Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[Lalaith]

Ok, here's my cod-psychological ha'porth.

I have a friend who suffered a series of horrible, random, life-shattering events. Her response ( she was already a careful, painstaking, disciplined kind of person) was to develop anorexia. It was, I believe, an attempt to find the one area of her life she *could* control, ie her weight and food intake, and then irrationally over-control it.
Similarly, I wonder if Christopher Tolkien, who had devoted so much of his life to a careful, painstaking and disciplined editing of his father's work, was not traumatised by the lack of control he had over the films and the liberties those films took - particularly as this 'bastardised' film version has became the 'definitive' one when it comes to most of the world's concept of Middle Earth.

The Estate's reaction - over-control to the point of absurdity over the areas it actually can control - therefore becomes more understandable.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

The Estate's reaction - over-control to the point of absurdity over the areas it actually can control - therefore becomes more understandable.

Maybe its just old age.

Not joking - the older one gets the more one seeks control over one's little world. Sad part is that this book (I'm a quarter of the way through, & I admit its growing on me. I like the heroine, Cadence, & every appearance of Tolkien so far has been entirely 'respectful'. The author is clearly a fan. In other words, there is nothing in this book to get het up about & the action makes no sense. Like Wheelbarrows at Dawn its a little book from a small publisher, with not a smidgeon of malice in it & which if left unmentioned would have attained a small readership & then disappeared. All of which makes this action look petty-minded & reflects so badly on CT & the Estate that you just wish there had been someone around to deliver a good slap to the lot of them to try & knock some sense into them.

These incidents have done them no good at all. What is the point in banning a serious work of biography or a minor potboiler which just happens to have Tolkien as a character? Why even stir yourself to bother? This looks like nothing more than a case (as I've pointed up before) of CT/the Estate stomping around, waving a big stick & shouting 'Get orf my land!!!'. Frankly pathetic & they've made themselves a bit of a joke by doing so. Sadly, they've also done harm to a good few writers, which is not funny in the least. They could have displayed a bit of magnanimity & would have looked all the better for it.

Honestly, I can't go along with those who try & present CT/the Estate as the injured party - if you have a friend who's a nice quiet, friendly guy who gets into a punch up you will likely think the other party to blame. If, a few days later you hear he's been in another fight with a different person, you may still give him the benefit of the doubt, but if it goes on, one fight after another, & all with strangers, you will eventually have to stop thinking of him as an unlucky victim of violence & admit that the most likely explanation is that your friend is the one starting the trouble. And to me it looks like the CT/Estate is throwing its weight around - for no other reason than that its got weight to throw. If this kind of behaviour continues their reputation is going to be shot - a literary organisation that gets a reputation for banning books & dragging (or threatening to) other authors through the courts doesn't make friends.

And the result of these actions - even though in some of the cases they've gotten their way (& they may also succeed in getting this author/publisher to back down & give in) has been that some of us who have been their staunchest supporters have lost a lot of respect for them & now see them as litigious bullies. Which is probably not what they intended - I hope. But it does go to demonstrate that sometimes winning your fight can backfire. If they'd let these books alone we'd still feel as positive about them as in the past.

[davem]

The Guardian has picked up the story http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011...n-legal-battle & judging by the comments no-one is on the Estate's side.

And the Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nal-novel.html

*****AND YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS*****

THE TOLKIEN ESTATE HAVE BANNED A BADGE (BUTTON) THAT MENTIONS THE NAME TOLKIEN http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/25...ate-censo.html

Yes. They have banned someone selling a badge with the name Tolkien on it. Of course, this, we must admit, massively impinges on the family's privacy....

[Galadriel55]

Well, the badge doesn't seem to favour people who read Tolkien... If it said something like "Long Live Professor Tolkien!", I'm sure they would allow it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Well, the badge doesn't seem to favour people who read Tolkien... If it said something like "Long Live Professor Tolkien!", I'm sure they would allow it.

Maybe they thought someone would mistake the badge for one of Tolkien's own works & they'd lose money....

EDIT now, far be it from me to suggest that this sudden penchant for litigation has anything to do with the Estate's victory & massive payout from New Line Cinema of profits from the movies, but I have just found this video of the Estate's reaction to their victory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8

[Bêthberry]

Interesting difference in the titles of the articles. The Mail's "None Shall Pass" is clever while the Guardian's is misleading: "JRR Tolkien novel Mirkwood in legal battle with author's estate". Do you suppose the Guardian is trying to prove the Estate's point by suggesting people will actually think this is a new Tolkien book?

