Leslie Donovan, do you see this?

  -- Lynn --

--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, Joan.Marie.Verba@... wrote:
>
> I won't be able to make it to Mythcon 42, but if the committee makes t-shirts
> with the logo on it, I want one! (I'll pay for the shirt and postage, of
> course!)
>
> Joan
>

    Oooo! That would be fun! T-shirts!

            Jef

===================================================================
Mystical Realms - Exploring the boundaries between worlds.....
http://www.JefMurray.com
===================================================================        

I very much enjoyed David's review of "War of the Fantasy Worlds" by
Martha Sammons in this month's Mythprint, and look forward to the
full-length hatchet job in Mythlore.

One point that he raises I find particularly thought-provoking. He quotes
the passage from The Hobbit:

     To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.
     There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed
     the language they learned of elves in the days when all the world was
     wonderful.

This is one of JRRT's little gems. David contrasts it with some clunky
passages in Narnia where Lewis says that he can't describe this or that in
Narnia.

I think it's correct to say, though, that other, similar attempts by
Tolkien at the same thing are much less successful. For example, Faramir
says to Eowyn:

     you are a lady beautiful, I deem, even beyond the words of the
     Elven-tongue to tell.

I find that pedestrian. I'm really not sure where the difference lies, and
would be interested in any thoughts. I can think of a few possibilities:


1. The thought that language was more expressive in days of yore is
compelling and moving; the thought that the Elves speak a more expressive
language is just another superlative associated with the Elves.

2. The logical structure is different. The passage from the Hobbit says
that the language of the elves _would_ be adequate to describe Bilbo's
staggerment; Faramir says that it would _not_ be adequate to describe
Eowyn's beauty.

3. Difference in subject matter and the inherent plausibility of the
claim. Smaug's hoard was indeed absolutely breath-taking as compared to
the small collection of dwarf treasures in the museum at Michel Delving.
Whereas one doesn't suppose that Eowyn was actually _that_ much more
beautiful than the other lovely maidens in Minas Tirith that Faramir had
dated.

4. Just unevenness in the writing. "in the days when all the world was
wonderful" is a beautiful phrase. "a lady beautiful, I deem" is a rather
ugly one.

-- Ernie

On 5/2/2011 8:05 PM, Alana Abbott wrote:
>
> Ernie, could it partly be due to one of the phrases coming from the
> narrator, while the other is being used in dialog? Faramir's line is
> probably an exaggeration for pleasing (and flattering) effect -- or else
> he's being completely honest, but his opinion is impacted by his
> romantic notions about the lady in question. The narrator is just
> speaking the truth (and, presumably, has a working knowledge of the
> language of the elves, which Faramir [I think!] does not).
>
> -Alana

Alana:

Or it may be that Faramir is simply less adept with Westron than the
Hobbit narrator is with English [grin].

I do believe, however, that Sindarin was kept as a language of lore
and/or state in Gondor of the late Third Age. I didn't check, I'm busy
cleaning my Brown Bess.

Darrell

I think in large part it is due to the alliteration in "Bilbo's breath",
"express his staggerment, since", "the language learned of elves", and "when all
the world was wonderful"; and to the forceful string of monosyllables that
introduce the second sentence ("There are no words left"). It is thus more
poetic and at once more expansive and yet, thanks to the alliteration, cohesive
than Faramir's briefer, simpler, and more direct statement.

Carl


On May 2, 2011, at 7:56 PM, Ernest Davis wrote:

