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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.