LOTR vs. Scholars, or Academics Can Kiss My As-taldo.

[Lush]

As planned, I have contacted, met, and chatted with the lady who is Duke University's resident expert on all things Tolkien. One of the topics of our most interesting conversation were the many aspects of the distaste the scholarly world has, and continues to express in regards to Tolkien's works (I was compelled to contact this lady after reading and posting to Iarwain's "Unworthy" (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002986) thread).

At the risk of trivializing our very exciting talk, allow me to post some of the issues we discussed:

There are several reasons as to why Tolkien's works are not taken seriously by "serious" scholars. One is general prejudice toward medievalism, another is the Catholicism of the author. A humorous suggestion that many academics cannot take Tolkien seriously because he was happily married was mentioned as well.

However, it seems that Tolkien is mainly discredited because his works are popular, as in "Joe from the trailer park must enjoy The Lord of the Rings, therefore this could not possibly be a worthy book." It's interesting to note that Shakespeare received the same kind of treatment in his day, and that as late as 1960, Dickens was still not being assigned in schools and universities in the Western world, because he was too "popular" (compare that with the way Dickens is treated today). My personal opinion is that in using this sort of logic in discrediting Tolkien, academics are conveniently forgetting the fact that popular works of art reach many people on many different levels, i.e. an eleven year-old enjoys the character of Eowyn and takes one thing from her, and someone like Mithadan, to give an example of one of our illustrious head-honchos, enjoys reading about Eowyn, but interprets this character in a different manner. The academics, though, point at the eleven year-old and scream: "This book is written for kids!" while completely ignoring our friend Mithadan. Am I making myself clear here?

The good lady also confirmed my speculation that a great deal of scholars have personal grudges toward the works of Tolkien, because his stuff is actually being read by a variety of people, as many scholars' own works are gathering dust. It seems that most academics' inability to reach a wider audience creates automatic (though rarely, if ever, admitted) resentment toward a book such as the LOTR. See, kids, even "smart" people aren't above envy!

She also had some interesting things to say regarding the treatment of females in the LOTR. I was very intrigued when she said that the assumption that LOTR is a book that's not to be taken seriously because women may not identify with most of it is "insulting to female readers." Furthermore, she said, "how many male readers of the LOTR can identify with the male characters?" Clearly, she believes, the LOTR was meant to invoke a different sort of sentiment other than "oh goody, I'm going exactly what Aragorn is going through!"

She does believe that the fact that the LOTR is stuck next to the works of Terry Brooks, for example, is not helping her cause of convincing academics to take the book serisously. "Tolkien's language is on par with that of Joyce," she said, but compare the way these two authors are treated. And yes, she does believe that change will occur, but that it would involve many decades, and a possible re-vamping of the fantasy genre en masse.

We talked about a great deal of other things, but I fear this post is gigantic enough already at this point.

Comments, anyone?

P.S. Lest anyone think that I would have missed my chance to pucker up to the BW: The lady has heard about the Barrow-Downs, and will hopefully visit it more often, especially following my shameless plugs. smilies/wink.gif

[ March 28, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Aule]

well i can really only agree with you. Haven't ever read to much about scholors opinions, but what you said about it being to popular, and liked by every Tom, **** and Harry and thats why ppl who think of themselves as well read and knowledgable dislike is true. My dad has never read it but already he has refused to read it as he thinks of it as too childish. He keeps calling me narrow minded for rereading it over and over again. He says its not like the Bible, or Shakespeare that contain valuable msges. But its just that its too popular for him to like it.

[Ransom]

The good lady also confirmed my speculation that a great deal of scholars have personal grudges toward the works of Tolkien, because his stuff is actually being read by a variety of people, as many scholars' own works are gathering dust.

I'm fairly curious on how much of an impact she thought this had on academia as a whole. Does she think this has a major impact (e.g. on the false assumptions drawn from the popularity of the book) or minor(e.g. putting LOTR next to Terry Brooks <for lack of a better example>)?

[Lush]

I'm fairly curious on how much of an impact she thought this had on academia as a whole. Does she think this has a major impact (e.g. on the false assumptions drawn from the popularity of the book) or minor(e.g. putting LOTR next to Terry Brooks )?

