Another one bites the dust....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Recall that the Estate threatened legal action against a Canadian children's summer camp for their use of the words Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit - none of which Tolkien actually invented.

No, it was because the camp named itself "Rivendell."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

He basically lifted images, characters and whple scenes -.often without even bothering to change the names (cf the dwarf names in TH)

Pleeze. Lifted "characters" by borrowing 1000-year old names? Care to tell us how Thorin, Bifur, Dori and the rest are "characters" from The Prophecy of the Sybil?

Whole scenes? Really? Anything more substantial than Bilbo's lifting of a cup a la Beowulf?




----------------------
A great part of the Estate's remit is quality control. When a book is issued under the JRRT monogram- effectively the Estate's imprimatur - the book can be assumed right off the bat to be *good:* Shippey, Hammond & Scull, Garth, Rateliff: all printed with the Seal of Approval, and all representing the very best in Tolkien scholarship. The Estate doesn't license just any old crap (unlike Zaentz/Wingnut).

The "Mirkwood" novel was tripe, and I cannot blame the Estate for not wanting to provide a Nihil Obstat, any more than I blame them for blocking "sequels" and other fan-fic.

The Estate *did* btw take action against Grotta-Kurska; the original edition contains blank pages marked (very cattily) "redacted for legal reasons"

-----------------

The Estate didn't "suppress" the Hilary biography; it withheld permission to use JRRT's letters, after which the authors decided not to publish without them.

------------------


NB: Tolkien didn't invent hobbits? Please don't go back to that Denham Tract stuff....

[Boromir88]

This one (unlike the Zaentz lawsuit) looks fairly clear cut...

Grotta exploited a loophole in the copyright laws of the 70s to get his biography (I hesitate to even use that term...a worthy biographer wouldn't let a personal grudge carry into the biography he's writing) pushed through. Good for him. The loophole no longer exists today...tough luck, but good riddance.

Anyway, the TE may be stingy when it comes to allowing access to certain papers/letters JRRT wrote, but they're excersing legal rights no differently than WB, Disney, Zaentz or anyone else would. And would you let any hack writer access to your own papers (or papers you're the legal guardian of) who wanted it?

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

---------------------
A great part of the Estate's remit is quality control. When a book is issued under the JRRT monogram- effectively the Estate's imprimatur - the book can be assumed right off the bat to be *good:* Shippey, Hammond & Scull, Garth, Rateliff: all printed with the Seal of Approval, and all representing the very best in Tolkien scholarship. The Estate doesn't license just any old crap (unlike Zaentz/Wingnut).

The "Mirkwood" novel was tripe, and I commit blame the Estate for not wanting to provide a Nihil Obstat, any more than I blame them for blocking "sequels" and other fan-fic.

The Estate *did* btw take action against Grotta-Kurska; the original edition contains blank pages marked (very cattily) "redacted for legal reasons"

-----------------

The Estate didn't "suppress" the Hilary biography; it withheld permission to use JRRT's letters, after which the authors decided not to publish without them.

------------------


NB: Tolkien didn't invent hobbits? Please don't go back to that Denham Tract stuff....

Pretty dire quality control if you're correct as most of those authors would support my statement that Tolkien drew very liberally on the sources I mentioned. Hammond and Scull's frankly creepy literary stalking job I leave in the gutter-in spite of CT's approval of it. Also, whatever the merits our otherwise of the Mirkwood novel I don't think the estate should have the right to decide whether a book should be published based purely on literary quality.

As for the Hilary bio, my understanding was that they wanted to prevent any reference to events mentioned in the letters, not publication of the texts.

I do like the way you bring in the Denham Tracts as a way of dismissing their use in the argument, when it is the main evidence that Tolkien didn't invent hobbits.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

The Estate didn't "suppress" the Hilary biography; it withheld permission to use JRRT's letters, after which the authors decided not to publish without them.

From what I can remember, the Hilary Tolkien biography was a bit more complicated.

