Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

It is interesting to see that you now hold the author to have ultimate rights over his work, while in previous threads you and davem argued that your own personal interpretations hold water no matter what Tolkien said elsewhere, be it letters, HoME, UT, Silmarillion. If subjective interpretation was the primary criterion you accepted as valid in judging his work, then surely you must accept that everyone can choose to consider relevant whatever ideea, or in the context of this thread, writting. Else, you are using a double standard.

I've never argued that - sorry if my earlier posts were over subtle.

My argument has always been that what Tolkien said has to been seen in the context of what he wrote & when he wrote it, & most importantly who he was writing to. The idea that every single statement he ever made, on the record & off, to correspondents in personal letters, to newspapers, on film, in writings which were subsequently amended must all be given equal weight, is, frankly, a ludicrous position. Context is the issue.


The argument here is whether anyone else can 'do a Tolkien', effectively, become another Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Feanorsdoom

Oh, and davem, your continued insistence that M-e only exists in the works of JRRT is fine, but it's an opinion. Every reader, indeed everyone who has had any connection to the stories, even by rumor only, has some conceptualization of M-e within him. I think we would agree that none of those can be the same as JRRT's, but they do exist. If only the concept of M-e that matters died with him, then why read it? Why make movies or paintings or even fanfic? Does M-e not exist for you when you put down the books? If not, then I pity you. But let the rest of us keep it alive.

This, again, is not the point. The point is whether anyone else can do what Tolkien did, have Tolkien's insight in to his own creation sufficient to enable them to create convincing stories set in his world. The answer is no.

The other point which seems to be consistently ignored is Tolkien's absolute control over his creation - the fact that he had the power to change, amend & completely do away with whole chunks of his creation as it suited him. No other writer can do that. Tolkien could take off on the most extreme tangent (read 'Myths Transformed') & it is accepted as valid - even if many of us consider it to have been a mistake. No new writer could make even minor changes without being criticised.

Personal interpretation/experience is not the issue here. We all experience M-e in a unique way. That is essential. What you seem to be asking for is another writer's personal interpretation to be given extra weight by being officially sanctioned.

Fanfic is fanfic - whether its free via the Internet, or published by Harper Collins in a nice hardback with the JRRT monogram on it & priced at £18.99. If its not by JRRT its fanfic.

[The Saucepan Man]

*Hesitates before entering, takes a deep breath, and plunges in*

As someone who, after reading LotR, hoovered up all kinds of fantasy fiction (some of which I enjoyed immensely, some less so), got into playing AD&D, and failed to finish reading the Silmarillion at first attempt (aged 14), I find some of the opinions expressed here to be somewhat patronising. Is it not double standards to criticise the likes of Germaine Greer for her dismissive approach to Tolkien’s works, yet at the same time adopt an equally dismissive approach to other works of the ‘fantasy genre’? Whether or not someone enjoys a work and sees value in it is a very subjective thing. Greer and her ilk don’t like Tolkien, which is fair enough, but they then go on to attempt to force their opinion on others by ridiculing and disparaging the object of their dislike. Let us not adopt the same approach to other fantasy novels just because they are not for us or because we feel that, in our opinion, they do not match up to the standard set by Tolkien.

Anyway, be that as it may, views, opinions and arguments on a pinhead are being thrown around all over the place here (something that I would never do ). So let’s get back to the facts.

1. Copyright in Tolkien’s published works lays with the Estate and that will remain the case for many years to come.

2. People write fanfic for their own personal enjoyment and for the enjoyment of others, and this appears to be tolerated by the Estate, provided that it is not done for commercial gain (which would most likely represent a breach of copyright in any event).

3. No work based upon Tolkien’s Middle-earth writings is likely to be commercially published or considered in any way authoritative unless authorised by the Estate, at least for the next 40 years or so.

In light of these facts, what is the argument about? Fanfic will continue to be written and people who like that sort of thing will be able to continue to read and enjoy it. No authoritative work will be produced or marketed without the blessing of the Estate. That is a matter for the Estate. It is unlikely to happen, given their approach but, were it to happen, the work concerned would need to be of high quality and very much in line with Tolkien’s intended spirit in order to receive the Estate’s blessing, thus avoiding the ‘cheapening’ the Legendarium with ‘pulp imitators’. So where is the issue?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morwen

These are things that I think make Wide Sargasso Sea interesting to discuss as an independent work. But if I were analysing Bertha or Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre I don't know that I could or should rely on interpretations of those characters that Bronte never suggested. And this is why I think that Rhys' work has to be treated as distinct.

Originally Posted by Lal

Alas the Wide Sargasso Sea is a case in point of exactly why we should not allow Tolkien rip-offs. No student now can read Jane Eyre unadulterated, no student can take Charlotte Bronte's word for what it is - it is now forever tarnished thanks to Jean Rhys and her provocative, oppositional take on Bronte's work. She's entitled to do this of course, but I think it should have been left as an iconoclastic curiosity - instead it has been taken to heart by generations of lecturers scrambling for 'different interpretations'. Sigh. Poor Charlotte. But then she were only a humble Yorkshirewoman. What did she know in comparison to these clever Postmodernists.

Reading books is a dangerous thing. No telling who will come off better or worse, the ancients or the moderns.

