Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[davem]

Yep, CT has let slip Clive, (his wild boar) on another author: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...-fiction.shtml

An author by the name of Stephen Hilliard has written a bit of historical fiction, that includes a bunch of historical characters and a fictionalized version of Tolkien. The book is supposed to be a historical novel and a form of literary criticism of Tolkien -- though I would imagine it's partly called that in order to aid with any potential "fair use" claims.

The Tolkien estate, of course, objects to the entire concept of the book, and sent a cease-and-desist letter to Hilliard, claiming that the book violated JRR Tolkien's publicity rights and "alleged that the cover art and typefaces in "Mirkwood" were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition." That may be one of the more ridiculous assertions we've seen in a long time. "Unfair competition" to whom or what? Is anyone going to buy this novel and then say "well, that satisfies my need for Tolkien's work?" It seems like a pretty extreme argument, putting in the cease-and-desist just to pad out the threats part.

Get the book here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mirkwood-Ste...8314819&sr=8-2

or Kindle it in a few seconds: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mirkwood-Tol...8314819&sr=8-2

Get yours now - before Clive eats it.... & then comes for you

(EDIT: I just downloaded it - I knew about the book previously but had decided not to bother getting it just yet. But now CT has just annoyed me enough to buy the thing.....I'm just off to get me boar spear......)

[Mithalwen]

Or don't waste your money on what looks like utter drivel. Any one whose opening sentence includes the word "deplaned" deserves everything they get. By which I mean a wild boar spearing the nether regions rather than royalties. But I am a bit chary of this sort of fictionalising a real person - especially one whose life is in living memory still.


And he has Edith or a presumably English travel agent writing "favorite" . Clive..I'm holding your coat...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Or don't waste your money on what looks like utter drivel. Any one whose opening sentence includes the word "deplaned" deserves everything they get.

Well, I suppose you have a choice whether or not you buy the book or ...well, unless Christopher gets his way, & then you won't have any choice at all.

But I am a bit chary of this sort of fictionalising a real person - especially one whose life is in living memory still.

There have been a number of novels which use Tolkien as a character - the Imaginarium Geographica series http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Dragons-...8320806&sr=1-1, the recent 'Looking for the King http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Dragons-...8320806&sr=1-1 & a graphic novel which has Tolkien, Lewis & Charles Williams as the central characters http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heavens-War-...321170&sr=8-12 among others.

And far be it from me to accuse Christopher Tolkien of hypocrisy in this matter, but in his discussion of the Notion Club Papers (HoM-e vol 9) he quite openly admits that his father based the members of the Notion Club on the Inklings (all of whom were alive at the time the work was written, btw) & is quite admiring of the way it is all done...

(EDIT) I see that the Estate are requesting the 'destruction of all copies of the book' - perhaps a big bonfire, which CT could be asked to ceremonially ignite himself. ...I wonder how he would respond to a request from surviving relatives of the Inklings members his father used as characters were to request that all copies of Sauron Defeated were destroyed?

[Mithalwen]

Although Tolkien at least knew the Inklings...

But you can get as agitated as you like but I have to say the extract I could see was the second worst piece of "literature" I have read in a decade. I would have hoped publishers would be more discerning and spare me the dubious option in the first place.

But I wouldn't burn it ..pulp it and use it as bog roll far better use of a tree...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Although Tolkien at least knew the Inklings...

But you can get as agitated as you like but I have to say the extract I could see was the second worst piece of "literature" I have read in a decade. I would have hoped publishers would be more discerning and spare me the dubious option in the first place.

But I wouldn't burn it ..pulp it and use it as bog roll far better use of a tree...

So, fine to burn 'poorly written' books? And yet, who shall decide? You? Christopher Tolkien?

Christopher is turning into a bit of a book burner, tbh, & sorry, but book burning (or 'pulping' if you're of the 'collateral damage' school of thought) is immoral & barbaric, & I'd rather have a million badly written, trashy novels out there (& there are far worse novels out there than this one appears to be) than see books being 'burned' simply because some old rich bloke decides he doesn't 'want them to be'.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

Christopher is turning into a bit of a book burner, tbh, & sorry, but book burning (or 'pulping' if you're of the 'collateral damage' school of thought) is immoral & barbaric, & I'd rather have a million badly written, trashy novels out there (& there are far worse novels out there than this one appears to be) than see books being 'burned' simply because some old rich bloke decides he doesn't 'want them to be'.