Originally the authors (Angela Gardner and Neil Holford) worked with Hilary's family, and got their permission to use correspondences between Hilary and JRRT. Unaware that they needed the Tolkien Estate's permission to use some of the letters, and not Hilary's family.

The authors further attempted to rework their biography in accordance to the wishes of the Estate, and paraphrase when needed to not breach copyright laws. Only until it became abundantly clear the Estate wanted 20 pages completely removed did the authors decide not to publish the Hilary Tolkien biography.

It may seem like nothing "what's 20 pages amongst several hundred?" But everyone has to know you can't just remove 20 pages of material and expect to get the same story, or for the story to hold the same meaning. What would Tolkien's reaction be if I got lawyers to use copyright laws and had The Old Forest chapter (or any assortment of 20 pages) removed from The Fellowship?

As much as I can understand protecting quality and artistic integrity, you really can't make that case with the Hilary Tolkien biography the Estate went after. Gardner and Holford were proper biographers who went through the work, research, and permissions from Hilary's family. And after finding out they needed the Estate's permission to use certain material, they tried to rework the biography in a manner that would respect the Estate's wishes.

I'm afraid that one was a case where the Estate used copyright law to halt the work of two respected authors. Whether it would have been a worthy biography about Hilary Tolkien, well I suppose we won't know, but personally...you can't make the protecting artistic integrity argument and it was unfortunate to see the Estate would use copyright law in that way.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

From what I can remember, the Hilary Tolkien biography was a bit more complicated.

I'm afraid that one was a case where the Estate used copyright law to halt the work of two respected authors. Whether it would have been a worthy biography about Hilary Tolkien, well I suppose we won't know, but personally...you can't make the protecting artistic integrity argument and it was unfortunate to see the Estate would use copyright law in that way.

No sympathy from me. It is pretty common knowledge that copyright in letters remains with the writer. Any publisher should know that. I also understand that it wasn't the first breach and iirc Christopher's own letter/s had been used.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Recall that the Estate threatened legal action against a Canadian children's summer camp for their use of the words Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit - none of which Tolkien actually invented.

No, it was because the camp named itself "Rivendell."

But why did they go after a non-profit (and that's a precise legal term in Canada) camp for children? Particularly when there are any number of other companies and organizations, some of which are clearly profit-based, that call themselves Rivendell?

Do a google search. There's a bike company, a Christian retreat, an organic farm, a golf club/course, a horse farm, a radio broadcast enterprise, a software company, a ski company, holiday cottages (in Norfolk), a fantasy radio station, a construction company, a bookstore, a mountain equipment company, a guest house in Namibia, an environmental services company. Some of them are recent; others, quite old.

Why go after a children's camp, particularly one designed to give city kids whose parents cannot afford summer camp a place to experience the joys of summer camp? Have any of these other enterprises been subject to legal charges by the Estate?

EDIT: Note, I'm not talking specifically about Grotta's book because I haven't read it. Yet it does seem strange that the Estate's lawyers are attempting to control scholarship. Other authors do not have an Estate authorising what scholarship is acceptable. Scholarship is supposed to be free, not controlled by one entity. Some of the thing the Estate wishes to defend I can understand and approve of, but there are some very strange things as well.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why go after a children's camp, particularly one designed to give city kids whose parents cannot afford summer camp a place to experience the joys of summer camp? Have any of these other enterprises been subject to legal charges by the Estate?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yet it does seem strange that the Estate's lawyers are attempting to control scholarship. Other authors do not have an Estate authorising what scholarship is acceptable. Scholarship is supposed to be free, not controlled by one entity. Some of the thing the Estate wishes to defend I can understand and approve of, but there are some very strange things as well.

It seems clear from Christopher's own writings, as well as those of his father, that JRRT's work occupies a unique position in his heart. He and his father seem to have had a special bond that was rooted at least partly in the latter's written work.
Since his father's death, CT appears to have had the same goal all along: to preserve artistic integrity of JRRT's writings, and keep a lid on their commercialization.