Originally Posted by davem

The Guardian has picked up the story http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011...n-legal-battle & judging by the comments no-one is on the Estate's side.

And the Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nal-novel.html

*****AND YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS*****

THE TOLKIEN ESTATE HAVE BANNED A BADGE (BUTTON) THAT MENTIONS THE NAME TOLKIEN http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/25...ate-censo.html

Yes. They have banned someone selling a badge with the name Tolkien on it. Of course, this, we must admit, massively impinges on the family's privacy....

[Pitchwife]

I'm not quite sure whether this is real news or satire, but if the former, the matter is reaching undreamt-of heights of absurdity. Will the Estate's next legal action be an attempt to get maps of Great Britain banned?

Originally Posted by G55

Well, the badge doesn't seem to favour people who read Tolkien... If it said something like "Long Live Professor Tolkien!", I'm sure they would allow it.

Yep. Nobody seemed to mind those stickers saying "Frodo Lives" or "Gandalf for President" back in the 60s.
It's all very sad.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Nobody seemed to mind those stickers saying "Frodo Lives" or "Gandalf for President" back in the 60s.
It's all very sad.

The 60's were just a bit before my time, but back then the LOTR and Tolkien names did not readily lend themselves to Olympian heights of moneymaking potential. Now they do, largely thanks to PJ and Co.
I still believe that the difference between the reactions of the Estate to what they perceive as potential threats to the copyrights on Tolkien's work in the past few years, and the generally more liberal stance in earlier years might be an effect of the movies' aftermath. Not saying they're right to be so heavy-handed, but at least that could be an explanation for it.

[davem]

Well, the Tolkien Estate have managed to make themselves look dumb & alienate loads of fans.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...response.shtml

&

Get them here http://www.zazzle.com/Harpocrates

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I don't suppose that Christopher Tolkien, or any other trustee of the Tolkien Estate, actually reads everything that mentions even his own name, let alone JRRT's. The trustees leave that to the Estate's legal representatives (Manches of Oxford, I believe), whose advice I expect they follow in most cases.

Now, the basis of davem's annoyance seems to be that the Tolkien Estate can and does rigidly control the production and dissemination of all material by and closely related to J.R.R. Tolkien, including his image, languages and, apparently, favourite typefaces. I can't really blame them for wanting to do this, and to be honest I can't really fault the law for allowing them to do so. The point of libel laws is to prevent people from disseminating false written reports of our personalities and conduct, and the Tolkien estate is trying, by controlling the use of Tolkien's image, to maintain that protection for JRRT posthumously as I should like to do for my own family. It shouldn't be enough to transplant the false report into a loosely fictional environment and claim artistic freedom. As for controlling the use of material produced by JRRT, well that's nice and simple. JRRT isn't around to exercise that control, but the copyright still exists, legally in the hands of his heirs and successors. If there were no protection of copyright, publishers could simply take manuscripts they were sent, print them commercially and keep all of the profits. The authors would have to be content to see their names in print, while somebody else made a fortune from their work. In fact, it was something of this nature that started the whole Tolkien legal odyssey in the first place: I'm sure we've all heard of Ace Paperbacks. The basic principle seems to be that the Estate doesn't want to see people making money out of JRRT's name, image and ideas unless they get a cut of the profits and the project is one that they consider appropriate. If that means that I don't see (for whatever unfathomable reason) the verse Beowulf, then at least it also means that I won't have to read about a fist-fight in Balliol Quad between Tolkien and F.R. Leavis or Tolkien as the leader of an underground fascist group. Robot Tolkien would, I'm sure, be a great loss to us all, but I scarcely think that Manches are going to trouble themselves with him.

Since this work is to be published in the United States, U.S. law will apply rather than British, which I suppose is good news for those who like their literary criticism to be fictionalised. The Tolkien Estate would have far greater powers to prevent me from publishing works including Tolkien as a character. I'm not sure that I'd be happy doing that anyway: I didn't know him, and a fictonalised version of someone runs too great a risk of creating a new and inaccurate public perception of that person. Perhaps that is why the Estate is so keen to suppress such a use of JRRT, although I notice that the publication of Here There Be Dragons has gone ahead without their interference, and that a film is planned.

