Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[Mithalwen]

But we aren't seeing common sense are we? Even here we have seen arguments that pretty much amount to that one must either wear a bourka or go naked in public.

I don't think for a moment that publishing a book especially about a fantasy world voids your right to personal privacy. If Tolkien had got famous by being a papparazzo or founding Wikileaks you might have a point on grounds of hypocrisy but Tolkien never tried to be famous. He did what he did for it's own sake. He surely would never have embraced the modern cult of vacuous celebrity or endorsed the making public of every last thought that passes through ones head or photograph of every moment of ones life. Can you imagine Tolkien tweeting? That many people have no regard to their own privacy (I am tempted to say have no shame) shouldn't deprive others of theirs.

I think someone of Tolkien's generation would have expected a private letter to a family member to stay private. Letters are more rare and significant now perhaps but back then it was the only practical method of communication - even when I was a child and teenager, not so very long ago (though shatteringly just before Lady Brooke was born - congratulations btw), I was expected to ask before using the phone because of the cost. Would you find it intrusive if you had your private phone calls recorded and published? I know I would.

Yes it is sad for the authors if they have wasted work but they were exploiting resources they had no right to. The copyright laws regarding letters is hardly obscure. Given the history I am not suprised that the Estate protects its rights and privacy by what ever means available. If the laws it uses weren't designed for that purpose so what? You use the tools available. The professional body I used to belong to had a member who brought it into disrepute by major fraud and embezzlement. They could have used the associations rules on such things to expell him but it would have taken a long time and been expensive. Much simpler to expel him on grounds of non-payment of subscription.

The Tolkien family are not monsters. I am sure a lot of fans resent the estate protecting its rights re the Hobbit because it delayed the films. A lot of charities will be very grateful they did. Intellectual property isn't trivial because it is intangible. It protects the livelihoods of artists and writers. So the recipient has no right to profit from a letter. If I (as I sometimes do) send a card made from one of my original photographs) I woudn't expect to expect that recipient to reproduce that card and sell it for their benefit without so much as a by your leave.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't think for a moment that publishing a book especially about a fantasy world voids your right to personal privacy. If Tolkien had got famous by being a papparazzo or founding Wikileaks you might have a point on grounds of hypocrisy but Tolkien never tried to be famous. He did what he did for it's own sake. He surely would never have embraced the modern cult of vacuous celebrity or endorsed the making public of every last thought that passes through ones head or photograph of every moment of ones life. Can you imagine Tolkien tweeting? That many people have no regard to their own privacy (I am tempted to say have no shame) shouldn't deprive others of theirs.

For me, this is the heart of the matter. Tolkien had no desire or expectation that he would one day be a household name. He didn't live in a time where people routinely post private details of their lives in a manner which could be viewed by millions around the world instantly, and when fame, or, if that can't be easily attained, mere infamy, is sadly an overwhelming obsession with millions of people. Today, we are shadowed by constant surveillance: our interactions online are carefully monitored and preserved; our bags and bodies are given the fine-tooth comb treatment when we want to fly on planes, and video cameras are literally everywhere. Any of us reading this might expect something we've said on this forum, or Facebook, or Twitter, to be read by very many people. 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.

[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.

[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.