Originally Posted by Lal

Hmmm, funny how that 500 years down the line Shakespeare's work has not been 'expanded' by the ponderings of ghost writers - you know, there is no Midsummer Nights Dream Part VIII (in the manner of Police Academy's many interminable parts). Why would Tolkien be any different? Only if he's to be considered not as a serious writer but as a producer of mere entertaining pap of course.

Shakespeare didn't write a mythology, didn't create a Legendarium, as Tolkien, Lewis, Asimov, Lucas, Whedon have done. And the interminable parts belong to the debate over who actually wrote the plays.

Originally Posted by davem

The point is whether anyone else can do what Tolkien did, have Tolkien's insight in to his own creation sufficient to enable them to create convincing stories set in his world. The answer is no.

There's the rub: convincing stories set in his world. convincing is a subjective state, so no follows only for you.

Originally Posted by davem

What you seem to be asking for is another writer's personal interpretation to be given extra weight by being officially sanctioned.

The original post asked if Tolkien encouraged others to take up his mythology. No mention of official sanction there.

[Lalwendë]

Well SpM is saying what I'm trying to say which is where is the beef?! You can all read and write as much fan fic as you like!

But no, it seems it has to have a brand name on it these days - alas that's the world we now live in where Nike Tolkien is going to be better than Tesco Value Tolkien. Never mind what's inside, just feel the packaging, check out the gold leaf JRRT Logo!

Yet how about Tolkien's own feelings about the machine? His name being utilised to Brand Name spurious extra 'stuff', more 'product'?

So for those who want to get Back To Basics, even though there is no argument to be won as Nobody Is Stopping You From Writing Fan-Fic, what did he say?:

But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story....I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.

Yes, nothing about writing more stories. And if you're not reading that quote right then I sincerely hope you're not thinking yourself good enough to follow in his footsteps.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lal

But no, it seems it has to have a brand name on it these days - alas that's the world we now live in where Nike Tolkien is going to be better than Tesco Value Tolkien.

Actually, I suspect that the choice would be between Tesco Tolkien and Tesco 'Read the Difference' Tolkien - same thing, just more nicely packaged and double the price.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Actually, I suspect that the choice would be between Tesco Tolkien and Tesco 'Read the Difference' Tolkien - same thing, just more nicely packaged and double the price.

And in this day and age of climate change we should be more environment conscious so maybe fan-fic on t'internet is more eco-friendly even than them nice shiny new editions of Children of Hurin.

See, it's better for your soul.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Yes, nothing about writing more stories. And if you're not reading that quote right then I sincerely hope you're not thinking yourself good enough to follow in his footsteps.

Tolkien omitted tapestry and embroidery and quilting too, so I suppose that means no Middle-earth Bayeux Tapestry either. No need to say England should have a copy of her (?) own.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Tolkien omitted tapestry and embroidery and quilting too, so I suppose that means no Middle-earth Bayeux Tapestry either. No need to say England should have a copy of her (?) own.

Though you would assume that 'paint' means Art - it is just a more poetic and subtle way of putting it of course that may be lost

Who wants the Bayeux tapestry? French muck.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Though you would assume that 'paint' means Art - it is just a more poetic and subtle way of putting it of course that may be lost

Who wants the Bayeux tapestry? French muck.

Nothing poetic about it, as it isn't inclusive. For centuries after the middle ages, the domestic arts were ignored as art forms in favour of the "higher" art of painting and sculpture, which were largely (although not entirely) the realm of males. It's something similar to that argument that to call the human race 'man' is to ignore half of the species. That argument, though, may be lost on some.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There's the rub: convincing stories set in his world. convincing is a subjective state, so no follows only for you.

All my statements should be taken as subjective. The fact that they also happen to be objectively true merely strengthens my position.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Nothing poetic about it, as it isn't inclusive. For centuries after the middle ages, the domestic arts were ignored as art forms in favour of the "higher" art of painting and sculpture, which were largely (although not entirely) the realm of males. It's something similar to that argument that to call the human race 'man' is to ignore half of the species. That argument, though, may be lost on some.

I know but we're talking about Tolkien and he was wise and cultured enough to know that the visual arts included a lot more than formal painting - he even had his Elves be Craftspeople instead of churning out Old Masters of Elrond (for Elladan to draw a moustache and beard on...). He was a follower of Morris.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Feanorsdoom

Also, who speaks for all or most fans of Middle-earth? I dare say that a good percentage of them are under 20, had never read any Tolkien before the movies came out, and could not get halfway through the Silmarillion. Who are we to consider our opinions more true or important than theirs?

If I were petitioning the Estate to officially sanction new stories this is not an argument that I would use. If the fans you mention have not exhausted what material is currently available then why exactly should they be clamouring for more stories? If their problem is that they cannot "get through" the available material then what sort of stories should the Estate be sanctioning for them? Some sort of Middle Earth Lite fiction?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morwen

If their problem is that they cannot "get through" the available material then what sort of stories should the Estate be sanctioning for them? Some sort of Middle Earth Lite fiction?

With lots of pictures & the long words spelled phonetically.....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I know but we're talking about Tolkien and he was wise and cultured enough to know that the visual arts included a lot more than formal painting

Originally Posted by Tolkien

The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.

So I suppose then we take that last word to include writing and those last three words to include musical productions?

