Another one bites the dust....

[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