Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[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.

[Bêthberry]

None of the material I saw at the Oxonmoot session related to Father Francis' intervention in Tolkien's teen age love affair with Edith, that I can recall now at least anyway.

It's all just letters between family members and family memorabilia.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

None of the material I saw at the Oxonmoot session related to Father Francis' intervention in Tolkien's teen age love affair with Edith, that I can recall now at least anyway.

It's all just letters between family members and family memorabilia.

So this is all CT's 'Get orf my land' act - smash up three years of people's hard work just 'cos he owns the copyright on the material. Nothing shocking or offensive, or even mildly controversial?

Don't know which alternative makes him look worse - covering up a 'dark' family secret, or just being petty about his 'stuff'.

Mind you, I haven't been too impressed with his behaviour since he authorised so many (300-400) changes to LotR, & left us only able to buy new copies of the work in an edition that his father (obviously) never approved.

(EDIT - I'm wondering if the attitude of Fr Morgan to women & its effect on Tolkien's work is worth further discussion anyway.....)

[tumhalad2]

Fr Francis' attitude toward women and the effect of that attitude on Tolkien would be an interesting topic to look at. To me, it seems unfortunate that Tolkien was beholden to such an obviously unhealthy character. Human sexuality is not "evil", but it is quite possible that the 'good' father's influence may have inculcated within Tolkien a negative, or at least conflicted, view of human sexuality. But without knowing Tolkien's actual thoughts on the matter, it's difficult to be certain about anything here.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

So this is all CT's 'Get orf my land' act - smash up three years of people's hard work just 'cos he owns the copyright on the material. Nothing shocking or offensive, or even mildly controversial?

Don't know which alternative makes him look worse - covering up a 'dark' family secret, or just being petty about his 'stuff'.

As far as I understand it the first book breached copyright without permission. If that is so it is not petty in my opinion to be protective when the same people seek permission presumably retrospectively for a second work.

If the work were subsequent to permission being granted and permission were subsequently withdrawn then you might have a point. But that isn't the case is it?

If you build a house without planning permission you run a strong risk of having to demolish it. If you buy stolen goods even in good faith you don't gain ownership.

Personally I don't see that the emotional blackmail of presenting a fait accompli and saying but we have spent so much time is morally superior to " being petty about his stuff". It isn't the Estate that has created this situation. It just seems you want to beat up Christopher Tolkien with any stick that comes to hand.

Obviously JRRT didn't approve the changes but he did approve of Christopher and appoint him to be his literary executor. If you don't approve fine. The changes are documented. I am not aware of all previous editions being recalled and pulped. However if you are questioning CRT's validity as editor and executor you are not obliged to take notice of his revisions or read the posthumously published works.

However if you think only what Tolkien published in his lifetime is valid then you cannot criticise his son for not allowing a free for all on everything he ever wrote. I really cannot see how if it is wrong to make justified changes to a published work, many of which are merely capitalisations or hyphens, because they could not have been approved of by a dead writer how you can endorse open publication without consent of matter which the author never intended to publish at all. It is absolutely definate that they don't have JRRT's approval.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

As far as I understand it the first book breached copyright without permission. If that is so it is not petty in my opinion to be protective when the same people seek permission presumably retrospectively for a second work.

If the work were subsequent to permission being granted and permission were subsequently withdrawn then you might have a point. But that isn't the case is it?

But what is he being 'protective' of - obviously its possible its something which the family do not wish to be made pubic because it would 'embarrass' surviving members of the family or intrude on their privacy in some way, but from those (the writer included) who have seen the material that seems not to be the case - though I suspect they must cover the Fr Francis period to some extent. The other alternative is that it is just general stuff with zero embarrassment value. That being the case, CT, for all he may have a 'right' to stop publication, is under no obligation to do so. He could opt for the 'nice human being' scenario & just let them go ahead & publish. Quite honestly, its what I would do in a similar situation.

Personally I don't see that the emotional blackmail of presenting a fait accompli and saying but we have spent so much time is morally superior to " being petty about his stuff". It isn't the Estate that has created this situation. It just seems you want to beat up Christopher Tolkien with any stick that comes to hand.

I think they've played their part

Obviously JRRT didn't approve the changes but he did approve of Christopher and appoint him to be his literary executor. If you don't approve fine. The changes are documented. I am not aware of all previous editions being recalled and pulped. However if you are questioning CRT's validity as editor and executor you are not obliged to take notice of his revisions or read the posthumously published works.

I am questioning his actions as regards the changes to LotR - which are fairly substantial, & change the meaning of passages in the book in some cases. I can't see that many of them are justified. I think its perfectly valid to question/criticise any changes to a well loved work - particularly when that revision is done without the approval of the author & when that revised work then replaces the one the author did approve.

However if you think only what Tolkien published in his lifetime is valid then you cannot criticise his son for not allowing a free for all on everything he ever wrote. I really cannot see how if it is wrong to make justified changes to a published work, many of which are merely capitalisations or hyphens, because they could not have been approved of by a dead writer how you can endorse open publication without consent of matter which the author never intended to publish at all. It is absolutely definate that they don't have JRRT's approval.

But they haven't changed anything JRRT wrote - they are merely looking to make what he wrote available. And I have seen absolutely no eveidence that the changes made to LotR are in any way justified - the only change that could have been justified by any supporting evidence would have been to include the missing verse of the Earendilinwe - & CT decided against including that. I'm not talking about fixing typos in the work, btw, I'm talking about actually altering the text itself in a pointless attempt to make it 'perfect'.