Originally Posted by davem

With lots of pictures . . .

Yes, great achievements in graphic novels require those.

Originally Posted by davem

All my statements should be taken as subjective. The fact that they also happen to be objectively true merely strengthens my position.

How very considerate of you to provide a post for Eomer's rather dormant To the Merriment thread.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yes, great achievements in graphic novels require those..

'Kapow!' 'Foom!' 'Whack!'

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

'Kapow!' 'Foom!' 'Whack!'

Your comment is a bit short there, even for your usual flippancy. I'd say you're about 997 words short.

You know, I wonder-- if we assigned 1000 words to each picture drawn by every Tolkien illustrator and artist, that would probably exceed the length of LotR, wouldn't it? I think Tolkien got his wish.

[Feanorsdoom]

Of all this I can but finally concede that unless some genius does arise who can put on paper a vision of Middle-earth beautiful enough that the Tolkien estate, as well as the majority of its literary fans, accepts it as worthy to be placed beside JRR Tolkien's own works, our comments are only echoes of the eternal battle between the hopeful and the conservative. That genius, if he ever exists, will not be relying on hope, nor will he shrink in the face of conservatism; and the next great story of Middle-earth won't be written in a literary forum.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Your comment is a bit short there, even for your usual flippancy. I'd say you're about 997 words short.

You know, I wonder-- if we assigned 1000 words to each picture drawn by every Tolkien illustrator and artist, that would probably exceed the length of LotR, wouldn't it? I think Tolkien got his wish.

i know 'graphic novels' are considered by many as high art, & I'm sure there are some good examples of the genre (Lal raves about Sandman). However, just as this 'genius' who will take up Tolkien's pen will (in my opinion) remain ever elusive & the job be taken up by some hack writer who will churn out genre fantasy, I expect that rather than presenting us with a work worthy to stand alongside Tolkien's own, that a graphic novel continuation of Tolkien's work would be squarely aimed at the hard of thinking demographic, who want to see Legolas surfing down stairways ('Whoosh!) while shooting Orcs ('Twang!' 'Arrgh!).

It seems to me that there can only be justification for asking for 'fuller' or completed versions of tales left unfinished by Tolkien, & I think its been shown that such versions are pretty much impossibilities. There is no justification (beyond the joy obtained by writers & readers of fanfic) for 'officially' sanctioned versions by other writers, as these writers have neither the absolute knowledge nor absolute control that Tolkien had over his creation - hence for that reason, however good & faithful said works were, they would ultimately be pale shadows of the original creation.

The demand for 'other tales' set in M-e is asking for something that doesn't actually exist (Tolkien didn't tell those stories, didn't invent that part of M-e). Its like asking for someone to decorate your fifth bedroom when you live in a four bedroomed house - & I just know someone is going to respond by saying 'Well, you could employ someone to build an extention!' - which is the whole problem with analogies: people think that because they can demolish the analogy they can as easily change the reality the analogy is pointing up.

The idea of 'graphic novels' of Tolkien's creation - whether adaptations of existing tales, or original stories - doiesn't really add anything to the argument of whether there could, or should be new tales - the form they may take does not really add anything to the discussion till we've reached a consensus on whether they are possible - or at least desirable.

[narfforc]

So Davem you think my Return of the Two Towering Kings and their Ring of Fellowship wouldn't sell then? , better start writing Potty Harry and the Goblins on Fire instead, or would you suggest Hairy Potter and the Prisoner is on a Razorban . All joking aside, if one person emerged that could and would write as the equal of Tolkien, there would be many more that would write junk, the world would be awash with piffle if it wasn't vetted properly. Fanfic does me quite fine, it's harmless fun and of which I have participated, of course I wish someone could write some more, but that wish would be wasted, for if I had one it would be that Tolkien had written more.

[davem]

Originally Posted by narfforc

. Fanfic does me quite fine, it's harmless fun and of which I have participated, of course I wish someone could write some more, but that wish would be wasted, for if I had one it would be that Tolkien had written more.

As said earlier, I wrote some fanfic myself & stuck it over on the Downs fanfic section. Fanfic is fine & fun & (to continue with the alliteration) free. I think this is fantasic, fabulous - free fiction for fans.

And so on.

What I don't get is why people want to pay for something they now get for free. It seems that what people want is to be told by the Estate what fanfic is good & what is bad. This seems to me to demonstrate a lack of the most basic critical judgement - of course, one admires the person who is so aware of their own lack of aesthetic sense that they are willing to pay to be told by those in authority what fiction is good & what is bad, & yet at the same time sad that it has to come to that. Their plaintive cries of 'Please tell me what is good Fanfic, O ye Lords of the Tolkien Estate, by putting JRRT's monogram on it & charging me £20 to buy it in hardback with nice colour plates by Ted Naismith! Else shall I not know whether the Middle-earth tales I come across on the Web are good or bad, for I am under a curse, as t'were laid on me by Morgoth himself, that I cannot tell whether a tale be worth the reading or not!' wring the heart of even the greatest cynic & the most unfeeling among us. Certes.

Of course, the irony is that when copyright expires & people are free to publish new tales of M-e all Tolkien's works will instantly appear FOC on the net, so that people will be able to get Tolkien's work for nowt, & yet have to pay for the sequels that will appear to glut even the most desperate fan of fic - all of which will be published perfectly legally, & 99.9999% of which will be drivel.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So I suppose then we take that last word to include writing and those last three words to include musical productions?

