would it be improper for the Estate to want to put a stop to it?

Yes.

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

[Formendacil]

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

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

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

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

[Inziladun]

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

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

[davem]

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

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

.

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

[Sardy]

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

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

[Formendacil]

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

Interesting...

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

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

[Pitchwife]

Why should the quality of works by other authors using Tolkien's name and imaginative products not be a consideration for the Estate when deciding whether or not to authorize them? If I wanted to make a comic book featuring Tolkien as a costumed superhero who went around punching chipmunks and eating raw fish, would it be improper for the Estate to want to put a stop to it?
You're mixing up two different issues here, literary quality and accuracy of the way a historical character is portrayed. They may overlap, but they're not the same. Should lack of literary quality be a criterium for suppressing books? Now maybe that's not such a bad idea, looking at today's book market, but who gets to set the standards?
As to your second question, the issue is not whether it would be improper/morally right/understandable for them to want to stop it (I've already said that I can sympathize with their feelings), but whether they should have the power to do so; and I'm afraid I think they shouldn't. (I mean, where do you draw the line? I suppose Hookbill should be very careful about publishing any further stories about Robot Tolkien in the Downer...)

[Inziladun]

Should lack of literary quality be a criterium for suppressing books? Now maybe that's not such a bad idea, looking at today's book market, but who gets to set the standards?

Who would be better qualified than family of the author?

As to your second question, the issue is not whether it would be improper/morally right/understandable for them to want to stop it (I've already said that I can sympathize with their feelings), but whether they should have the power to do so; and I'm afraid I think they shouldn't. (I mean, where do you draw the line?

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

[davem]

Who would be better qualified than family of the author?

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

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


Ok, so to the book itself. I'm a bit further on, & its growing on me slightly - & read these reviews on the Amazon.com site http://www.amazon.com/Mirkwood-Novel-About-JRR-Tolkien/product-reviews/0615312543/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending particularly the first one, as this guy has written some very knowledgeable reviews of Tolkien's books in the past. Of course there's the odd wince inducing moments - where Tolkien, at an Inklings' meeting talks about 'pants' instead of trousers' :eek: (note for US writers: 'pants' are what you wear under your trousers!)

[Mänwe]

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

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

[davem]

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

I think the courts have little choice - if someone brings an action before them which may be valid they have to deal with it. I suspect CT/the Estate care little for the bigger implications of their action. They seem to be driven by a feeling of possessiveness re JRRT - someone is daring to tresspass on their 'land' use their 'stuff' & they're lashing out. Add to that their statement in their action that they somehow worry that this book might be taken for a work by Tolkien himself & they may lose money as a result - or somesuch nonsense & any capacity or willingness to step back & ask whether this is a wise move is lost.

Suffice to say that if their desired interpretation of the law was in place already then CT would already have broken it himself by publishing the Notion Club Papers in HoM-e 9 which he himself acknowledges depicts the Inlkings in all but name. Tolkien uses his friends as characters in his story, but Hillard is not allowed to use Tolkien in his story. Surely if the Estate 'own' the character & person of JRRT then the estate of Lewis, Williams & Barfield own their characters/persons? It would be nicely ironic if the decision went the Estate's way & the first person dragged before the courts for impingement was CT himself - & if the next book that had to be destroyed was Sauron Defeated...

[Lalaith]

Ok, here's my cod-psychological ha'porth.

I have a friend who suffered a series of horrible, random, life-shattering events. Her response ( she was already a careful, painstaking, disciplined kind of person) was to develop anorexia. It was, I believe, an attempt to find the one area of her life she *could* control, ie her weight and food intake, and then irrationally over-control it.
Similarly, I wonder if Christopher Tolkien, who had devoted so much of his life to a careful, painstaking and disciplined editing of his father's work, was not traumatised by the lack of control he had over the films and the liberties those films took - particularly as this 'bastardised' film version has became the 'definitive' one when it comes to most of the world's concept of Middle Earth.

The Estate's reaction - over-control to the point of absurdity over the areas it actually can control - therefore becomes more understandable.

[davem]

The Estate's reaction - over-control to the point of absurdity over the areas it actually can control - therefore becomes more understandable.

Maybe its just old age.

Not joking - the older one gets the more one seeks control over one's little world. Sad part is that this book (I'm a quarter of the way through, & I admit its growing on me. I like the heroine, Cadence, & every appearance of Tolkien so far has been entirely 'respectful'. The author is clearly a fan. In other words, there is nothing in this book to get het up about & the action makes no sense. Like Wheelbarrows at Dawn its a little book from a small publisher, with not a smidgeon of malice in it & which if left unmentioned would have attained a small readership & then disappeared. All of which makes this action look petty-minded & reflects so badly on CT & the Estate that you just wish there had been someone around to deliver a good slap to the lot of them to try & knock some sense into them.

These incidents have done them no good at all. What is the point in banning a serious work of biography or a minor potboiler which just happens to have Tolkien as a character? Why even stir yourself to bother? This looks like nothing more than a case (as I've pointed up before) of CT/the Estate stomping around, waving a big stick & shouting 'Get orf my land!!!'. Frankly pathetic & they've made themselves a bit of a joke by doing so. Sadly, they've also done harm to a good few writers, which is not funny in the least. They could have displayed a bit of magnanimity & would have looked all the better for it.

Honestly, I can't go along with those who try & present CT/the Estate as the injured party - if you have a friend who's a nice quiet, friendly guy who gets into a punch up you will likely think the other party to blame. If, a few days later you hear he's been in another fight with a different person, you may still give him the benefit of the doubt, but if it goes on, one fight after another, & all with strangers, you will eventually have to stop thinking of him as an unlucky victim of violence & admit that the most likely explanation is that your friend is the one starting the trouble. And to me it looks like the CT/Estate is throwing its weight around - for no other reason than that its got weight to throw. If this kind of behaviour continues their reputation is going to be shot - a literary organisation that gets a reputation for banning books & dragging (or threatening to) other authors through the courts doesn't make friends.

And the result of these actions - even though in some of the cases they've gotten their way (& they may also succeed in getting this author/publisher to back down & give in) has been that some of us who have been their staunchest supporters have lost a lot of respect for them & now see them as litigious bullies. Which is probably not what they intended - I hope. But it does go to demonstrate that sometimes winning your fight can backfire. If they'd let these books alone we'd still feel as positive about them as in the past.

[davem]

The Guardian has picked up the story http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/26/mirkwood-jrr-tolkien-legal-battle & judging by the comments no-one is on the Estate's side.

And the Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361076/JRR-Tolkien-estate-sues-Texan-author-using-professor-character-fictional-novel.html

*****AND YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS*****

THE TOLKIEN ESTATE HAVE BANNED A BADGE (BUTTON) THAT MENTIONS THE NAME TOLKIEN http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/25/tolkien-estate-censo.html

Yes. They have banned someone selling a badge with the name Tolkien on it. Of course, this, we must admit, massively impinges on the family's privacy....

[Galadriel55]

Well, the badge doesn't seem to favour people who read Tolkien... If it said something like "Long Live Professor Tolkien!", I'm sure they would allow it. :p

[davem]

Well, the badge doesn't seem to favour people who read Tolkien... If it said something like "Long Live Professor Tolkien!", I'm sure they would allow it. :p

Maybe they thought someone would mistake the badge for one of Tolkien's own works & they'd lose money....

EDIT now, far be it from me to suggest that this sudden penchant for litigation has anything to do with the Estate's victory & massive payout from New Line Cinema of profits from the movies, but I have just found this video of the Estate's reaction to their victory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8

[Bêthberry]

Interesting difference in the titles of the articles. The Mail's "None Shall Pass" is clever while the Guardian's is misleading: "JRR Tolkien novel Mirkwood in legal battle with author's estate". Do you suppose the Guardian is trying to prove the Estate's point by suggesting people will actually think this is a new Tolkien book?

The Guardian has picked up the story http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/26/mirkwood-jrr-tolkien-legal-battle & judging by the comments no-one is on the Estate's side.

And the Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361076/JRR-Tolkien-estate-sues-Texan-author-using-professor-character-fictional-novel.html

*****AND YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS*****

THE TOLKIEN ESTATE HAVE BANNED A BADGE (BUTTON) THAT MENTIONS THE NAME TOLKIEN http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/25/tolkien-estate-censo.html

Yes. They have banned someone selling a badge with the name Tolkien on it. Of course, this, we must admit, massively impinges on the family's privacy....

[Pitchwife]

I'm not quite sure whether this (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/14/tolkien_estate_claim.html)is real news or satire, but if the former, the matter is reaching undreamt-of heights of absurdity. Will the Estate's next legal action be an attempt to get maps of Great Britain banned?

Well, the badge doesn't seem to favour people who read Tolkien... If it said something like "Long Live Professor Tolkien!", I'm sure they would allow it. :pYep. Nobody seemed to mind those stickers saying "Frodo Lives" or "Gandalf for President" back in the 60s.
It's all very sad.

[Inziladun]

Nobody seemed to mind those stickers saying "Frodo Lives" or "Gandalf for President" back in the 60s.
It's all very sad.

The 60's were just a bit before my time, but back then the LOTR and Tolkien names did not readily lend themselves to Olympian heights of moneymaking potential. Now they do, largely thanks to PJ and Co.
I still believe that the difference between the reactions of the Estate to what they perceive as potential threats to the copyrights on Tolkien's work in the past few years, and the generally more liberal stance in earlier years might be an effect of the movies' aftermath. Not saying they're right to be so heavy-handed, but at least that could be an explanation for it.

[davem]

Well, the Tolkien Estate have managed to make themselves look dumb & alienate loads of fans.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/19564813296/tolkien-estate-says-just-mentioning-tolkien-infringes-tolkien-censorwear-appears-response.shtml

http://i.imgur.com/qdx8e.png & http://i.imgur.com/tNySx.png

Get them here http://www.zazzle.com/Harpocrates

[skip spence]

Just a question...

Knowing very little about all this, I spontaneously doubt that Christopher Tolkien, who must be ancient by now, personally is the driving force behind these copyright cases. Isn't it more likely that the Estate hired a bunch of good (and with good I mean skilled) copyright lawyers and told then to do their thing and serve the organization? Or am I wrong?

[davem]

Just a question...

Knowing very little about all this, I spontaneously doubt that Christopher Tolkien, who must be ancient by now, personally is the driving force behind these copyright cases. Isn't it more likely that the Estate hired a bunch of good (and with good I mean skilled) copyright lawyers and told then to do their thing and serve the organization? Or am I wrong?

I don't think lawyers act unilaterally. Behind this is either CT or his son Adam - probably both. That said Adam is probably taking over the reigns. We can't blame Adam for the Drout/Beowulf episode, but we may be seeing more of his hand in current events. CT is the 'figurehead' though.

The problem, as I mentioned, is that this kind of behaviour (& we've seen similar things coming out of Disney, & Warner Bros re Harry Potter) makes an organisation look bullying & alienates fans. Fans usually have a sense that a particular book/film/tv show sort of 'belongs' to them - not in any 'legal' sense, obviously - but that they are part of a community of likeminded folk & who have come together around a particular story & set of characters. This is CT/AT/the Estate coming along & screeching 'THIS IS OURS! YOU GET AS MUCH OR AS LITTLE OF THIS AS WE PERMIT - & IF YOU DO ANYTHING WE DON'T LIKE WE WILL PUNISH YOU.' Every action like this is about emphasising that the world & characters you love belong to someone else - they may be in your mind & heart but they are owned by someone else - & you can only speak about or refer to them if the owners allow you to. In short, it gets fans' backs up & is massively counterproductive.