Judging from what we talked about, I would say that it depends on the scholar in question. As for LOTR being placed next to Terry Brooks, that's more related to the nature of the fantasy genre as perceived by the general public than some scholar's jealousy toward Tolkien, though the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I couldn't agree more with Duke's resident expert, Lush. I've read a fairly wide range of "quality" literature, and Tolkien's work ranks among the best of it. Even his books for children, such as The Hobbit and Roverandom include often very subtle references to Classical mythology, the philological debates of the day and every level and stage of English literature. Often there's a certain amount of dry humour to the more academic allusions (Smaug, so letter #25 tells me, is the past tense of the primitive Germanic verb Smugan, to squeeze through a hole). His philosophy is intelligent and humane, his characters well conceived and his plots both well-planned and entertaining. I cannot see why he should be so reviled other than through simple blind snobbery. If a work is to be considered of a high quality purely on the basis of its limited readership (the logical conclusion of the argument that popular literature is unworthy of study) then surely the best literature is that with the fewest readers of all: that which was never published. Of course the highest accolade would be for the works that were never even written, since they have a readership of one.

I too am increasingly disillusioned with the literary establishment's constant endorsement of self-consciously intellectual and very boring novels by deservedly unknown writers, who produce work solely for the academic market. Popularity is not an issue when it comes to the objective assessment of an author's work, but to claim that wide appeal and publishing success in some way denote a lack of literary merit is simply wrong-headed. Tolkien was writing in a very long-established literary tradition, with each stage of which he was completely familiar. His influences include giants like Virgil and Homer. Writings such as Beowulf and The Battle of Maldon, Kalevala and the Younger and Elder Eddas, which contributed greatly to his work, date from the very birth of the medieval period, and his references continue through Chaucer and Shakespeare to his own time. That he avoided appearing pretentious or self-important in airing his deep knowledge of language and literature is remarkable, and is due to his doing so simply because that knowledge was born of personal interest. A deep love of language (you can pick just about any language; he spoke quite a few) shines through in almost every syllable he wrote. If anyone understood what literature was it was he.

The sooner the literary establishment begins to assess work on the quality of its writing and the depth of its message the better; although that will require the elimination of pretention and self-importance from the world of literary criticism: a labour worthy of Heracles himself.

[Aiwendil]

If a work is to be considered of a high quality purely on the basis of its limited readership (the logical conclusion of the argument that popular literature is unworthy of study) then surely the best literature is that with the fewest readers of all: that which was never published. Of course the highest accolade would be for the works that were never even written, since they have a readership of one.

I guess that makes me the greatest author of all time.

I agree with the general sentiment expressed by the Duke University expert and others on this thread. In case anyone's interested (and hasn't seen them already), here are some other discussions that have taken place on roughly the same subject:

Book of the Century? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000648)
New Republic Article (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001742)
Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001564)

[Pukel-Man]

Interesting post Lush, although Tolkien may not be held in high regard by " scholars" it dose not really matter in the end. I'm quite sure Tolkien will be still in print long after our bones are moldering in the mist- cloaked barrows. I personally find it amazing that Tolkien has such a active, loyal fan base. I write this out of respect, not contemptuousness (whew!) How many fictional bodies of work penned by one author can claim such in-depth discussions as to their content and provide enjoyment with each subsequent re-read? I still am sometimes awed that can log on to the internet and find countless discussions going on about my favorite author-it seems almost surreal. But in the end, it all comes down to one's personal taste. You could shove a hundred endorsements in my face for some new Stephen King book but I would not read his work- I've tried, and found it lacking. But that's one man's opinion, and we all know what opinions are like...

[davem]

