Talk:Donald A. Wollheim

Tolkien debacle

Guys, I seem to remember credible people telling me that Wollheim's thinking in the Tolkien debacle was -- he was unaware of the Houghton Mifflin editions until after the Fellowship came out. Since at the time any book not published in America within a year of its English publication entered the public domain here, he acted believing these books to be in the public domain and had one of those horrible 'oops' moments when Houghton Mifflin contacted the publisher. I do not believe in objectivity, and frankly admit to being biased in this matter, and most of my sources on this subject are either dead or explicitly not talking to me for reasons irrelevent here (Don D'Ammassa). Does anyone have information which would explicitly contradict this? What is on the article page is speculation as to his motives, I'm not -- given my biases -- about to challenge without more concrete evidence than I have. I think there should be more evidence or it should be dropped. --Jplatt39 18:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The consensus in the industry is that he knew there was no loophole (which was the courts' ruling, too) and just hoped to get away with it. The current version of the article is much more polite about his role than some of the earlier versions, which were less polite/forgiving and more denuncatory in tone. --Orange Mike 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that any such consensus existed when this occurred and imputing criminal motive, as the earlier versions of this text did, without specific facts skates close to defamation. People played a lot more fast and loose with copyrights back in the 60's. The court case referenced here was almost 30 years after the fact. Beamdriver 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to check the fanzines of the era, but the people I know who were active back then seem to agree that he thought he'd get away with it, rather than he thought he was right. We're agreed, I see, that the current version is much safer and polite than the earlier versions. (The court case was 30 years after the fact because of "the law's delay"; but that's irrelevant to the question of the original act and motivation.) --Orange Mike 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Terry Carr, who was working for Donald Wollheim at Ace at the time, published a lengthy, complicated and detailed explanation of what happened in one of the major fanzines at the time: it may have been Lighthouse or Warhoon, I don't now (50 years later...) recall. His points were, if I remember correctly, that: 1) Ten years had passed and no US paperback edition had been licensed, although attempts had been made by US paperback houses to acquire the rights; 2) During this ten year period the necessary steps to secure a valid US copyright were not taken. Houghton-Mifflin did not really publish a US hardcover edition--what they did was to sell the Allen & Unwin edition sewn in a Houghton-Mifflin binding; 3) Tolkien's contract with Allen & Unwin failed to anticipate the possible sale of US paperback rights (perhaps based on their experience with the Hobbit, which up to that point never had a US paperback and was a perennial strong seller in the Houghton-Mifflin hardcover edition, which kept going back to press for endless printings--mostly Christmas gifts to children). Consequently they completely fouled up the licensing of any US paperback edition, since somebody who was in a position to block the sale (either A&U, Houghton-Mifflin, or Tolkien himself, I don't recall which) would not have received any of the money if the sale went through, so that it was impossible to get the parties to agree; 4) Wollheim was fairly certain that Allen & Unwin had imported more than 500 copies (either in sheets or bound, I don't recall) into the US, and believed that this triggered an obscure loophole in the US copyright convention with the UK which was in effect at that time, because no separate steps had been taken to protect copyright in the US; 5) Wollheim therefore believed that he was cutting an insoluble Gordian knot by forcing the issue and presenting them with a fait accompli. At any rate, that is my recollection of Carr's defense. Perhaps someone can dig up the original article and correct my vague memory of it? 71.183.15.246 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Postscript to the above: I may be thinking of an article by Donald Wollheim (not Carr) entitled "The Ace Tolkiens" which appeared in Lighthiouse #13 (August 1965), edited by Terry Carr. In Lighthouse #14 (October 1966) Carr says that he has letters about the matter on hand but he is not going to print them and is cutting off all further discussion, because the debate was going on elsewhere. By "elsewhere" he may have been referring to Niekas #15, where remarks Wollheim made at a party were (evidently) quoted and commented on: apparently Wollheim said something to the effect that he couldn't approach them with an offer first because in order to have had something to negotiate with he would have had to let the cat out of the bag about the screwed up copyrights, which he believed they (and everyone else) were completely ignorant of. 71.183.15.178 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

1966 letter from Tolkien to Sterling Lanier

10th January, 1966

Dear Mr. Lanier,

    Thank you very much for your kind letter and for the useful enclosures which reached me about Christmas time.  I sent the Science Fiction newsletter to my publishers in London. You will be interested to hear that on Christmas Eve (a good date) I at last received a letter directly from Ace Books, very specious and slightly glutinous, but it offered to discuss terms for royalties.  I sent this also to my publishers who deal with such matters, and who have an equal interest with myself in the matter of royalties.  I hope your work on the "figures" goes to your satisfaction.
                         With very best wishes for 1966,
                         Yours sincerely,
                         J.R.R. Tolkien

Sterling Lanier, Esq. Chilton Books

71.183.15.178 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wollheim's legal claim has never been tested in court. The court ruling to which hostile amateurs keep referring was made under later, changed law. The changes (effected to meet treaty obligations) allowed some lost copyrights to be recovered. —SlamDiego_←T 02:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The following is quoted from "The Clubhouse" on amazing stories.com:

"Legend has it that Wollheim, an editor at ACE books, simply pirated the British edition of LOTR without permission and was first to publish it in North America. The truth, as revealed in an article titled THE ACE TOLKIENS, which he wrote for LIGHTHOUSE #13, is more nuanced.

