Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ace claim that they were the only ones paying royalties directly to Tolkien

Expand Messages
  • WendellWag@aol.com
    Could someone who is an expert on the Ace editions controversy please look at the following thread on a message board?:
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 21, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Could someone who is an expert on the Ace editions controversy please look at the following thread on a message board?:
       
       
      Can you answer the question that's asked there?  If you don't want to post your answer to the question on the message board itself, please tell us the answer to the question and I will post your answer to the message board.  (You would have to join the message board to post to it, and I would understand if you don't want to do that.)
       
      Wendell Wagner
    • David Bratman
      I don t want to post there, nor to be quoted directly, but I can tell you informally that you re on the right track. Ace agreed to pay royalties directly to
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 21, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't want to post there, nor to be quoted directly, but I can tell you
        informally that you're on the right track. Ace agreed to pay royalties
        directly to Tolkien, as opposed to routing them through the hardcover
        publishers as Ballantine was presumably doing.

        The fact that you're missing is that Ace did not withdraw their edition from
        the market immediately on the agreeement, but instead agreed "not to reprint
        it when it is exhausted." See Letters p. 367, and Reader's Guide, p. 5.
        This ad obviously dates from the interim period before the Ace edition went
        out of print.

        What I hadn't known is that Ace was going around making this unwarrented
        claim of authorization, on the basis of their misleading statement about the
        royalties and making out that their peace settlement with Tolkien somehow
        made their edition authorized.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <WendellWag@...>
        To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:28 AM
        Subject: [mythsoc] Ace claim that they were the only ones paying royalties
        directly to Tolkien


        > Could someone who is an expert on the Ace editions controversy please
        > look
        > at the following thread on a message board?:
        >
        > _http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536779_
        > (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536779)
        >
        > Can you answer the question that's asked there? If you don't want to
        > post
        > your answer to the question on the message board itself, please tell us
        > the answer to the question and I will post your answer to the message
        > board.
        > (You would have to join the message board to post to it, and I would
        > understand if you don't want to do that.)
        >
        > Wendell Wagner
        >
      • lynnmaudlin
        I remember Mike Foster s fascinating paper on the Ace editions presented at Birmingham 2005 *but* I don t remember all the details; as I recall there was some
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 27, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I remember Mike Foster's fascinating paper on the Ace editions presented at Birmingham 2005 *but* I don't remember all the details; as I recall there was some odd work on the British publisher's part regarding American copyrights and trying to bring the books into the country inexpensively under the "x-many copies imported" clause; I think Mike felt the Ace editions forced the legitimate release of LOTR in paperback & did a great deal to popularize Tolkien in America but check with Mike rather than relying on my memory!

          -- Lynn --


          --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "David Bratman" <dbratman@...> wrote:
          >
          > I don't want to post there, nor to be quoted directly, but I can tell you
          > informally that you're on the right track. Ace agreed to pay royalties
          > directly to Tolkien, as opposed to routing them through the hardcover
          > publishers as Ballantine was presumably doing.
          >
          > The fact that you're missing is that Ace did not withdraw their edition from
          > the market immediately on the agreeement, but instead agreed "not to reprint
          > it when it is exhausted." See Letters p. 367, and Reader's Guide, p. 5.
          > This ad obviously dates from the interim period before the Ace edition went
          > out of print.
          >
          > What I hadn't known is that Ace was going around making this unwarrented
          > claim of authorization, on the basis of their misleading statement about the
          > royalties and making out that their peace settlement with Tolkien somehow
          > made their edition authorized.
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: <WendellWag@...>
          > To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:28 AM
          > Subject: [mythsoc] Ace claim that they were the only ones paying royalties
          > directly to Tolkien
          >
          >
          > > Could someone who is an expert on the Ace editions controversy please
          > > look
          > > at the following thread on a message board?:
          > >
          > > _http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536779_
          > > (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536779)
          > >
          > > Can you answer the question that's asked there? If you don't want to
          > > post
          > > your answer to the question on the message board itself, please tell us
          > > the answer to the question and I will post your answer to the message
          > > board.
          > > (You would have to join the message board to post to it, and I would
          > > understand if you don't want to do that.)
          > >
          > > Wendell Wagner
          > >
          >
        • Wayne G. Hammond
          ... The paper was actually by Nancy Martsch, and appears first in the published conference proceedings. A fuller and more accurate account of the Ace affair,
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 27, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Lynn wrote:

            I remember Mike Foster's fascinating paper on the Ace editions presented at Birmingham 2005

            The paper was actually by Nancy Martsch, and appears first in the published conference proceedings. A fuller and more accurate account of the Ace affair, though, is the one in my and Christina's Reader's Guide to which David referred in his reply to Wendell: this was based not only on secondary sources, but on a wealth of correspondence among Tolkien, Allen & Unwin, and Houghton Mifflin in the Allen & Unwin archives.

            I too am glad to know about the misleading Ace statement in Silverlock.

            Wayne
          • lynnmaudlin
            Thanks, Wayne - you re right about Nancy Martsch - I d forgotten that Mike was *reading* her paper (!!) - guess this proves I am no scholar, to forget my
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 28, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Wayne - you're right about Nancy Martsch - I'd forgotten that Mike was *reading* her paper (!!) - guess this proves I am no scholar, to forget my sources!

              I've not read that section in your excellent book; sadly that book is already packed (as is 85% of my library) in anticipation of moving Real Soon Now... *sigh*

              thanks! I trust you and the lovely Christina are well - will we see you in Dallas next summer, maybe maybe? I sure enjoyed seeing you in Connecticut last year...

              -- Lynn --


              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne G. Hammond" <Wayne.G.Hammond@...> wrote:
              >
              > Lynn wrote:
              >
              > >I remember Mike Foster's fascinating paper on the Ace editions
              > >presented at Birmingham 2005
              >
              > The paper was actually by Nancy Martsch, and appears first in the
              > published conference proceedings. A fuller and more accurate account
              > of the Ace affair, though, is the one in my and Christina's Reader's
              > Guide to which David referred in his reply to Wendell: this was based
              > not only on secondary sources, but on a wealth of correspondence
              > among Tolkien, Allen & Unwin, and Houghton Mifflin in the Allen &
              > Unwin archives.
              >
              > I too am glad to know about the misleading Ace statement in Silverlock.
              >
              > Wayne
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.