# The Christopher Tolkien Thread



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 28, 2004)

Here's something interesting: http://blogumentary.typepad.com/chuck/2004/01/christopher_tol.html , the title of which is: *"Christopher Tolkien is a big* [Sorry — this being a family-friendly place, you'll have to go there to see what he is...]"

Evidently, the man is absolutely possessive about his Dad's stuff, even to the point of disowning his son and grandson forever — maybe even longer.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 28, 2004)

Here is a more reasoned article on the Tolkien rift:

*J R R Tolkien's grandson 'cut off from literary inheritance'*
By Chris Hastings, Media Correspondent
(Filed: 24/02/2003)

The grandson of J R R Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings books, has spoken for the first time of the family feud that has seen him excluded from managing the writer's literary estate.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph today, Simon Tolkien speaks about the five-year dispute and how his father, Christopher, has turned his back on him and his children. He also discloses how a minor disagreement over the Hollywood adaptations of the books contributed to his exclusion from the board of the family firm.

He said: "My father is very angry with me - angry to the point that he never wishes to have anything to do with me again. He will never see my children. And I grew up thinking this was such a wonderful person." The rift followed a disagreement over how the family should deal with the adaptations of the book - the first two instalments of which have broken box office records.

Full article at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/24/ntolk24.xml

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 28, 2004)

*CT: A Real Party Pooper vis a vis Ted Nasmith's illustrated Silmarillion*
St. Paul Nasmith Book Signing Report

Exerpts:

"Christopher Tolkien had never wanted nor allowed “his” (the emphasis mine) Silmarillion to be illustrated. 

"Christopher Tolkien made it clear that he did not want any of Ted’s monsters and creatures to be used in the book."

Full details: http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1099151398

Barley


----------



## joxy (Dec 3, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> ....the title of which is: *"Christopher Tolkien is a big* [Sorry — this being a family-friendly place, you'll have to go there to see what he is...]"....


And that looks to me like a compliment - which, of course, he doesn't deserve.


----------



## aragil (Dec 3, 2004)

A rather stomach-turning topic, and one that I've commented on in the past (here, here, and most recently here). Makes it very difficult to sing CT's praises for efforts such as The Sil, UT, and HoME.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 3, 2004)

aragil said:


> A rather stomach-turning topic, and one that I've commented on in the past (here, here, and most recently here). Makes it very difficult to sing CT's praises for efforts such as The Sil, UT, and HoME.



This thread isn't for "singing his praises" necessarily, but simply for reporting about his influence over his father's works. BTW, The Tolkien Society responded to my email today about CT's "disowning" his son: they're playing it down, saying it was "over-reported," and wasn't much more than a simple disagreement. *sigh*

And thanks, aragil, for linking to your prior posts, especially the second one. I am in complete agreement with you about CT's treatment of his son and grandson. If he's 80 now, it's no time to cut off from his family! I was so upset about this that I wrote a letter to the Tolkien Society saying as much. If he doesn't come to his senses and mend this rift, he will live to regret it. The only thing I can think of for his actions is a possible coming-on of dementia — that or a misplaced sense of guardianship over his father's works.

Barley


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Dec 3, 2004)

The mudslinging here at CT is unwarranted. So far only Simon Tolkien's side of the event has been presented and accepted without much question and according to Carl Hostetter, CT has publically disavowed those claims:
(scroll to the top)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=....690E%[email protected]#link10

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]#link1
(in this above link you may note that it is also said that Simon Tolkien has been at odds with his father for quite sometime due to his father's remarriage and his half-siblings getting a share of the estate)

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&frame=off


----------



## Sammyboy (Dec 4, 2004)

It sounds like there is a lot of petty in-fighting surrounding Tolkien's works from his own family. Very disappointing, most unlike the content of ther father/grandfather's work!

I really hope their squabble isn't just about who gets how much money in the end.


----------



## joxy (Dec 4, 2004)

Which one of the Tolkien family was a priest, and is he still around?


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Dec 4, 2004)

The eldest, John Francis Tolkien. He died in Jan 2003.


----------



## aragil (Dec 4, 2004)

BB- always an interesting topic. Now that TE has posted, it reminds me that his view has been expressed before somewhere on these boards, though I don't think by TE himself. Perhaps jallan or rs69191, or maybe it was TE- I can't recall.

re "singing his praises"- I love his work on the 'unpublished' works of his father. However, knowing what I know now it always tempers my enthusiasm when I read them.

Also the eldest son of Tolkien has been brought up on these MBs, and I wholeheartedly recommend we don't get involved in discussing that ugliness.


