Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[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...

[davem]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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 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]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Ah. Paperback writers 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]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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?