I have to say that I think the serious assesment of Tolkien's work is beginning. It is limited, though. I would cite Verlyn Flieger's two books, Splintered Light, & A Question of Time, & Tom Shippey's Road to Middle Earth & Author of the Century. There are also a couple of collections, Tolkien's Legendarium, & JRR Tolkien & his Literary Resonances, which treat the subject in a very serious (though far from boring) way. But let's face it, there are also, some very poor, trivial, works on Tolkien out there (Finding God in LotR, for example - I don't argue with the author's actually finding God, or anything else, in LotR, but that book for one is just trivial).
It seems to me that a real assesment of Tolkien cannot take place until the literary world has managed to take in the posthumous writings, HOME, letters, etc. The problem there, though, is that the literary establishment has to be willing to undertake that reasessment, which will probably take a while. Whether the movies will help is another question, as they seem to have gone out of their way to present LotR as a 'Dungeons & Dragon's' tale, & probably reinforce the 'establishment's view of the book.
It is, of course, possible for a work's deepest, most profound levels to be completely missed by the overwhelming majority, who never see them, as they simply refuse to believe they exist. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
At the same time, there are serious journals, like Mythlore & Mallorn, produced by the Mythopoeic Society & the Tolkien Society, which regularly produce serious work. I don't think the situation is entirely hopeless.

[Diamond18]

Of course the highest accolade would be for the works that were never even written, since they have a readership of one.

We could take that one step further, and assume that the greatest stories of all, must naturally be the stories that were never even thought of. That is to say, stories that are not stories, because they do not exist in anyone’s mind in any form. Or, as it is more commonly known, nothing.

Therefore, I must conclude that true genius lies in complete nothingness, and that the best ideas that have ever been, have never been, and the most stupendous thoughts have ever been thought, have never been thought.

Furthermore, the smartest people are those who were never conceived, and they are, by default, the greatest writers who have never been known, and their books are the most intelligent that have ever been not written and not thought of.

Not to trivialize your thread, or anything, Lush... But this growing number of posts has rendered it useless, as the best threads are those who were closed without a single reply (or, better yet, were never thought of by members who have not joined).

smilies/wink.gif

[the phantom]

One is general prejudice toward medievalism, another is the Catholicism of the author. A humorous suggestion that many academics cannot take Tolkien seriously because he was happily married was mentioned as well.
A Catholic, and happily married?! Egad! Get him out of here!!

Well, I attend an urban university, so there are, of course, plenty of "scholars" and "academics" here. My little sarcastic outburst above, sadly, represents most of them fairly well. Anything that so much as hints at morality, anything that mentions that there is right and wrong, anything that seems to support standard moral beliefs (eg marriage), and anything that is not controversial to the mainstream crowd is looked down upon.

Academia seems to be, from what I've seen all my life, controlled by individuals who are so far out to the left side of things that they are mere specks on the edge of sight. I think the acceptance of Tolkien would be greatly accelerated if some folks who were a bit more level headed filled the ranks of the academic elite.

But until that time, I'm with Lush. They can kiss my As-taldo.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I really could care less what those scholars think of Tolkien and his works, it really doesn't matter. Just because his works are so widely and diversely appreciated and enjoyed is no reason to be jealous of him and envy him. His success is not the fault of their lack of success. And if one in a thousand reads thier literature and the rest go for Tolkien's, then there's a reason for it.

[Bêthberry]

Dearest Lushy,

The reasons, I think, are more complex than your Tolkien-friendly academic has suggested, although I concur with her and your ridicule of a standard feminist trip.

When LOTR was first published in 1954, very, very conservative attitudes still prevailed about what constituted 'literature' for the purposes of 'advanced, refined thought.' (Please to note sarcasm.)

At the time, for instance, many women writers were not included on syllabi. (Even today, I can point to Harold Bloom's derision of, say, the Brontës.) (And, today, the market for women writers remains largely entrenched within 'women's studies' programmes and courses.)

Also, there was once a prejudice against studying authors who were still living, the argument being that a definitive appraisal of their work was not attainable given that there was yet no closure to their canon. (I know people who were denied the opportunity to do dissertations on certain authors because the authors were still alive.) Thankfully, this atittude has gone the way of the dodo.

Furthermore, Tolkien's work in philology was part of a tradition which was usurped by the rising star of linquistics, which also in some quarters was hostile to literature as literature.

The prejudice against medievalism I would assume is part of the general trend--displayed so overwhelmingly among university students--against reading anything other than 'relevant' contemporary tales. (Count the number of poetry courses versus fiction courses in many universities.) Reading 'Gawain' even more than Chaucer requires substantive thought and Old English has to be studied as a separate language. There are not many in academe nowadays who wish to do that kind of work, perhaps because they fail to see any reward, but more likely because of job market issues. It is entirely possible these days to talk with literature students who call Shakespeare "Old English"--completely ignorant of the history of the language.