Ah. Paperback writers have it so rough don't they? Perhaps CT objects to people wanting to use the Tolkien name merely to give an air of importance and credibility to an otherwise inferior product? This'll no doubt come as a shock, but I'm not all that fussed about this.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Ah. Paperback writers have it so rough don't they? Perhaps CT objects to people wanting to use the Tolkien name merely to give an air of importance and credibility to an otherwise inferior product? This'll no doubt come as a shock, but I'm not all that fussed about this.

Perhaps I see a difference between a) 'X' not wanting the 'X' name used merely to give an air of importance and credibility to an otherwise inferior product & b) burning books.

Perhaps, as this kind of thing becomes more & more the norm (not just CT & the Estate, but others following in their wake) we'll eventually get to the burning of something you will find yourself 'fussed about'?

What right, exactly, does CT & the Estate have to start censoring whatever they don't approve of, demanding that those things be destroyed? None of this is about publishing copyrighted material, merely about using a person who has been dead more than a quarter of a century as a character in a novel.

This is NOT about the quality of this particular book - I've bought it but don't know if I'll get around to finishing it - it may be the most dreadful thing ever written, but why does that make it acceptable to destroy it?

[davem]

For those interested in the depiction of JRRT in fiction, this piece is worth a read http://home.earthlink.net/~dbratman/infiction.html so it can hardly be claimed that we are dealing with something out of the ordinary when we come across a fictional representation of Tolkien. And have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biographical_films - should the inheritors of the Estates of any famous person be able to control/prevent the depiction of of that person in the media?

[Bêthberry]

This almost tempts me to get a kindle.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

So, fine to burn 'poorly written' books? And yet, who shall decide? You? Christopher Tolkien?

Christopher is turning into a bit of a book burner, tbh, & sorry, but book burning (or 'pulping' if you're of the 'collateral damage' school of thought) is immoral & barbaric, & I'd rather have a million badly written, trashy novels out there (& there are far worse novels out there than this one appears to be) than see books being 'burned' simply because some old rich bloke decides he doesn't 'want them to be'.

No need to be so melodramatic. Millions of books are pulped becasue no one wants to read them. I certainly don't want to read this dire stuff (it may only be the third worst - I remember now I did read two Dan Brown's - and if someone wrote such claptrap about my dad I'd be ballistic. Basically it is telling lies about him isn't it? Not exactly my idea of a novel.

would it be ok to use JRRT in a pornographic novel for example? Make him a criminal, a satanist? A paedophile? After all he's dead. You can't libel the dead.

Presumably since this is a matter of principle you'd buy the books of someone who used JRRT as a character thus. All right for anyone to rip off Tolkien and his works as much as they like not alright for his family to care and try to stop it. Maybe if someone was doing this stuff about someone you care about then you'd try and stop it too.

You persist in making CRT out to be a monster but that is what you really want him to be - someone who didn't give a damn about his father, his work and his reputation but just let it all go in to some shoddy and exploitative free for all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Millions of books are pulped becasue no one wants to read them. I certainly don't want to read this dire stuff (it may only be the third worst - I remember now I did read two Dan Brown's - and if someone wrote such claptrap about my dad I'd be ballistic. Basically it is telling lies about him isn't it? Not exactly my idea of a novel.

Yes - but how many books are pulped (or never get to see the light of day at all) each year because Christopher Tolkien doesn't want people to read them? This all about the reader's choice - if this book didn't attract an audience it would be pulped, & I would have no problem at all with that. I do have a problem with any book being pulped because one rich old bully decides he doesn't want it to be available. (Yes, rich old bully - CT is able to do this, basically try to intimidate an author & publisher into doing what he wants because he's rich enough to employ the best lawyers who can drag cases through court - something that most other people cannot.)

would it be ok to use JRRT in a pornographic novel for example? Make him a criminal, a satanist? A paedophile? After all he's dead. You can't libel the dead.

Presumably since this is a matter of principle you'd buy the books of someone who used JRRT as a character thus. All right for anyone to rip off Tolkien and his works as much as they like not alright for his family to care and try to stop it. Maybe if someone was doing this stuff about someone you care about then you'd try and stop it too.

Er...you started this post accusing me of being melodramatic... The way Tolkien is depicted in this novel is, from what I can see, entirely respectful - the author got the idea for the book from reading LotR to his children, & he says quite clearly that he's a fan of Tolkien.