This is all about reputation - if the Estate get a reputation for bullying & pettiness they will lose a lot more than they could possibly gain financially from asserting their rights. Over the last few months I've lost a great deal of respect for the Estate & CT/AT & that's down to their behaviour & their treatment of people who have done nothing wrong - & I'm not the only one. I wonder if anyone still feels just as positively about them as they did - or at least feels the same as they did?

[garm]

I wonder if anyone still feels just as positively about them as they did - or at least feels the same as they did?

I do. I've changed my mind about davem in the last few months, though.

[davem]

I do. I've changed my mind about davem in the last few months, though.

Well, if was feeling facetious I could point out that I am not here to live up to your expectations.....

However. Let us not.....

Perhaps you could clarify your position - simply that you will support CT/The Estate no matter what they do - that as far as you are concerned whatever they do must be right simply because they are the ones doing it?

In other words 'rightness' in this context = whatever CT/the Estate choose to do - even if the law, say, decided that they were wrong to threaten legal action against a person/company who produced a jokey badge which mentioned Tolkien (noting, btw, that JRRT/CT are not the only writers of that name - Tolkien's other grandson, Simon, is also a published author), you would still claim that the law in that instance was wrong? Or if the courts decided that using Tolkien as a character in a historical novel (as has happened with numerous other historical figures - & which Tolkien himself did in NCP) was perfectly acceptable?

You see, its all well & good to go on the offensive (& kudos for the Garm = Domini Canes thing) but you haven't put a case, or defended their actions. Its hardly good enough to pop up & say 'Oh, davem, oh, I've changed my mind about davem'. The Estate have acted, they have changed things - books that have been written have been prevented from appearing, books that have appeared they are attempting to ban & have copies destroyed. Someone who makes a jokey badge is threatened & stopped. And your response to these moves is not to defend them or argue any justification, but to simply accept this behaviour & say you're disappointed in anyone who criticises them.

Maybe I expected better of them & you didn't?

[Bêthberry]

Apparently the Zazzle thing was not instigated by the Tolkien Estate after all.

Zazzle found the button "potentially infringing" (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/01/update-tolkien-estat.html).

[Mister Underhill]

Here's a blog post with the emails between the guy who made the button and Zazzle after this dustup started:

http://www.giro.org/2011/03/01/the-zazzle-emails/

[davem]

Here's a blog post with the emails between the guy who made the button and Zazzle after this dustup started:

http://www.giro.org/2011/03/01/the-zazzle-emails/

Zazzle has loads of Tolkien stuff available - or did last time I looked. The idea that people there would suddenly pick this one to ban without any kind of official/semi-official contact is hard to believe.

Being a regular reader of Techdirt I've lost count of the number of stories about lawyers threatening action on behalf of their clients, negative publicity ensuing, & the clients then issuing a statement that it had nothing to do with them......

Awaiting a report that they didn't try & stop the books, really, truly.

[Inziladun]

Zazzle has loads of Tolkien stuff available - or did last time I looked. The idea that people there would suddenly pick this one to ban without any kind of official/semi-official contact is hard to believe.

If the site has "loads" of stuff available, why would the Estate object to that one particular item, but no others?

I don't know anything about Zazzle, but sites like YouTube seem pretty arbitrary sometimes about what they block because of copyright concerns. Really, it seems rather unfair of you to lay this at the feet of the Estate with no evidence to back up your suspicion.

[davem]

If the site has "loads" of stuff available, why would the Estate object to that one particular item, but no others?

If Zazzle has lots of Tolkien stuff (which it does http://www.zazzle.co.uk/tolkien+gifts ) then why would they remove just one of them unless 'someone' told them to?

Really, it seems rather unfair of you to lay this at the feet of the Estate with no evidence to back up your suspicion.

I posted links to the story.. And it was Zazzle themselves who stated that the Estate's lawyers had asked them to remove the product. And however this turns out the point of the thread - which is not in dispute - is the Estates's attempted censorship/banning of books.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill
Here's a blog post with the emails between the guy who made the button and Zazzle after this dustup started:

http://www.giro.org/2011/03/01/the-zazzle-emails/
Zazzle has loads of Tolkien stuff available - or did last time I looked. The idea that people there would suddenly pick this one to ban without any kind of official/semi-official contact is hard to believe.

Being a regular reader of Techdirt I've lost count of the number of stories about lawyers threatening action on behalf of their clients, negative publicity ensuing, & the clients then issuing a statement that it had nothing to do with them......

Awaiting a report that they didn't try & stop the books, really, truly.

Davem, have you ever considered you might be juuust the teeniest, tiniest bit... let's say, over-involved with this issue? And maybe you need to just, you know, take a few deep breaths and relax? Just a thought;)

[davem]

Davem, have you ever considered you might be juuust the teeniest, tiniest bit... let's say, over-involved with this issue? And maybe you need to just, you know, take a few deep breaths and relax? Just a thought;)

Honestly - I never get 'over-involved' on this forum. I argue for fun sometimes, or to challenge myself & others, even to explore an idea, to pick it up & run with it & see where we can get to, or what other people think. I can't recall ever getting angry or annoyed during a discussion.

If people are bored with this one we can just stop?:)

[davem]

Do you know the most interesting thing about this badge thing - everyone, pro & anti, just believed it!

The 'anti-' side attacked the Estate for its intolerant, heavy handed behaviour, the 'pro-' side defended them while offering excuses, but no-one just came out & said 'There must be some mistake - they wouldn't behave like that - the story must be wrong!'

And maybe that should worry the Estate, because they now have that kind of reputation - people now believe that that kind of behaviour is perfectly typical of them.

Which, of course, is what happens when you repeatedly sic the lawyers on people. You may win the battles, but you lose the war.

[Inziladun]

And it was Zazzle themselves who stated that the Estate's lawyers had asked them to remove the product. And however this turns out the point of the thread - which is not in dispute - is the Estates's attempted censorship/banning of books.

The purpose of this thread originally was to discuss the Mirkwood book, but it was you (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=650472&postcount=37) who brought up the Zazzle story.

[Mnemosyne]

Do you know the most interesting thing about this badge thing - everyone, pro & anti, just believed it!


Speak for yourself! I was withholding judgment, and I still am, because both the Estate's interpretation and the "why go after this one?" interpretation are still believable to me. If people are willing to believe that the Estate is being a censor in the case of the buttons, I think that has a lot more to do with the narrative built up about the Estate in particular, and authors' estates in general, well before the Estate had done anything to justify that interpretation, than because its actions are now fitting closer to that pattern.

Regarding the book--could it be the reason that this book was targeted over other Inklings books is because this one uses the fictional Tolkien that Tolkien himself created, who translated the Red Book of Westmarch from the Westron?

In other words, the other Inklings books that I've heard of may use Tolkien in a fantasy type setting, but I don't think they've yet tried doing it in the sense of "Tolkien translated all of these manuscripts and Middle-earth was real in some way, shape, or form." This isn't what the news sources have said, but it would give the Estate's case of "copyright infringement" something to stand on. Of course, this would open up a whole, huge can of worms, over what the difference is between an author and the author's own fictional representations of himself, the difference between fact and fiction, etc. But it certainly makes the Estate's actions appear more logical, if not necessarily justifiable.

[Inziladun]

In other words, the other Inklings books that I've heard of may use Tolkien in a fantasy type setting, but I don't think they've yet tried doing it in the sense of "Tolkien translated all of these manuscripts and Middle-earth was real in some way, shape, or form." This isn't what the news sources have said, but it would give the Estate's case of "copyright infringement" something to stand on. Of course, this would open up a whole, huge can of worms, over what the difference is between an author and the author's own fictional representations of himself, the difference between fact and fiction, etc. But it certainly makes the Estate's actions appear more logical, if not necessarily justifiable.

This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/26/mirkwood-jrr-tolkien-legal-battle) says that besides the issue with the book's cover design, the Estate thinks the book

...."trivialises the name, personality and reputation of the late professor".

Maybe the Estate's being petty, but it's their right to challenge things like this if they feel it necessary. Leave it for the courts!
Now, my judgement may be colored by the fact that I really am not interested in reading the book at all, and wouldn't be even if the Estate had no objections to it, but I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[garm]

This issue has not caused nearly so much fuss on many of the other Tolkien sites I lurk on; but there was a small flurry of interest on Torn some time back.

http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?guest=34045181&do%3Dpost_view_flat%3Bsb%3Dpost_latest_reply%3Bso% 3DASC%3Bpost%3D326938=View+Flat+Mode#326938

One of the lawyers in the group gives an assessment of Hillaard's complaint, in a post titled 'I've read the cease and desist letter.

On the whole, I think the thread gives a well-balanced selection of views. The same can be said of the Wheelbarrows book - folk on other sites have discussed it in a reasonable way, including the book's other author, Neil Holford .

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

[davem]

So.... what we have:

The Tolkien Estate has, over recent months prevented publication of at least a couple of non-fiction books (Books of Jonah & Wheelbarrows at Dawn), the publication of a fantasy series (cf the mention on Boing Boing - which the Estate's lawyers did not dispute), are attempting to ban & pulp an existing novel (self published & which without their intervention would probably have sold a few hundred copies & then vanished without trace, but which through their legal action has resulted in stories being run across the media, including major news sites like the Guardian & the Mail, & has even got a mention on the New York Times site: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/fashion/03Crib.html ). To top this catalogue of disasters off the cumulative effect of all this is that a story can be run stating that they have threatened legal action over the selling of a badge that mentions Tolkien's name - & even the Estate's strongest supporters believe that to be true based on the recent actions of the Estate & their lawyers.

I'd say the Estate's reputation is looking pretty poor, & that they've no-one to blame but themselves.

And now, let's ask what harm, exactly, would have resulted from letting Jonah & Wheelbarrows go ahead, & ignoring Mirkwood? None at all. The Estate have been stupid & shot themselves in the foot repeatedly..

[garm]

Here's another discussion page -

http://www.lotrplaza.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=239504

-the 2nd post by 'Findegil' is of particular interest.

[davem]

Here's another discussion page -

http://www.lotrplaza.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=239504

-the 2nd post by 'Findegil' is of particular interest.

Yes, what they ignore is the harm that is done when a perfectly harmless book, produced by a couple of dedicated Tolkien fans & scholars, is stopped from being published - at best it makes them look overly litigious & at worst like they've got something to hide - or at lest that they don't want to be made public. The 'copyright' allocation issue they bring up is a bit of a red herring to my mind & should have been overlooked or forgiven - to use it as ammunition against them to stop publication of WaD is a bit off - even if technically legal.

The Mirkwood thing is frankly silly (as is the book, tbh) & the absolutely worst move they could have made as they've given the guy massive publicity & they will probably lose as the fact that the cover illustration is a 'bit like' a previous Tolkien book & that the name Tolkien is prominent on the cover is likely to be laughed out of court - did the lawyers take a look at the fantasy section in their local Waterstones? "Comparable to TOLKIEN at his best" etc, etc. on the covers of numerous fantasy novels. All they've done is make themselves look like they will drag people through the courts at the drop of a hat & lose public sympathy next time the really do have a case.

They have behaved stupidly over these issues & would have been better just letting them go - the point is none of these authors (or the author of the Book of Jonah volume) behaved in any way maliciously. Yes, they should have just let the books go ahead, because frankly whatever outlandish story comes out now about the Estate attempting to ban this or that is going to be given more credence than it will deserve. I read the badge story & thought (based on the things they have done recently) 'Well, they're at it again....' I wonder, did anyone - even among their staunchest supporters - doubt the story was true? And if they didn't & just accepted the story as true doesn't that say a lot about the effect of lawyering up so eagerly?