Furthermore, even today, work in 'children's literature'--where TH would be classed--is frowned upon, unless it is for librarians. (Reporting personal testimony of friends here who try to teach it.)

There was also the overwhelmingly dominant influence of the "New Criticism" with its 'well wrought urn', something that could not subsume the sprawling work of Tolkien.

None of this accounts for the continued disregard.

I think it is true that writers need champions in the academic world. Jane Austen was ridiculed and ignored until the influential Lionel Trilling took up her cause.(Note, this is not my personal endorsement of Austen.) When T.S. Eliot championed Donne, Milton's star fell. Look at the history of the critical appreciation of D.H. Lawrence. One need only look at F.R. Leavis' The Common Pursuit to see this pattern of academic battle lines. (Allow me here the rhetorical trope of hyperbole.) Davem's examples are valid, but none of the authors she mentions are 'thoroughbreds' in the academic races. (Please observe that I am not dismissing the quality of their work here, but am referring to habits of the academic steeplechase.) No big gun has come out shooting for Tolkien. (I am being deliberately militaristic here.)

There is operating as well a great difference between what different readers want of literature.

Some (and many of us fall into this category I suspect) read for the interpretation. Here I would include also the delight of many here to argue or argue away the inconsistencies of the legendarium (mythology) which Tolkien created.

Critical theory at least since the French structuralists has sought to do something different, to explain how language, how all linquistic signs, has meaning or is validated by the culture consuming it. The work of art, in Jonathan Culler's words, "is taken to be a symptom of the conditions or reality outside of it" (p. xi, The Pursuit of Signs). Particularly fashionable is the desire to explain how works "repress or illuminate by concealing" cultural agendas. Part of this includes the death of the author, so that lauding the brilliant achievements of individual authors is not the particular goal.

Tolkien's view of heroism and his considerable antipathy to domination by any mechanistic deus, whether that be machine or consumerism or professionalism, is probably an embarassment to these pursuits.

That said, I also have to say that, for me, there are considerable passages of purple prose in LOTR which sadly diminishes my great respect for Tolkien's other considerable achievements. His attitude towards "The Other" I also have serious reservations over. And before Squatter flays me alive for this statement, I should conclude to write my explanation of this position, which I have long been promising him.

Fondly,
Bethberry

[Carorëiel]

>>>We talked about a great deal of other things, but I fear this post is gigantic enough already at this point.

I'd like to hear more about what she had to say . . . .

[ March 29, 2003: Message edited by: Carorëiel ]

[Lush]

A Catholic, and happily married?! Egad! Get him out of here!!

The lady reported that Catholics were put down in Tolkien's presence at Oxford (by his peers), at least on one memorable occasion. Charming.

Well, I attend an urban university, so there are, of course, plenty of "scholars" and "academics" here. My little sarcastic outburst above, sadly, represents most of them fairly well. Anything that so much as hints at morality, anything that mentions that there is right and wrong, anything that seems to support standard moral beliefs (eg marriage), and anything that is not controversial to the mainstream crowd is looked down upon.

I am not sure that the issue was so much "morality," as it was a standard cliché that applies to writers overall, that Tolkien didn't fit.

Academia seems to be, from what I've seen all my life, controlled by individuals who are so far out to the left side of things that they are mere specks on the edge of sight. I think the acceptance of Tolkien would be greatly accelerated if some folks who were a bit more level headed filled the ranks of the academic elite.

Level-headedness? Hm, but that would be boring. smilies/wink.gif I think the issue is not so much leftism, as it is general snobbery, the kind that has some academics saying that "Shakespeare was an alias! Nobody with so little of an education could possibly have written all those plays!" Just like Bernard-Henri Lévy is "dumb" because he looks good, and Tolkien is "for children" because his works include dragons, and whatnot.

[Lush]

As usual, thanks for the great post, Beth.

You are absolutely right that the work of Tolkien has not been "championed," (yet) and that this prevents many others to follow suit and take the man seriously.

From what this lady told me, attempts to champion Tolkien are akin to courting "professional suicide." There are medivalists that I know of within the department (some of them better than others) who are sympathetic to "the cause," but will not involve themselves directly. A number of erudite academics refuse to take the first crucial step.