That said, your original objection seemed to be to the quality of the writing/story whereas now it seems to be to the subject matter. Tolkien as Satanist or criminal, or paedophile.....Probably it would depend on the quality of the book & what the author was trying to do - I'd judge the book on its merits & object to CT or anyone else trying to stop me reading it.

You persist in making CRT out to be a monster but that is what you really want him to be - someone who didn't give a damn about his father, his work and his reputation but just let it all go in to some shoddy and exploitative free for all.

The point is that he (yet again) is using his money to stop a book being published simply because he doesn't like what's in it. I do expect him to "give a damn about his father, his work and his reputation" - I just refuse to accept that that gives him carte blanche to censor whatever he disapproves of. Perhaps he needs to re-read LotR - particularly the bits about the corruption of the Ring :

I think my master was right. I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights. You'd stop them digging up the gaffer and turning him adrift. You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work.'
'I would,' she said. 'That is how it would begin. But it would not stop with that, alas!

EDIT:

Or to take the argument further - we've seen a number of fundamentalist churches burn copies of LotR & other books (Harry Potter, His Dark Materials - even The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe) in the past, because they firmly believed that the books were 'evil' & promoted 'occultism'. We've also seen numerous accusations of 'racism' about LotR & Tolkien himself & I'm sure there are people who would feel that the book should be destroyed for that reason - would that be ok - would you support them in any attempt to get all copies of LotR destroyed - if they were genuinely upset and/or offended by the work?

If we were all to get the right to destroy books/films/art that offended/upset us, or didn't attain to our elevated aesthetic standards, then frankly there wouldn't be much left. This is not about whether CT should be upset about the way his father is depicted in fiction, but what he should be able to do about it.

Millions of books are pulped becasue no one wants to read them.

Perfectly true - just as millions of people are killed on the roads every year - but that wouldn't justify CT getting behind the wheel of his car & intnentionally running over anyone he didn't like.

[Mithalwen]

Yo I was not being melodramatic just seeing how far your principles stretch.
Since this is not about quality or how he is depicted.

You now seem to be saying that anyone can write anything and use any material how they like and the literary quality is the only criteria? Hmm .... so it is alright for YOU to judge on literary merit ... ?

Actually there are books which have been sanitised but I think there is a fairly obvious difference between genuine novels that allegedly promote offensive ideas and creating a false history for a real person.

James Martin's autobiography was recalled and pulped because of things he said about his step mother. But if you can hang around for someone to be conveniently out of the way.... you can defame them as much as you like.

You seem to think overall that Christopher Tolkien is restraining the trade of various hard done by authors. The point is the Gaffer was in his own home. He wasn't a sqautter. You are really defending the rights of Saruman and his croney's to take over the Shire.


The estate website states: Can I / someone else write / complete / develop my / their own version of one of these unfinished tales ? (or any others)
The simple answer is NO.
You are of course free to do whatever you like for your own private enjoyment, but there is no question of any commercial exploitation of this form of "fan-fiction".
Also, in these days of the Internet, and privately produced collectors’ items for sale on eBay, we must make it as clear as possible that the Tolkien Estate never has, and never will authorize the commercialisation or distribution of any works of this type.
The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.

Whether you like it of not (and you clearly don't)the Estate owns the rights to Tolkien's works. and has the right to protect them and test the limits of those rights in the courts. Just as a householder has legal protection against squatters and burglars. The estate may have money. It may also be in the right. It seems to think it has a duty (and I think it probably does legally regardless of morality) to take action. You may have a preference to go for the "underdog" in any circumstances, but are you defending the corner shop against "the man" or the purveyor of stolen goods?.

Presumably it would be easier for the estate to ignore all these things - and if you insist on making it personal, I don't suppose Christopher Tolkiens enjoys the vitriolic personal attacks they stir up (if he is aware of them) - and hope they would sink without trace. The Gardiner book was too expensive for me to consider even if I had been more interested and this - well given the millions of Tolkien fans, the fact that noone has read and reviewed in six weeks suggests that it probably doesn't improve after the few example pages and would have sunk without much trace. Modern wisdom says you should not give such things the oxygen of publicity.
But then the precedent would have been set and the floodgates opened.