>
> I very much enjoyed David's review of "War of the Fantasy Worlds" by
> Martha Sammons in this month's Mythprint, and look forward to the
> full-length hatchet job in Mythlore.
>
> One point that he raises I find particularly thought-provoking. He quotes
> the passage from The Hobbit:
>
> To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.
> There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed
> the language they learned of elves in the days when all the world was
> wonderful.
>
> This is one of JRRT's little gems. David contrasts it with some clunky
> passages in Narnia where Lewis says that he can't describe this or that in
> Narnia.
>
> I think it's correct to say, though, that other, similar attempts by
> Tolkien at the same thing are much less successful. For example, Faramir
> says to Eowyn:
>
> you are a lady beautiful, I deem, even beyond the words of the
> Elven-tongue to tell.
>
> I find that pedestrian. I'm really not sure where the difference lies, and
> would be interested in any thoughts. I can think of a few possibilities:
>
> 1. The thought that language was more expressive in days of yore is
> compelling and moving; the thought that the Elves speak a more expressive
> language is just another superlative associated with the Elves.
>
> 2. The logical structure is different. The passage from the Hobbit says
> that the language of the elves _would_ be adequate to describe Bilbo's
> staggerment; Faramir says that it would _not_ be adequate to describe
> Eowyn's beauty.
>
> 3. Difference in subject matter and the inherent plausibility of the
> claim. Smaug's hoard was indeed absolutely breath-taking as compared to
> the small collection of dwarf treasures in the museum at Michel Delving.
> Whereas one doesn't suppose that Eowyn was actually _that_ much more
> beautiful than the other lovely maidens in Minas Tirith that Faramir had
> dated.
>
> 4. Just unevenness in the writing. "in the days when all the world was
> wonderful" is a beautiful phrase. "a lady beautiful, I deem" is a rather
> ugly one.
>
> -- Ernie
>

According to the settlement, the book will now be released with a modified reference to Tolkien on the cover and will also include the disclaimer, "This is a work of fiction which is neither endorsed nor connected with The JRR Tolkien Estate or its publisher." 

 

Actually, the last couple of years, I've done them (either personally or jointly
with the committee) through Vistaprint (since I'd already paid to upload the
appropriate image files) and sold them through the Society Table.

Vistaprint has been changing their pricing standards (so they're not quite the
killer deal they used to be) and their T-shirts vary in quality...

   -- Lynn --


--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, WendellWag@... wrote:
>
> T-shirts designed for each Mythcon are pretty standard.
>
> Wendell Wagner
>
>
> In a message dated 5/2/2011 9:05:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> jef.murray@... writes:
>
>
>
>
> Oooo! That would be fun!  T-shirts!
>
> Jef
>

"Now if only something could be done about Hillard's prose."

THAT is, I fear, beyond the power of the courts....

   -- Lynn --

--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Kane" <dougkane@...> wrote:
>
>
> A while back the dispute over the book Mirkwood, A Novel About J.R.R. Tolkien
sparked quite a discussion about the Tolkien Estate's actions protecting
Tolkien's intellectual property rights (actions which I generally support).  I
have now learned that the lawsuit that the author of the book, Steven Hillard,
filed in order to obtain a declaratory judgment has been settled.  According to
The Hollywood Reporter:
>
>   According to the settlement, the book will now be released with a modified
reference to Tolkien on the cover and will also include the disclaimer, "This is
a work of fiction which is neither endorsed nor connected with The JRR Tolkien
Estate or its publisher."
>
> The Estate's attorney, Aaron Morse, adds "The settlement terms are
confidential, but the agreement adequately addresses the Estate's concerns about
Mr. Hillard's book."
>
> Sounds like a reasonable settlement to me, addressing the concerns that the
Estate had while still allowing the publication to go through.
>
> Now if only something could be done about Hillard's prose.
>

 

"Now if only something could be done about Hillard's prose."

THAT is, I fear, beyond the power of the courts....

-- Lynn --

--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Kane" <dougkane@...> wrote:
>
>
> A while back the dispute over the book Mirkwood, A Novel About J.R.R. Tolkien sparked quite a discussion about the Tolkien Estate's actions protecting Tolkien's intellectual property rights (actions which I generally support). I have now learned that the lawsuit that the author of the book, Steven Hillard, filed in order to obtain a declaratory judgment has been settled. According to The Hollywood Reporter:
>
> According to the settlement, the book will now be released with a modified reference to Tolkien on the cover and will also include the disclaimer, "This is a work of fiction which is neither endorsed nor connected with The JRR Tolkien Estate or its publisher."
>
> The Estate's attorney, Aaron Morse, adds "The settlement terms are confidential, but the agreement adequately addresses the Estate's concerns about Mr. Hillard's book."
>
> Sounds like a reasonable settlement to me, addressing the concerns that the Estate had while still allowing the publication to go through.
>
> Now if only something could be done about Hillard's prose.
>

Copyright in written works pertains not just to the words of a work itself, but
also to derivative works, including the use of characters, settings, situations,
and other original elements created by the author.

