I've had a look at the few excerpts of the book available in the Amazon preview, and I have to agree with
Mith that the writing is crap - from the cliché of Tolkien's presumed spider phobia to my favourite failed metaphor, "a gulag of deepened liver spots" (infallibly picking the wrong foreign word which doesn't mean what he thinks it does; "archipelago" is what you were looking for, Mr Hillard - but I suppose you can blame Solshenitsyn for confusing you.
)
But this is beside the point, and I agree with
davem insofar as I'd prefer to have the chance to judge the worth or worthlessness of a book myself instead of having it preemptively pulped. What irks me most about the Estate's behaviour in this case is the argument that "the cover art and typefaces in 'Mirkwood' were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition", which is an obvious smoke screen. For those who haven't looked at the cover, it depicts a huge watercoloured tree and three tiny figures in the lower left corner which can, by their attributes of staff, bow and axe, be putatively identified as a wizard, elf and dwarf. If that's "unfair competition" for Tolkien's works, so are 90 % of generic fantasy since the 1970's, but I haven't yet heard of any legal action by the Estate against
The Sword of Shannara, which pilfered from Tolkien's works to a degree no halfways self-respecting author would dare to consider today.
Now if CT said outright, "I don't want my dad to be written about (and possibly misrepresented) as a character in somebody else's fiction", that's a different matter; it's still debatable in my opinion whether that should give him the right to have the book in question suppressed, but I can sympathize with his feelings. But to hide the issue behind a strawman argument like the one quoted above is undignified - actually, I feel it's an insult to us fans, presuming we can't tell the real thing from a cheap rip-off.