[Nerwen]

To top this catalogue of disasters off the cumulative effect of all this is that a story can be run stating that they have threatened legal action over the selling of a badge that mentions Tolkien's name - & even the Estate's strongest supporters believe that to be true based on the recent actions of the Estate & their lawyers.

Or perhaps based on your own vehemence on the subject:

*****AND YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS*****

THE TOLKIEN ESTATE HAVE BANNED A BADGE (BUTTON) THAT MENTIONS THE NAME TOLKIEN http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/25...ate-censo.html

Yes. They have banned someone selling a badge with the name Tolkien on it.

I mean, you did announce it as a FACT, IN CAPITALS.

[davem]

Or perhaps based on your own vehemence on the subject:



I mean, you did announce it as a FACT, IN CAPITALS.

THE SKY IS FALLING & A MARTIAN ASSAULT FLEET HAS LANDED IN TIMES SQUARE!!!!!

[Nerwen]

THE SKY IS FALLING & A MARTIAN ASSAULT FLEET HAS LANDED IN TIMES SQUARE!!!!!

And you could hardly have got more worked up over that.:rolleyes::p

Seriously: what do you think you're proving, here, davem? Of course nobody (well, barring a few alien-conspiracy nuts) is going to put "X sues Y" on the same level of improbability as "Martian invasion". But that says nothing about the character or history of either X or Y.

As a matter of fact, I do agree that the Tolkien Estate– and copyright holders in general– are quite often heavy-handed about protecting their "property"– but the particular argument you're using here doesn't support that at all. In fact, I have to tell you that, whatever your intention may be, it actually *looks* rather like you're just trying a bit of damage-control.

[davem]

As a matter of fact, I do agree that the Tolkien Estate– and copyright holders in general– are quite often heavy-handed about protecting their "property"– but the particular argument you're using here doesn't support that at all. In fact, I have to tell you that, whatever your intention may be, it actually *looks* rather like you're just trying a bit of damage-control.

That would only work if the badge thing was the point of the thread - which it wasn't. The book thing is the point of the thread - & that is still straight fact. The 'facts' re the badge thing are - the guy behind the badge was specifically told by Zazzle that the Tolkien Estate had contacted them, informed them that the product infringed copyright, & that story was run by Associated Content, Boing Boing & Techdirt. The recipient of the emails from Zazzle has reproduced them, so you can read them for yourself (see Mr. U's link above). The story was accepted as true by all concerned & by many readers of those sites & here on the Downs, & fir many of them that acceptance was based either wholly or in part on the actions taken by the Estate re copyright ownership over the past few months/years, because the Estate has come to be seen as a bit too eager to resort to legal actions.

So far as we now know the Estate was not responsible for the badge incident, but if you think that it is not significant that so many people believed that that was just the kind of thing they would do then I think you are missing something important. And I would point out that I did not do any shouting on all the other sites that ran the story, so I can't be held responsible for what happened over there.

EDIT

What we have re the Badge - from the Zazzle email http://www.giro.org/2011/03/01/the-zazzle-emails/ :

With regards to details of the infringement, all legal documents are confidential therefore I cannot release this undisclosed information. But we ask that you do acknowledge the fact that we were contacted by The J.R.R. Tolkien Estate, and at their request to prevent and remove any unauthorized and infringing third-party uses of their copyrights, trademarks and intellectual properties.

From Boing Boing (statement from Estate Lawyers re the badge http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/01/update-tolkien-estat.html :

According to Maier, "Zazzle has confirmed that it took down the link of its own accord, because its content management department came across the product and deemed it to be potentially infringing."

From the Zazzle emails : After corresponding with representatives from the Tolkien Estate, it’s been brought to our attention that the design was removed inadvertently due to a miscommunication on our part.


So the sequence of events seems to be

1) Tolkien Estate Lawyers contact Zazzle & tell them to "prevent and remove any unauthorized and infringing third-party uses of their copyrights, trademarks and intellectual properties.

2) Zazzle over-react & pull the badge because someone there decides that because it mentions Tolkien's name it may potentially infringe - ie, 'miscommunication on their part'

3) story is run on various sites

4) Tolkien Estate respond by stating that they never demanded this particular item to be removed.

So, the Estate contact Zazzle (as has not been denied - & there would be no need for them to do so as they are within their rights to do so) ask them to remove anything dodgy, Zazzle pulls the badge because they think it does, Tolkien Estate gets in touch & tells them they weren't referring to stuff like the badge.

Or that's my take on events.

So, I accept that the Estate didn't ask for this particular item to be taken down & that Zazzle messed up - probably because they were afraid of potential legal action from the Estate.

Now, I find it significant that no-one doubted that the Estate would behave in the way initially stated & I put that down to the series of legal actions they have recently instigated or threatened to instigate (which may have inspired Zazzle's overreaction).

You find it not to be significant that so many people just accepted that the Estate would behave that way. I can't see that particular tangent leading us anywhere so I'm happy to return to the main point of the thread.

EDIT ADDENDUM

I'm going to be a bit busy for a few days so won't be popping up on here - just pointing that out in case the thread runs on & anyone thinks I'm running from the fight... :P

[davem]

Worth a read & makes some very interesting points

http://theblogthattimeforgot.blogspot.com/2011/02/tolkien-fanfics-go-go-mirkwood-novel.html

I'm now about 3/4 of the way through the book. Its fun but highly improbable - & tbh it does sail a bit close to the wind as far as 'infringing' goes.... But I've enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure & frankly there's no way it could harm Tolkien's work & should have just been ignored. The Estate (or their lawyers) have been really dumb here, because even if they had a case technically, they look petty & bullying.

Still - the piece linked to offers a very good case for the defence.

[davem]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110331/03242813710/publicity-rights-after-death-are-severely-limiting-culture.shtml original article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28madoff.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all

Einstein is not the only example. While we might think of people like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., George Patton, Rosa Parks, Frank Lloyd Wright and Babe Ruth as part of our cultural heritage, available for all to use, the identities of each of them, and thousands more, are claimed as private property, usable only with permission and for a fee.

This phenomenon is fairly recent — and it’s getting out of control. For most of this country’s history, a person’s identity was not something that could be owned. While the unauthorized use of someone’s name or image was sometimes barred as an invasion of privacy, the right belonged to that person alone and could not be assigned to others. ,,,

This so-called descendible right of publicity has created a new kind of business: corporations that acquire and market dead people. So Rosa Parks sells Chevy trucks and Albert Einstein peddles everything from baby products to Apple computers. (And who knows how Elizabeth Taylor might be put to work now that she has gone to the other side?)

But say you wanted to write a play about a chance meeting between these two historic figures. Could you? While the play itself may be protected by the First Amendment, that doesn’t mean that the companies that manage Parks and Einstein might not attempt to assert control. Hebrew University has aggressively defended Einstein’s image, even blocking its use on a book called “Everything’s Relative.” And don’t expect to sell programs, posters, T-shirts or the other paraphernalia that might support your play without getting approval and paying whatever fee the owners of Parks’s and Einstein’s rights of publicity demand.

Contrary to what the owners of these identities claim, a right of publicity that continues after death does little to protect the reputations of the deceased.

Extending control over the identity of important people to their estates after death is, I think, to mistake how culture and art work and to elevate property rights to an importance that does us very little good. The identities of famous people as varied as Einstein, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe become part of our culture’s language. That cultural meaning then becomes part of the language of our cultural conversations, and as a part of that language it then has meaning that can be used in the sorts of compressed and symbolic ways that culture and art thrive on. To remove the identities of dead people from this language in the absence of payment for their use would substantially damage our culture.

So, this is much bigger than whether a writer should be able to use a dead person as a character in their book/play. Its about restricting our culture in what are potentially very damaging ways. Its about our freedom to use our shared culture. Culture grows & develops by people being free to play around with ideas/concepts received from the culture around them. So, this author produces a piece of nonsense involving Tolkien & many Tolkien fans find that a bit off - especially when Tolkien's heirs are leading the objection...but

This is just a tiny part of a massive cultural shift. If these kinds of moves succeed then not only will increasingly large parts of our culture be off limits for discussion unless we pay the rights holder, but even we were to offer to pay, we would be restricted in the way we could use those elements. And the other side is - as the articles point out, if a dead person becomes property then the owner of that property can decide what happens to it. In other words, you might be 100% behind the Tolkien Family in their attempt to prevent Tolkien being used in this way in this book, but if they, & the other Estates out there, succeed, then you may well see down the line less responsible owners of these persons doing things with their images that you don't approve of. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we'll see the owners of Tolkien's image using it to promote/advertise things you don't like - & it won't be possible for you or anyone else to counter that portrayal by presenting Tolkien in a different way. Currently someone could write a novel/play that has Tolkien doing something you don't approve of but you could respond by writing a novel/play that presented the opposite view. If these moves succeed you couldn't do that - the only way Tolkien or any other dead person could be presented is the way the people who owned him allowed.

[davem]

For anyone who's still interested:

In J.R.R. Tolkien's epic The Lord of the Rings, Rivendell provides a "Middle-earth" refuge for hobbits fleeing their enemy, the Ringwraiths.

Until recently, Bragg Creek, west of Calgary, also had a Rivendell, a summer refuge for kids from the city.

But the Bragg Creek Community Association was forced to rename the day camp after lawyers for Tolkien's estate decided it didn't like the use of the trademarked name.

The U.K.-based lawyers sent the community association a cease and desist letter.

"While our clients do not believe that you intended to infringe their intellectual property rights, you will understand that they have an obligation to protect these valuable rights and carefully to preserve the integrity of the Tolkien works," the letter reads.

Community program director Peggy Rupert said the estate's objection surprised her.

"It was just kind of funny," she said. "I actually find it kind of amusing. I've kept the letter as a memento." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/04/12/calgary-lord-rings-kids-camp.html

In an e-mail response to the Herald Tuesday, Maier countered the proliferation of Internet sites that accuse the Tolkien Estate of being a tad on the litigious side. "It is incorrect to say that the Tolkien Estate is litigious, as it is very rarely involved in court proceedings," he wrote.

"The Tolkien Estate only pursues legal action in the very rare cases of parties who, for whatever reason, are determined to deny the Estate's entitlement to protect its property." http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Tolkien+Estate+amused+Bragg+Creek+camp+name/4606252/story.html

"It is incorrect to say that the Tolkien Estate is litigious, as it is very rarely involved in court proceedings," is good - it is true that the Estate is 'very rarely involved in court proceedings' - but it does seem to threaten to instigate them rather a lot.

Still, thank goodness a non profit organisation has been stopped from encouraging kids to play at Elves & Hobbits.

[Inziladun]

Still, thank goodness a non profit organisation has been stopped from encouraging kids to play at Elves & Hobbits.

Look, I'm not defending the Estate here because I see no harm in the use of "Rivendell" in this case. But really, davem, you act as if the Estate has a lock on Trademark Infringement legal actions. This sort of thing goes on all the time (http://automation.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/most-popular/).

I cannot credit the Estate with perfect judgement 100% of the time, but at least I think their intentions are on the pure side. That's more than one can say for a lot of other trademark holders who threaten litigation.

[Galadriel55]

I cannot credit the Estate with perfect judgement 100% of the time, but at least I think their intentions are on the pure side.

I side with Zil here. It is ridicuuos how many things were stopped because of the Estate, but I see their side too. Their "protection of Tolkien's words" is quite understandable, because quite a lot of people see LOTR the way PJ made it, and maybe even worse. (The Estate should thank PJ for that.)

