Christopher Tolkien was a grave robber and cashed in

[cart]

I think Cart is referring to JRRT's hope with respect to Milton Waldman -- at this point Tolkien wanted The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings published -- briefly put, things didn't work out with Waldman
-- Tolkien ultimately ends up "back" with Allen and Unwin -- and at the time, A&U were only willing to publish The Lord of the Rings.

But yes, long before this, Tolkien had sent parts of his Elder Days material for feedback -- with respect to a possible publishment [a word?] of the larger work [Silmarillion stuff].

Sorry I missed this comment. However this was what my wandering, forgetful mind was referring to.
Thanks for the bullet point.

 

[Amon Rudh]

If he promised his dad that he'd bring the words to the people and publish whatever he had available then what was he and others such as Sibley, Foster et al supposed to do? Personally I want all I can get and appreciate the work being done to package it up. If that means a few beautiful duplicates of work brought together from various sources already published to make them more accessible (e.g. Fall of Numenor) sitting on my bookshelf then it's a small price to pay. I for one hope they continue.
Buy, don't buy. Read, don't read. Nobody is forcing anyone 🤷

 

[Ent]

Welcome aboard @Amon Rudh. Don't hesitate to introduce yourself in our 'new members' thread.
Your above post really hits the nail with the head..!!

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Seconded! And it's right here:

https://thetolkien.forum/forums/new-members.58/

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Buy, don't buy. Read, don't read. Nobody is forcing anyone 🤷

That's a hard concept for some people on Tolkien and many other topics, unfortunately.

 

[Gloranthan]

So, I've read the Silmarillion, Children of Hurin. I shall get around to Beren and Luthien at some point. C. Tolkien had a big hand in all of them.
They're better than, uh, 90% of fantasy novels published since Lord of the Rings. A large part of this is, no doubt, due to JRR's notes. Nonetheless, Chris put them in their final form.
And how can a man's heir be a 'grave robber'? What sense does that make? He was already entitled to Tolkien's work. You can't 'steal' what's yours.

 

[Ent]

And how can a man's heir be a 'grave robber'? What sense does that make? He was already entitled to Tolkien's work. You can't 'steal' what's yours.

I fear there is great risk in pursuing this line of discussion, as many are quite vociferous about many things.
That said, I BELIEVE the feeling boils down to this:
. it's not that he 'owned' and 'had the rights' to it... it's that he DID something with it (in fulfillment of his father's wishes.)
Though of course, it's not stated in those terms.

And some of what was done with it is quite disagreed with, though it's all been quite legally done.
It boils down to a moral vs. a legal line of thinking, morals of course being quite a different and more fluid matter than the Law.

Some will no doubt feel I'm being overly simplistic. Yet we do have a tendency to over-complicate things.

 

[Amon Rudh]

I think that's part of the problem. People feel so invested in some things they believe it's their property. It's a bit like football teams (I am a big football fan) where people are very vocal about how a club should be run but God forbid they put their own money where their mouth is. 🙈
Alternatively, it's as though they are trying to earn money on YouTube via clicks and likes using sensational headlines. Who'd have thunk it.🤣

 

[Gloranthan]

To me, even if Chris had done a slapdash job and produced junk he'd still be on the level of a lot of best-selling authors today. I would, of course, criticize bad work as bad work, but I have no principled objection to people writing bad books inspired by the works of others, whether their father or not.
As they're not terrible, but actually fairly interesting books, I just don't see any problem.

I think that's part of the problem. People feel so invested in some things they believe it's their property. It's a bit like football teams (I am a big football fan) where people are very vocal about how a club should be run but God forbid they put their own money where their mouth is. 🙈

The opposite sort of phenomena is equally ridiculous to me, where people assume that because Marvel or whomever has the legal rights to something that I must accept and praise the product, or else be a traitor. I like good comics, I couldn't care less about whether some corporate dinosaur has the legal rights or not, and I have no 'brand loyalty' whatsoever. If Image comics started publishing Superman tomorrow I'd probably stop buying DC comics.

 

[Amon Rudh]

Agreed. That said, I could be accused of that in some ways as (at risk of going wildly off topic) I seem to be more or less on my own in (genuinely) liking the Hobbit 'trilogy' and the Rings of Power. Not so much for accurate portrayal of the texts but for films in their own right. Artistic license is OK with me.
I have no issue with personal preference and the right to like what we like.

 

[CheriptheRipper]

Spin off fantasy might be Wheel of Time. But this?????

Assuming this season is a success then we can expect further departures from the source in the future. This is the Hollywood way. Even PJ did not deviate from the sources too much initially.

