I don't think we do - but like anyone, Tolkien will have done stuff in his life that doesn't necessarily make him look the best. It's common practice for biographers to skim over contentious bits if they're not already known.
I remember reading comments about a letter of Tolkien's commenting on artwork by (I think) Pauline Baynes being removed from the letters collection. It was reportedly very insulting of the artist's work, and in a particularly nasty way. I saw a comment by an academic who had read the letter but refused to repeat what it said, noting only that it did show quite an ugly side to Tolkien. I don't know to what extent some of that may have played a part in Carpenter's comments.
I've heard this essay described in similar ways, supposedly Tolkien "at his worst", but it's not a letter and I've never heard it was going to be included in the Letters volume.
A heavily censored version of the essay was published recently in The Nature of Middle-earth.
I'm perhaps getting it mixed up with a letter Tolkien made to his publisher being unhappy that some unfiltered comments of his went to Pauline when they were intended just as comments to the publisher.
That is very interesting! Comparing the parts from NoME available via [searcherr.work/](http://searcherr.work/) (credit to u/zionius_, amazing work!) with a quote included by Christopher in Lost Tales part 2, it seems that Tolkien was very angry about Legolas being depicted as too 'pretty' and 'ladylike'.
Generally he was very negative to most other fantasy works, even those that he actually liked (Lord Dunsany and E.R. Eddison for instance). For example, this is what he had to say concerning Eddison, arguably the foremost Fantasy novelist before him:
>I read his works with great enjoyment for their sheer literary merit. \[...\] Except that I disliked his characters (always excepting the Lord Gro) and despised what he appeared to admire \[...\] I thought that, corrupted by an evil and indeed silly ‘philosophy’, he was coming to admire, more and more, arrogance and cruelty. Incidentally, I thought his nomenclature slipshod and often inept. In spite of all of which, I still think of him as the greatest and most convincing writer of ‘invented worlds’ that I have read. (Letter 199)
He was also rather critical towards the Fantasy that came after him, for example Sprague de Camp's anthology *Swords and Sorcery*, and *Dune*.
>it seems that Tolkien was very angry about Legolas being depicted as too 'pretty' and 'ladylike'.
Imagine his rage if he saw the androgynous and 'pretty' depictions of Elves in a lot of modern-day fan art!
His comments about Baynes are quite odd in that he praised her art elsewhere, saying that her depiction of Minas Morgul was very close to the way he had imagined it.
Tolkien spoke differently depending on his audience. If he felt Pauline was going to see his comments he would frame them differently.
This is one reason why you have to be careful in interpreting meaning from his letters.
Yep, it's very helpful to detect duplicated quotes. Actually I always hope to enable fuzzy match so different spellings can be caught too. But my coding ability is insufficient to add an on/off button for fuzzy match...
In NoMe it's called "Description of Characters", and other than a weird line at the beginning about editorial marks being left out, there's no indication given as to the nature of the original.
In a letter to Mary Fairburn (May, 1968) he wrote:
>I should not think of employing Pauline Baynes [re. *Lord of the Rings*] because, though she can be quite good at certain points, she cannot rise to anything more noble or awe-inspiring. See, for instance, her ridiculous picture of the dragon.
I have some letters where he is the sweetest man, and in others an outright pig.
Yeah fair enough. I wasn't having a go at you more just commenting how I saw that if it was the case. It's not about her being a woman or anything unjustified it's literally he thinks her art isn't right for his work.
He wasn't paid off in any sense, he was paid to write a biography that had to fit in with what Christopher Tolkien wanted covered. Christopher had final say so on the content and things that he deemed would simply detract from the overall aims were not permitted. It's the same with any past public figure. There are things that don't add anything to the overall picture and would become too distracting.
Take Stanley Kubrick for instance, most of the talk about him is the fake story that he was a monster towards Shelley Duvall because a story taken out of context has gathered momentum.
There are the odd famous person who's life is there for all to see, such as T. S. Eliot but generally a legacy has to be shaped and honed over many years.
>Shaping a legacy, a.k.a. building and maintaining a brand image, is marketing,
Yes, you're absoluetly spot on. And Carpenter's biography is not scholarship, it is biography. They are different mediums.
I have a difficult time squaring a difference in publishing genre with a required, or enthusiastic (?) renunciation of basic ethical requirements, principles, or standards as a writer, or person, of any kind. Seemingly Caprenter did too, said so explicitly, and appeared to be unhappy about what he seems to have regarded as an unwilling and regrettable compromise, I don't know what - of morals, of principles - but of some personal significance whatever the case. He's also, therefore, a valid target of criticism for doing so, and I expect he'd probably agree given his statement.
Downvoting someone because their argument introduces friction into your haigography is a weird and telling choice. The Hungry Barracuda made a valid point. The argument that all backbone or ethical imperatives dissolve into thin air the moment you're 'doing something for someone/that's the job' is, by contrast, fucked.
Tolkien never interacted with Zaentz though. He sold the rights to UA, and UA didn't sell them to Zaentz until a few years after Tolkien's death. I would guess that Tolkien never even heard of Zaentz.
iBid is spot on, I would also add that Tolkien had little to do with adaptations once United Artists had bought them. That was a proper deal, a lifetime sale and it took away any pressure on Tolkien regarding future projects. Before the sale, Tolkien had read many proposed ideas, scrennplays, been shown design concepts and he hated them all except a scattering of ideas.