What amazes me (apart from how anyone can write so badly and get published) is why the publishers don't check out the legal side first. There must be some kind of due diligence that isn't happening. This may be testing the boundaries but the other books fell at a really basic level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

You now seem to be saying that anyone can write anything and use any material how they like and the literary quality is the only criteria? Hmm .... so it is alright for YOU to judge on literary merit ... ?

No, I'm just saying that literary merit would override subject matter if I was the judge. I wouldn't 'burn' Lolita....

Actually there are books which have been sanitised but I think there is a fairly obvious difference between genuine novels that allegedly promote offensive ideas and creating a false history for a real person.

But he's not creating a 'false history' - its a novel & clearly states that its a work of fantasy. I've just finished reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court & I never for one minute believed that Mark Twain was trying to create a false history of fifth century Britain. In both cases we're dealing with a 'tale', which, well-, or badly-written, has every right to exist. Or should Mark Twain join Mirkwood on the bonfire - along with every other historical novel (& don't forget that absolute pile of lies, Catch 22 - I happen to know that nothing like that happened in WWII!)

James Martin's autobiography was recalled and pulped because of things he said about his step mother. But if you can hang around for someone to be conveniently out of the way.... you can defame them as much as you like.

Again, this book is a fantasy, not an autobiography.

You seem to think overall that Christopher Tolkien is restraining the trade of various hard done by authors. The point is the Gaffer was in his own home. He wasn't a sqautter. You are really defending the rights of Saruman and his croney's to take over the Shire.

Nope - Christopher Tolkien is claiming that he 'owns' not simply his father's work, but his father's character & personality & should be able to prevent anyone depicting him in any way that he doesn't approve of. Should that apply to all historical personalities? Perhaps War & Peace should go on the bonfire too?

The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.[/I]

Whether you like it of not (and you clearly don't)the Estate owns the rights to Tolkien's works. and has the right to protect them and test the limits of those rights in the courts. Just as a householder has legal protection against squatters and burglars.

This is nothing to do with the use or mis-use of Tolkien's writings - it has to do with whether a writer has a right to use a dead person as a character in a made up setting. If you say he doesn't then I can't see how you can support the existence of any historical story from Homer down to The King's Speech - a good bit of Shakespeare would have to go (I'm a bit of a Ricardian but I don't think Richard III should join the others on the bonfire).

The estate may have money. It may also be in the right. It seems to think it has a duty (and I think it probably does legally regardless of morality) to take action. You may have a preference to go for the "underdog" in any circumstances, but are you defending the corner shop against "the man" or the purveyor of stolen goods?.

What, exactly has been 'stolen'? Define what has been 'stolen' from JRRT by the existence of this work? Is anyone likely to think that what happens in this book to a character called JRR Tolkien really happened to the real JRR Tolkien?

.. given the millions of Tolkien fans, the fact that noone has read and reviewed in six weeks suggests that it probably doesn't improve after the few example pages and would have sunk without much trace. Modern wisdom says you should not give such things the oxygen of publicity.
But then the precedent would have been set and the floodgates opened.

Not the point - this might well be the biggest pile of foetid dingoes kidneys ever to see the printing press. The point is that it is a fantasy novel that depicts a real historical character in a fantasy setting. As for 'floodgates being opened' - did you look at the list I linked to above - Tolkien has been used as a character in numerous works of fiction (even, in the chapter Thursday Nights in Carpenter's The Inklings, where, with the full approval of Christopher Tolkien one assumes the author recreates a 'typical' Inklings meeting - no single event of which can be proved to have happened at all)

What amazes me (apart from how anyone can write so badly and get published) is why the publi shers don't check out the legal side first. There must be some kind of due diligence that isn't happening. This may be testing the boundaries but the other books fell at a really basic level.

Again, this is not about the 'quality' of the book (which may be trash of the highest order for FAIK). And I don't see where 'legality' comes into this - is this the first time a historical novel has been written using a historical person as a central character - & has anyone ever been dragged through the courts for doing that?

[Mänwe]

A brief query, do you consider the greater fault to be the person/'plaintiff' or of the law for allowing such interpretation and action?

[Pitchwife]

I've had a look at the few excerpts of the book available in the Amazon preview, and I have to agree with Mith that the writing is crap - from the cliché of Tolkien's presumed spider phobia to my favourite failed metaphor, "a gulag of deepened liver spots" (infallibly picking the wrong foreign word which doesn't mean what he thinks it does; "archipelago" is what you were looking for, Mr Hillard - but I suppose you can blame Solshenitsyn for confusing you.)