Clearly his motives do not lie in greed. Instead, I see an ardent desire to frustrate those that he sees as exploiting his father's work in any way. The renewed popularity of Tokien's works undoubtedly sparked dollar signs in the minds of many, and for every news story we hear about the Estate slamming the door on a children's camp, I wonder if there aren't a hundred more that could be written about someone wanting to open a drug rehab facility called "Eressëa", or an shanty county fair haunted house named "Moria".

Just maybe, the Estate thinks it just isn't worth trying to sort out the innocent uses of copyrighted material from the less-than savory. I'm not saying that's always a good approach, but CT is an old man, after all. I could understand if that's his thinking.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Davem

I do like the way you bring in the Denham Tracts as a way of dismissing their use in the argument, when it is the main evidence that Tolkien didn't invent hobbits.

The Denham Tracts contain the word 'hobbits' in a long list of names of mythical beings. That is all. There is no evidence of any further tradition underlyling this appearance of the word, nor that Tolkien was ever aware of it. Even if Tolkien had read the Denham Tracts - indeed, even if we suppose that, contrary to what he said, he consciously took the word from the Denham Tracts - that still would mean nothing more than that he took the name and invented a creature to go with it.

To claim that any of this means that Tolkien did not invent hobbits - that is, his hobbits - is really somewhat ridiculous.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Just maybe, the Estate thinks it just isn't worth trying to sort out the innocent uses of copyrighted material from the less-than savory. I'm not saying that's always a good approach, but CT is an old man, after all. I could understand if that's his thinking.

Despite the fact that scholars earn their living by teaching and writing literary reviews, abstracts, reports, critiques,etc. it's hardly an act of commercialisation.I know a great many who would laugh and scoff at that idea. Very few scholars become wealthy being a scholar.

It hardly speaks to the integrity of the approach if some are singled out while others are not, particularly when those who are singled out are not commercialising Tolkien. And particularly when it is those don't have the financial resources to hire lawyers to defend themselves.

I'm not sure every case and example is decided upon by CT. Some of them smell to me like lawyers attempting to put a chill on any idea of using Tolkien in any way. That may well be an accepted legal practice but I think it hardly speaks well of an Estate that is supposed to want people to respect the author. Just think of the children who would go home excited to read The Hobbit, for instance, thinking they'd just spent some time in Middle-earth.

And age is no excuse for lazy thinking.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Despite the fact that scholars earn their living by teaching and writing literary reviews, abstracts, reports, critiques,etc. it's hardly an act of commercialisation.I know a great many who would laugh and scoff at that idea. Very few scholars become wealthy being a scholar.

Distinguishing between the "scholar" and the Paperback Writer may not always be an easy thing, though, particularly in the Age of Hollywood, where any visual or audio work of art is immediately viewed as a commercial product first, anything else playing second banana.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm not sure every case and example is decided upon by CT. Some of them smell to me like lawyers attempting to put a chill on any idea of using Tolkien in any way. That may well be an accepted legal practice but I think it hardly speaks well of an Estate that is supposed to want people to respect the author. Just think of the children who would go home excited to read The Hobbit, for instance, thinking they'd just spent some time in Middle-earth.

I don't think CT is necessarily the source of all the decisions. Lawyers though, are presumably acting on someone's instructions on how to handle different situations. Why would they be so quick to throw out the wheat with the chaff? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Try as I might, I just don't see any sinister motive between the Estate's possessiveness. Again, I'm not saying I agree with every call they make, but I have to think there's some reasoning behind it.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And age is no excuse for lazy thinking.

Possessiveness need not equal laziness.

[gondowe]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil
The Denham Tracts contain the word 'hobbits' in a long list of names of mythical beings. That is all. There is no evidence of any further tradition underlyling this appearance of the word, nor that Tolkien was ever aware of it. Even if Tolkien had read the Denham Tracts - indeed, even if we suppose that, contrary to what he said, he consciously took the word from the Denham Tracts - that still would mean nothing more than that he took the name and invented a creature to go with it.

To claim that any of this means that Tolkien did not invent hobbits - that is, his hobbits - is really somewhat ridiculous.

I agree, and even we could say the same for the Elves, his Elves.

Greetings