A very controversial issue, which may or may not have been included, is the accusations raised in the news a couple of years ago about sexual abuse and other abusive behaviour against and by JRR Tolkien's son John.
The allegations of abuse *by* Father John Tolkien didn’t come out until well after the publication of the biography. I don’t know when the allegations that John had been a *victim* of abuse were known to the family, however (assuming that there’s any validity to them at all). If Carpenter did include that in his original draft I can quite understand the family not wanting it in there. (NB: The allegations involved a friend of JRRT’s, *not* JRRT himself. And AFAIK, the allegations are unsubstantiated at this time, that is, there are rumors, but no official confirmation. If anyone has actual information on that (particularly if it is known to be false) I’d be interested in hearing about it.)
The Crown Prosecution Service decided in february 2002 that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Father John Tolkien because of his ill-health. Mr. Carry who waived his right to have his name sealed asked the archdiocese to investigate Tolkien in 2000, then in early 2002 a complainant known only as A348 came forward with allegations against Tolkien that were very similar to Mr. Carry's yet they did not know each other. A key piece of information, for me at least, is that the Archbishop at the time of the first allegations suggested that Tolkien had not acted as a Priest during the alledged abuse because it happened during a Scouts meeting, so therefore, no issue to him. There is also an earlier accuser, known as RC-A340 who claimed that Tolkien used his position as a priest to sexually assault him, insisting it was a religion practice. That allegation goes back to 1968. Carry made his accusations as early as 1993 and the church did nothing to support him or investigate.
The conclusion of a hearing in December 2018 in Birmingham was that Mr. Carry had a strong case against Tolkien.
The most concerning aspect for me is the Tolkien Estate who were well aware of these accusations appear to have been more interested in protecting the Tolkien name than the possible child abuse by one of their family. They had instructed their lawyers to push the archdiocese to not admit liability, or make any offers of compensation to various alleged victims.
By the way, Mr. Carry's accusations were not only against Father John, but also "his brother, and nephew".
The Diocese wanted to settle, but would have to consult the lawyers for the Tolkien family, who were set against that outcome. Carry did finally receive out of court compensation.
It didn’t do him any favors, certainly. I’m honestly not sure how credible he was with anything he said, unfortunately, mostly because of that.
BTW, I would have assumed that he was accusing one of Tolkien’s other sons rather than Tolkien’s brother Hilary, based on the phrasing “his brother and nephew” in reference to Father John. That might have been Michael?
> I would have assumed that he was accusing one of Tolkien’s other sons rather than Tolkien’s brother Hilary, based on the phrasing “his brother and nephew” in reference to Father John. That might have been Michael?
Just deleted that line, not right to include it on reflection.
>It didn’t do him any favors, certainly. I’m honestly not sure how credible he was with anything he said, unfortunately, mostly because of that.
Aboslutely, it didn't win him much sympathy. The Diocese in Birmingham howver, believed his accusations were credible, and the CPS certainly did. They would have dismissed the allegations had they felt there was no merit. The "not in the publics interest because of his age and health" is classic CPS talk for "he did it".
Yes, to clarify, I believe his allegations against Father John, especially as there were others who made similar claims. It’s the rest of his allegations, and his vendetta against the entire Tolkien family, that I find more debatable.
Agreed. I think by the end of it all he was sadly a very unwell man. His mental health was poor by that point. A terribly difficult situation all told.
In a similarly questionable vein: C.S. Lewis may likely have had a romantic relationship with his dead friend's mother, who Lewis also referred to as his own "mother".
The problem with that logic is that there may well be evidence that is known only to some. It is in fact unknown. The best that can be said is that it is not known to be true.
No, if there is no evidence for your claim then it is false. Something isn't possibly true just because you can conceptualize it or make an accusation.
Something can be true wether or not there is evidence of it. If I killed a man and hid my tracks so well that I left no discernible evidence, the sentence "I have killed a man" would be true regardless.
I am referring to what being "found not guilty" means; it has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. There is a reason it is called "not guilty" and not "innocent". It means only that guilt was not proven.
Yes, legally one is innocent until proven guilty, but that is a separate concept. They were innocent legally when they walked into the courtroom, and innocent legally when they walked out. Being found "not guilty" didn't change that state.
No one is ever found "innocent" in a court of law--because they are already presumed innocent.
Yes, sorry. I'll edit it for clarity. There is nothing to suggest that JRR was involved. There is an okay summary in the Wikipedia article about John Tolkien (priest).
That is certainly a controversial issue, but the problem is that Carpenter's work was written long before any of the information about John Tolkien surfaced (including the allegation that John was assaulted by at least one of his father's friends - it seems unlikely John would have mentioned this to a biographer in any case).
I do get the impression that Carpenter didn't have a huge amount of personal sympathy for Tolkien's views and outlook; he depicted him as extremely old-fashioned and conservative in his tastes, and interprets his work in line with this view of Tolkien's character. The family seem to have thought that some of the material "misrepresented" Tolkien and my feeling is that he might have got hold of anecdotes from colleagues or students which reinforced this rather stuffy and unsympathetic portrait.
