|
I know we've all absorbed the message that we should be grateful to Christopher Tolkien for making his father's unpublished writings available & obviously we've gained a massive amount through the work he's done. That said, it could equally be argued that he has been very restrictive in terms of what he has allowed to be published & over who has had access to it.
This really comes down to JRR Tolkien's status as a writer - was Tolkien simply another fantasy author, or should he be ranked alongside the literary giants of the 20th century? If, as I think, Tolkien was a major literary artist then there's a very big question mark over the way access to his archive is being restricted. Full access is unlikely to be granted for many years - if at all, given that much of it is in the form of manuscripts/letters/diaries in the possession of the family. Even when it is out of copyright it could still remain locked away in perpetuo. In other words, I'm beginning to have my doubts as to whether these documents will ever be bequeathed to the nation/a museum. If, as some individuals/organisations are pushing for, copyright is extended still further - some even wanting it extended indefinitely - then we could see even the documents in possession of others (as with these letters to Hilary Tolkien) never seeing the light of day.
If we had a situation where copyright ran in such a way, & an archive of unpublished personal papers/poems/plays by, say, Shakespeare was in the possession of one person, who only published what he wanted, when he wanted, in the form he wanted (with whatever excisions he decided on) & only allowed access to the rest of the archive to those he 'approved' of (whether these were the best/most informed/most competent individuals or not), & laid down draconian restrictions on what they could publish, & in some cases agreeing to permit publication & then changing his mind, how 'grateful' would we feel? Somewhat, given that without his authorisation we would have nothing at all, but also we'd be quite seriously miffed (imo) that the work of a literary artist of major significance was accessible only at the whim of this copyright holder.
To use copyright law in this way - to actually prevent an author discussing the relationship between two long dead brothers (with the full permission of the family of one of those brothers), when nothing intrusive or hurtful is involved, is pretty much beyond shocking - to the point that I'm starting to feel that any writer or academic that has to do with the Estate at the present time should seriously examine their consciences.
|