So yes, a work that uses characters from Charles Williams novels (which are
still in copyright), being derivative works, would violate copyright if
published without permission.

Carl

On May 4, 2011, at 10:44 PM, dale nelson wrote:

>
> We have some librarians here.  I have a question.  It is for curiosity's sake;
the prequel idea I"m about to mention just occurred to me this moment.
>
> Giles Tumulty is a character in two Charles Williams novels, War in Heaven
(1930) and Many Dimensions (1931).  Suppose I wanted to write a prequel about
Tumulty's ill behavior prior to these books, or -- for that matter -- about his
activities between them.  (He dies in Many Dimensions, so no sequel!)  And --
why not? -- suppose I wanted to include Lord Arglay too.
>
> Would there be any plausible legal problems with this -- in the US, or in the
UK?
>
> Suppose, further, that my publisher blazoned "Based on the Characters Created
by Charles Williams" across the dustjacket.
>
> Legal problems?
>
> I'm curious.  These questions are prompted by the postings just now about the
Tolkien-exploiting books.
>
> Dale Nelson

However, Dale, don't lose all hope: CW died in 1945, so his copyrights will
expire fairly soon, on 1 January 2016.

--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
>
> Copyright in written works pertains not just to the words of a work itself,
but also to derivative works, including the use of characters, settings,
situations, and other original elements created by the author.
>
> So yes, a work that uses characters from Charles Williams novels (which are
still in copyright), being derivative works, would violate copyright if
published without permission.
>
> Carl
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 10:44 PM, dale nelson wrote:
>
> >
> > We have some librarians here.  I have a question.  It is for curiosity's
sake; the prequel idea I"m about to mention just occurred to me this moment.
> >
> > Giles Tumulty is a character in two Charles Williams novels, War in Heaven
(1930) and Many Dimensions (1931).  Suppose I wanted to write a prequel about
Tumulty's ill behavior prior to these books, or -- for that matter -- about his
activities between them.  (He dies in Many Dimensions, so no sequel!)  And --
why not? -- suppose I wanted to include Lord Arglay too.
> >
> > Would there be any plausible legal problems with this -- in the US, or in
the UK?
> >
> > Suppose, further, that my publisher blazoned "Based on the Characters
Created by Charles Williams" across the dustjacket.
> >
> > Legal problems?
> >
> > I'm curious.  These questions are prompted by the postings just now about
the Tolkien-exploiting books.
> >
> > Dale Nelson
>

"IcelofAngeln" <solicitr@...> wrote:

> However, Dale, don't lose all hope: CW died in 1945, so
> his copyrights will expire fairly soon, on 1 January 2016.

I don't believe that's the case.  His novels published in his own lifetime
expire their copyright 95 years after publication, thus 2026 at the
earliest, unless the term is extended again before that date arrives, which
has happened before.  The 2016 date would only apply to works still
unpublished today or not published under 2003 or later.  See
http://www.sunsteinlaw.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/flowchart.h\
tm

"Jason Fisher" <visualweasel@...> wrote:

>Why anyone should want to do this in the first place -- i.e., create
>derivative
>works based on the creative efforts of others -- is something I don't quite
>grasp.

In a later post, you wrote that you didn't mean things like "Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern Are Dead", but that's not what you said above.  You're now in
the position of having said you don't grasp a whole class of works, when
what you meant was that you don't like the ones you don't think are any
good.  Well, nobody likes stuff they don't think is any good.  And
"wish-fulfillment" is not limited to derivative works; it's simply that
having a ready-made universe to work in makes plugging your work into the
reader's mind a lot easier for hack authors.

I could point out that Tolkien wrote a fair number of loosely derivative
works, and that almost all of Shakespeare's plots are modified retellings of
well-known stories.  It's not that self-published fanfic is derivative
that's the problem.  The problem is that most of it is bad.  But then, most
self-published fiction is bad.  So what else is new?


>I suppose new, authorized novels set
>in the Star Trek and Star Wars universes are a bit more understandable --
>and
>lord, there are a lot of them!* -- but personally, I don't have any
>interest in
>those either. Just me?

Me neither, but that's because I'm not very interested in those universes.
For me, Star Wars is a passingly enjoyable movie I saw 35 years ago, and of
no more interest than any other passingly enjoyable movie I saw 35 years
ago.