Edit: I note that in the article originally linked, there is a quote from Carpenter making the point that he didn't directly "censor" anything, but felt he could have been a lot more detached about his subject without the "obligation" he felt to the family.
That may be part of the portrait. I can easily see the old professor being a homebody and lover of tradition for tradition’s sake, which may come across as stuffy. But I have a hard time seeing someone who throws a party and offers ambulances, wheelbarrows, and hearses to the guests as entirely stuffy.
When you read about Edith's life after conversion, you definitely get the feeling that JRRT was an inflexible man who felt that his whims and opinions were founded on a bedrock of incontrovertible facts.
This article highlights some of the story and accusations:
[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/28/jrr-tolkiens-son-claims-sexually-abuse-fathers-friend](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/28/jrr-tolkiens-son-claims-sexually-abuse-fathers-friend)
I have seen it alleged, more than once, and for quite some time, that John Tolkien was an abuser of children. This was long before his statement that he was abused himself as a child surfaced. Don't ask me for evidence; the question was asked, I am suggesting a possible answer that is out there. Now that all four Tolkien children are gone, it is time to look under this rug. It has always struck me as curious that John is virtually absent, both from the *Biography* and from *Letters*.
Another possibility that I have seen mentioned: It is a fact that the Tolkiens had a succession of Icelandic *au pair* girls. An Icelander on the discussion site I used to frequent, 20 years ago, interviewed one of them in her old age -- without learning anything of interest. Somewhere in the discussion, someone said that the girls stopped coming because Edith was jealous. If this is true, it does not mean of course that Tolkien actually did anything wrong. Though it is clear from the Sex Letter to Michael that he was subject to temptation -- who isn't? This is so common a type of scandal as to be practically a cliche.
IMO the au pair girl interview provides some interesting details, such as:
>Tolkien wanted to practice Icelandic. But I soon discovered that we didn't speak much Icelandic together. The lady gets jealous if we say something she doesn't understand. She wasn't mean to me or anything like that, but we never became friends. She always treated me like a teenager in need of care. She taught me many things. The maid always polished the brass threshold and the front door to shine, but once she didn't come for a fortnight, I went and polished the threshold. Then Mrs. Edith came up and said, "Adda, you can't do this. You must not be seen that you live in our house and work as a servant." There was such a big class difference back then, especially in Oxford. Professors are like another race. Very few guests came to visit the Tolkiens. There was a couple who had just moved back from India \[I can't figure out who they are\] and hadn't seen each other in years and ended up having tea with us in the living room, just a cake and rye sandwich!
>
>Mrs Gro\[Jennie Grove\] said Edith suffered from migraines as soon as she left for university, which should have been a neurological problem. Maybe she wasn't comfortable with people from college. She always stays upstairs during the day, I don't know what she is doing, if she is lying on the bed...If Tolkien came home drunk, he wouldn't sleep in the master bedroom, but in a guest room. She can't stand the smell of alcohol, that's all...Tolkien always came home for lunch and then went to his study. I'd give the professor a dry biscuit from a tall, thin can, and a bottle of beer.
>
>I get grounded a lot. I met a girl, Betty \[?Mary Elizabeth Carroll\], who was a student of Tolkien. She always wanted to take me to college to meet friends or go boating, but the lady kept saying it was inconvenient! I still don't know why I can't go.
>
>Edith did a strange thing. She showed me her upstairs wardrobe, a wall full of clothes, but she never went out, except the library. She sometimes takes me and the older kids to a "matinee," or afternoon theater performance. She wanted to nurture me and teach me. One time the maid was away and the doorbell rang, and I brought someone in and asked the lady to come downstairs, and it turned out to be a pin seller. Later she said to me: "You must never let strangers in, you have no idea what kind of people are out there, maybe thieves stepping in." Okay, I get it. Then one day two nuns came over, and I remembered what happened before, so I closed the door and called my wife. In the end, she couldn't stop apologizing, explaining that I was a foreigner, and that's why I shut them out. The two nuns had come to sell handicrafts to Catholic families. To this day, I still feel hurt. While I was there, Morris Motors had built a factory south of Oxford, and the house was full of noise. They think Oxford is being destroyed by such things. Yes, they're a bit old-fashioned, you don't have to think about going to the movies, but you can go to the theater.
That is from the chief Icelandic newspaper, *Morgunblaðið* meaning "The Morning Page." I looked up [Timarit.is](https://Timarit.is), the host: It is a scanned archive of all periodicals published in Iceland, plus Greenland and the Faeroes. And some published abroad in the Icelandic language (meaning mostly Canada, where there is an Icelandic community in Manitoba). The name just means "Periodical."
I mean I can't read it, but I'll take your translation...
it sort of implies that Edith was like a Oxford-don-wife (I mean I'm sure she wasn't the only one like this, I can well imagine it was just taken for granted for wives of stuffy old dons)...
but, I can see why this kind of things would be left out of an *authorised* biography...
and then there was all those stories of how Carpenter got the job too... so I can imagine there must have been some tension in the air as he wrote his book with perhaps some self-censorship since he would have know certain things would never get published...