According to Wollheim, LOTR first appeared in the United States in a very limited hardcover edition put out by Houghton Mifflin the same year it was first published in Great Britain, 1954.

“One glance at the first page startled me,” writes Wollheim. “No copyright, no date of publication. Just the line ‘printed in Great Britain,’ although the name of the publisher was an American firm and the place of publication the U.S.A. It was apparent that this first American edition consisted simply of sheets printed in England and imported.”

Wollheim wondered why. He suggested “Perhaps the American publisher, figuring that the book was too obscure to take the trouble, had decided to bring in just a few hundred copies and not bother with copyright complications…”

Unfortunately “the darned books continued to sell steadily, though quietly, through the years, going into small printing after small printing. Somewhere along the line, somebody started to worry about the lack of a U.S. copyright and inserted a line in later editions which said the work was copyright under the Berne Convention.”

What was left unstated was that the U.S.A. was NOT a signatory and it didn’t apply to America.

As fantasy began to grow in popularity, more and more SF&F paperback publishers, including ACE, inquired of Houghton Mifflin if they could purchase reprint rights from them. They always said no. Only Wollheim, it seems, was aware Houghton Mifflin didn’t have the rights in the first place. Wollheim pondered the implications.

Why not contact Tolkien or his agent directly?

“Please bear in mind that this paperback book industry is very, VERY competitive – and that we were in possession of what might be a very valuable commercial secret. To let the cat out of the bag could well be disastrous and could lead to other editions appearing at virtually the same time. We had no sensible course to follow but to go ahead, in top secrecy, to prepare our editions. Which we did, and the result you know.”

ACE published LOTR in early 1965. It became a runaway hit.

What about accusations of piracy? Some from Tolkien himself. Wollheim had this to say:

“Literary piracy means infringement of copyright – and we have infringed no copyrights. [Because there were none.] Dr. Tolkien, apparently, simply was never told the score about his U.S. editions. He should reserve his anger for the source of his deprival.”" 172.56.2.86 (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Betsy

Daughter Betsy Wollheim took over DAW in 1985, is married to Peter Stampfel, and probably deserves her own article. http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-07-27/music/parent-with-parrots/ might be a place to start in terms of references. - Jmabel | Talk 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Sébastien Lifshitz film Casa Susanna(2022), Betsy Wollheim outs her own father Donald Wollheim as a transvestite who maintained a discreet secret life, going to the Casa Susanna once a year to express his desire to cross-dress, with the full knowledge of his wife. This ought to go into the article, to give a full and rounded picture of the real Donald Wollheim.

Nuttyskin (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Mass market, paperback original

We mention "mass market" in section 4, DAW Books. Somewhere we should link mass market paperback, probably in the preceding section re Ace Books. (or Avon?)

We should also mention and link paperback original where it is first appropriate. (Ace? not Avon, i infer from reading what we say here)

And perhaps the combination mass market paperback original. --P64 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Recognition

second new section posted in one session

I created section 5, Recognition, comprising

• brief reiteration of Silverberg's argument that leads sec 3, Wollheim as editor and publisher
• the last two paragraphs of sec 4, DAW Books, which were tacked on there after "his death"
• mention of "several special awards" with Locus ref

with hidden WP:COMMENT: including one at the 1975 World SF Convention and runner-up to Ian & Betty Ballantine at the 1975 World Fantasy Convention. This source lists four more during the 1980s. A laundry list is not appropriate but another editor may be able to choose wisely.

• 2002 hall of fame induction with official ref

with hidden comment: apparently he was the third person inducted primarily for his work as editor or publisher, after the inaugural 1996 pair Hugo Gernsback and John W Campbell. This is a hidden comment because only apparent, not yet EVIDENT.

Someone may be able to cover what the comments indicate, using the same sources (not to mention doing better with other sources, of course).

--P64 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

no bio

The article lacks even the barest information about his early life, such as who his parents were or what they did for a living. Religion? Were they middle class? What was his education? High school? College?--76.169.116.244 (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He was also recently featured in a PBS documentary about Casa Susanna, an early resort haven for crossdressing and transgender people.

https://www.pbs.org/video/casa-susanna-kvwect/ Cwaterous (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Donald A. Wollheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908022929/http://www.tolkiensociety.com:80/tolkien/tale.html to http://www.tolkiensociety.com/tolkien/tale.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016202202/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit154.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit154.html#5713
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521070009/http://www.midamericon.org/halloffame/ to http://www.midamericon.org/halloffame/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116123441/http://www.violetbooks.com:80/don-wollheim.html to http://www.violetbooks.com/don-wollheim.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)