Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[Mithalwen]

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

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

[Bêthberry]

Just a couple of quick replies . . .

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

Inziladun, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

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

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

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

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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

Well, first of all, that is the case with other writers, so why should Tokien be exempt?

And actually, letters which do not directly pertain to the writing can often yield significant clues or examples or explanations about the writer and his (or her) time.

After all, why did Carpenter print the letter which Tokien wrote to his son about women? It doesn't pertain directly to Tolkien's writing and is simply advice from a father to a son.

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

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Just a couple of quick replies . . .

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

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

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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

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

A valid point, Mithalwen, but you overlook the fact that one earlier book had already been allowed, Black and White Ogre Country. So the case is perhaps not quite as black and white as you make it.

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

I just see it as very unfortunate, all round.

[garm]

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

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

A valid point, Mithalwen, but you overlook the fact that one earlier book had already been allowed, Black and White Ogre Country. So the case is perhaps not quite as black and white as you make it.

I just see it as very unfortunate, all round.

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

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

[davem]

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

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

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

Now, I can't see there is any other option here - its either a petty act, callously destroying 3 years work for no other reason than that they don't want some perfectly harmless trivialities to be made public because they own the letters, or its because the material is something more 'significant' & they want to cover it up - which would be morally questionable, given they have gone out of their way to give us their own 'acceptable' version of JRRT.

[Inziladun]

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?

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?

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?

[Galin]

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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

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

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

[LadyBrooke]

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

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

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