As for blurring the lines between fiction and reality, literary criticism and literature itself, well it's all a bit too much like playing to the gallery for my liking. There's nothing particularly groundbreaking in it - Tolkien's relative paucity of female characters was the subject of many early negative reviews, and I'm sure we must be into post-post-modernism at least by now. Such an approach runs the risk of creating poor criticism that is also dull literature, and failing to please even its own tiny target audience. Perhaps without the controversy of an attempted ban we'd be looking at yet another forgettable book in a long tradition of forgettable books.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

If that means that I don't see (for whatever unfathomable reason) the verse Beowulf, then at least it also means that I won't have to read about a fist-fight in Balliol Quad between Tolkien and F.R. Leavis or Tolkien as the leader of an underground fascist group.

... although I notice that the publication of Here There Be Dragons has gone ahead without their interference, and that a film is planned.

Well, I would very much like to read about that fist-fight, although I reckon William Empson would definitely have emerged victorious...

I'd never heard of the work you just cited; have wikied, and it looks quite similar to this Mirkwood thing, but plus better book jokes and King Arthur; is it worth a look?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

I'd never heard of the work you just cited; have wikied, and it looks quite similar to this Mirkwood thing, but plus better book jokes and King Arthur; is it worth a look?

I have no idea, never having read it. Having read that synopsis, though, I expect that I will eventually.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

Now, the basis of davem's annoyance seems to be that the Tolkien Estate can and does rigidly control the production and dissemination of all material by and closely related to J.R.R. Tolkien, including his image, languages and, apparently, favourite typefaces. I can't really blame them for wanting to do this, and to be honest I can't really fault the law for allowing them to do so.

Not really - what the Estate were attempting to do was prevent the use of a historical figure (JRR Tolkien) in a fictional work. If that is not to be allowed then you effectively end both historical fiction which uses real people as characters (ie everything from WWII novels which depict Churchill or a recent Doctor Who episode which featured Richard Nixon, & the like, would not be legal) or even non fiction works like Carpenter's Inklings & the invented 'typical' Inkilings meeting in the chapter Thursday Nights. You wouldn't be able to use any historical figure without the permission of their Estate.

The point of libel laws is to prevent people from disseminating false written reports of our personalities and conduct, and the Tolkien estate is trying, by controlling the use of Tolkien's image, to maintain that protection for JRRT posthumously as I should like to do for my own family.

But you can't libel the dead. And the Estate is not attempting to use libel, but 'copyright' - which doesn't (& never has) applied to a dead individual's personality or character. And whether or not you would 'like' to maintain such protection for your own family, legally you don't have that right.

It shouldn't be enough to transplant the false report into a loosely fictional environment and claim artistic freedom.

But legally it is enough.

The basic principle seems to be that the Estate doesn't want to see people making money out of JRRT's name, image and ideas unless they get a cut of the profits and the project is one that they consider appropriate.

Would you apply that same principle to the Estates of individuals you didn't like - should the heirs of Richard Nixon, Saddam Hussain or Myra Hindley have the right to prevent them being depicted in drama/drama-docs in ways that they didn't like?

I didn't know him, and a fictonalised version of someone runs too great a risk of creating a new and inaccurate public perception of that person. Perhaps that is why the Estate is so keen to suppress such a use of JRRT,

But again, you're missing the point - its not about what the Estate is keen to do, or what they'd like - its about the law & their rights under copyright. They don't have the right to demand what they did.

As for blurring the lines between fiction and reality, literary criticism and literature itself, ..... Such an approach runs the risk of creating poor criticism that is also dull literature, and failing to please even its own tiny target audience. Perhaps without the controversy of an attempted ban we'd be looking at yet another forgettable book in a long tradition of forgettable books.

Again, this is not about 'running risks' - & if it was I'd say the risks of such a 'ban' on the use of historical figures in fiction/Lit crit are infinitely greater - its about what's legal & what isn't. The Estate simply don't have the rights they were claiming - & nor should they. Set aside the fact that this is about JRRT - this is very simple - should a writer be able to use historical figures in fiction or not? If you oppose JRRT being used as a character in this book you ought equally to oppose any work of fiction - book/movie/TV series - which depicts historical figures.