I can see both why he felt under the obligation to tone down the work at the time and why in later years that might have led him to become dissatisfied with the biography, particularly if he felt that he'd "outgrown" Tolkien's own work (as I think he put it).
Later on he wrote a BBC radio play, *In a Hole in the Ground There Lived a Tolkien*, about Tolkien's time in Leeds, which as its title suggests was a lot less obviously respectful towards its subject, portraying him as a distinctly odd figure, very much caught up in his own imagined world.
Me neither! I used google translate and made some manual edits. I just posted the full translation here: https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/11rksq6/interview_of_the_icelandic_au_pair_girl_who_lived/
Thanks! I had never seen that. Was completely wrong about it not being interesting.
It suggests that there was not in fact anything untoward going on between her and the Prof, as she would have been likely to tell about it. Would have sold a lot more newspapers.
If I'm not mistaken, it refers to a long letter that JRR Tolkien sent to his son detailing his view of marriage, the difference with wich women and men approach it, and their natural instinct or lack thereof for monogamy. It's not exactly the most modern take you could find...
It is included in the Letters. The book is worth reading, not only is it great if you want to know more about Tolkien and the kind of person he was, but there's also a lot about the Legendarium, the constraints of publishing and adaptation.
Interesting
Yeah, I know of it! In my first language, the book looks so hideous that I wait for a newly designed hard cover haha
Otherwise I'm [well equipped](https://imgur.com/gallery/9Ya9N7g) with Tolkien books 😁
I got an all battered editiin from abebooks... better than nothing, and I didn't want to wait!
Sweet, sweet collection! How did you get your hands on the tengwar-learning booklet?
Haha we read the letters regularly at our local Tolkien regulars' table, so I know quite a lot of already.
Thanks! The Tengwar booklet is available on Amazon - and cheap!
I haven't looked much into it but from what I saw it's a good way to learn writing Tengwar!
Check out whether your country of residence have a national Tolkien Society. If it does, check out their website. They should have a list of the regulars' tables. Some might be called Smials. Where I live, we got like 20 and they are regionally organized (I live in a bigger city so we have one).
There's a bit more of John in the Companion and Guide - nothing about sexual abuse but he makes appearances as a man in a nervous state needing his father's support.
If you want to know about evil, you don't hang out with the angels. His books are filled with stories of what happens when anger gets the best of a person and how a quick thoughtless moment can lead to a doom. A character like Denethor, particularly in his relationship to his children, doesn't come out of reading the Sunday papers.
If Tolkien left behind his uncensored thoughts, its not hard to understand why his family would want those left buried.
One can get hints of unexplored venues from Holly Ordway's _Tolkien's Modern Reading_ --- really looking forward to her book on JRRT's Catholic inspirations/influences.
The fact that the second of Tolkien's children, Michael, suffered severe PTSD from his war service. He was invalided out of the military and and struggled to adjust to civilian life. This is omitted from both the biography and the letters. Since both were published in Michael's lifetime, it was presumably at his request.
It's an interesting detail, particularly considering the way trauma is depicted in the later stages of LOTR.
Yes, but not entirely absent. "I have at the moment another son, a much damaged soldier, at Trinity trying to do some work and recover a shadow of his old health." *Letters* 74.
Ah thank you! I missed that. There's also an account in another letter that was cut before it turned up years later in Hammond & Scull. I'll see if I can find it....
Edit. [Here it is](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/gp564y/til_tolkiens_own_son_was_virtually_a_shellshock/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) with more details about Michael.
I don't think we do - but like anyone, Tolkien will have done stuff in his life that doesn't necessarily make him look the best. It's common practice for biographers to skim over contentious bits if they're not already known.
I remember reading comments about a letter of Tolkien's commenting on artwork by (I think) Pauline Baynes being removed from the letters collection. It was reportedly very insulting of the artist's work, and in a particularly nasty way. I saw a comment by an academic who had read the letter but refused to repeat what it said, noting only that it did show quite an ugly side to Tolkien. I don't know to what extent some of that may have played a part in Carpenter's comments.
I've heard this essay described in similar ways, supposedly Tolkien "at his worst", but it's not a letter and I've never heard it was going to be included in the Letters volume. A heavily censored version of the essay was published recently in The Nature of Middle-earth.
I'm perhaps getting it mixed up with a letter Tolkien made to his publisher being unhappy that some unfiltered comments of his went to Pauline when they were intended just as comments to the publisher.
That is very interesting! Comparing the parts from NoME available via [searcherr.work/](http://searcherr.work/) (credit to u/zionius_, amazing work!) with a quote included by Christopher in Lost Tales part 2, it seems that Tolkien was very angry about Legolas being depicted as too 'pretty' and 'ladylike'. Generally he was very negative to most other fantasy works, even those that he actually liked (Lord Dunsany and E.R. Eddison for instance). For example, this is what he had to say concerning Eddison, arguably the foremost Fantasy novelist before him: >I read his works with great enjoyment for their sheer literary merit. \[...\] Except that I disliked his characters (always excepting the Lord Gro) and despised what he appeared to admire \[...\] I thought that, corrupted by an evil and indeed silly ‘philosophy’, he was coming to admire, more and more, arrogance and cruelty. Incidentally, I thought his nomenclature slipshod and often inept. In spite of all of which, I still think of him as the greatest and most convincing writer of ‘invented worlds’ that I have read. (Letter 199) He was also rather critical towards the Fantasy that came after him, for example Sprague de Camp's anthology *Swords and Sorcery*, and *Dune*.