But this is beside the point, and I agree with davem insofar as I'd prefer to have the chance to judge the worth or worthlessness of a book myself instead of having it preemptively pulped. What irks me most about the Estate's behaviour in this case is the argument that "the cover art and typefaces in 'Mirkwood' were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition", which is an obvious smoke screen. For those who haven't looked at the cover, it depicts a huge watercoloured tree and three tiny figures in the lower left corner which can, by their attributes of staff, bow and axe, be putatively identified as a wizard, elf and dwarf. If that's "unfair competition" for Tolkien's works, so are 90 % of generic fantasy since the 1970's, but I haven't yet heard of any legal action by the Estate against The Sword of Shannara, which pilfered from Tolkien's works to a degree no halfways self-respecting author would dare to consider today.

Now if CT said outright, "I don't want my dad to be written about (and possibly misrepresented) as a character in somebody else's fiction", that's a different matter; it's still debatable in my opinion whether that should give him the right to have the book in question suppressed, but I can sympathize with his feelings. But to hide the issue behind a strawman argument like the one quoted above is undignified - actually, I feel it's an insult to us fans, presuming we can't tell the real thing from a cheap rip-off.

[Bêthberry]

Hilliard isn't taking this lightly:

First Amendment and Fair Use

[davem]

Well, I've finished Chapter 1 & I'm sufficiently interested to go to chapter 2 - if only because I've nothing else on. Its a potboiler of course, but its hardly 'offensive' so far. And its fun to see familiar ideas taken up & played around with.

What if the 'Translator Conceit' wasn't actually a 'conceit' & Tolkien really had translated the Legendarium from ancient manuscripts, & what if there were more - what if things had been concealed, deliberately covered up? And what if that Other World on which the Tolkien's tales were based was actually 'rea'l & could break through into this one?

I think those are sufficiently interesting ideas, & worth playing around with. Nothing so far that convinces me that CT has any kind of a case - though I doubt he's read the book. But then, if you're rich enough to be able to get your lawyers to destroy anything you think might, possibly, if seen in the right light, from the right angle, bother you even very, very slightly, then why bother doing anything but get it destroyed - & if you can take the writer & publisher down as well - for their presumption, to humble their 'pride' in daring to 'offend' you, all well & good.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by davem

I think those are sufficiently interesting ideas, & worth playing around with. Nothing so far that convinces me that CT has any kind of a case - though I doubt he's read the book. But then, if you're rich enough to be able to get your lawyers to destroy anything you think might, possibly, if seen in the right light, from the right angle, bother you even very, very slightly, then why bother doing anything but get it destroyed - & if you can take the writer & publisher down as well - for their presumption, to humble their 'pride' in daring to 'offend' you, all well & good.

Plus you'll be in great historical company, you'll join the ranks of such people as the first emperor of China who had all of the history books in China destroyed (so that Chinese history would begin with him) or the Islamic general who was resposible for the final destruction of the Library of Alexandria on the grounds that all of its books either agreed with the Koran (in which case they were superfluous) or disagreed with it (in which case they were blasphemous).

[Inziladun]

From the admittedly little I've gleaned about this book online, I think it's sensational garbage, though it could no doubt be turned into a blockbuster of a film.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Presumably it would be easier for the estate to ignore all these things - and if you insist on making it personal, I don't suppose Christopher Tolkiens enjoys the vitriolic personal attacks they stir up (if he is aware of them) - and hope they would sink without trace.

It would be very easy, I think, for CT to throw up his hands and grant carte blache to every hack novelist and screenwriter to do what they would with Tolkien and all he created. Think of the money, if that really was the source of the Estate's concern! The fact that they are "overprotective" tells me that greed is not likely to be the driving force behind the Estate's stance.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

What amazes me (apart from how anyone can write so badly and get published) is why the publishers don't check out the legal side first. There must be some kind of due diligence that isn't happening. This may be testing the boundaries but the other books fell at a really basic level.

Aside from checking into the legalities, did Hillard run all this by the Estate beforehand, as a courtesy, at the very least? If not, perhaps that's part of CT's problem with it.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

What irks me most about the Estate's behaviour in this case is the argument that "the cover art and typefaces in 'Mirkwood' were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition", which is an obvious smoke screen. For those who haven't looked at the cover, it depicts a huge watercoloured tree and three tiny figures in the lower left corner which can, by their attributes of staff, bow and axe, be putatively identified as a wizard, elf and dwarf.

