Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
Well, first of all, that is the case with other writers, so why should Tokien be exempt?
And actually, letters which do not directly pertain to the writing can often yield significant clues or examples or explanations about the writer and his (or her) time.
|
But where does one draw the line? Where does the public man leave off and the private one begin? Is every aspect of an "artist"'s life to be held up for examination for the sake of posterity, at the expense of making public potentially embarrassing details, especially when said artist has living immediate family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
After all, why did Carpenter print the letter which Tokien wrote to his son about women? It doesn't pertain directly to Tolkien's writing and is simply advice from a father to a son.
|
That letter was printed, yes. But Carpenter noted in
Letters that there was a gap in the early ones that were of a highly personal nature between Tolkien and Edith. Could this not be something similar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Now, I can't see there is any other option here - its either a petty act, callously destroying 3 years work for no other reason than that they don't want some perfectly harmless trivialities to be made public because they own the letters, or its because the material is something more 'significant' & they want to cover it up - which would be morally questionable, given they have gone out of their way to give us their own 'acceptable' version of JRRT.
|
I'd rather give CT and the Estate the benefit of the doubt. Since they
did authorise
Letters, I don't necessarily think they wanted to quash this book for no reason. And why would it be "morally questionable" for them to decide that a particular letter's coming to light did not serve any legitimate academic interest and disallow it? Who is in a better position, and has more right, to protect the privacy and reputation of a dead author than his family?