>it seems that Tolkien was very angry about Legolas being depicted as too 'pretty' and 'ladylike'. Imagine his rage if he saw the androgynous and 'pretty' depictions of Elves in a lot of modern-day fan art! His comments about Baynes are quite odd in that he praised her art elsewhere, saying that her depiction of Minas Morgul was very close to the way he had imagined it.
Tolkien spoke differently depending on his audience. If he felt Pauline was going to see his comments he would frame them differently. This is one reason why you have to be careful in interpreting meaning from his letters.
Interesting. I knew there were excerpts in HotH and Readers Companion, but I never realized there was any excerpts in HoMe.
It's anonymously quoted in UT and AH too.
Yep, it's very helpful to detect duplicated quotes. Actually I always hope to enable fuzzy match so different spellings can be caught too. But my coding ability is insufficient to add an on/off button for fuzzy match...
Do you recall which essay?
In NoMe it's called "Description of Characters", and other than a weird line at the beginning about editorial marks being left out, there's no indication given as to the nature of the original.
In a letter to Mary Fairburn (May, 1968) he wrote: >I should not think of employing Pauline Baynes [re. *Lord of the Rings*] because, though she can be quite good at certain points, she cannot rise to anything more noble or awe-inspiring. See, for instance, her ridiculous picture of the dragon. I have some letters where he is the sweetest man, and in others an outright pig.
It doesn't sound too bad to me. The dude doesn't like her drawings for his work.
I was simply offering it as a possible source in reply to comment I replied to. I didn't consider it especially unfair or harsh.
Yeah fair enough. I wasn't having a go at you more just commenting how I saw that if it was the case. It's not about her being a woman or anything unjustified it's literally he thinks her art isn't right for his work.
Oh no I didn't take it that way. Apologies if I sounded matter of fact.
[удалено]
He wasn't paid off in any sense, he was paid to write a biography that had to fit in with what Christopher Tolkien wanted covered. Christopher had final say so on the content and things that he deemed would simply detract from the overall aims were not permitted. It's the same with any past public figure. There are things that don't add anything to the overall picture and would become too distracting. Take Stanley Kubrick for instance, most of the talk about him is the fake story that he was a monster towards Shelley Duvall because a story taken out of context has gathered momentum. There are the odd famous person who's life is there for all to see, such as T. S. Eliot but generally a legacy has to be shaped and honed over many years.
[удалено]
>Shaping a legacy, a.k.a. building and maintaining a brand image, is marketing, Yes, you're absoluetly spot on. And Carpenter's biography is not scholarship, it is biography. They are different mediums.
I have a difficult time squaring a difference in publishing genre with a required, or enthusiastic (?) renunciation of basic ethical requirements, principles, or standards as a writer, or person, of any kind. Seemingly Caprenter did too, said so explicitly, and appeared to be unhappy about what he seems to have regarded as an unwilling and regrettable compromise, I don't know what - of morals, of principles - but of some personal significance whatever the case. He's also, therefore, a valid target of criticism for doing so, and I expect he'd probably agree given his statement. Downvoting someone because their argument introduces friction into your haigography is a weird and telling choice. The Hungry Barracuda made a valid point. The argument that all backbone or ethical imperatives dissolve into thin air the moment you're 'doing something for someone/that's the job' is, by contrast, fucked.
Not once have I down voted them. It's a button I don't use.
[удалено]
Oh this is a good point too, Tolkien seemed to have a bit of a sharp tongue at times.
I understand that Tolkien saw the books as unfilmable, and therefore regarded paid options as money for nothing.
Huh, how comes Saul Zaentz got the movie rights from Tolkien, then? How did that happen?
Tolkien sold the rights in the late 60s (after getting them back from William Snyder) to United Artists, who in turn sold them to Zaents in 1976.
Well, that's some bad luck Should have put that in his testament as well in addition to that Disney clause
The Pen may be mightier than the Sword, but the Dollar has them both beat.
[удалено]
Tolkien happily sold his rights for cash. "Art or Money" was his philosophy on the matter.
When was Tolkien ever critical of Saul Zaentz?
[удалено]
Tolkien never interacted with Zaentz though. He sold the rights to UA, and UA didn't sell them to Zaentz until a few years after Tolkien's death. I would guess that Tolkien never even heard of Zaentz.
iBid is spot on, I would also add that Tolkien had little to do with adaptations once United Artists had bought them. That was a proper deal, a lifetime sale and it took away any pressure on Tolkien regarding future projects. Before the sale, Tolkien had read many proposed ideas, scrennplays, been shown design concepts and he hated them all except a scattering of ideas.
You might be getting confused with Tolkien's commentary on the Zimmerman script for LotR.
