CT's lawyer lays the facts down - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë · 10-10-2006, 08:07 AM

I think that the Boston Globe writer was more pursuing an angle than grinding an axe, even though he hit a saw point....but that's enough of the toolshed references...

It is a 'fine line' but I'd err on the side of the estate. We tend to think of Tolkien's work as 'ours' to do what we like with, but it isn't. What's more, there's a lot of that work yet unpublished that cannot simply be used as it is. The executors must think carefully about how that new material will be used, as it will go out with Tolkien's name attached to it, which is why they seek to approve everything that does go out in his name. Quite rightly.

And rightly for another reason. It helps us to sort out the merely speculative and the absolute dross from the genuinely useful (especially as these crit texts are deadly expensive and there are hundreds of 'em!). 'Approved' names like Flieger, Hammond, Scull, Vinyar Tengwar etc are marks of quality. It's all worth it if I never have to read a pile of tripe 'critical' book again!

Yes it's frustrating! But I'd rather be frustrated than have a free-for-all seeing the vultures picking over the remaining bones of the corpus. If scholars are genuine and have the right aims in mind, and the right understanding, then its up to them to convince the right people. 'Free access' is all well and good if we're talking about a less popular writer, but the fanaticism for Tolkien's work is a whole different kettle of fish to interest in Tennyson's for example.

10-10-2006, 08:07 AM	#8
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	I think that the Boston Globe writer was more pursuing an angle than grinding an axe, even though he hit a saw point....but that's enough of the toolshed references... It is a 'fine line' but I'd err on the side of the estate. We tend to think of Tolkien's work as 'ours' to do what we like with, but it isn't. What's more, there's a lot of that work yet unpublished that cannot simply be used as it is. The executors must think carefully about how that new material will be used, as it will go out with Tolkien's name attached to it, which is why they seek to approve everything that does go out in his name. Quite rightly. And rightly for another reason. It helps us to sort out the merely speculative and the absolute dross from the genuinely useful (especially as these crit texts are deadly expensive and there are hundreds of 'em!). 'Approved' names like Flieger, Hammond, Scull, Vinyar Tengwar etc are marks of quality. It's all worth it if I never have to read a pile of tripe 'critical' book again! Yes it's frustrating! But I'd rather be frustrated than have a free-for-all seeing the vultures picking over the remaining bones of the corpus. If scholars are genuine and have the right aims in mind, and the right understanding, then its up to them to convince the right people. 'Free access' is all well and good if we're talking about a less popular writer, but the fanaticism for Tolkien's work is a whole different kettle of fish to interest in Tennyson's for example. __________________ Gordon's alive!