Wheel of Time itself might be classed as a spin off fantasy of the book 😂😭

 

[Ugluk]

I fear there is great risk in pursuing this line of discussion, as many are quite vociferous about many things.
That said, I BELIEVE the feeling boils down to this:
. it's not that he 'owned' and 'had the rights' to it... it's that he DID something with it (in fulfillment of his father's wishes.)
Though of course, it's not stated in those terms.

And some of what was done with it is quite disagreed with, though it's all been quite legally done.
It boils down to a moral vs. a legal line of thinking, morals of course being quite a different and more fluid matter than the Law.

Some will no doubt feel I'm being overly simplistic. Yet we do have a tendency to over-complicate things.

What possible moral objections could there be to CT's work?

 

[Ent]

What possible moral objections could there be to CT's work?

I have no idea. you would need to ask those who consider him a 'grave digger'. i believe it has solely to do with his use of his father's works to 'make money' and that alone. from that springs a feeling of 'moral indignity'. (it also applies to many other of the things people fuss about with regard to Tolkien's work.)

 

[Gloranthan]

What possible moral objections could there be to CT's work?

Well, practically no philosopher in history can agree to precise defintions of what morality is, what constitutes a moral or immoral [thing/act], and while a lot of 'popular' moralism has overlap a lot of 'popular' anything is rubbish which they can't possibly defend with reason. Therefor it is quite plausible for someone to find almost anything 'morally objectionable' and defend it just about as well as anything else.
Personally, I think it's all feelings and opportunism, but I am a nihilist.

 

[Ugluk]

I have no idea. you would need to ask those who consider him a 'grave digger'. i believe it has solely to do with his use of his father's works to 'make money' and that alone. from that springs a feeling of 'moral indignity'. (it also applies to many other of the things people fuss about with regard to Tolkien's work.)

To get the material published it has to be sellable. If The Silmarillion or The book of lost tales been commercial failures we would not have seen the rest in print. CT would presumably then simply sorted and edited the unpublished material and then donated or sold it to a suitable institution. The fact is the work proved sellable, and the rest is (to coin a phrase) history. Why should this cause moral indignation? What was CT supposed to do? Self publish the lot? Donate it to a library on masse?

 

[Gloranthan]

To get the material published it has to be sellable. If The Silmarillion or The book of lost tales been commercial failures we would not have seen the rest in print. CT would presumably then simply sorted and edited the unpublished material and then donated or sold it to a suitable institution. The fact is the work proved sellable, and the rest is (to coin a phrase) history. Why should this cause moral indignation? What was CT supposed to do? Self publish the lot? Donate it to a library on masse?

People (often rightfully) feel that when people do art with the explicit goal of making money they often compromise their product. On the other hand, I would say that making art solely for yourself is narcissistic, and often ends up with a 'product' nobody else cares about. I'd imagine a large part of the Nerd Rage is people who are disappointed by the final form of the work and, rather than blame JRR for dithering and not finishing his products, they blame Christopher for finishing it for him.
Really, though, I find it's best to just not engage people when you don't share their valuations, because there's usually a lot more rationalization than rationality involved in such things.

 

[Ent]

I find it's best to just not engage people when you don't share their valuations, because there's usually a lot more rationalization than rationality involved in such things.

May we all say the "Amen"..!!! (This assumes folks know what "amen" means, of course.)

 

[Ugluk]

People (often rightfully) feel that when people do art with the explicit goal of making money they often compromise their product. On the other hand, I would say that making art solely for yourself is narcissistic, and often ends up with a 'product' nobody else cares about. I'd imagine a large part of the Nerd Rage is people who are disappointed by the final form of the work and, rather than blame JRR for dithering and not finishing his products, they blame Christopher for finishing it for him.
Really, though, I find it's best to just not engage people when you don't share their valuations, because there's usually a lot more rationalization than rationality involved in such things.

Yep, don't argue with idiots or trolls.

 

[Ent]

Why should this cause moral indignation? What was CT supposed to do? Self publish the lot? Donate it to a library on masse?

I dunno. Perhaps encase it all in indestructible plastic and bury it underneath the worlds largest and deepest buried deposit of nuclear waste...!

I think what gripes them the most has been identified above somewhere...

'some things that have been done' have displeased their 'moral perspective' of how it should have been handled, so 'all things' related to anyone connected with it subsequent to JRR's death receive rancor to one extent or another, however unfitting or unrealistic.

and yet... both C.T. and the Tolkien Estate have the right to do as they wish with what they've been entrusted.
So again we return to the simplistic 'ambiguous moral' vs. 'clear legal' contexts within which the 'reality' of the issues lie.

Not everyone likes reality. Rather they prefer an ideological world where all works according to their own design.

 

[Gloranthan]

Not everyone likes reality. Rather they prefer an ideological world where all works according to their own design.

In my Universe, Tolkien is alive, Moorcock can still write good novels, and Robert E. Howard published 300 Conan novels. Reality sucks.