If I would say "hobbit" to a random person on the street, I bet that the image s/he will have in mind is an idiotic hairy drunken midget (unless they've really read the books). That is not what Tolkien means hobbits to be! This applies to just about everything. It's not really the Estate's fault if it is over-paranoid.

[davem]

I cannot credit the Estate with perfect judgement 100% of the time, but at least I think their intentions are on the pure side. That's more than one can say for a lot of other trademark holders who threaten litigation.

OK - but.

First, this looks petty ('Taking candy from a baby' springs to mind) - & its exactly this kind of thing that makes people believe the stories about the Estate threatening legal action against people selling badges which mention 'Tolkien'. Second, as I pointed out, its a bit disingenuous to state that the Estate is rarely involved in court action, because its clearly not backwards at coming forwards when it comes to threatening legal action - & it always seems to be individuals who are a lot less wealthy & therefore unable to go to court against the Estate who get threatened.

The main issue for me here is the group on the receiving end of this letter - a children's camp. Now, it would seem to me that something like this would be likely to lead kids to discover & come to love Tolkien's world - & that this kind of action would be likely to engender the opposite feeling. Tolkien, we know, loved children (though one gets the feeling that CT wishes his father had written his works in a mix of Elvish & Anglo-Saxon, where it could be the preserve of academics). This is a camp where children would play at being Hobbits, Elves & Dwarves with their friends. I think Tolkien would have thought it a wonderful thing, but it looks like his family would rather protect their 'imaginary property' than let the children play. I have to say that the current behaviour of the Estate is souring Tolkien's creation for me.

I think anyone who has read my posts on this forum over the years will know how much Tolkien's work means to me, & how much time I've 'spent' in Middle-earth. I have shelves ful of books by & about Tolkien. I met my partner through this forum & our little boy is only here because of our shared love of Tolkien - we wouldn't have met otherwise. If anyone thinks I'm just on some petty minded vendetta against the Tolkien Estate - sorry, you're wrong. I do think we all owe a debt to Christopher Tolkien, but I also think that the recent behaviour of the Estate & its lawyers is unpleasant.

The kind of thing that this camp was doing was a perfect counterbalance to the simplistic movies & increasingly violent & dumb video games that Middle-earth is becoming in the popular imagination.

[Formendacil]

Since I hail from that part of the world... and since my extended family includes 4 or 5 cousins who've actually been to Camp Rivendell, I am finding myself inclined to agree with Davem at this point... at least regarding the Estate. I'm not really sure one can say that Christopher Tolkien is personally responsible... I mean, for one thing, how would he have found out about the camp? I really can't picture him trolling the Internet (and if so, Hookbill should watch out).

It's rather interesting to consider what Tolkien's own attitude in The Letters is to the borrowing of names:

I wish that 'Copyright' could protect names, as well as extracts. It is a form of invention that I take a great deal of trouble over, and pleasure in; and really it is quite as difficult (often more so) as, say, lines of verse. I must say I was piqued by the 'christening' of that monstrous 'hydrofoil' Shadowfax – without so much as 'by your leave' – to which several correspondents drew my attention (some with indignation). I am getting used to Rivendells, Loriens, Imladris etc. as house-names – though maybe they are more frequent than the letters which say 'by your leave'.

[Inziladun]

I think anyone who has read my posts on this forum over the years will know how much Tolkien's work means to me, & how much time I've 'spent' in Middle-earth. I have shelves ful of books by & about Tolkien. I met my partner through this forum & our little boy is only here because of our shared love of Tolkien - we wouldn't have met otherwise. If anyone thinks I'm just on some petty minded vendetta against the Tolkien Estate - sorry, you're wrong. I do think we all owe a debt to Christopher Tolkien, but I also think that the recent behaviour of the Estate & its lawyers is unpleasant.

First, I don't recall questioning your appreciation of the books. I would not presume to do so, even if I saw reason for it, which I do not.

Second, I've already said I agree that the reaction to the children's camp was, to the extent of my limited knowledge of the situation, in my judgement unwarranted.

Here's where we diverge, though, apparently. Things like the children's camp story earn an eye-roll from me, maybe a head-shake. That's the end of it. The Estate's actions don't affect my enjoyment of anything Tolkien created. If Peter Jackson's ham-fisted treatment of LOTR, with head-scratching mis-characterizations of Elrond, Arwen, and most infuriatingly, Faramir, could not sour the works for me, that isn't going to be accomplished by the sometime knee-jerk reactions from a few old men at the Estate, especially when I don't see any intentional malice behind it all; just questionable judgement.

The kind of thing that this camp was doing was a perfect counterbalance to the simplistic movies & increasingly violent & dumb video games that Middle-earth is becoming in the popular imagination.

Perhaps it's things like those "violent and dumb video games" that have led to the hypersensitivity of the Estate, and they're now unable to see the sheep among the goats.

It seems we have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding how seriously matters such as the ones you introduce here should be taken. I believe I've said all I can really say about this, so I'm respectfully retiring from this thread.

Cheers.

[Bêthberry]

Since I hail from that part of the world... and since my extended family includes 4 or 5 cousins who've actually been to Camp Rivendell, I am finding myself inclined to agree with Davem at this point... at least regarding the Estate. I'm not really sure one can say that Christopher Tolkien is personally responsible... I mean, for one thing, how would he have found out about the camp? I really can't picture him trolling the Internet (and if so, Hookbill should watch out).

I'm inclined to agree with Formendacil here. It's a bit much to go after a little children's camp that's probably a non-profit organisation. However, such a target suggests to me that this is most likely lawyer's trawling. I suspect that the legal beagles have simply been given carte blanche to undertake a defense of Tolkien's copyright. In which case, one wonders if and when they will take to teh interwebs and insist that the Barrow Downs cease and desist. We knew we were wraiths, but pirates too?

It's rather interesting to consider what Tolkien's own attitude in The Letters is to the borrowing of names:

Names, like each word of Tolkien's invented language, would of course be very special to Tolkien, given how much his writing began with his philological explorations. Yet he himself took up "Mirkwood" from old lore and not a few dwarven names from Scandinavian literature.

Tolkien's work is spreading into cultural consciousness and how differentiate that from greedy attempts to cash in on the Tolkien name?

[davem]

When people love something they want to make it part of their lives - whether that's kids playing at being at Hogwarts, or being Elves or Hobbits with their friends, or adults naming their house Rivendell or Bag End, or their pets Sam or Bilbo - or their children (Terry Pratchett wrote of girls being named Galadriel or Arwen beck in the 60's.)

It happens - though it seems the Estate would prefer children's active participation in the world of Middle-earth to be limited to sitting in front of a screen & hacking up Orcs via their PS3, rather than being out in the countryside with their friends.

I'm inclined not to excuse the Estate & place all the blame on the lawyers for this one - if you let your dog run loose & it savages an innocent person then you are responsible - if you claim you didn't know what Rover was doing then you would rightly be asked 'Why not?' - & I wouldn't be surprised to hear an announcement in the next few years about a 'Middle-earth World' in Orlando, Florida (they all seem to be built there for some reason.

I'm afraid that once a story enters into the public consciousness the writer loses a certain amount of control - & when lawyers get involved, threatening to punish people for expressing their love of a particular story which has moved them & brought them joy, then something is very wrong. Plus - as I quoted a few posts back:


Extending control over the identity of important people to their estates after death is, I think, to mistake how culture and art work and to elevate property rights to an importance that does us very little good. The identities of famous people as varied as Einstein, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe become part of our culture’s language. That cultural meaning then becomes part of the language of our cultural conversations, and as a part of that language it then has meaning that can be used in the sorts of compressed and symbolic ways that culture and art thrive on. To remove the identities of dead people from this language in the absence of payment for their use would substantially damage our culture.

& that applies even more to stories- which also "become part of the language of our cultural conversations, and as a part of that language it then has meaning that can be used in the sorts of compressed and symbolic ways that culture and art thrive on." And therefore to 'remove the stories from this language in the absence of payment for their use would substantially damage our culture' infinitely more.

[Bêthberry]

I'm inclined not to excuse the Estate & place all the blame on the lawyers for this one - if you let your dog run loose & it savages an innocent person then you are responsible - if you claim you didn't know what Rover was doing then you would rightly be asked 'Why not?' - & I wouldn't be surprised to hear an announcement in the next few years about a 'Middle-earth World' in Orlando, Florida (they all seem to be built there for some reason.

Ah, when lawyers and lapdogs breathe their last. The analogy is incorrect, though, as lawyers are limited to bark and not bite. Yet I doubt we'd ever agree on that.

[davem]

Ah, when lawyers and lapdogs breathe their last. The analogy is incorrect, though, as lawyers are limited to bark and not bite. Yet I doubt we'd ever agree on that.

Well, either the Estate know what their employees are doing & approve of it, in which case the fault is theirs, or they have no idea what their lawyers are doing & are just giving the carte blanche to threaten legal action, in which case the fault is theirs...

Interesting responses from some here (not yourself, btw) - when its something that can be interpreted as being the fault of the other side ("the authors of these books must have known they were in the wrong"," they must have been intending to publish something that would have adversely affected the family", etc) then the Estate knew all about it & were just defending their rights, but when its something that can't be interpreted as being the fault of the other side (threat to drag the organisers of a children's summer camp through the courts) then 'most probably' the Estate knew nothing about it & its all down to over-eager lawyers.

[Alfirin]

& that applies even more to stories- which also "become part of the language of our cultural conversations, and as a part of that language it then has meaning that can be used in the sorts of compressed and symbolic ways that culture and art thrive on." And therefore to 'remove the stories from this language in the absence of payment for their use would substantially damage our culture' infinitely more.

Speaking of language, one thing that concerns me is that, eventually the estate will decide the languages and grammars Tolkein created are themselves part of the estates property, and prohibit thier use without sanction (i.e. trying to learn how to speak Quenya or Sindarin, or write or translate into it, will become itself a prosecutable/suable act.) They might also start going after anyone who uses any of the written forms. I know for a fact that there are several Japanese animes that have used Tolkein's runes at one time or another (Yes Tolkien did not create runes, but if I recall Tolkinian Dwarvish includes some runes not found in actual Norse, and I've seen some of those runes used in anime.) Also since (as far as anyone knows) Tolkien created the world "orc" they may start going after all of the roleplaying games that use that word for a race. In short, I'm worried that this is just the opening salvo of an attempt by the estate to ultimately gain control over all fantasy that they can.

[Galadriel55]

What will they ban next? Will the public be prohibited from reading LOTR because Tolkien wrote it? :rolleyes:

:D :p

[davem]

The Copyright notice in the books states that it is prohibited to reproduce, store or transmit in any form, by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission of the publishers.

Any copyright holder could prevent public reading of their work if they wanted. Again, its interesting to read in Carpenter's biography & elsewhere of Tolkien's 'inspirations' - we all know about The Kalevala, The Eddas, Beowulf & The Mabinogion, etc, but he was also 'inspired' by more contemporary works thoughout his life - from Andrew Lang's Fairy books, William Morris' works & Wyke-Smith's Marvellous Land of Snergs http://www.tolkiencollector.com/snergs.htm - read this piece because I think its important to see how much Tolkien drew on the stories he & his children grew up with.

However,while Tolkien was 'inspired' by the works of earlier writers, those who follow him are 'ripping him off'. Copyright is certainly being pushed by a number of holders, to be extended both in time & in what is actually covered. What cases like these do is not simply stop the 'offenders' (the writers of Hilary's bio & Hillard as well as those who run camps like this one) but they also attempt to scare others out of doing the same thing - or even risking becoming a target. And its always small groups or organisations who get targeted by large copyright holders in order to set an 'example'.