----------



## aragil (Dec 4, 2004)

aragil said:


> BB- always an interesting topic. Now that TE has posted, it reminds me that his view has been expressed before somewhere on these boards, though I don't think by TE himself. Perhaps jallan or rs69191, or maybe it was TE- I can't recall.


Hmm. It was rs691919 (and yes, I am embarrassed about missing that last '9'.

Check it out here


----------



## joxy (Dec 6, 2004)

aragil said:


> Also the eldest son of Tolkien has been brought up on these MBs, and I wholeheartedly recommend we don't get involved in discussing that ugliness.


What do you mean?


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 6, 2004)

joxy said:


> aragil said:
> 
> 
> > Also the eldest son of Tolkien has been brought up on these MBs, and I wholeheartedly recommend we don't get involved in discussing that ugliness.
> ...


Ditto. What's an MB?


----------



## aragil (Dec 6, 2004)

MB= message board, i.e., site like ttf.

Ugliness=this thread, but like I said, you probably don't want to read it.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 7, 2004)

Thanks Aragil - I try to keep up, but it's hard!


----------



## aragil (Dec 7, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> Thanks Aragil - I try to keep up, but it's hard!


 No problem!! Any request that makes me feel hip/young on these boards is one to be appreciated!


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 8, 2004)

*Christopher Tolkien. Dream of RINGS Museum Withers*

From Guardian Unlimited:-

Peter Jackson has claimed that his plans for an official Lord of the Rings museum have been scuppered by JRR's son, Christopher Tolkien. The director had intended to oversee the creation of a museum in his native New Zealand, containing sets and costumes from the film trilogy. But this week he admitted to the Sydney-based newspaper, the Australian, that the film's backers New Line "don't have the legal authority to allow [the museum] to happen. That's kept by the Tolkien estate and the Tolkien estate so far have refused." Christopher Tolkien was not involved in the making of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and has argued that his father's work is "unsuited" to cinema. 

Are you with PJ or CT on this?

I think the Rings museum should be in Oxford (hidden agenda - handy for me!), overseen by the Tolkien Estate, and containing genuine artifacts, not film stuff, which you can see in any Toys'r'Us.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 8, 2004)

*Re: Christopher Tolkien. Dream of RINGS Museum Withers*



Eledhwen said:


> From Guardian Unlimited:-
> 
> Peter Jackson has claimed that his plans for an official Lord of the Rings museum have been scuppered by JRR's son, Christopher Tolkien. The director had intended to oversee the creation of a museum in his native New Zealand, containing sets and costumes from the film trilogy. But this week he admitted to the Sydney-based newspaper, the Australian, that the film's backers New Line "don't have the legal authority to allow [the museum] to happen. That's kept by the Tolkien estate and the Tolkien estate so far have refused." Christopher Tolkien was not involved in the making of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and has argued that his father's work is "unsuited" to cinema.
> 
> ...



I'm with PJ, for this reason: it is totally understandable that CT considers himself the protector of his father's works. BUT — those works simply don't belong to him alone, they quite literally belong to the world now. My take on CT is that all those years of receiving LOTR in the mail as a serial from his dad — his dad telling him that when he wrote, it was with CT in mind — that he considered CT the ideal audience — all that had quite an unfavorable effect on the man. It seems like he's quite hysterical in his intentions to protect the works, when they are now (and have been for a long time) quite beyond attack — at least by anyone with an ounce of sense.

So I'm for whatever can be done to wrest this overcontrol from CT's hands. The man's a hindrance more than a help at this point. I'd like to see the museum go up, most especially including the adult-sized hobbit hole!

Barley


----------



## aragil (Dec 8, 2004)

Hmm. I'm with PJ for having 'a' museum, but I don't see why a museum which is solely for the movies has to be declared as 'the' official museum. What about a museum featuring replicas of JRRT's original texts and so forth? I don't see that fitting into a PJ museum. Make PJ's the official 'LotR Movie' museum.


----------



## DGoeij (Dec 8, 2004)

aragil said:


> Hmm. I'm with PJ for having 'a' museum, but I don't see why a museum which is solely for the movies has to be declared as 'the' official museum. (...) Make PJ's the official 'LotR Movie' museum.



I wholeheartedly agree with that. PJ made an attempt to put a great storie to the screen. It has become quite an undertaking and had a huge impact on new Zealand and the world. IMHO this undertaking deserves a museum, right where it all happened. 

But I don't see why it has to be named an 'official' LOTR museum, a claim as strange as claiming the recent movies to be the 'official' LOTR movies. There's no need for it, in my view.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 9, 2004)

Quite right. The simple addition of the word 'Movie' to the museum's title would solve everything, and justify it being sited in New Zealand.

Now, the Oxford one ...


----------