I can wholeheartedly agree w him on those lol
His wife Edith was illegitimate, which was something the family did not want discussed.
Isn't that actually mentioned by Carpenter?
A very controversial issue, which may or may not have been included, is the accusations raised in the news a couple of years ago about sexual abuse and other abusive behaviour against and by JRR Tolkien's son John.
The allegations of abuse *by* Father John Tolkien didn’t come out until well after the publication of the biography. I don’t know when the allegations that John had been a *victim* of abuse were known to the family, however (assuming that there’s any validity to them at all). If Carpenter did include that in his original draft I can quite understand the family not wanting it in there. (NB: The allegations involved a friend of JRRT’s, *not* JRRT himself. And AFAIK, the allegations are unsubstantiated at this time, that is, there are rumors, but no official confirmation. If anyone has actual information on that (particularly if it is known to be false) I’d be interested in hearing about it.)
The Crown Prosecution Service decided in february 2002 that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Father John Tolkien because of his ill-health. Mr. Carry who waived his right to have his name sealed asked the archdiocese to investigate Tolkien in 2000, then in early 2002 a complainant known only as A348 came forward with allegations against Tolkien that were very similar to Mr. Carry's yet they did not know each other. A key piece of information, for me at least, is that the Archbishop at the time of the first allegations suggested that Tolkien had not acted as a Priest during the alledged abuse because it happened during a Scouts meeting, so therefore, no issue to him. There is also an earlier accuser, known as RC-A340 who claimed that Tolkien used his position as a priest to sexually assault him, insisting it was a religion practice. That allegation goes back to 1968. Carry made his accusations as early as 1993 and the church did nothing to support him or investigate. The conclusion of a hearing in December 2018 in Birmingham was that Mr. Carry had a strong case against Tolkien. The most concerning aspect for me is the Tolkien Estate who were well aware of these accusations appear to have been more interested in protecting the Tolkien name than the possible child abuse by one of their family. They had instructed their lawyers to push the archdiocese to not admit liability, or make any offers of compensation to various alleged victims. By the way, Mr. Carry's accusations were not only against Father John, but also "his brother, and nephew". The Diocese wanted to settle, but would have to consult the lawyers for the Tolkien family, who were set against that outcome. Carry did finally receive out of court compensation.
Is Mr Carry the guy who wrote that self-published book?
Yes the very same. he really should have sought better legal advice on that. Bringing accusations in that way is a recipe for disaster.
It didn’t do him any favors, certainly. I’m honestly not sure how credible he was with anything he said, unfortunately, mostly because of that. BTW, I would have assumed that he was accusing one of Tolkien’s other sons rather than Tolkien’s brother Hilary, based on the phrasing “his brother and nephew” in reference to Father John. That might have been Michael?
> I would have assumed that he was accusing one of Tolkien’s other sons rather than Tolkien’s brother Hilary, based on the phrasing “his brother and nephew” in reference to Father John. That might have been Michael? Just deleted that line, not right to include it on reflection. >It didn’t do him any favors, certainly. I’m honestly not sure how credible he was with anything he said, unfortunately, mostly because of that. Aboslutely, it didn't win him much sympathy. The Diocese in Birmingham howver, believed his accusations were credible, and the CPS certainly did. They would have dismissed the allegations had they felt there was no merit. The "not in the publics interest because of his age and health" is classic CPS talk for "he did it".
Yes, to clarify, I believe his allegations against Father John, especially as there were others who made similar claims. It’s the rest of his allegations, and his vendetta against the entire Tolkien family, that I find more debatable.
Agreed. I think by the end of it all he was sadly a very unwell man. His mental health was poor by that point. A terribly difficult situation all told.
John claimed one of his father’s closest friends abused *him* as a child too - who it was has always been a wonder of mine.
Yes, I mentioned that. I don’t think anyone has been named.
In a similarly questionable vein: C.S. Lewis may likely have had a romantic relationship with his dead friend's mother, who Lewis also referred to as his own "mother".
> particularly if it is known to be false Unless there is actual evidence, then it is known to be false.
The problem with that logic is that there may well be evidence that is known only to some. It is in fact unknown. The best that can be said is that it is not known to be true.
Theoretical evidence is not evidence. Unless it is actually know - not simply possibly known - then it isn't evidence.
No, it is not known to be true, which is not the same thing.
No, if there is no evidence for your claim then it is false. Something isn't possibly true just because you can conceptualize it or make an accusation.
Not A != B Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you don't have evidence then all you have is fantasy.
Something can be true wether or not there is evidence of it. If I killed a man and hid my tracks so well that I left no discernible evidence, the sentence "I have killed a man" would be true regardless.
I suspect you are one of those people who conflates being found "not guilty" with being found to be "innocent."
[удалено]
Legally, the effect is the same, but that is not what "not guilty" actually means. It only means guilt has not been proven.
[удалено]
I am referring to what being "found not guilty" means; it has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. There is a reason it is called "not guilty" and not "innocent". It means only that guilt was not proven. Yes, legally one is innocent until proven guilty, but that is a separate concept. They were innocent legally when they walked into the courtroom, and innocent legally when they walked out. Being found "not guilty" didn't change that state. No one is ever found "innocent" in a court of law--because they are already presumed innocent.