This is certainly not something that the Tolkien Estate is alone in doing, & its not the worst, but it does seem to be getting worse. If control of the Estate at some point in the future falls into the hands of individuals who do care only about exploiting Tolkien's works for money then we could find it becomes less & less tolerant of any use of Tolkien's work that they don't benefit from. If they set up an official Tolkien Forum, with either membership fees, or which earns a lot from advertising they may decide that sites like this one infringe their copyright & send out a cease & desist letter - & I doubt the Barrow Wight would have enough cash to fight them in court over whether the Downs constitutes 'fair use' (& different countries have different definitions of 'fair use' - actually it doesn't legally exist in the UK as far as I'm aware).

[davem]

Well, you've probably all seen this already via TORn

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/jrr-tolkien-estate-settles-dispute-184053 "JRR Tolkien Estate Settles Dispute Over Novel Featuring Tolkien As Character "

After the Tolkien estate learned of the book, it sent Hilliard a cease-and-desist letter, threatening a lawsuit if he didn't cease publishing the novel and destroy all copies.
According to the settlement, the book will now be released with a modified reference to Tolkien on the cover and will also include the disclaimer, "This is a work of fiction which is neither endorsed nor connected with The JRR Tolkien Estate or its publisher."
As a result of the settlement, Hilliard is dismissing his lawsuit in Texas.
"The settlement terms are confidential, but the agreement adequately addresses the Estate's concerns about Mr. Hillard's book," says Aaron Moss, attorney for the Tolkien Estate.

So the Estate have gone from

" threatening a lawsuit if he didn't cease publishing the novel and destroy all copies."

to

"a modified reference to Tolkien on the cover and will also include the disclaimer, "This is a work of fiction which is neither endorsed nor connected with The JRR Tolkien Estate or its publisher."

Which looks to me very like the Estate backing down after Hillard called their bluff. Clearly they never had a leg to stand on legally but expected Hillard to back down in the face of their threats. Maybe others who have been on the receiving end of their bullying should stand up to them as well?

[Bêthberry]

Well, you've probably all seen this already via TORn

No, as a matter of fact, on the new Middle-earth social network. ;)

Maybe others who have been on the receiving end of their bullying should stand up to them as well?

Every legal case depends on the details, where, despite sayings to the contrary, God may not always be, as I've never thought of him as a barrister/solicitor but more on the judicial end of things.

Seriously, each case may depend on a different matter. This one was so clearly a situation of a legitimate historical fiction that obviously the Estate didn't have much to stand on. Also, it probably helped matters considerably that the case was set to be heard in North America, which has a substantially different legal milieu, and where the author would be quite a long arm's away from British retribution.

[davem]

Shocking to me that the Estate have cowed others with the threat of legal action - I think its fairly obvious that if the children's camp had also called the Estate's bluff they would have lost there too. The authors/publisher of the Hilary Tolkien bio would maybe find they too had a stronger position than they think.

Actually, the most shocking thing here is that the Estate must have known they were in the wrong & were just attempting to bully this author into destroying his book. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Tolkien Estate are not alone in behaving in this way. The Estate tried to get a book destroyed by threatening an author with legal action & if he hadn't been brave enough to stand up to them that book would have been destroyed even though it didn't infringe in any way.

Its not a 'great' book - its a fun, lightweight piece, with some interesting ideas scattered throughout it - but this guy wrote it, stayed within the law, & was threatened with being dragged through the courts unless he destroyed it.

[Mnemosyne]

So, does that mean I can publish my fan fiction in a for-profit venue? I mean, given what I've heard of this novel (and now that it's squeaked out clean, I should probably read it) it starts with the premise that Middle-earth, its races, and its history are all real, but doesn't use any of Tolkien's actual characters, except for the fictional Tolkien who translated the whole... I'll have to ditch a couple of side characters and side scenes, but otherwise I'm only stealing the races and the setting.

Or do I have to insert myself discovering the material evidence for the stories I've already written to make it squeak by the Estate?

[Nerwen]

So, does that mean I can publish my fan fiction in a for-profit venue? I mean, given what I've heard of this novel (and now that it's squeaked out clean, I should probably read it) it starts with the premise that Middle-earth, its races, and its history are all real, but doesn't use any of Tolkien's actual characters, except for the fictional Tolkien who translated the whole... I'll have to ditch a couple of side characters and side scenes, but otherwise I'm only stealing the races and the setting.

Or do I have to insert myself discovering the material evidence for the stories I've already written to make it squeak by the Estate?

I think– though I haven't read the book in question, so I'm not sure – that actually setting something in Middle-earth itself would be going a bit further than Stephen Hilliard did. Anyway, as this case never went to court we don't know who would've won– so I hardly think it sets a precedent.

On that note, Davem, it's not clear to me Hilliard "called the Estates's bluff" or "stood up to them" at all. Surely if that had been so, either they'd have gone on to sue each other as threatened, or the Estate would have backed off altogether? After all, if Hilliard and his publishers had wanted to put these disclaimers on the book, wouldn't they have done so to begin with?

[davem]

On that note, Davem, it's not clear to me Hilliard "called the Estates's bluff" or "stood up to them" at all. Surely if that had been so, either they'd have gone on to sue each other as threatened, or the Estate would have backed off altogether? After all, if Hilliard and his publishers had wanted to put these disclaimers on the book, wouldn't they have done so to begin with?

The Estate's demand was that the book be withdrawn, all copies destroyed & they threatened legal action against Hilliard if he didn't comply immediately. He counterfiled (or whatever the term is) & the result is that the book will remain available with a disclaimer (I don't see therefore how you can say that he didn't stand up to them).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/26/mirkwood-jrr-tolkien-legal-battle In a letter to Hillard, the estate's lawyers, Manches, said: "At no time have our clients granted permission to use the name and personality of JRR Tolkien in the novel, nor would they in any foreseeable circumstances." It claims "unlawful commercial advantage" has been taken of the estate's "valuable rights", and argues that Hillard's book "trivialises the name, personality and reputation of the late professor".....The Tolkien estate is headed by the author's son, Christopher, as literary executor. Its lawyer, Steven Maier, said: "I can't comment on the present case in too much detail … However, the Tolkien estate will always take action to protect its intellectual property rights.

I think the fact that the novel will remain available indicates very clearly which side 'won' & which side 'lost'. If the Estate really believed they could have won they would have continued with the action - the novel itself has not been changed in any way, yet that was the issue. If Hilliard hadn't stood up to them & backed down his novel would not be available & every copy destroyed. He did stand up to them & his novel is still around. The Estate didn't get what they wanted. It also seems like the Estate not giving "permission to use the name and personality of JRR Tolkien in the novel, nor would they in any foreseeable circumstances" had nothing to do with the price of fish (as we say in the Shire).

[Nerwen]

Well, davem, you may see it in terms of "winning" and "losing"– even though, as I already pointed out, no actual court case took place– but it looks to me like they reached a compromise– which is what settling out of court means, after all.

Really, I don't see what there is for you to get so excited about. But then, hey, I never do.;)

[Nerwen]

I just believe it's a trifle premature to erect any statues to Hilliard the Great, Defender of Free Speech. You are talking as though there had actually been a dramatic court case, ending in a landmark victory for Stephen Hilliard on behalf of creators of derivative works everywhere. This did not occur.

What has likely happened here is that both sides were sort of testing the boundaries, and in the end neither felt confident enough to hold their ground. (Or possibly some of it was for show, anyway.) So while this dispute may have been settled, I don't see that it helps much to resolve any of the murkier questions around copyright.

[davem]

What has likely happened here is that both sides were sort of testing the boundaries, and in the end neither felt confident enough to hold their ground. (Or possibly some of it was for show, anyway.) So while this dispute may have been settled, I don't see that it helps much to resolve any of the murkier questions around copyright.

Reading between the lines of this statement by Hilliard http://www.prlog.org/11478976-new-details-on-tolkien-settlement.html it seems he thinks he won:

“In the Mirkwood story, certain forces resorted unsuccessfully to lawyers to try to banish the tale. I am happy to report that this is a case of life mirroring fiction”, says Hillard.

If this is 'life mirroring fiction' then it seems Hilliard won this one - the lawyers in the book, as 'mirrored by life' were 'unsuccessful'. And he also notes:

"A sequel, which explores the fate of Tolkien's unfinished works, is planned for publication in 2012."

So, more of the same next year. Don't know why you say neither side felt confident of victory - as I said, the Estate demanded the book be destroyed but in the end it is still around, &

The only changes to the book are a modest font size adjustment on the front cover and a one-line disclaimer on the back cover. HIllard added, "There are no changes to the text of the book. This vindicates the right of the public to read fictional treatments of public figures,

When we read terms like 'unsuccessful' & 'vindicates' in this context, & that all that the Estate has gotten out of their demand that the book be destroyed because it infringed their 'ownership rights' is "a modest font size adjustment on the front cover and a one-line disclaimer on the back cover" then I can't see how its possible to claim neither side won here.

[davem]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/317959

“When I began this publishing house, I had no idea that the question of whether one could libel the dead was still moot,” Ms Robinson comments about the recent, now settled, libel case lodged by the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien against Steve Hillard, the American author of fiction novel "Mirkwood" as reported in The Guardian.

“Coming from an academic background, I can attest that for those who research history, academic works are a mixture of fact and conjecture. Indeed, if we can no longer imagine how historical figures may have made the decisions they made during their lifetimes or delve into the aspects (both good and bad) of their lives, then history as a discipline is dead,” she states.

The Tolkien case has been of particular interest to the managing director of Knox Robinson Publishing as the ruling had the potential to set a precedent for or against an author’s rights to create fictional works involving real people and the powers of an estate to control the use of names and reputations in works of fiction or even historical accounts. And although the case has now been settled, the door to litigation has been opened and more cases could follow. Several of the titles Knox Robinson intends to release this year contain fictionalizations of actual historical figures....

“Historical fiction is not just another form of personal expression; the genre offers a perspective on the past that academic or even popular history cannot provide. Fictional representations can breathe life into the past and foster an organic link with the present through a common language. Historical memory in societies past was maintained through story-telling, a recognizable and easily understood medium that helped give meaning to existence as well as entertained. To inhibit or suppress the creation of fictionalized accounts of persons or events, whether past or present, would undermine an age-old form of human expression and close the door to a valuable means to interpreting life. Had the Tolkien estate succeeded in suppressing the fictional variant of the paterfamilias, it would have opened the door to further interference in the free exchange of ideas and images in the literary world. It would have been especially threatening to the growing industry of historical fiction, since authors would be hesitant to create works that might be subject to litigation.”

Mary Anne Lane is also an author at Knox Robinson and her book "Blood Banner", the first book in a trilogy on the Landsknechts, is scheduled for release in December. She agrees with Ostryzniuk’s assessment. “Not being able to use people from history in books would damage the world of literature because recent history could not be written,” she comments. “No war films could be made, nor books written about it. No cowboy films could be shown, no courtroom dramas. That means no 'They Died With Their Boots On', no 'Inherit the Wind', no 'Valkyrie'.”

Worth contemplating how dangerous a victory for the Tolkien Estate could have been. This was much bigger than whether an author could write a novel with Tolkien as one of the characters. The damage that could have resulted (for authors of both fictional & non-fictional works) could have been extreme.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I don't suppose that Christopher Tolkien, or any other trustee of the Tolkien Estate, actually reads everything that mentions even his own name, let alone JRRT's. The trustees leave that to the Estate's legal representatives (Manches of Oxford (http://www.manches.com), I believe), whose advice I expect they follow in most cases.

