If the Children of Húrin was filmed...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

To take the two postings in order: HarperCollins is 'the' Tolkien publisher simply because they bought out Allen & Unwin (or rather Unwin Hyman) in 1990. There's no reason for CT to change horses, esp. since HarperCollins was willing to continue publishing the later volumes of The History of Middle-earth on what was effectively a break-even basis. That doesn't however mean that the Estate has a great deal of control: if you look at the various film spin-off books' copyright pages you'll see a notice to the effect of "Published with permission but not approval of the Tolkien Estate."

Calendars and illustrations fall into a slightly different realm than covers. In general a publisher is entitled to use any cover they bloody well please, which is why the original Ballantines came out with those Barabara Remington covers that JRRT positively loathed. But A&U/HC can't put out an edition with internal illustrations without the Estate's say-so, and CT does (understandably) want the right of review. Calendars used to be a Ballantine affair which JRRT simply signed off on; CT's position was essentially one of benign neglect until one appeared with pictures he really detested (Kirk, I believe), after which he tightened up.

As to Alan Lee: AL has of course been the Estate's first choice illustrator since long before the movies ever darkened the horizon, and AL's participation in the project wasn't going to earn him a blackball! I suspect this was the subtext of CT's press release, where he disclaimed 'thinking ill' of those involved with the films.

Ted Naismith: If I read the same interview, I don't believe that it was monsters which were forbidden (after all Glaurung appears), but character portraits- and in Ted's set the humanoid figures are indeed small and distant, or seen from the back.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Addendum:

Heavens, if Alan Lee's illustrating a book for David Day didn't cause a breach with CRT, nothing would!

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

To take the two postings in order: HarperCollins is 'the' Tolkien publisher simply because they bought out Allen & Unwin (or rather Unwin Hyman) in 1990. There's no reason for CT to change horses, esp. since HarperCollins was willing to continue publishing the later volumes of The History of Middle-earth on what was effectively a break-even basis. That doesn't however mean that the Estate has a great deal of control: if you look at the various film spin-off books' copyright pages you'll see a notice to the effect of "Published with permission but not approval of the Tolkien Estate."

True, but CT could have chosen pretty much any publisher for CoH that he wanted (though one suspects that the uproar resulting from choosing any other publisher would have caused major issues re the other works) and certainly HC have produced some very nice editions of Tolkien's works - the recent HB editions of LotR, The Sil, UT & the forthcoming Hobbit are much higher quality than preceeding ones.

As to Alan Lee: AL has of course been the Estate's first choice illustrator since long before the movies ever darkened the horizon, and AL's participation in the project wasn't going to earn him a blackball! I suspect this was the subtext of CT's press release, where he disclaimed 'thinking ill' of those involved with the films.

This is one reason why I tend to take Simon Tolkien's statement that his approval of the films is the reason for the estrangement between himself & his father - the idea that CT would cut himself off from his son merely for liking the movies, while still working happily with Alan Lee (& John Howe) who worked on the movies doesn;t hold up. And again, the one painting we've seen so far could have been a pre-production still from the LotR movies, so either AL was just rubbing CT's nose in the fact that he contributed so much to the look of the films & CT just had to accept it, or CT has no real problem with the movies. I think the fact that AL is the artist of choice of CT & the Estate really puts paid to any rumours of 'anger' or unhappiness on their part re the movies. My own feeling is that CT is no more 'unhappy' with the movies than many lovers of the book who may have appreciated PJ's effort but did not admire the movies very much.

[Sauron the White]

William

The calendar with the Tim Kirk illustrations was in 1975. Before that they went with JRRT illustrations from the books. They had to either scrap the idea of a yearly calendar or go outside of JRRT's own work since they needed 13 to 14 paintings each year. In ten years time that is some 130 or more works of art. I do not think it was the Kirk calendar which alerted the Estate to get more involved because they kept up that type of calendar for several more years. For the next few years they used a variety of illustrators. The Tolkien Estate and CT are most sensitive about the depiction of Beren and Luthien. It was the story closest to JJRT's own heart. Just look at the depiction of Beren and Luthien in the US 1981 calendar for the month of February. Luthien as a sexy scantily clad dancer and Beren as Robin Hood - artist was Rowena Morril. There is no way under heaven that CT or the Estate would have given their approval to something like that. So I think the years of more hands on involvement came much later than the 1097 Kirk calendar.