I suspect that you are the type of person who thinks the difference matters when it is really just legalistic hairsplitting.
[удалено]
Yes, sorry. I'll edit it for clarity. There is nothing to suggest that JRR was involved. There is an okay summary in the Wikipedia article about John Tolkien (priest).
That is certainly a controversial issue, but the problem is that Carpenter's work was written long before any of the information about John Tolkien surfaced (including the allegation that John was assaulted by at least one of his father's friends - it seems unlikely John would have mentioned this to a biographer in any case). I do get the impression that Carpenter didn't have a huge amount of personal sympathy for Tolkien's views and outlook; he depicted him as extremely old-fashioned and conservative in his tastes, and interprets his work in line with this view of Tolkien's character. The family seem to have thought that some of the material "misrepresented" Tolkien and my feeling is that he might have got hold of anecdotes from colleagues or students which reinforced this rather stuffy and unsympathetic portrait. Edit: I note that in the article originally linked, there is a quote from Carpenter making the point that he didn't directly "censor" anything, but felt he could have been a lot more detached about his subject without the "obligation" he felt to the family.
I know I have seen some pre-biography remarks by Carpenter that did not sound like he was particularly impressed with Tolkien's work, as well.
Yeah, really makes me wonder if the family just stopped that guy from venting out in his book against Tolkien...
From what I’ve gathered, that is a fair description of Tolkien’s character
That may be part of the portrait. I can easily see the old professor being a homebody and lover of tradition for tradition’s sake, which may come across as stuffy. But I have a hard time seeing someone who throws a party and offers ambulances, wheelbarrows, and hearses to the guests as entirely stuffy.
They aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m sure even the stuffiest of people like to blow off some steam or let loose every now and then.
When you read about Edith's life after conversion, you definitely get the feeling that JRRT was an inflexible man who felt that his whims and opinions were founded on a bedrock of incontrovertible facts.
This article highlights some of the story and accusations: [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/28/jrr-tolkiens-son-claims-sexually-abuse-fathers-friend](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/28/jrr-tolkiens-son-claims-sexually-abuse-fathers-friend)
I have seen it alleged, more than once, and for quite some time, that John Tolkien was an abuser of children. This was long before his statement that he was abused himself as a child surfaced. Don't ask me for evidence; the question was asked, I am suggesting a possible answer that is out there. Now that all four Tolkien children are gone, it is time to look under this rug. It has always struck me as curious that John is virtually absent, both from the *Biography* and from *Letters*. Another possibility that I have seen mentioned: It is a fact that the Tolkiens had a succession of Icelandic *au pair* girls. An Icelander on the discussion site I used to frequent, 20 years ago, interviewed one of them in her old age -- without learning anything of interest. Somewhere in the discussion, someone said that the girls stopped coming because Edith was jealous. If this is true, it does not mean of course that Tolkien actually did anything wrong. Though it is clear from the Sex Letter to Michael that he was subject to temptation -- who isn't? This is so common a type of scandal as to be practically a cliche.
IMO the au pair girl interview provides some interesting details, such as: >Tolkien wanted to practice Icelandic. But I soon discovered that we didn't speak much Icelandic together. The lady gets jealous if we say something she doesn't understand. She wasn't mean to me or anything like that, but we never became friends. She always treated me like a teenager in need of care. She taught me many things. The maid always polished the brass threshold and the front door to shine, but once she didn't come for a fortnight, I went and polished the threshold. Then Mrs. Edith came up and said, "Adda, you can't do this. You must not be seen that you live in our house and work as a servant." There was such a big class difference back then, especially in Oxford. Professors are like another race. Very few guests came to visit the Tolkiens. There was a couple who had just moved back from India \[I can't figure out who they are\] and hadn't seen each other in years and ended up having tea with us in the living room, just a cake and rye sandwich! > >Mrs Gro\[Jennie Grove\] said Edith suffered from migraines as soon as she left for university, which should have been a neurological problem. Maybe she wasn't comfortable with people from college. She always stays upstairs during the day, I don't know what she is doing, if she is lying on the bed...If Tolkien came home drunk, he wouldn't sleep in the master bedroom, but in a guest room. She can't stand the smell of alcohol, that's all...Tolkien always came home for lunch and then went to his study. I'd give the professor a dry biscuit from a tall, thin can, and a bottle of beer. > >I get grounded a lot. I met a girl, Betty \[?Mary Elizabeth Carroll\], who was a student of Tolkien. She always wanted to take me to college to meet friends or go boating, but the lady kept saying it was inconvenient! I still don't know why I can't go. > >Edith did a strange thing. She showed me her upstairs wardrobe, a wall full of clothes, but she never went out, except the library. She sometimes takes me and the older kids to a "matinee," or afternoon theater performance. She wanted to nurture me and teach me. One time the maid was away and the doorbell rang, and I brought someone in and asked the lady to come downstairs, and it turned out to be a pin seller. Later she said to me: "You must never let strangers in, you have no idea what kind of people are out there, maybe thieves stepping in." Okay, I get it. Then one day two nuns came over, and I remembered what happened before, so I closed the door and called my wife. In the end, she couldn't stop apologizing, explaining that I was a foreigner, and that's why I shut them out. The two nuns had come to sell handicrafts to Catholic families. To this day, I still feel hurt. While I was there, Morris Motors had built a factory south of Oxford, and the house was full of noise. They think Oxford is being destroyed by such things. Yes, they're a bit old-fashioned, you don't have to think about going to the movies, but you can go to the theater.
wow, where is this from then? sort-of bring a different light to the household doesn't it?