Given Tolkien's feelings about Drama, he would most certainly not count it as 'writing'! He saw Drama as something strictly for performance, not for reading, so No! Drama would not include other forms of writing to Tolkien!


Anyway this discussion brings to mind The New Shadow, where Tolkien himself attempted to write another Middle-earth story but failed miserably. The biggest stories of course had already been 'done' - any other Middle-earth story could only be a 'smaller' kind of tale unfortunately, and not half as good. Tolkien knew that the most he could hope for was to produce a kind of 'thriller' but any other story would entirely lack the sense of myth found in those he had already written.

So, Tolkien failed to add more Middle-earth mythology. What makes us think we would be any better at coming up with something new and as exciting as LotR?

[Sauron the White]

I simply am astounded how people can accurately look into the future and say with firm conviction and certainty that if anyone ever writes a real book (not fan fiction) about Middle-earth that it will be worthless crap. Sure, that is a possibility. But so is a real possibility that it could be good and enjoyable.

Could those who know the future so clearly please send me the winning lottery numbers for the next few weeks? It would be most appreciated and your talents would be praised with great praise.

So somebody can get joy out of reading fan fiction but nobody will get joy from reading an officially sanctioned Middle-earth book written by somebody else? Really now? And this is known just how? Back to those lottery numbers I guess.

I would think that unless the Estate does get a very good professional writer to perform such an undertaking and provides them with guidance and direction, the chances of an artistic failure are increased. Bit of a self fulfilling prophecy then to speculate than anybody who writes a Middle-earth tale would produce garbage.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I would think that unless the Estate does get a very good professional writer to perform such an undertaking and provides them with guidance and direction, the chances of an artistic failure are increased. Bit of a self fulfilling prophecy then to speculate than anybody who writes a Middle-earth tale would produce garbage.

I actually never said it was impossible for someone to make a decent effort, & that judged as a story it could be good. My point is that it wouldn't be Tolkien - it wouldn't be genuine. It would be simply a good fantasy novel using names & places invented by Tolkien - but if you think that that would be enough for it to stand alongside Tolkien's writings as part of the Legendarium you simply don't get it.

I simply am astounded how people can accurately look into the future and say with firm conviction and certainty that if anyone ever writes a real book (not fan fiction) about Middle-earth that it will be worthless crap. Sure, that is a possibility. But so is a real possibility that it could be good and enjoyable.

Yes, yes, & nobody can disprove that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters given an infinite amount of time wouldn't produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

You're right. Its not logically impossible. I just think that if we're going to have a sensible discussion on this we need more support for our arguments than 'Well, you can't prove 'X' won't happen one day.'

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

So somebody can get joy out of reading fan fiction but nobody will get joy from reading an officially sanctioned Middle-earth book written by somebody else? Really now? And this is known just how? Back to those lottery numbers I guess.

Middle Earth fanfiction currently exists and is most likely currently enjoyed. Therefore those who want more stories are getting precisely that. So why then, in your opinion, does the Estate need to give an official sanction to someone to create Middle Earth stories? Is there some particular reason why the informal vehicle of fanfiction is not enough?

[Sauron the White]

How many people enjoy these tales written on fan sites versus the numbers who would be customers in mass market book form? I personally loathe trying to read lengthy fiction on a screen. I much prefer the printed page of a traditional book. I would make a wild guess that I am not alone.

CHILDREN OF HURIN - a tale that has been around for a number of years now in several forms and is hardly "new" - is selling some half a million copies.

Maybe someone here could tell me what is the single most famous and best written piece of Middle-earth fan fiction and provide the number of how many hits it has gotten. Then compare that to a traditionally published book.

And we are not talking about hypothetical legions of trained monkeys on typewriters. To compare it to that is simply not honest.

[Morwen]

How many people enjoy these tales written on fan sites versus the numbers who would be customers in mass market book form? I personally loathe trying to read lengthy fiction on a screen. I much prefer the printed page of a traditional book. I would make a wild guess that I am not alone.

CHILDREN OF HURIN - a tale that has been around for a number of years now in several forms and is hardly "new" - is selling some half a million copies.

Maybe someone here could tell me what is the single most famous and best written piece of Middle-earth fan fiction and provide the number of how many hits it has gotten. Then compare that to a traditionally published book.

And we are not talking about hypothetical legions of trained monkeys on typewriters. To compare it to that is simply not honest.

And why is access to fanfiction a concern of the Estate?
If you had to pitch this idea to Christopher Tolkien would you seriously tell him that he needs to authorise new stories to facilitate your reading needs or so that people can conveniently purchase books his father never wrote?
It seems to me that if the Estate were to be persuaded to authorise new stories, the reasons given would have to be less 'reader-centric'. It would have to be shown that this would benefit the Estate. Money I guess would be the easiest selling point but assuming the Estate might be more interested in the preserving Tolkien's legacy than in quick cash, why would it be interested in authorising new stories?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morwen

Middle Earth fanfiction currently exists and is most likely currently enjoyed. Therefore those who want more stories are getting precisely that. So why then, in your opinion, does the Estate need to give an official sanction to someone to create Middle Earth stories? Is there some particular reason why the informal vehicle of fanfiction is not enough?