We talked about how Tolkien's creation is "the straw-man" to a generation of academics who are in the habit of using medievalism as something to project their work against, and in this rush to draw the line, these people tend to forget of the literary merit of his language, for example (your criticism of some aspects of his work is valid, of course, though I would like to read more). Academics, mind you, not just young students. The current generation of general English-majors is more sympathetic to Tolkien than most of the people who are teaching them. How this is going to play out ten years from now is not up to me to predict, at this point.

As an interesting sidenote, it is amazing with what C.S. Lewis gets away with, when compared to Tolkien, in terms of his treatment of female characters. Tolkien is labelled as "mysogynist" and "outdated," whereas Lewis remains the darling of a great number of academics, and nevermind the fact that one of his female characters is basically denied salvation due to her interest in make-up.

[lindil]

"you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the lack of a champion for Tolkien"

Having just read Shippey's 'Author of the Century' I feel he is just the sort of 'Scholarly' champion JRRT needs [ though coming from the same chair JRRT held at Oxford he may be dismissed out of hand] but he does a brilliantjob of showing the depths and subtlties of JRRT's many allusions and devices as well as the many overlapping structures imbedded in the LotR.

He does not plumb the depths of Elvish Lore or make much use of UT and HoME, but he is most certainly writing an Apologia in the classical sense, disturbed as he rightly is about JRRT's lack of serious acceptance amongst the 'literati'.

A most impressive work if you have not yet read it and well worth the 13$ asking price.

Lush thank you for sharing your conversation. This kind of thing [along with Squatter's account of his pilgrimage] is what really helps to build both the Tolkien Community but also our wonderous little Downs community as well, much thanks!

I cano not easily check back earlier on the thread to ackowledge by name whomever listed all of the Hosteetter and Flieger and company books, but as far as I have been able to experience them, they are also laying the foundation for a deeper appreciation of Tolkien and Tolkien scholarship.

Luckily Tolkien's works are spread so far and wide and word of mouth sings his praise so highly that he will continue to be effectively studied and loved despite any lack of critical acclaim from the self appointed literary upper-class.

[Lush]

Lush, I’ve never experienced CS Lewis as being the darling of a great number of academics. In fact, I would say he gets as much (or as little) attention as Tolkien.

Nobody is embarassed to bring in Lewis into a serious discussion, whether during class, or during a lecture, but the attitude is markedly different when Tolkien is mentioned. This sort of attitude is present at Duke to a lesser degree, but much pronounced in, say, Princeton (at least judging from what the people I have corresponded with have told me). And Lewis does get more respect, I have suspected this myself based on conversations with my professors, and the good lady seemed to confirm it for me

As a college student, God forbid that I should use this thread as some sort of general insult toward the academia en masse, rather a small protest against the majority's seeming attitude toward Tolkien.

As for medievalism, at this point, I am just relaying directly what was said to me. This was the therm that was used when describing why Tolkien's work is grouped with those that are being "projected against" in the academic world.

lindil, I was recommended Shippey's book as well. smilies/wink.gif Perhaps I should lay some money aside?

[Aiwendil]

Nobody is embarassed to bring in Lewis into a serious discussion, whether during class, or during a lecture, but the attitude is markedly different when Tolkien is mentioned. This sort of attitude is present at Duke to a lesser degree, but much pronounced in, say, Princeton (at least judging from what the people I have corresponded with have told me). And Lewis does get more respect, I have suspected this myself based on conversations with my professors, and the good lady seemed to confirm it for me.

I can give testament that this attitude exists at Columbia. Lewis was brought into discussions in my LitHum class last year several times, but Tolkien was talked about in much the same way as, say, Harry Potter - my professor (whom I otherwise liked very much) seemed to consider both of them mere guilty pleasures rather than serious literature.

Perhaps I should lay some money aside?


Definitely. Shippey's book is excellent. I found his discussion of the ambiguous nature of evil in LotR particularly insightful. My one complaint is that he give the Silmarillion a somewhat more cursory treatment. In my opinion the Silmarillion is probably even more deserving of scholarly attention than LotR; but it is certainly never treated in such a way.

