From the admittedly little I've gleaned about this book online, I think it's sensational garbage, though it could no doubt be turned into a blockbuster of a film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithalwen
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.
|
It would be
very easy, I think, for CT to throw up his hands and grant carte blache to every hack novelist and screenwriter to do what they would with Tolkien and all he created. Think of the money, if that really
was the source of the Estate's concern! The fact that they are "overprotective" tells me that greed is not likely to be the driving force behind the Estate's stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithalwen
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.
|
Aside from checking into the legalities, did Hillard run all this by the Estate beforehand, as a courtesy, at the very least? If not, perhaps that's part of CT's problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitchwife
What irks me most about the Estate's behaviour in this case is the argument that "the cover art and typefaces in 'Mirkwood' were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition", which is an obvious smoke screen. For those who haven't looked at the cover, it depicts a huge watercoloured tree and three tiny figures in the lower left corner which can, by their attributes of staff, bow and axe, be putatively identified as a wizard, elf and dwarf.
|
I actually agree that that alone is a pretty thin cause for contention. Maybe there is more to it, but if so, I wish they'd make the true reasons known.