And if anyone wants they can even print out the stories they like & get a bookbinder to knock them up a nice leather bound volume with the title in gold leaf on the spine.

It seems that what is being asked for here is for a story/stories which are officially sanctioned in order to make them 'more' significant, & which can then be discussed & argued over on Internet fora. That & the desire to have a bunch of 'new' M-e volumes on people's bookshelves.

Oh, these 'fantastic' books which are waiting to come into being! These books which don't exist in any shape or form.

Has it occurred that to demand to have something which doesn't exist, simply because it is not logically impossible that it may one day exist is a bit of an odd demand to say the least?

Sauron the White & Feanorsdoom - Now, if you had come across a fan work that you sincerely believed was good enough to stand alongside Tolkien's works I could understand you maybe contacting the Estate & petitioning fans for support in getting it published. As it is you seem to be arguing that one day such a story might be written & that it should then be published. You argue that the Estate should 'take a writer under its wing' & help & encourage him or her to be the next JRRT. I have to ask you in all sincerity who is this writer? Has anyone volunteered to become this writer? Have they written any M-e fiction as yet?

Or is the Estate to advertise for a writer in the small ads? Are they to send out invitations to famous writers offering them a contract - even if the writers in question have no desire to write new M-e stories?

Can we move away from this 'Well, its not logically impossible for someone one day to
write new M-e stories" & have some names & background? Do you actually know of anyone who's putting themselves forward? If so, let's see what they've written & then we can decide whether they're likely to be any good.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

How many people enjoy these tales written on fan sites versus the numbers who would be customers in mass market book form? I personally loathe trying to read lengthy fiction on a screen. I much prefer the printed page of a traditional book. I would make a wild guess that I am not alone.

Sorry, I missed this post - firstly I'd have to say, print out the stories you want to read then. Second, I'd have to say this would come under the heading of 'Your Problem' not Christopher Tolkien's.

CHILDREN OF HURIN - a tale that has been around for a number of years now in several forms and is hardly "new" - is selling some half a million copies.

Which proves people want to read JRR Tolkien's stories, not those of FRR Bloggs. I absolutely guarantee that half a million people would not read a M-e novel by anyone else.

Maybe someone here could tell me what is the single most famous and best written piece of Middle-earth fan fiction and provide the number of how many hits it has gotten. Then compare that to a traditionally published book.

Maybe nobody cares about fanfic like you do. If you find something you like let us know.

And we are not talking about hypothetical legions of trained monkeys on typewriters. To compare it to that is simply not honest.

No - apparently we're talking about hypothetical 'geniuses' who're sitting by the phone waiting for Christopher Tolkien to call them...

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I've never argued that

I still am not sure what you mean, and you didn't read my PM request for clarification, apparently. If you agree that subjective perception is the only thing that matters, then how come you make judgements of value which you consider to be objectively true??

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So, Tolkien failed to add more Middle-earth mythology. What makes us think we would be any better at coming up with something new and as exciting as LotR?

I believe you are mixing issues here. In regards to the New Shadow, it is not that no new story can be added by anyone, but that such stories, in the fourth age "after the overthrow of Sauron", are "not worth recounting" - most likely because Sauron is the last mythological evil "power point", according to Myths Transformed. We know from various places, such as Tolkien's comments on Beowulf, that great foes may give a story 'lofty tone and high serioussness' and they may endow a hero with great significance - in the extreme, a resistance without hope is a perfect one. But, as stated previously, there are no such worthy enemies in the fourth age - and I believe this is the reason that any story is likely to not match the tone of the stories concerning the first three ages. But when talking about a new story about M-E I doubt anyone has in mind (or at least not first and foremost) a story about the fourth age.

[Sauron the White]

I am not arguing that the Tolkien Estate needs to do anything in these matters at this time. Regardless of if it is in their interest or not. Copyright law being what it is, it looks like the legal protections extend to the year 2043 some 70 years after the death of JRRT. That is 36 years from now so the problem is not one that will be encountered soon. In fact, The Estate and its officials can well ignore this problem for the next three decades. The "problem" I refer to is the lapse of copyright protections on the world of Middle-earth.

Yes - I do understand that the Estate will employ various legal strategies to extend these legal protections and thwart Middle-earth stories even after this time.

Yes - I do understand that a certain hardcore Tolkien following will resist any efforts to introduce new works in exactly the same spirit that we have seen evidenced here.

Yes - I do understand that there will always be a hard and firm difference which can never be changed or altered between what was written by JRRT and anyone else no matter how good or how bad.

Speaking for myself - and not trying to foist anything on anyone be it my opinion, my predictions for the future, or anything else - I simply would like to see many of the gaps filled in regarding the tales and histories of Middle-earth. I would like to see talented writers tell many of the tales about events, dates and people that are now only briefly sketched out or mentioned. I would enjoy this a great deal.

Regardless of how anyone intreprets the words of JRRT in his letters, I do think this is in the spirit of his statement.

I think it is a self fulfilling prophect to take a position which essentially says:
- nobody can ever write anything about Middle-earth other than JRRT other than obscure fan fiction which is read by a small cadre of people outside of the main literary world
- anything written by anyone else will not be as good, would most likely be crap or garbage so should be discouraged at all cost
- current followers of JRRT will never accept it regardless of quality or sanction so the Estate should keep arms length from ever even considering official sanction.