[Bill Ferny]

Lush, I see. I remember Lewis coming up as often as Tolkien in my undergraduate literature classes… never. But, like I said, my experience is limited (for example, I have no idea what a LitHum class would be), and compounded by not being an English major… in fact, English majors ranked second, right behind Psychology majors, on my list of undergraduate people to avoid.

I’m curious… In what context would you mention Tolkien in the average college literature lecture or class discussion? In what historic or critical literary category would mention of Tolkien’s work be most beneficial? (These are not rhetorical questions or lead-ins, as I have no informed opinions on the matter; I’m sincerely interested in what your opinion is.)

[Aiwendil]

for example, I have no idea what a LitHum class would be

Sorry, it seems that certain jargon is a bit too firmly embedded in my head. "LitHum" or "Literature Humanities" is the required freshman western literature survey class here.

I’m curious… In what context would you mention Tolkien in the average college literature lecture or class discussion?

Tolkien came up in my class as a result of some general and fairly abstract discussion of the 'purpose' or nature of literature. The prevailing opinion was the somewhat modernist view that literature is essentially ironic; the author writes a,b,c and means x,y,z. I argued, using Tolkien as an example, that 'heroic' or non-ironic literature is just as valid - that is, a,b,c means a,b,c; it is not code for some other message or argument. Not that I think this is somehow a necessary or even natural discussion in which Tolkien must be used - it's just an example of how he came up in my class.

In what historic or critical literary category would mention of Tolkien’s work be most beneficial?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'beneficial'. In terms of medieval studies or any similar class, of course Tolkien's fiction would be quite useless. But surely not all literature classes merely use literature as a tool for the study of society. A good deal of literature is studied for itself. There are classes on James Joyce that endeavour to examine Joyce's work, not to use it in some way to illuminate another area of study.

[Bill Ferny]

Clarification… In what literary category would a Tolkien discussion be apropos? For example, is there such a thing as 20th Century English Romanticism?

I’m not insinuating that literature should be reduced to sociology or cultural anthropology or a philosophy of human nature. Contrary to the opinion of many modernists, the greater part of studying literature should be the study of rhetoric. As Squatter and Beth point out, Tolkien stands with the best in this regard. As far as I’m concerned, only Newman wrote better English prose, and no one has ever written a better story in English.

On the other hand, we have to give the modernists their due. An important part of literary criticism, and often a dangerous area for the literary scholar, is the analysis of themes in literature. If one wants to investigate the themes in the works of James Joyce, for example, how could one do so without any mention of the social and cultural context in which he wrote, and his apparent philosophy of the human condition?

It is from this aspect that a serious study of Tolkien could become very laborious, and personally I’m bit thankful for academe’s reluctance. Most literary scholars find themselves teetering on the edge of gross inaccuracies when they stretch their expertise “like butter over too much bread.” Too many literary critics masquerade as philosophers as it is, and I shudder to think what would happen to Tolkien if the likes of Linda Hutcheon and Harry Morgan Ayres were to get a hold of him. That is why I would like to see Tolkien continued to be ignored by the literary establishment. I would much rather see Tolkien championed by someone like Joseph Campbell or Kathleen Jenks.

Thanks for providing an example, Aiwendil, but what was the reaction of the prof or SI, and your classmates when you mentioned Tolkien?

[ March 30, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[Aiwendil]

Clarification… In what literary category would a Tolkien discussion be apropos?

You are right that Tolkien's unique position in literary history makes it difficult to categorize him for inclusion in some classes. But he is not the only twentieth century author whose works reflect themes such as death and the desire for deathlessness, the nature of evil, or the tendency of power to corrupt. I could easily envision survey classes of twentieth century literature focussing on the various treatments that authors have given these subjects, and Tolkien would fit naturally into those discussions, even if his particular views and mode of writing differ somewhat from those of other authors. And certainly there is material enough for a few courses devoted entirely to Tolkien.

But the inclusion or exclusion of Tolkien in college literature classes is not the only relevant point here. Disproportionately few critical studies have been made of Tolkien's works. Members of the literary establishment have routinely derided Tolkien as juvenile trash (and still do); this kind of mindless derision is of course very different from legitimate criticism.

. Most literary scholars find themselves teetering on the edge of gross inaccuracies when they stretch their expertise “like butter over too much bread.” Too many literary critics masquerade as philosophers as it is, and I shudder to think what would happen to Tolkien if the likes of Linda Hutcheon and Harry Morgan Ayres were to get a hold of him.