Now, the basis of davem's annoyance seems to be that the Tolkien Estate can and does rigidly control the production and dissemination of all material by and closely related to J.R.R. Tolkien, including his image, languages and, apparently, favourite typefaces. I can't really blame them for wanting to do this, and to be honest I can't really fault the law for allowing them to do so. The point of libel laws is to prevent people from disseminating false written reports of our personalities and conduct, and the Tolkien estate is trying, by controlling the use of Tolkien's image, to maintain that protection for JRRT posthumously as I should like to do for my own family. It shouldn't be enough to transplant the false report into a loosely fictional environment and claim artistic freedom. As for controlling the use of material produced by JRRT, well that's nice and simple. JRRT isn't around to exercise that control, but the copyright still exists, legally in the hands of his heirs and successors. If there were no protection of copyright, publishers could simply take manuscripts they were sent, print them commercially and keep all of the profits. The authors would have to be content to see their names in print, while somebody else made a fortune from their work. In fact, it was something of this nature that started the whole Tolkien legal odyssey in the first place: I'm sure we've all heard of Ace Paperbacks. The basic principle seems to be that the Estate doesn't want to see people making money out of JRRT's name, image and ideas unless they get a cut of the profits and the project is one that they consider appropriate. If that means that I don't see (for whatever unfathomable reason) the verse Beowulf, then at least it also means that I won't have to read about a fist-fight in Balliol Quad between Tolkien and F.R. Leavis or Tolkien as the leader of an underground fascist group. Robot Tolkien would, I'm sure, be a great loss to us all, but I scarcely think that Manches are going to trouble themselves with him.

Since this work is to be published in the United States, U.S. law will apply rather than British, which I suppose is good news for those who like their literary criticism to be fictionalised. The Tolkien Estate would have far greater powers to prevent me from publishing works including Tolkien as a character. I'm not sure that I'd be happy doing that anyway: I didn't know him, and a fictonalised version of someone runs too great a risk of creating a new and inaccurate public perception of that person. Perhaps that is why the Estate is so keen to suppress such a use of JRRT, although I notice that the publication of Here There Be Dragons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here,_There_Be_Dragons) has gone ahead without their interference, and that a film is planned.

As for blurring the lines between fiction and reality, literary criticism and literature itself, well it's all a bit too much like playing to the gallery for my liking. There's nothing particularly groundbreaking in it - Tolkien's relative paucity of female characters was the subject of many early negative reviews, and I'm sure we must be into post-post-modernism at least by now. Such an approach runs the risk of creating poor criticism that is also dull literature, and failing to please even its own tiny target audience. Perhaps without the controversy of an attempted ban we'd be looking at yet another forgettable book in a long tradition of forgettable books.

[Anguirel]

If that means that I don't see (for whatever unfathomable reason) the verse Beowulf, then at least it also means that I won't have to read about a fist-fight in Balliol Quad between Tolkien and F.R. Leavis or Tolkien as the leader of an underground fascist group.

... although I notice that the publication of Here There Be Dragons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here,_There_Be_Dragons) has gone ahead without their interference, and that a film is planned.



Well, I would very much like to read about that fist-fight, although I reckon William Empson would definitely have emerged victorious...

I'd never heard of the work you just cited; have wikied, and it looks quite similar to this Mirkwood thing, but plus better book jokes and King Arthur; is it worth a look?

[davem]

Now, the basis of davem's annoyance seems to be that the Tolkien Estate can and does rigidly control the production and dissemination of all material by and closely related to J.R.R. Tolkien, including his image, languages and, apparently, favourite typefaces. I can't really blame them for wanting to do this, and to be honest I can't really fault the law for allowing them to do so.

Not really - what the Estate were attempting to do was prevent the use of a historical figure (JRR Tolkien) in a fictional work. If that is not to be allowed then you effectively end both historical fiction which uses real people as characters (ie everything from WWII novels which depict Churchill or a recent Doctor Who episode which featured Richard Nixon, & the like, would not be legal) or even non fiction works like Carpenter's Inklings & the invented 'typical' Inkilings meeting in the chapter Thursday Nights. You wouldn't be able to use any historical figure without the permission of their Estate.


The point of libel laws is to prevent people from disseminating false written reports of our personalities and conduct, and the Tolkien estate is trying, by controlling the use of Tolkien's image, to maintain that protection for JRRT posthumously as I should like to do for my own family.

But you can't libel the dead. And the Estate is not attempting to use libel, but 'copyright' - which doesn't (& never has) applied to a dead individual's personality or character. And whether or not you would 'like' to maintain such protection for your own family, legally you don't have that right.


It shouldn't be enough to transplant the false report into a loosely fictional environment and claim artistic freedom.

But legally it is enough.


The basic principle seems to be that the Estate doesn't want to see people making money out of JRRT's name, image and ideas unless they get a cut of the profits and the project is one that they consider appropriate.

Would you apply that same principle to the Estates of individuals you didn't like - should the heirs of Richard Nixon, Saddam Hussain or Myra Hindley have the right to prevent them being depicted in drama/drama-docs in ways that they didn't like?


I didn't know him, and a fictonalised version of someone runs too great a risk of creating a new and inaccurate public perception of that person. Perhaps that is why the Estate is so keen to suppress such a use of JRRT,

But again, you're missing the point - its not about what the Estate is keen to do, or what they'd like - its about the law & their rights under copyright. They don't have the right to demand what they did.

As for blurring the lines between fiction and reality, literary criticism and literature itself, ..... Such an approach runs the risk of creating poor criticism that is also dull literature, and failing to please even its own tiny target audience. Perhaps without the controversy of an attempted ban we'd be looking at yet another forgettable book in a long tradition of forgettable books.

Again, this is not about 'running risks' - & if it was I'd say the risks of such a 'ban' on the use of historical figures in fiction/Lit crit are infinitely greater - its about what's legal & what isn't. The Estate simply don't have the rights they were claiming - & nor should they. Set aside the fact that this is about JRRT - this is very simple - should a writer be able to use historical figures in fiction or not? If you oppose JRRT being used as a character in this book you ought equally to oppose any work of fiction - book/movie/TV series - which depicts historical figures.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I'd never heard of the work you just cited; have wikied, and it looks quite similar to this Mirkwood thing, but plus better book jokes and King Arthur; is it worth a look?

I have no idea, never having read it. Having read that synopsis, though, I expect that I will eventually.

[davem]

Perhaps the reason the Estate went for MirkWood & not 'Here there be Dragons' is that Mirkwood was self published & HTBD is published by Simon & Schuster (owned by CBS & one of the biggest publishers in the world). I suspect they knew S&S would stand up to them but expected Hillard to back down.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Would you apply that same principle to the Estates of individuals you didn't like - should the heirs of Richard Nixon, Saddam Hussain or Myra Hindley have the right to prevent them being depicted in drama/drama-docs in ways that they didn't like?

Technically I can neither like or dislike any of those people, since I've never met them. Whether I approve of them or not doesn't change my distaste for misleading historical fiction about them. It would be easy, for example, to write a story in which Myra Hindley explains why she committed her crimes. It would be easy to have Saddam Hussein be forced to explain himself to the family of a murdered political dissident, but in the end those stories would have no real value, because they would reflect what the author would like those people to be, or wants the audience to think they were, rather than reality; whilst giving the appearance of reality by the use of real names and personas. Reality is always more challenging, and ultimately more beneficial to the observer, which is why the best historical fiction avoids painting too detailed a picture of any real figure. Even the Flashman books, which are deliberately outrageous, are based on solid research into all of the events and (long dead) characters portrayed, not just what George Macdonald Frazer thought would suit his purpose. If you use real people and events in a story you have a duty to them not to show them doing and saying things that they would never have done or said - you can't have Cecil Rhodes condemning imperialism, for example, or Richard the Lionheart extolling the virtues of England. One of the great advantages of history is that the events of the past have no overriding purpose or message; the facts seldom support any one view, and they make no account of sensibility or taste. The very nature of fictional writing ensures that it embodies one person's beliefs and opinions, and the very events bear out those opinions. To present the latter as the former is to present the author's opinions as historical reality, which is profoundly dishonest.

Not really - what the Estate were attempting to do was prevent the use of a historical figure (JRR Tolkien) in a fictional work. If that is not to be allowed then you effectively end both historical fiction which uses real people as characters (ie everything from WWII novels which depict Churchill or a recent Doctor Who episode which featured Richard Nixon, & the like, would not be legal) or even non fiction works like Carpenter's Inklings & the invented 'typical' Inkilings meeting in the chapter Thursday Nights. You wouldn't be able to use any historical figure without the permission of their Estate

The typical Inklings meeting was drawn from the actual words of the participants, drawn from their letters, diaries and other writings. Its purpose was to show what it might have been like at an Inklings meeting, not as a critique of the Inklings or how Humphrey Carpenter thought an Inklings meeting should have been conducted. It was therefore at worst a very well-researched and objective piece of historical fiction. There was nothing in it that could possibly offend the estates of the people involved unless they were offended by what their ancestors had actually said, which would be tough luck for them really. The purpose of Mirkwood is manifestly different. I can see why Tolkien's estate would like to stop its publication, and personally I can't understand why a literary critique can't be written and published as such. I doubt that the wider implications had occurred to them, to be quite honest; although some sort of standard for the presentation of reality in fiction ought to exist. In short, you can't libel the dead, but perhaps I'd have to read and watch a lot less drivel if you could.

Perhaps the reason the Estate went for MirkWood & not 'Here there be Dragons' is that Mirkwood was self published & HTBD is published by Simon & Schuster (owned by CBS & one of the biggest publishers in the world). I suspect they knew S&S would stand up to them but expected Hillard to back down.

Perhaps they liked Here There Be Dragons, but thought that Mirkwood was awful. I suspect you may be right, though. I can't blame them for trying, because I can't imagine that they would object to something sympathetic and this wasn't after all a factual account of Tolkien, but the product of a mind that had never known him personally. I'd feel differently if the Estate had tried to suppress embarrassing revelations about JRRT or, indeed, anyone else.

[davem]

It would be easy, for example, to write a story in which Myra Hindley explains why she committed her crimes. It would be easy to have Saddam Hussein be forced to explain himself to the family of a murdered political dissident, but in the end those stories would have no real value, because they would reflect what the author would like those people to be, or wants the audience to think they were, rather than reality; whilst giving the appearance of reality by the use of real names and personas. Reality is always more challenging, and ultimately more beneficial to the observer, which is why the best historical fiction avoids painting too detailed a picture of any real figure.

But should an author be banned from writing such stories - or punished if they do? Should the author of such fiction be dragged through the courts & risk losing their livelihoods & made bankrupt for such 'presumption'? Define 'reality' - & prove that it is more 'beneficial' (in fact, define 'beneficial' in this context...) Where I disagree with you is here is that you seem to want to restrict BY LAW! what an individual can do with his culture, what use he can make of the people who preceded him. Are you really saying that the story of the real 5th century warlord on whom King Arthur is ultimately based is actually more beneficial than what Malory or the Gawain poet made of it? Should Malory have been forbidden to write the Morte d'Arthur because it was not historically acurate? Or was it permissible because Malory wove the 'real' Arthur into a 'romance'? And then why not the weaving of the real Tolkien into a romance?


you can't have Cecil Rhodes condemning imperialism, for example, or Richard the Lionheart extolling the virtues of England. One of the great advantages of history is that the events of the past have no overriding purpose or message; the facts seldom support any one view, and they make no account of sensibility or taste. The very nature of fictional writing ensures that it embodies one person's beliefs and opinions, and the very events bear out those opinions. To present the latter as the former is to present the author's opinions as historical reality, which is profoundly dishonest.

