garm wrote:
Of course, Elan Sea is just the letters L & C (Lewis & Currie) read out loud - possibly a code-breaking test for readers?

I reckon you actually probably have it there. And those two have prior form with such shenanigans.

IIRC there's been some talk lately of not one but two movies about Tolkien's life. I think one would feature his supposed work as a code-breaker. I wonder if Elan sea are anticipating movie rights to their book?

As I said before, interesting.... from the introduction (page iv): "To put it bluntly, we can say what we like about him and there is nothing that anyone can do about it."

Still not sure I am going to plunk down the $35 for a copy here in the USA. Alex says they are not going to release an ebook for it any time soon, due to concerns of piracy.

Doesn't sound like a very scholarly approach to me. As for the notion of piracy -words fail me.

Urulöké wrote:
As I said before, interesting.... from the introduction (page iv): "To put it bluntly, we can say what we like about him and there is nothing that anyone can do about it."

Not a very good way of advertising your book, we can make up what ever we like about Tolkien in our book :(

I have contacted the Tolkien Estate to make them aware of this title and the comments from the authors.

Trotter wrote:

Urulöké wrote:
As I said before, interesting.... from the introduction (page iv): "To put it bluntly, we can say what we like about him and there is nothing that anyone can do about it."

Not a very good way of advertising your book, we can make up what ever we like about Tolkien in our book :(

I have contacted the Tolkien Estate to make them aware of this title and the comments from the authors.

To be fair, I don't think they are saying they can make anything they like up, they are saying that they can say anything (presumably so long as it is supportable), and the Tolkien Estate can't bully them into not printing it.

I'm not huge fans of these two, but I respect them for their balls in this regards. The Estate has, arguably, not always behaved honourably in this area. Daniel Grotta almost certainly had fair use doctrine on his side when it came to reprinting his (non-contentious but unauthorised) biography, but he chose not to out of fear of the Estate and its alleged nastiness when he first wrote it.

On the contrary, I believe they are saying that they can make up anything they like - let's look at the title. Tolkien as a spy-master? Spy-masters run (or ran) spy-rings, did they not?

It sounds all made-up to me, and that is very much part of the style of this pair.

garm wrote:
On the contrary, I believe they are saying that they can make up anything they like - let's look at the title. Tolkien as a spy-master? Spy-masters run (or ran) spy-rings, did they not?

It sounds all made-up to me, and that is very much part of the style of this pair.

I agree that their conclusions are likely to be absolute nonsense, but as I understand it they are probably correct in their assertions that they can - more or less- write what they want about a dead figure. Quite honestly, I don't want to live in a world where people can't write what they believe to be correct about figures of historic interest (even if what they write turns out to be incorrect supposition), for fear of litigation from that figure's wealthy estate.

If you change the subject to "Adolf Hitler : Pederast and Satanist", you wouldn't find anyone who would be that bothered what you wrote about him, be it gospel truth or completely exaggerated falsehoods (and plenty of falsehoods have been written about that nasty character for the purposes of selling books).

We can't apply one set of standards to historical figures that we like, such as Tolkien, and another set of standards to ones we don't like.

If the book is a load of tosh (and I suspect it probably is), then those who have the knowledge and information to do so can easily refute the book with supported facts and information, not lawyers. Or more likely, the book can simply be ignored -- I can't imagine it is going to sell very many copies.

And realistically, from the title, it doesn't sound like they are going to be fielding any of the more unsavoury (and, so far as I am aware, entirely vexatious) allegations that have been thrown at members of the family, both living and dead. I think it is more likely that they are going to be painting him as a far more important, positive and heroic figure than he actually really was.

I'm not willing to spend 25 pounds plus postage to find out, though, as I'm not a fan of the pair's prior work.

Stu wrote:
Daniel Grotta almost certainly had fair use doctrine on his side when it came to reprinting his (non-contentious but unauthorised) biography, but he chose not to out of fear of the Estate and its alleged nastiness when he first wrote it.

I am just looking at my copy of his non-contentious biography

"For a time, Mabel Suffield had tried to teach Christianity to the Sultan of Zanzibar's harem."

Did Daniel Grotta think or believe this statement was correct when he wrote it, he gives no clues as to any evidence that he may have had access to, or did he just make it up?

This quote was used by William Ready in the The Tolkien Relation and some people today still think it is correct

I am not a fan of any books that make up items about J.R.R. Tolkien and his family, that readers may believe are true

I'm not a fan of bullcrap merchants either. Another case is Michael White, who basically copied his biography of Tolkien from Carpenter, except for one 'fact' which he (apparently) made up all by himself; that Tolkien saw a hole in the study carpet and so wrote 'In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.'

Sadly that nonsense has found its way into another publication; a guide to Oxford. Won't be long before it's as ubiquitous as the 'Perrot's Folly' nonsense that's been floating round for years.

Having said that, I agree - from what I've read, I can't imagine them selling many copies - so not worth my bothering about, really.