PJs Movies - Did he touch other material besides LotR?

[Alatar]

I can see that going down well.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm very glad that Christopher's attitude toward his father's work is what it is—better this protectiveness than, for example, the idea that anything less than finished should be detroyed lest it tarnish his father's reputation.

(I could never forgive Jane Austen's sister Cassandra for burning all her letters after she died. . . . )

[Aravar]

Different people have different ideas: I recall seeing Terry Pratchett speak many years ago and he indicated that he would not allow the publication of anything incomplete at his death.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, but it sounds as if Tolkien was at least open to the idea of posthumous publication, open enough to give Christopher carte blanche. I was expressing relief that Christopher chose to publish rather than destroy.

[solicitr]

It's pretty clear that Tolkien despearately wanted the Silmarillion published, and realizing that he wouldn't get there, specifically wanted Xpher to see it done.

It's a slightly different question with regard to the other unfinished material- but then T was surely willing that scholars, at least, make what they could of his drafts and false starts, given that he sold a great number of them to Marquette.

A central motivation behind the History of Middle-earth really was CRT's discomfort with what he had felt compelled to do 1974-77 in putting out a 'unified' Silmarillion, cut transversely across its history. As he said in his preface to that edition,

It became clear to me that to attempt to present, within the covers of a single book, the diversity of the materials - to show The Silmarillion as in truth a continuing and evolving creation extending over more than half a century- would in fact lead only to confusion

But he was nonetheless aware of the synthetic nature of his 'selected and arranged' narrative, and therefore set out to show it as indeed a continuing and evolving creation extending over more than half a century- within the covers of thirteen books, as it turned out: letting us readers have our cake and eat it too.

Moreover, notwithstanding their degree of polish, would we willingly be without Ulmo's awful manifestation to Tuor beneath Vinyamar, or the debate of Húrin and Morgoth, or the remarkable fusion of theology and personal emotion of the Athrabeth? I think not. And, since HoME was expected to be a money-loser, as Rayner Unwin put it a 'legacy project', bravo Christopher!

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm very glad that Christopher's attitude toward his father's work is what it is—better this protectiveness than, for example, the idea that anything less than finished should be detroyed lest it tarnish his father's reputation.
(I could never forgive Jane Austen's sister Cassandra for burning all her letters after she died. . . . )

Weren't most of Kafka's best-known works published after his death against his express wishes?

[Primula Baggins]

I'm going to be radical and say that was a good thing, if true.

I don't think the dead should control the living. A writer who doesn't have the nerve to destroy his own work before he dies should not be able to force anyone else to do it.

[Jnyusa]

A writer who doesn't have the nerve to destroy his own work before he dies should not be able to force anyone else to do it.

That's an interesting perspective, Prim.

I guess this is an issue that comes up not infrequently. I'm always of two minds about it, because I feel that families should be able to preserve their private relationship to the deceased from public intrusion, and possibly protect the deceased from anything that would reflect poorly on them once they are beyond the ability to give answer.

But with works that were begun with the intent to publish and were never finished, the fact that the author could not bring themselves to destroy it by their own hand really should be a strong indication that the decision should be left to someone else.

Jn

[Primula Baggins]

Oh, I think if the family has reason to want to destroy the work, and they are in charge of it, then that's their right—to protect the deceased, to keep some matters private, whatever their reason is.

I just mean that I don't believe authors have the right to demand that their works be destroyed against the will of their heirs. Their heirs are alive; the authors are dead and presumably can't be harmed by anything.

[MithLuin]

JP II left all his personal letters to his secretary in his will, with the explicit request that they be destroyed. As far as I know, they were not, though of course no one is to say the secretary didn't go through and remove a few first . It is tough being a public figure and having your personal life open to scrutiny, and in a way it is worse to have that continue after your death.

But I agree - if you want stuff destroyed, destroy it yourself. Whether that is burning or shredding or whatever. If you leave stuff laying around, someone will find it and read it eventually.....

The dead should not control the living, but the living should not disrespect the dead.

I did not realize that JRRT had given Christopher explicit permission to finish any of his stories as he saw fit. I feel much better about the Fall of Doriath now .

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I think some eighteenth century wag said that the biographer brought a new terror to death.

[Jnyusa]

I think some eighteenth century wag said that the biographer brought a new terror to death.

That's what shredders are for!

This is a tiny bit off-topic, but I've occasionally discussed with Buddhist friends this issue of how much of one's own past one should cling to, in terms of letters, unfinished writings, photographs, etc. And because I've had to go through my parents' personal effects over the past decade, deciding in each round what to save and what to pitch, it has been on my mind a lot.

It's tough, you know? I can see why a writer might find it hard to get rid of certain things - letters, unfinished ideas - because so much of it does become grist for some later mill. And since we don't know exactly when we're going to die ....

But unless you've conveyed pretty clearly to your kids or your attorney what you want preserved/destroyed, someone has to make that decision, and it won't always be decided on the basis of what makes you look good.

Jn

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

I know that I have a lot of poetry scraps or failed poems that I have refused to delete, though they do not deserve survival.

However, sometimes you can make something of them, when you see unrealized potential.


I read a piece today at the Mad Poets Festival in Media that I had resurrected from the "dead". In revisiting the piece a while back, I had realized a way to work out the logical consequences of the original disparate series of images, and make it into something that might work. As I read it, I got what appeared to be approving reactions from the audience, so it was worth the effort.


Still, if it had been found in its original form after I had died, I would have been thinking from the grave--don't look at that!

BrianIs AtYou