Yes - you absolutely can! And why should you not? If you make clear that you are weaving a fantasy & that you are not presenting the 'truth' - which Hillard clearly does. You seem to want to hog tie, to cripple the human imagination. Why should not Tolkien be a character in a fantasy. Copyright only prevents you reproducing his works, it does not, & should not, prevent you writing a fantasy about him flying to New York, or playing with the conceit that he didn't invent Middle-earth but merely translated the stories in the Red Book. Mirkwood is a fantasy novel which plays around with that conceit.

The purpose of Mirkwood is manifestly different.

Yes - its a fantasy novel.


I can see why Tolkien's estate would like to stop its publication, and personally I can't understand why a literary critique can't be written and published as such. I doubt that the wider implications had occurred to them, to be quite honest; although some sort of standard for the presentation of reality in fiction ought to exist.
Perhaps the Government could set up a committee to determine what authors can & cannot write. Artists are too dangerous & certainly too bloody cocky to be allowed to write what they want. Apparently there are people out there publishing books full of stuff they've just made up!


Perhaps they liked Here There Be Dragons, but thought that Mirkwood was awful. I suspect you may be right, though. I can't blame them for trying, because I can't imagine that they would object to something sympathetic and this wasn't after all a factual account of Tolkien, but the product of a mind that had never known him personally.

I can blame them. This would have been the thin end of a very nasty wedge. It wouldn't simply have prevented any unauthorised depiction of historical figures, it would also have put the kibosh on speculation about them & their motives. It would effectively hand total control of the person & character of a historical figure over to that person's estate & while that might prevent the individual being exploited or 'misrepresented' by an author, it would effectively mean that the individual could only be depicted in the way his/her estate approved of - if the estate 'own' the person & character they could even prevent factual depictions of the individual if they didn't approve of those facts or want them made public - which is effectively what has happened with Wheelbarrows at Dawn - they've used copyright to prevent facts being published.

[Anguirel]

Squatter, as ever supremely enjoyable prose, but it raises for me some questions about what you enjoy (feel free to regard them as impertinent):

are you pro-Sir Walter Scott? A pretty marginalised writer now but nonetheless I think a great one, whose admirers (Eliot, Tolstoy etc) more than make up for any quantity of present denigration. Of course, though, he is a serial violator of history, a prince of anachronism, a high priest of misconception

(so is Shak, but he's a) too obvious b) so famously hated by Tolk that I always feel awkward mentioning him outside the role playing forums)

I can't agree with your definition of fiction, which sounds more like propaganda. Good fiction shouldn't be agenda-led, should have little to do, primarily, with beliefs and opinions; it should be more to do with the desire to perform a skill; pleasing others, not yourself; and only pleasing yourself when you trust yourself to please others.

It's a frequent and I think really damaging fallacy that all good historical fiction is making the same claim to truth as good history. Shakespeare productions (argh I did it again, it slips out) set in 1930s Sicily aren't necessarily making a historical, so much as an aesthetic and artistic point, and a lot of historical fiction is like that, too. It doesn't mean it's all no-good lies; we've developed a little from Plato, despite what Professor Kirke says in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe; just far enough, even, to guess Plato might have been joking?

Finally, I'm interested by your stress on the importance of knowing Tolkien personally; does this mean you think the Estate loses its main card in a generation or so? (Of course this would be supported legally; I think books go out of copyright after, what is it, 65 years?)

Basically, I'm with davem in that I hate the idea of anyone hedging the freedom of the historical novel about with clearly defined rules. In fact I get more exercised about it as I think about it. We really shouldn't have super-injunctions on the past. That would be unutterably bad. It's bad enough that the Max Moseley ruling means very rich people can pulp stuff they think is written about them in the present (this recently happened to a novel by Rachel Cusk)

I ought to add that I have started to think of this little discussion as "davem at it again"...

[davem]

Seems to me some people have this Tolkien shaped blindspot as far as this discussion goes. Its being seen as a case of the Tolkien Estate (Good Guys) defending JRR Tolkien (Good Guy), & therefore 'real' fans ought to align themselves with them against their 'foes' - whether that's the authors of the Hilary Tolkien biography & Stephen Hillard (Bad Guys). To oppose the Estate & object to their behaviour in these cases is seen almost as a 'betrayal' of Tolkien himself (I suspect that's certainly Garm's position reading his comments). One ought not to even question the behaviour/choices of the Estate because they simply cannot be wrong due to their connection with JRR Tolkien.

This is not about whether JRR Tolkien should be used as a character in a fantasy novel. Its about whether a writer of historical fiction should be free to use historical persons in their fiction. Or whether in a non-fiction work its acceptable to speculate on an individual's actions/motivations & play 'what -if'. To argue that they should not (because you can't write a law purely to protect JRR Tolkien from being used in such a way - its everyone or no-one who get's that protection) would put an end to most historical fiction, much biography, & would in effect turn a real once living, breathing person into a commodity. And that in effect is what the Estate is attempting here - to reduce JRR Tolken to a product which they own & can sell on or withhold.

So, you don't like JRRT being presented in such a way, turned into a character - fine - as long as you take the same position regarding every other work of historical fiction which uses real people as characters. If you support the Estate in this then get rid of your Malory, your Shakespeare, your Tolstoy, your Titanic DVD (& your Doctor Who DVDs too), your King's Speech, Lawrence of Arabia, Frost/Nixon & All the President's Men - well, you get the point.

[Morthoron]

I wonder if other famous dead people can be trademarked. I would imagine if you chose the right corpse, it could be very profitable. Like Elvis, or Marilyn Monroe. Maybe even Shakespeare.

[blantyr]

I wonder if other famous dead people can be trademarked. I would imagine if you chose the right corpse, it could be very profitable. Like Elvis, or Marilyn Monroe. Maybe even Shakespeare.

Just as an illustration that the above is done, the Associated Press reports Lisa Marie Presley selling Elvis estate (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6725704/ns/today-entertainment/t/lisa-marie-presleyselling-elvis-estate/)... for about $100,000,000.

The heirs of a famous person do get control of the "name and image" to some extent. There is a new profession of being an agent for dead people, helping the heirs or estate profit off the heritage of the deceased. I don't know all the details, and it likely changes from country to country, but for some dead people a lot of money is involved.

[davem]

Bit by bit every element of our culture is being taken into private hands - even our shared history, which is effectively an attempt to stake a claim to our memories & what has made us what we are. History could then be re-written to suit the owners of the Copyright on it.

Still, as long as it stops some obscure Texan author being able to put JRR Tolkien in a novel that a few hundred people will read its worth it.....

(Puts on Helen Lovejoy voice: 'Won't somebody pleeease think of the Tolkien children!")

[Bêthberry]

If I were the Estate, I would be more inclined to take a good look at this:

filming Mordor in the tar sands (https://www.facebook.com/stopmordor)

and this

a blog on the tar sands project using Jackson and Tolkien (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgn4E_Rl5WM&feature=share)

which were outed as hoaxes on an Alberta newspaper:

One hoax to bind them (http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/05/30/hoax-to-bind-them-all)

If I were Jackson I might also take a good look at how my name and stature is being used in someone else's political satire.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

The hoax is related to filming, which means that it's the studio's problem and nothing to do with Tolkien's estate. The only thing that worries me is that Peter Jackson might decide that Mordor would make a really good setting for three hours of completely new story (replacing extraneous rubbish like the conversation with Smaug) and that Alberta is the perfect place to shoot it.

As for the wider implications of the Estate's activities, I can admit to being completely wrong about their enforcement of the use of Tolkien's image and identity in fiction. I overreact occasionally to what look like attacks on Christopher Tolkien when the Tolkien Estate does something draconian. I dislike the conflation of Christopher Tolkien, the Tolkien Estate and the Estate's legal representatives, and I don't like the idea that the Estate aren't entitled to defend their rights against even their fans just because we buy the product. I'll admit, though, that I've been concerned by several of the Estate's activities of late, particularly in the suppression of Wheelbarrows at Dawn (which I can't imagine said anything damaging about anyone) and the assault on the Tolkien Society a few years back over the use of the Tolkien name. I am concerned that the Estate is making enemies of people who should rightly be its friends and its reasoning looks increasingly shaky. In the absence of further information, though, I shan't be blaming any one person.

As for the wider area of the use of factual people and events in fiction, I still hold that we ought to have progressed somewhat since Shakespeare's day. He did not have the artistic freedom to say what he liked, even if it was true; and I suspect that he would have said whatever pleased Queen Elizabeth anyway. Somebody has be a writer's patron. I object to people altering history for the sake of a good story, whilst still presenting the good story as history. That leads to all the dearly held national myths that keep people fighting wars five-hundred years after the original disagreement - which was like as not about who owned an egg. Shakespeare is only the worst offender in the English literary pantheon, followed no less ably by Scott and many, many others.

I'll address a couple of the examples, because I love to derail conversations by concentrating on minutiae. I'm sure that we're all in agreement that King Arthur isn't a real person. A mythological conflation of five or more different people is not an historical figure, and by the time Malory got his hands on him, such luminaries as Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien de Troyes had already removed what little personality was left and replaced the man with an ideal. In fact, Malory invents surprisingly little of the modern Arthur myth, being content to retell the story he was told, which had already been exported from Wales to France and thence to England and everywhere else. Even if somehow one could trace all the threads of Arthur back past Gildas and into real history, there wouldn't be one man, but several, one of whom may have been called something that can be rendered in Latin as Artorius. I once even read a serious argument that Arthur was Cerdic. I'd say that's fair game; indeed, I'd say that's an invitation to imagine.

The King's Speech - a very enjoyable film - suffered to my mind from its incomprehensible character assassination of Archbishop Lang. The villain of the film was obviously George VI's speech impediment, with the Austrian bogeyman waiting in the wings, so there was no need to make one out of a man who built his clerical career on work in deprived inner cities. Titanic, the value of which resides solely in its reconstruction of the ship, repeated a myth that J. Bruce Ismay gave orders that caused the entire disaster, when contemporary inquests hostile to him proved no such thing. These instances perpetuate the myth that everything is the fault of one bad person who has something to gain, or that a hero will come along and save us from the bad people. If only either of those things were true.

I can't agree with your definition of fiction, which sounds more like propaganda. Good fiction shouldn't be agenda-led, should have little to do, primarily, with beliefs and opinions; it should be more to do with the desire to perform a skill; pleasing others, not yourself; and only pleasing yourself when you trust yourself to please others

I said that writing embodies the views of its writers, not that it's always intended to promote an agenda. Tolkien wrote books that embody a Christian world view, but he wasn't pursuing an agenda. Writing sympathetic character who embodies all that we dislike is, for example, not easy. It's even harder to write a wise character who gainsays plausibly our own deeply held beliefs, or to write an outcome that we consider implausible. It is impossible to escape from our beliefs and presuppositions about the nature of the universe and humanity's place therein, hence writers embody their outlook in their work even when they don't mean to do so.

And that's all I have time for this evening. I may be back to say more later.

[davem]

I dislike the conflation of Christopher Tolkien, the Tolkien Estate and the Estate's legal representatives, and I don't like the idea that the Estate aren't entitled to defend their rights against even their fans just because we buy the product. I'll admit, though, that I've been concerned by several of the Estate's activities of late, particularly in the suppression of Wheelbarrows at Dawn (which I can't imagine said anything damaging about anyone) and the assault on the Tolkien Society a few years back over the use of the Tolkien name. I am concerned that the Estate is making enemies of people who should rightly be its friends and its reasoning looks increasingly shaky. In the absence of further information, though, I shan't be blaming any one person.