If those positions prevail, then what will happen is that in some 36 years much of what you fear will come true.

What I would like to see: ideally - some sort of effort every few years where writers across the world are asked to submit stories of Middle-earth to a group set up by the Estate and their official publishers. A vetting process could be employed to insure quality and historical accuracy within the canon of work that we have now. Rules could be laid down to tell writers they cannot change anything that Tolkien already has established within that world. Then a book published - perhaps every few years - of authorized Middle-earth stories which clearly state who wrote them and they are not the work of JRRT, Christopher or anyone else Tolkien. I think that would be the best compromise that we could see.

But thats just my opinion. It i not intended as a strategy for the Estate or anyone else. Its just what I would like to see. I do think that the sales response to CHILDREN OF HURIN - an old tale being disguised and marketed as a "new book" shows that there is a thirst out there for more Middle-earth.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

What I would like to see: ideally - some sort of effort every few years where writers across the world are asked to submit stories of Middle-earth to a group set up by the Estate and their official publishers. A vetting process could be employed to insure quality and historical accuracy within the canon of work that we have now. Rules could be laid down to tell writers they cannot change anything that Tolkien already has established within that world. Then a book published - perhaps every few years - of authorized Middle-earth stories which clearly state who wrote them and they are not the work of JRRT, Christopher or anyone else Tolkien. I think that would be the best compromise that we could see.

After reading that I just give up on the whole thing. I hope that if they do it the first volume is dedicated to you.

[Morwen]

Yes - I do understand that a certain hardcore Tolkien following will resist any efforts to introduce new works in exactly the same spirit that we have seen evidenced here.

Yes - I do understand that there will always be a hard and firm difference which can never be changed or altered between what was written by JRRT and anyone else no matter how good or how bad.

Well I've never thought of myself as a hardcore Tolkien follower. Let me say this though - when you speak of efforts to resist the introduction of new tales this conveys the idea that the creation of new ME stories is simply a natural and logical progression. Speaking for myself, I don't see it that way. I see Middle Earth as Tolkien's creation, in the way that any author's writings are his/her creation. If there are "gaps" he never filled, then so be it. IMO I don't think that their existence is an argument for saying that someone must officially take up the task of telling those stories.

What I would like to see: ideally - some sort of effort every few years where writers across the world are asked to submit stories of Middle-earth to a group set up by the Estate and their official publishers. A vetting process could be employed to insure quality and historical accuracy within the canon of work that we have now. Rules could be laid down to tell writers they cannot change anything that Tolkien already has established within that world. Then a book published - perhaps every few years - of authorized Middle-earth stories which clearly state who wrote them and they are not the work of JRRT, Christopher or anyone else Tolkien. I think that would be the best compromise that we could see.

While you may understand that there is a hard and firm difference between the works of Tolkien and latter day efforts I'm not sure that others will maintain that distinction even if it is made clear that the later stories are not the work of Tolkien. It seems to me that if the Estate expressly authorises someone to write stories to "fill in the gaps" it will end up changing the way in which the existing material is read and how existing characters are perceived. And inevitably that alters the Legendarium. Just my view, but I don't see that as a good thing.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I certainy respect your opinion and your scholarship. We will agree to disagree -- hopefully.

Allow me to ask this of you and others .... according to current laws, it will be 36 years until copyright expires barring future changes. If the copyright expiration were only a couple of years away, would you be more open to some sort of sanctioned ME stories by others with the blessing of the Estate to publicly and openly differentiate them from the eventual floodgates being opened and every hack writer trying their hand at it with no oversight at all? You probably cannot stop them once copyright expires, but you may be able to carve out a sanctioned vs. unsanctioned niche that would help readers make their choices with their purchasing dollars.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Allow me to ask this of you and others .... according to current laws, it will be 36 years until copyright expires barring future changes. If the copyright expiration were only a couple of years away, would you be more open to some sort of sanctioned ME stories by others with the blessing of the Estate to publicly and openly differentiate them from the eventual floodgates being opened and every hack writer trying their hand at it with no oversight at all? You probably cannot stop them once copyright expires, but you may be able to carve out a sanctioned vs. unsanctioned niche that would help readers make their choices with their purchasing dollars.

I think the problem is in the way we think of Middle-earth. I don't see it as a fictional world' that other writers can write stories about, but rather Tolkien's attempt to explore & communicate his ideas about myth & language, & to tell specific kinds of tales. There is a strong autobiographical element which colours what he wrote, & that no-one else can re-create.

I can only repeat that this is not about whether another writer can write entertaining stories set in Middle-earth, but whether they would be 'genuine'. What I'm arguing here is that what distinguishes Tolkien's creation from other fantasy worlds (& this statement would apply to Howard's Hyborean Age, Mirlees' Lud in the Mist, Dunsany's Pegana, Peake's Gormenghast, Eddison's Mercury, etc) is what he brought out of his experience. Other great fantasy worlds are great because they are unique. There are lots of generic fantasy worlds out there which anyone could set stories in, but the great fantasy worlds are special because of who wrote them.