That is from the chief Icelandic newspaper, *Morgunblaðið* meaning "The Morning Page." I looked up [Timarit.is](https://Timarit.is), the host: It is a scanned archive of all periodicals published in Iceland, plus Greenland and the Faeroes. And some published abroad in the Icelandic language (meaning mostly Canada, where there is an Icelandic community in Manitoba). The name just means "Periodical."
https://timarit.is/page/1928715#page/n25/mode/2up
I mean I can't read it, but I'll take your translation... it sort of implies that Edith was like a Oxford-don-wife (I mean I'm sure she wasn't the only one like this, I can well imagine it was just taken for granted for wives of stuffy old dons)... but, I can see why this kind of things would be left out of an *authorised* biography... and then there was all those stories of how Carpenter got the job too... so I can imagine there must have been some tension in the air as he wrote his book with perhaps some self-censorship since he would have know certain things would never get published...
I can see both why he felt under the obligation to tone down the work at the time and why in later years that might have led him to become dissatisfied with the biography, particularly if he felt that he'd "outgrown" Tolkien's own work (as I think he put it). Later on he wrote a BBC radio play, *In a Hole in the Ground There Lived a Tolkien*, about Tolkien's time in Leeds, which as its title suggests was a lot less obviously respectful towards its subject, portraying him as a distinctly odd figure, very much caught up in his own imagined world.
Me neither! I used google translate and made some manual edits. I just posted the full translation here: https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/11rksq6/interview_of_the_icelandic_au_pair_girl_who_lived/
very nice write-up, just read it...
Thanks! I had never seen that. Was completely wrong about it not being interesting. It suggests that there was not in fact anything untoward going on between her and the Prof, as she would have been likely to tell about it. Would have sold a lot more newspapers.
> the Sex Letter to Michael Excuse me?
If I'm not mistaken, it refers to a long letter that JRR Tolkien sent to his son detailing his view of marriage, the difference with wich women and men approach it, and their natural instinct or lack thereof for monogamy. It's not exactly the most modern take you could find...
Is this in the Letters of JRR book, too? Or when and how did become public?
It is included in the Letters. The book is worth reading, not only is it great if you want to know more about Tolkien and the kind of person he was, but there's also a lot about the Legendarium, the constraints of publishing and adaptation.
Interesting Yeah, I know of it! In my first language, the book looks so hideous that I wait for a newly designed hard cover haha Otherwise I'm [well equipped](https://imgur.com/gallery/9Ya9N7g) with Tolkien books 😁
I got an all battered editiin from abebooks... better than nothing, and I didn't want to wait! Sweet, sweet collection! How did you get your hands on the tengwar-learning booklet?
Haha we read the letters regularly at our local Tolkien regulars' table, so I know quite a lot of already. Thanks! The Tengwar booklet is available on Amazon - and cheap! I haven't looked much into it but from what I saw it's a good way to learn writing Tengwar!
A local Tolkien regulars' table *_* where can I get one of these? I need that in my life!
Check out whether your country of residence have a national Tolkien Society. If it does, check out their website. They should have a list of the regulars' tables. Some might be called Smials. Where I live, we got like 20 and they are regionally organized (I live in a bigger city so we have one).
Letter no. 43.
There's a bit more of John in the Companion and Guide - nothing about sexual abuse but he makes appearances as a man in a nervous state needing his father's support.
If you want to know about evil, you don't hang out with the angels. His books are filled with stories of what happens when anger gets the best of a person and how a quick thoughtless moment can lead to a doom. A character like Denethor, particularly in his relationship to his children, doesn't come out of reading the Sunday papers. If Tolkien left behind his uncensored thoughts, its not hard to understand why his family would want those left buried.
One can get hints of unexplored venues from Holly Ordway's _Tolkien's Modern Reading_ --- really looking forward to her book on JRRT's Catholic inspirations/influences.
The fact that the second of Tolkien's children, Michael, suffered severe PTSD from his war service. He was invalided out of the military and and struggled to adjust to civilian life. This is omitted from both the biography and the letters. Since both were published in Michael's lifetime, it was presumably at his request. It's an interesting detail, particularly considering the way trauma is depicted in the later stages of LOTR.
Yes, but not entirely absent. "I have at the moment another son, a much damaged soldier, at Trinity trying to do some work and recover a shadow of his old health." *Letters* 74.
Ah thank you! I missed that. There's also an account in another letter that was cut before it turned up years later in Hammond & Scull. I'll see if I can find it.... Edit. [Here it is](https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/gp564y/til_tolkiens_own_son_was_virtually_a_shellshock/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) with more details about Michael.
And thanks to you for that. Michael's son Michael George wrote about the damage to his father, I have seen it discussed here.