The "monster" comments attributed to Ted Nasmith are not from a print interview. They came in direct statements from himself. I remember well his use of the term monster and how the Estate did not want anything from the darker side of the mythos portrayed. I have copies of rough paintings Nasmith did depicting Angband and the persons of Morgoth, Ungoliant, Sauron and other darker beings that are wonderful ideas for full paintings but were rejected by the Estate for the specific "monster" reasoning.

Unless one is privy to the exact contractual terms that exist between the Estate and the publishers I think it is risky to state that interiors or calendar illustrations must be approved while covers need not be. This could be the case but we do not know this for a fact. What I do strongly suspect is that there is little chance that the official publishers would dare put something on the cover like a film photograph and go against the wishes of the Estate. It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. That is partly why I am willing to accept the idea that I saw in print that the Estate made a deal with the publishers to accept the film covers in return for a slightly higher royalty.

I would not read too much either way into the selection of Alan Lee to illustrate HURIN despite his work on the films. They simply like him. Period.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I stand corrected on the Tim Kirk illustrations (which was only a dim and faulty recollection)- it may be because I personally didn't like them.

I understand what you're saying about the monsters- one of CT's problems with Peter Jackson was that, in his opinion, the monsters were the only thing PJ was really interested in, at the expense of much else. I note that at least one calendar includes a Nasmith painting of Fingon and Gothmog which was not included in the illustrated Sil- but then Glaurung and Morgoth do appear there.

However, I'll hold my ground on illustrated editions: the Estate retains the intellectual property rights over pictures deriving from JRRT's work. This of course is fuzzier with LR and Hobbit where Saul Zaentz gets a claim too: but there's no grey area with regard to Silmarillion. Nobody, not even HarperCollins, can publish Silmarillion-based illustrations without approval. As indeed Nasmith's comments suggest.

Aside, re: Simon Tolkien--
if you read his original Telegraph interview carefully, you'll see that Simon never says precisely that the breach with his father occurred in relation to the movies- necessarily, since it is in fact far older. Lawyer that he is, he cleverly said,"After that, I was excluded from the board:" technically true, if one doesn't accept the invitation to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but understands "after that" in a strictly chronological sense; and perceives that "excluded" means, literally, not included- Simon was not chosen for the board when it was created in 1999. But one can't help but suspect that Simon parsed his statement with care, in the full expectation that our beloved nitwit press would misinterpret it in precisely the way they did.

[Sauron the White]

Just wanted to clarify something---- when Nasmith made his "monster" statements he was very positive about working with both the publishers and the Tolkien Estate. He was proud of a positive relationship with CT. His statements about the monster illustrations were not in the nature of complaints but more in the nature of "here is how they work".

[davem]

Quote from Alan Lee:

Alan Lee: An illustrator has to pay very close attention to the text and support the intentions of the author, so it is important for me to get feedback from the author or, in the case of J.R.R. Tolkien, from Christopher Tolkien, who obviously has a keener understanding of the text than anybody else. I think we are in accord in that neither of us wants to see close-ups of the characters or depictions of the most vital and dramatic moments, preferring to establish atmosphere and set the scene. Looking at J.R.R. Tolkien's own illustrations has been very useful, as well as enjoyable, in that they help with understanding the topography of the landscapes he is describing. It is also interesting to see that his idea of how a landscape or city might look changes and develops as the story is shaped. http://www.bordersstores.com/feature...?file=leealan2

[Sauron the White]

davem - on this we think alike since I came here to post the exact same Alan Lee comment. Putting this remark together along with what Nasmith has said about the SIL process seems to indicate that the Estate is very much a hands on partner in creating illustrations for JRRT's work.