In short, what you're asking for is impossible. I've read some good M-e fanfic. I wrote a (so-so) M-e fanfic. The problem is, no fanfic is 100% convincing - there's always something 'missing', some point at which you stop & think, 'No, that doesn't seem right. And its not because the writer is a bad storyteller. Its because they're not Tolkien.

If you haven't done so yet, get hold of John Garth's 'Tolkien & the Great War'. That will spell out to you as clearly as possible why only Tolkien could write convincing M-e stories.

EDIT

Look. If you take CoH as an example, you have one of the darkest, most hopeless, most tragic pieces of fiction ever produced. Its also one the earliest M-e stories Tolkien wrote. It has two 'sources', or two 'seeds'. First, mythological - the characters of Kullervo in the Kalevala & of Sigurd in the Volsungasaga, & second, 'biographical', in that it came into being in the post WWI period, when Tolkien had lived through the horrors of the Somme, & lost two out of his three closest friends. Garth talks about Tolkien 'seeing the world through enchanted eyes'. In other words the myths & fairy stories he had loved since childhood coloured his perception of the horror & loss he knew. There was a kind of 'feedback loop'. Myth fed into reality & reality fed into myth.

What I would argue is that CoH could only come out of a personal experience of horror & loss of the most extreme kind. If another writer who had not had that kind of experience tried to write a tale like CoH they would either produce melodrama or farce. Same with Beren & Luthien - too autobiographical (as is Gondolin - as Garth shows).

Other writers could, as I said, set stories in M-e. They could perhaps write good stories, as good, in their own way as Tolkien's own. But the 'Tolkien' element - which is the unique element in the M-e tales he gave us - would be absent.

[Bêthberry]

Post #111:

Originally Posted by davem

After reading that I just give up on the whole thing. I hope that if they do it the first volume is dedicated to you.

Post #114:

Originally Posted by davem

I think the problem is in the way we think of Middle-earth. I don't see it as a fictional world' that other writers can write stories about, but rather Tolkien's attempt to explore & communicate his ideas about myth & language, & to tell specific kinds of tales. There is a strong autobiographical element which colours what he wrote, & that no-one else can re-create.

I can only repeat that this is not about whether another writer can write entertaining stories set in Middle-earth, but whether they would be 'genuine'. What I'm arguing here is that what distinguishes Tolkien's creation from other fantasy worlds (& this statement would apply to Howard's Hyborean Age, Mirlees' Lud in the Mist, Dunsany's Pegana, Peake's Gormenghast, Eddison's Mercury, etc) is what he brought out of his experience. Other great fantasy worlds are great because they are unique. There are lots of generic fantasy worlds out there which anyone could set stories in, but the great fantasy worlds are special because of who wrote them.

In short, what you're asking for is impossible. I've read some good M-e fanfic. I wrote a (so-so) M-e fanfic. The problem is, no fanfic is 100% convincing - there's always something 'missing', some point at which you stop & think, 'No, that doesn't seem right. And its not because the writer is a bad storyteller. Its because they're not Tolkien.

If you haven't done so yet, get hold of John Garth's 'Tolkien & the Great War'. That will spell out to you as clearly as possible why only Tolkien could write convincing M-e stories.

EDIT

Look. If you take CoH as an example, you have one of the darkest, most hopeless, most tragic pieces of fiction ever produced. Its also one the earliest M-e stories Tolkien wrote. It has two 'sources', or two 'seeds'. First, mythological - the characters of Kullervo in the Kalevala & of Sigurd in the Volsungasaga, & second, 'biographical', in that it came into being in the post WWI period, when Tolkien had lived through the horrors of the Somme, & lost two out of his three closest friends. Garth talks about Tolkien 'seeing the world through enchanted eyes'. In other words the myths & fairy stories he had loved since childhood coloured his perception of the horror & loss he knew. There was a kind of 'feedback loop'. Myth fed into reality & reality fed into myth.

What I would argue is that CoH could only come out of a personal experience of horror & loss of the most extreme kind. If another writer who had not had that kind of experience tried to write a tale like CoH they would either produce melodrama or farce. Same with Beren & Luthien - too autobiographical (as is Gondolin - as Garth shows).

Other writers could, as I said, set stories in M-e. They could perhaps write good stories, as good, in their own way as Tolkien's own. But the 'Tolkien' element - which is the unique element in the M-e tales he gave us - would be absent.

My, for a brief spell there I thought Sauron the White had actually got davem to forsake his MO of always having the last word. I was mistaken, obviously.

Originally Posted by Lal

Given Tolkien's feelings about Drama, he would most certainly not count it as 'writing'! He saw Drama as something strictly for performance, not for reading, so No! Drama would not include other forms of writing to Tolkien!

But it would then include such productions as the LotR musical currently in pre-production in Drury Lane and late of Toronto? It appears that Tolkien did countenance such productions, along with "paint" and "music." Productions by other hands.

However, if the defining criteria of acceptable writing about Middle-earth by another authors is this issue of "authenticity" -- lacking the genuine Tolkien element of autobiographical mind-mold (if not leafmold)--then why doesn't this issue of being genuine apply to Tolkien's own acceptance of his mythology in other art forms by other people? Autobiographical genuineness clearly didn't matter to Tolkien there.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

My, for a brief spell there I thought Sauron the White had actually got davem to forsake his MO of always having the last word. I was mistaken, obviously.