I actually agree that that alone is a pretty thin cause for contention. Maybe there is more to it, but if so, I wish they'd make the true reasons known.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

From the admittedly little I've gleaned about this book online, I think it's sensational garbage, though it could no doubt be turned into a blockbuster of a film.

Again, the quality of the work is not the issue, the response of the Tolkien Estate to it is.

It would be very easy, I think, for CT to throw up his hands and grant carte blache to every hack novelist and screenwriter to do what they would with Tolkien and all he created. Think of the money, if that really was the source of the Estate's concern! The fact that they are "overprotective" tells me that greed is not likely to be the driving force behind the Estate's stance.

This is not about 'allowing ' anyone to do what they want with Tolkien's writings - its about whether someone who died more than a quarter of a century ago can be used as a character in a historical novel, & whether that persons Estate has a right to dictate whether or not that can be done - & that is the issue in dispute here. Legally the author has not done anything wrong - he's actually only done what numerous other authors have done with historical figures. The Estate is claiming new rights of control, attempting to extend copyright into a new area, which would have massive implications for authors of historical fiction dealing with recent history.

Aside from checking into the legalities, did Hillard run all this by the Estate beforehand, as a courtesy, at the very least? If not, perhaps that's part of CT's problem with it.

Probably not - anymore than any other historical novelist writing a novel involving any other deceased person would have checked with their Estate. Because up to now its not been considered necessary.

EDIT: WHAT I FIND FRUSTRATING IN THIS MATTER

I (& please check this out via a search if you don't believe me) have been one of CT's greatest supporters on this forum. I still feel he is deserving of respect for all he's done re his father's unpublished works.

However, this unquestioning support for CT, this belief that wherever there is a 'conflict' between CT & another author (or series of authors - 1) Drout with his thwarted attempt to publish Tolkien's translations of Beowulf - which CT originally gave him permission for & subsequently withdrew. 2) the recent publication of Tolkien's translation of the Book of Jonah, which the Estate stopped. 3) the recent biography of Hilary Tolkien which they also stopped, & now 4) the attempt to destroy all copies of this book) its always the other party that's wrong is hardly logical. As if CT & the Estate are living saints who simply CANNOT be in error & who are deserving of unconditional, unquestioning support.

Sorry, there are too many examples now of this kind of behaviour on the Estates's part, & this continued unquestioning support requires one to adopt a position of believing that there are 'dark forces' out to assault CT & the Estate & make them suffer out of sheer malice. If this was the only incident of such an attempt on the Estate's part to stop publication of a book about Tolkien I'd be inclined - as in the past - to give them the benefit of the doubt, but frankly, for all I'm grateful for CT's work on his father's part, it begins to look like pettyness & bullying.

[Sardy]

As an author who, on occasion, has used historical figures as characters (Hitler, Jesus, Einstein... and not always portrayed in the most flattering or historically accurate light) - I just wanted to toss my hat into the ring and say that Davem is correct in his evaluations and assertions. As an active and adamant supporter of 1st Amendment rights, I agree 100% that no book should ever be censored because of the beliefs, prejudices, sensibilities, perceived offense or even hurt feelings of any person or group.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sardy

As an author who, on occasion, has used historical figures as characters (Hitler, Jesus, Einstein... and not always portrayed in the most flattering or historically accurate light) - I just wanted to toss my hat into the ring and say that Davem is correct in his evaluations and assertions. As an active and adamant supporter of 1st Amendment rights, I agree 100% that no book should ever be censored because of the beliefs, prejudices, sensibilities, perceived offense or even hurt feelings of any person or group.

I'm curious - if the Tolkien Estate won this case & was able to prevent Tolkien being used as a character - & surely that decision would set a legal precedent which could be used by the Estates of other famous people (maybe not so nice as Tolkien) - how would that affect historical novelists? Wouldn't success in this court case result in one of the most extreme examples of cultural censorship imaginable? You'd hardly be able to write novels about any major event in the 20th century.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

Again, the quality of the work is not the issue, the response of the Tolkien Estate to it is.

Why should the quality of works by other authors using Tolkien's name and imaginative products not be a consideration for the Estate when deciding whether or not to authorize them? If I wanted to make a comic book featuring Tolkien as a costumed superhero who went around punching chipmunks and eating raw fish, would it be improper for the Estate to want to put a stop to it?