But Christopher (+ Adam) effectively are the Estate. Unless you're arguing that Manches are basically doing what they like & acting without any authority then you have to accept that Christopher + Adam k now & approve of their actions. If we were talking about one incident I could put this down to over zealous lawyers (are there any other kind?). However, we're not simply talking about one incident. There was the Tolkien Society thing you mention, Wheelbarrows at Dawn (a mis use of the spirit of Copyright Law because a privacy law was not available (nor should a privacy law cover incidents that happened nearly a century ago - especially considering all parties concerned are long dead). This attempt to prevent publication of a fantasy novel which uses Tolkien as a character but clearly states that its all pretend & that the author is exploring the Translator Conceit which Tolkien himself came up with - is pushing the idea of 'copyright' way beyond the legal definition (& as lawyers they should have know that - they probably did but thought Hilliard would back down) The incident over the (non-profit making) children's summer camp is fairly contemptible as far as I'm concerned.

I object to people altering history for the sake of a good story, whilst still presenting the good story as history. That leads to all the dearly held national myths that keep people fighting wars five-hundred years after the original disagreement - which was like as not about who owned an egg. Shakespeare is only the worst offender in the English literary pantheon, followed no less ably by Scott and many, many others.

But what would you do to stop it? Braveheart (or that American movie from a few years back that showed the yanks capturing the Enigma machine) & the like are certainly annoying, but what't the alternative? Do you have the government dictating THE FACTS, & banning historical fiction? And would you trust them to do it? I heard a few years back that in US state schools children were being taught in history lessons that the Irish potato famine was caused by the British in a deliberate act of genocide. History is written by the winners (& other cliches....) Do you want censorship (even of fiction - in fact you'd finish off the genre of historical fiction at one fell swoop as no-one would be able to make anything up. In fact why stop there - why not get rid of the other annoying genre, SF - all that stuff about faster than light travel & alien civilisations - where's the evidence for them?)
[/QUOTE]

The human imagination works through stories & all stories are ultimately 'what-ifs'. You talk as if history was all hard facts that no-one disputed & that could be set out fair & square. Going back to Shakespeare & taking Richard III as an example. Everyone with an iota of common sense knows that Richard was a good king, decent bloke (for the time he lived) & nothing like the monster created by Shakespeare. However, there are still historians who will argue that he was pretty much as bad as Shakespeare presented him (Desmond Seward & Michael Hicks spring to mind). Of course, as we get closer to the present there is (usually) less dispute, but ....And of course, whatever Richard was really like Richard III is a work of genius & 'true', even if not factual (a vital distinction, IMO).

What Hilliard does in Mirkwood is take the Translator Conceit & the lack of central female characters in LotR & play around. There's no harm in it. Its a bit silly in parts, very silly in other parts & frankly dumb here & there. As I've stated, its a pot boiler. Its fun & carries you along. I wouldn't read it again, but if I can get the sequel for a couple of quid on the Kindle I'll probably buy it just to see what happens next.

[Alfirin]

An example I am fond of of "History must be the way we said it was". A few years ago, one of the documentary shows did a program where the reconstuced the actual appearance of historical individuals from thier death masks. One of the individuals they did was Abraham Lincoln. Since the reconstructions were being done in a very good computer, the show people decied to take advantage of that and also show something that no one had probably seen since Lincoln's death; what he looked like similing. As they pointed out, the somber faced Lincoln that most people grew up with was mostly a result of how long it too to take a photo back when he lived, and what a serios business photo's were considered. The histroical record point out that Lincoln was in fact famous for his jokes and wit (it was a big part of his appeal). When I went to read online assesments of the progam (including some by fairly well established historians) you'd be surprised how many took offense at thier doing so, saying that showing Lincoln smiling was "an insult to his dignity of image".
Honestly, sometimes I fear literature is going to end up the way Ray Bradbury predicted (not in the way he imagined it in Farenheight 451 the way he imagined it in some of his other stories, like "Usher II" in The Martian Chronicles) one where only the most objective form of reality is permitted and imagination and fantasy are effectively banned.

[Bêthberry]

The hoax is related to filming, which means that it's the studio's problem and nothing to do with Tolkien's estate. The only thing that worries me is that Peter Jackson might decide that Mordor would make a really good setting for three hours of completely new story (replacing extraneous rubbish like the conversation with Smaug) and that Alberta is the perfect place to shoot it.

Imagine him having to place an acknowledgement to the hoxers in the credits for helping him find Mordor. :eek: :rolleyes:

However, this development by the hoaxers does not appear to be based so entirely on the film, as none of the characters in the photo look like the film characters. Is this appropriating Tolkien for their own political agenda?

tar and feathering Tolkien (http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/rabble-staff/2011/06/one-hoax-rule-them-all-hobbit-movie-tar-sands-hoax-revealed)

I'm trying to understand how this political satire using Mordor is acceptable but the Calgary children's summer camp use of Rivendell is not.

[Boromir88]

Agree or disagree with the Estate's course of action there really is no need to paint the dispute into terms of good people vs. bad people, or winners and losers.

I will not buy or support Dan Brown's books, but can't put my opinion any better than Sardy:
I agree 100% that no book should ever be censored because of the beliefs, prejudices, sensibilities, perceived offense or even hurt feelings of any person or group.
I will let my money determine what I like reading, not any person, or group of persons, trying to use the legal system to stop publication of fiction. Funny enough, the Estate may have caused more attention on Hilliard's book with the threat of a lawsuit than if they simply just ignored it.

If I recall correctly, Dan Brown also has some sort of disclaimer on his books about being historical fiction and not meant to be taken as historical fact in any way.

Now onto Hilliard = winner, Estate lost! Eh, lawsuits typically start at the most extreme and severe charges as possible. That is the nature of lawsuits, trump up and tack on whatever case you can then let the lawyers reach a settlement. I can't speak for the Estate, but I can't see how it was reasonably believed they'd succeed in the "cease and desist" order. You design lawsuits to punch however hard you can, because most of them end with some sort of compromise and neither party getting all their demands. Same way with criminal charges, the reason you charge someone with a felony such a perjury, along with a misdemeanor like "misleading a federal investigation" is if the perjury charge is dismissed, the misdemeanor charge is much easier to prove and likely returned guilty.

In this case the Estate threatened severe action. It appears both parties' lawyers met, settled, and reached a compromise to add a disclaimer. I doubt either party got exactly what they wanted, but they were both happy enough with the settlement to no longer pursue court action. Anyway, that's the nature of lawsuits, you fire out however hard you can and then *hopefully* reach a suitable agreement by all parties. There's no reason to stand up and proclaim any great victory or that the Estate will (and should) stop trying to be such lawsuit-happy bandersnatches.

[davem]

In this case the Estate threatened severe action. It appears both parties' lawyers met, settled, and reached a compromise to add a disclaimer. I doubt either party got exactly what they wanted, but they were both happy enough with the settlement to no longer pursue court action. Anyway, that's the nature of lawsuits, you fire out however hard you can and then *hopefully* reach a suitable agreement by all parties. There's no reason to stand up and proclaim any great victory or that the Estate will (and should) stop trying to be such lawsuit-happy bandersnatches.

Not exactly - what you're talking about is a situation where someone is charged & taken to court on criminal charges. This was a civil case where the Estate threatened to take Hillard to if he didn't withdraw his book & destroy all copies (I can't recall whether they asked for damages too). In this case he counter filed & effectively said 'Come & have a go, if you think you're hard enough'. At which point the Estate responded 'Er.....OK, tell you what ..just change the cover font a bit & put a line on the back cover saying the book isn't authorised, &, er, we'll say no more about it...'

Seems like the Estate expected the same response from Hillard as they got from the publishers of Wheelbarrows at Dawn & the owners of the children's camp - that he would just back down & do as he was told.

Simply put, - 1)I demand you pay me a million dollars or I'll drag you through the courts & bring down the whole weight of the Justice system on your head, 2) You refuse & tell me in no uncertain terms that you ain't paying a penny 3) We get together & have a 'discussion' & come to an agreement that you'll hand over $5.

Now, you could argue that we've come to a 'compromise' & there are no 'winners', but I don't know how many people would be convinced by that. Most of the reports I've read are of the opinion that if it had come to court the Estate would have lost as copyright simply doesn't cover the person & character of a dead individual, only their works. Its also highly questionable whether the Estate would have won the Camp Rivendell case, & I reckon that a decent lawyer could have won the case for Wheelbarrows at Dawn too. And perhaps if the Tolkien family don't agree with the actions Manches are taking they should look for new lawyers to represent them.

[davem]

http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/

John Rateliff on a recent documentary about Tolkien by Joseph Pearce.

It's not the facts but the interpretation where this piece falls down for me. The argument is not just that Tolkien is a Catholic writer -- a self-evident truth -- but that a Cathl0centric point of view is the only valid one through which to interpret his work. To try to build his case, Pearce resorts to heavy allegorization of the evidence. Thus he asserts that "Tolkien's Melkor is merely another name for Satan" and "merely different words for the same thing: Melkor IS Satan". The Lord of the Ring himself is "Sauron, the greatest of Satan's servants"..... one long scene (some fifteen minutes, out of a total running time over only about an hour) dramatizes the famous walk in which Tolkien and Lewis debated whether myths cd convey truth, which ended in Tolkien's assertion that Xianity was the one true myth. While v. well done, it contains two fairly major distortions. It presents Tolkien as doing almost all the talking while Lewis listens attentively, offering up a few respectful questions from time to time. This bears no resemblance to any account of Lewis as a conversationalist I've ever seen. It also portrays this as a dialogue, completely omitting Hugo Dyson, the third participant in that debate -- and assuming Dyson (a devout Xian but deeply bigoted against the Catholic church) held his tongue and had no influence on Lewis's decision to rejoin the Anglican church rather than become Catholic upon his return to Xianity is an iffy proposition.

Those changes can be defended on the grounds of dramatic license (after all, we only have Tolkien's account of this meeting, which doesn't include any indication of what Dyson said). But the second is far more problematic. Pearce has the actor playing Tolkien** repeat a passage from a 1958 letter to Deborah Webster Rogers: "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic." But this is deeply deceptive, for the very next sentence goes on add "The latter 'fact' perhaps cannot be deduced". That is, Tolkien felt that his Xianity was obvious to an attentive reader but his Catholicism was not, and Pearce seems to be manipulating the evidence to hide this fact.


This is a 'documentary' & Pearce (a Catholic Priest) would certainly, hand on heart, tell you that he was only stating the 'facts' about Tolkien in this documentary. Rateliff disputes that - & he certainly demolishes Pearce's interpretation. In this scene referred to above it seems Pearce has taken words wrote in one context & has him saying them in another, he changes a three-way conversation to one in which Tolkien pontificates ;) & single-handedly brings Lewis back to the faith.

Is this acceptable? Anyone watching this 'documentary' could well take the events & interpretation contained as being 'factual', when clearly Pearce's intention is to strip Tolkien down to a CATHOLIC writer, who wrote Catholic stories which can only be appreciated when read as Catholic allegories (& probably only fully understood if the reader is a Catholic too - you certainly get that sense from reading Pearce's books on Tolkien).

So, is the 'documentary' any more acceptable than Hillard's novel? Both have Tolkien doing/saying things he never did (or distort things he did do & spin their meaning in Pearce's case). Yet Hillard (even before the Estate got involved) had included a clear statement that Mirkwood was a fantasy novel & that he was using Tolkien as a character, doing things he never did in real life. Pearce didn't make any such statement - because Hillard wants the reader to be under no illusion that the story they are reading is just that - a made up thing. Pearce, on the other hand is attempting to convince the viewer that his made up thing is not made up at all.