Yes, but I was addressed directly & asked for a response. I think you would be the first to admit that politeness is my greatest fault.

Autobiographical genuineness clearly didn't matter to Tolkien there.

I think it did. We need to keep in mind that Tolkien was, in that letter to Waldman, attempting to 'sell' his books to a publisher who he hoped would agree to publish both LotR & The Sil.

That said, I think we have to go back to the vision of the TCBS if we're to understand where Tolkien was coming from in that desire that 'other hands' would be moved to add to his creation. Their sense of themselves as another pre-Rapaelite Brotherhood, the source of a potential moral regeneration of England is behind Tolkien's words.

Finally, I can't help but feel that Tolkien underestimated his skill as an artist. He may have wished for other hands to add to his creation, but I think its clear that he, also, was wishing for this elusive 'genius' to appear out of nowhere.

As with most of the letters, its best not to just take his statements at face value.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But it would then include such productions as the LotR musical currently in pre-production in Drury Lane and late of Toronto? It appears that Tolkien did countenance such productions, along with "paint" and "music." Productions by other hands.

However, if the defining criteria of acceptable writing about Middle-earth by another authors is this issue of "authenticity" -- lacking the genuine Tolkien element of autobiographical mind-mold (if not leafmold)--then why doesn't this issue of being genuine apply to Tolkien's own acceptance of his mythology in other art forms by other people? Autobiographical genuineness clearly didn't matter to Tolkien there.

He'd no objections to songs and stuff as he worked with Donald Swann, but I don't know if he'd have gone much for the music in the current musical as he was known not to be fond of pop music at all, as you might expect for someone born when he was.

But somehow I don't think the 'authenticity' issue is of any matter when someone is adapting a story that's already been written by Tolkien. What are they gonna do? Hop in the nearest Tardis and go back and change details of his life?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, but I was addressed directly & asked for a response. I think you would be the first to admit that politeness is my greatest fault.

I believe you have me confused with Estelyn Telcontar, who has met you and who has attested to your politeness. Having never met you, I cannot of course admit to anything, even if by chance our paths had crossed unknowingly some three years ago when I was in York, Oxford, and London--of the English variety.

Originally Posted by davem

I think it did. We need to keep in mind that Tolkien was, in that letter to Waldman, attempting to 'sell' his books to a publisher who he hoped would agree to publish both LotR & The Sil.

So when Tolkien attempts to persue monetary gain, that's okay.

Originally Posted by Lal

But somehow I don't think the 'authenticity' issue is of any matter when someone is adapting a story that's already been written by Tolkien. What are they gonna do? Hop in the nearest Tardis and go back and change details of his life?

Authenticity is an issue when biography is used as one of the main criteria for explaining the provenance of the texts, because even adaptations will be effected by biography.

Raynor, I appreciate your query about subjective perception and objectively true statements.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So when Tolkien attempts to persue monetary gain, that's okay.

Well, I have no problem with it. Genius deserves payment (though how that fits in with my unpaid posting here on the Downs I'm not certain). Its people attempting to cash in on Tollkien's work that I have a problem with....

Raynor, I appreciate your query about subjective perception and objectively true statements.

Me too.

I still am not sure what you mean, and you didn't read my PM request for clarification, apparently. If you agree that subjective perception is the only thing that matters, then how come you make judgements of value which you consider to be objectively true??

Of course, I don't see that the former necessarily precludes the latter. One can give absolute priority to the former, & note, en passent, that the latter is also the case. Or vice versa. You could even argue that the former position is 'subjective' & the latter 'objective'.

And yet, I don't see that this is anything other than a side issue, a crazy tangential foray down a dead end road n'stuff. We're supposed to be discussing whether JRRT encouraged new M-e stories, not psycho-analysing each other, or indulging in a philosophical debate on subjectivity vs objectivity.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

One can give absolute priority to the former, & note, en passent, that the latter is also the case.

But we are not talking about what would be true in a particular subjective perception and what would be true in a general objective judgement. Accidentally, this two may coincide in some cases, but it is reasonable to believe that, given a large enough sample, objective judgement will be at odds with some subjective perceptions. What is at stake is which position is acceptable: the objective one - or the subjective one (in which case, this discussion is superfluous, since anyone can chose what works to accept or not, and if others, including scholars, have an issue with that, no biggie).

And yet, I don't see that this is anything other than a side issue, a crazy tangential foray down a dead end road n'stuff.

We're supposed to be discussing whether JRRT encouraged new M-e stories, not psycho-analysing each other, or indulging in a philosophical debate on subjectivity vs objectivity.

As noted above, I believe this is the core of the problem, whether we take an objective or a subjective stance. Since this is an issue of art, perception, taste, I believe the answer is obvious.

You previously phrased the subject in the subjective terms of whether someone can "create convincing stories set in his world"

"The point is whether anyone else can do what Tolkien did, have Tolkien's insight in to his own creation sufficient to enable them to create convincing stories set in his world."

We need to define a common point of reference, that is, are we talking objectivity or subjectivity, and not attempt to simultaneously play two irrenciliable positions.

And, frankly, I expect even the "objective" position to be variable in time or geographically - just as morality is, as you and Lalwendë argued in other threads.