Originally Posted by davem

However, this unquestioning support for CT, this belief that wherever there is a 'conflict' between CT & another author (or series of authors - 1) Drout with his thwarted attempt to publish Tolkien's translations of Beowulf - which CT originally gave him permission for & subsequently withdrew. 2) the recent publication of Tolkien's translation of the Book of Jonah, which the Estate stopped. 3) the recent biography of Hilary Tolkien which they also stopped, & now 4) the attempt to destroy all copies of this book) its always the other party that's wrong is hardly logical. As if CT & the Estate are living saints who simply CANNOT be in error & who are deserving of unconditional, unquestioning support.

I already said I think the stated reason for opposing this is thin. As has been noted here, the Estate hasn't always stood against references to and appearances of Tolkien in other works. Since the PJ movies have shown the Tolkien name to be a gigantic cash cow, is it out of the question that there have in the last few years been so many horrendous works in various media that simply want to capitalize on the man and his work? Maybe CT is tired enough that instead of sorting through every proposal and request, trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, he's now just erring (sometimes unjustly, perhaps) on the side of conservatism?
I suspect the Estate will lose this in the end, since they did pick such and unsteady place to take a stand.
Bottom line is, I don't see CT as a perfect white knight who does no wrong, but neither do I see him as a dragon jealously guarding his hoard, roasting all who come near.

[Sardy]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If I wanted to make a comic book featuring Tolkien as a costumed superhero who went around punching chipmunks and eating raw fish, would it be improper for the Estate to want to put a stop to it?

Yes.

Or more accurately, the Estate can want anything they'd like. And improper is quite a subjective notion. I think that what you meant to ask, is 'Would the Estate have legal recourse to put a stop to it?' In which the answer would (and rightly should) be 'No.'

[Formendacil]

A question, as a reader of these "debates" and scrupulous avoider of involvement in them, whose answer continues to elude me...

On what basis is the direct correlation being made of Tolkien Estate = Christopher Tolkien? I grant, of course, that he is the sole literary executor and the senior member of the Tolkien family, but he is also an 86 year old man and only one member of the Estate's governing body.

In other words, while it might be fair to say title this thread "The Tolkien Estate is at it again..." I'm missing the obvious connection that says "...and therefore we're talking about Christopher Tolkien." Nor am I really ready to take "everyone knows that a decision by the Estate is a decision by CJRT" as an answer, since everyone does not know that, as evidenced by me. Unless someone can show me evidence that the actions of the Estate on a given matter (namely, the case in question here) are due solely to the wishes and actions of a single member of the Estate, it does not seem to follow that there is any logical point in arguing about whether that person is right or wrong...

Note: this has, of course, no bearing on whether the Estate is in the right or the wrong...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Sardy

I think that what you meant to ask, is 'Would the Estate have legal recourse to put a stop to it?' In which the answer would (and rightly should) be 'No.'

Actually, I was asking would they be right from a moral standpoint. My thought would be "yes".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

A question, as a reader of these "debates" and scrupulous avoider of involvement in them, whose answer continues to elude me...

On what basis is the direct correlation being made of Tolkien Estate = Christopher Tolkien? I grant, of course, that he is the sole literary executor and the senior member of the Tolkien family, but he is also an 86 year old man and only one member of the Estate's governing body.

.

The 'Estate' is either Christopher or Adam. I would prefer to think its Christopher - as Adam is a lot younger & if he's behind these moves it bodes very badly for a lot of people for a very long time.

[Sardy]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Actually, I was asking would they be right from a moral standpoint. My thought would be "yes".

Hmm... My thought would be "no" ...but that's the thing with "moral standpoints" isn't it?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

The 'Estate' is either Christopher or Adam. I would prefer to think its Christopher - as Adam is a lot younger & if he's behind these moves it bodes very badly for a lot of people for a very long time.

Interesting...

The Wikipedia article says that the directors of the Estate are Christopher, his wife Baillie, and the grandson Michael George Tolkien. Granted... this is Wikipedia (although as sources go, it's not as bad as it's vilified to be), and, granted, I have no idea how old the article is or where it gets its information from.

That being said... there's not a lot of ready information about who comprises the Tolkien Estate online, so Wikipedia gets the prime position as having the only information...

