Subject: (urth) Tolkien essay, pre-publication history

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:14:15 +0000

We are told that Gene Wolfe's Tolkien essay was written for that book of
essays on Tolkien, but it was not published there after all, and was
published in "Interzone."

Following these facts, there has been some speculation as to how or why the
book editors may have rejected the essay on aesthetic grounds.  In addition
to all the Religion & Politics stuff.

I know the pre-publication history of a number of Wolfe stories--yes, it is
true, however shocking/comforting it might be, that Gene Wolfe stories are
sometimes rejected by genre magazines, even in the last ten years.  So
rejection is naturally not impossible.

But with regard to this essay, since I doubt very much that any "rejection
speculation" is based on second-hand evidence, I'm going to offer some
incidental second-hand evidence.

In June of last year I received a letter from Gene Wolfe.  Mostly it was
about many other things, but in the end he did mention that he was having
difficulty with the company that was supposed to publish his Tolkien essay.
They wanted him to secure written permissions for =every= quote, including
the personal letter from Tolkien to Gene Wolfe and the poem by Noyes (who
died in 1958).  (Those of us who have read the essay also would add Robert
E. Howard, at least.  There are a lot of quotes!)  This seemed insane to
Gene Wolfe, in the modern day where Harlan Ellison is trying so hard to
stop people from web-publishing entire sf stories without permission from
the sf author.

(Well those of us who have followed such things in US publishing can say,
"Thank you, J.D. Salinger.")

In any event, Gene Wolfe wrote pretty unambiguously in the letter that the
project was dead from his point of view.  Non-compliance on his part.

And lo, the essay did not appear in the US book; but it did appear in a UK
magazine.

So it seems to me that if there was any "rejection" involved with the
Tolkien book, it was Gene Wolfe's rejection of the terms and subsequent
withdrawal of the essay.

=mantis=

Sirius Fiction
booklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley
http://www.siriusfiction.com/

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 22:35:42 +0000

Gene Wolfe wrote to me, when questioned on this very point:

<quote>
I would say "rejected."  If you prefer "refused" or "withdrawn" I will not
object.
</quote>

Me, I think Haber understood the political implications of Wolfe's essay and
wanted to squelch it.

    Andy Robertson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Andre-Driussi" <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
To: <urth at lists1.ba.best.com>

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 04:07:14 +0000

>Me, I think Haber understood the political implications of Wolfe's essay and

Touche'!  Well that certainly trumps =mine=! (Teach me to open my mouth <g>).

So Big Cheers for "Interzone" for daring to Publish that which was
Squelched! And the land of Tolkien and Chesterton (the essay makes me think
of THE NAPOLEON OF NOTTING HILL)!

To Nutria, thanks for the support, especially since we've just been trumped.

But with regard to publishers, before we get off into another tangent, no,
(as I understand it) in this day and age it really is  quite ordinary in
the US for publishers to put the burden on the authors in cases like this
(which can be rationalized as being because the publisher will have to pay
if it goes to court).  The essay is greatly enriched by all the quotes, but
if getting permission is too great a burden, then the author can always
paraphrase, describe ("poem x by author y, lines z to a"), etc.

Which obviously would water-down the essay.  Or make it look like it had
been through a prison-grade censor.

=mantis=

Sirius Fiction

---

From: James Jordan <jbjordan4 at home.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 02:30:04 +0000

Mantis,
         This sounds very credible to me. I don't know about the Tolkein 
people, but I can tell you that in theological circles it is regarded as 
risky to quote C. S. Lewis without permission, which used to require paying 
money sometimes, and may still do so. Of course, the Lewis estate is 
notorious, as is the whole post-Lewis history of Lewis's works.
         It does seem to me, though, that it is the editor's/publisher's 
job to get such permissions in a multi-author work which is perforce all 
about Tolkein. Why should Wolfe have to get his own special permission?
         At any rate, in the absence of a statement from Wolfe or someone 
in the know, your speculation makes a lot of sense.

Nutria

At 02:14 PM 1/4/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/
>ranjit at moonmilk.com