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Zil

Why should the quality of works by other authors using Tolkien's name and imaginative products not be a consideration for the Estate when deciding whether or not to authorize them? If I wanted to make a comic book featuring Tolkien as a costumed superhero who went around punching chipmunks and eating raw fish, would it be improper for the Estate to want to put a stop to it?

You're mixing up two different issues here, literary quality and accuracy of the way a historical character is portrayed. They may overlap, but they're not the same. Should lack of literary quality be a criterium for suppressing books? Now maybe that's not such a bad idea, looking at today's book market, but who gets to set the standards?
As to your second question, the issue is not whether it would be improper/morally right/understandable for them to want to stop it (I've already said that I can sympathize with their feelings), but whether they should have the power to do so; and I'm afraid I think they shouldn't. (I mean, where do you draw the line? I suppose Hookbill should be very careful about publishing any further stories about Robot Tolkien in the Downer...)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Should lack of literary quality be a criterium for suppressing books? Now maybe that's not such a bad idea, looking at today's book market, but who gets to set the standards?

Who would be better qualified than family of the author?

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

As to your second question, the issue is not whether it would be improper/morally right/understandable for them to want to stop it (I've already said that I can sympathize with their feelings), but whether they should have the power to do so; and I'm afraid I think they shouldn't. (I mean, where do you draw the line?

Well, where the line is drawn is for the court to decide. And like I said, I think the Estate will likely be on the losing end here anyway.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Who would be better qualified than family of the author?

But what if we weren't talking about Tolkien - this decision, if it went in favour of the Estate would bring the person/character under copyright. It would, as I stated, make it impossible for any writer to use a historical figure (certainly one of recent times) in a fictional setting. That's not too far a step from being able to prevent any 'unauthorised' biographies. It would hand control of a huge chunk of our cultural history over to famous individuals' Estates.

This is not a power they have had before, & the Estate is pushing the boundaries. And their wealth & power could well mean that their opponents in this case actually decide not to fight the case in the end & just give in. And that would seriously deter anyone else from following them in writing not just about Tolkien but any other figure from recent history whose decendents are rich enough to do the same. The Estate's actions here (as pointed up in the Techdirt article I first linked to) could lead to major difficulties for historical novelists.


Ok, so to the book itself. I'm a bit further on, & its growing on me slightly - & read these reviews on the Amazon.com site http://www.amazon.com/Mirkwood-Novel...DateDescending particularly the first one, as this guy has written some very knowledgeable reviews of Tolkien's books in the past. Of course there's the odd wince inducing moments - where Tolkien, at an Inklings' meeting talks about 'pants' instead of trousers' (note for US writers: 'pants' are what you wear under your trousers!)

[Mänwe]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm curious - if the Tolkien Estate won this case & was able to prevent Tolkien being used as a character - & surely that decision would set a legal precedent which could be used by the Estates of other famous people (maybe not so nice as Tolkien) - how would that affect historical novelists? Wouldn't success in this court case result in one of the most extreme examples of cultural censorship imaginable? You'd hardly be able to write novels about any major event in the 20th century.

Therein lies the point of my earlier question; that the law can entertain these cases, personally, annoys/worries me more. And yes, CT might just open a 'Pandora's box' of future litigation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mänwe

Therein lies the point of my earlier question; that the law can entertain these cases, personally, annoys/worries me more. And yes, CT might just open a 'Pandora's box' of future litigation.

I think the courts have little choice - if someone brings an action before them which may be valid they have to deal with it. I suspect CT/the Estate care little for the bigger implications of their action. They seem to be driven by a feeling of possessiveness re JRRT - someone is daring to tresspass on their 'land' use their 'stuff' & they're lashing out. Add to that their statement in their action that they somehow worry that this book might be taken for a work by Tolkien himself & they may lose money as a result - or somesuch nonsense & any capacity or willingness to step back & ask whether this is a wise move is lost.

Suffice to say that if their desired interpretation of the law was in place already then CT would already have broken it himself by publishing the Notion Club Papers in HoM-e 9 which he himself acknowledges depicts the Inlkings in all but name. Tolkien uses his friends as characters in his story, but Hillard is not allowed to use Tolkien in his story. Surely if the Estate 'own' the character & person of JRRT then the estate of Lewis, Williams & Barfield own their characters/persons? It would be nicely ironic if the decision went the Estate's way & the first person dragged before the courts for impingement was CT himself - & if the next book that had to be destroyed was Sauron Defeated...

[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....