I agree with you. But just to be perfectly clear, what you are arguing against is not the inclusion of Tolkien in serious literary study, but rather the poorly done study of Tolkien.

Thanks for providing an example, Aiwendil, but what was the reaction of the prof or SI, and your classmates when you mentioned Tolkien?

My professor actually liked Tolkien, though he did not consider his works serious literature (he felt the same way about Tolkien as he did about Harry Potter). Moreover, he disagreed with my fundamental point about the validity of non-ironic literature, and it seemed that he felt any serious consideration of Tolkien's writing would depend on seeing them as allegorical. I found this very interesting (and somewhat disheartening) since otherwise I thought he was a great professor and I agreed with him in most discussions. The rest of the people in my class seemed to have less well formed opinions on Tolkien, though many of them seemed to agree that allegory or 'meaning' is what is to be sought in literary study.

[Bill Ferny]

Aiwendil, I find your professor’s response absolutely fascinating. I would suggest that you mention in class that allegory is a rhetorical device used to convey an idea or some meaning; allegory, in-and-of-itself, is not the actual idea or meaning being expressed, but only one device in many that can be employed to express meaning. I always thought that irony was a mere rhetorical device, as well. Well, what would I know?… I was one of those philosophy major types.

Don’t get me wrong, though. It is critically important to discover the meanings in any work of literature. However, to say that meaning can only be expressed via allegory and irony is incredibly shallow minded. I can see it now… a whole generation of writers who confuse the public with trivial irony so that they might be considered good writers. It’s laughable.

There is a plethora of many leveled meanings in Tolkien, but, if your professor is a good example of the general literary critic (which I suspect he is), they are ill equipped to find these meanings. Thus, your professor has bolstered my opinion that Tolkien should be left to the mythology experts.

I could easily envision survey classes of twentieth century literature focussing on the various treatments that authors have given these subjects, and Tolkien would fit naturally into those discussions, even if his particular views and mode of writing differ somewhat from those of other authors.

You have a valid point. However, the utility issue arises. In order to get the whole breath of Tolkien’s imagery and thought, the whole of LotR would have to be tackled at the very least. Then there would have to be some considerable digging to unearth the potency of his imagery. Because of the sheer length of Tolkien’s work, I would find it hard to include him in a survey class without his work taking center stage.

And certainly there is material enough for a few courses devoted entirely to Tolkien.

I couldn’t agree with you more, as long as such courses approach Tolkien from a mythological studies perspective rather than a purely literary perspective.

[lindil]

The genius of Tolkien is that, asssuming you wish or need to hear 'truth', he offers you dozens of 'aproaches'.

Hints of Religion, and higher evolved races

Mythology

Ethics and Morality

Philosophy

Language

Art/Music

Sociology

Geography

Tolkien has by God's grace, managed to breathe life into his words and a college course might be able to point to this, but to explicate it all requires someone such as Shippey who has walked the same road.

Dissecting and analyizing Tolkien serves little point if you have not yet 'been there', and you have you want to go back to the experience of Eucatasphrophe. Unless one's professor understands that concept, and understands it in relation to Tolkien they are wasting your time.

Most critics seem to miss the child-like simplicity of the eucatastrophic, and thus miss Tolkien.

[ March 30, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Lush]

There is a Tolkien course being offered in the fall semedster of the 2003/2004 academic year at Duke, taught by no other than the lady I chatted with.

One of the background readings will include the alliterative Morte D'Arthur, by the way.

I'm wondering whether or not I can fit it into my schedule at this point.

[Sleeping Beauty]

Great discussion Lush. Once again these posts get me to thinking about Tolkien when I should be worrying about other things. (Like Spanish) Enjoy the course if you get to take it. The you can start even some more thought-provoking discussions! smilies/smile.gif


I’m curious… In what context would you mention Tolkien in the average college literature lecture or class discussion?

In an average college lit class, it would be a hard thing to pull off. Tolkien is too deep to go into. War, the nature of good and evil, and Frodo himself has brought enough discussions here on the board I could write dozens of papers. Unless you had a semester at least, you couldn't even begin to unravel the depth to the stories. In my American Lit class we took a week to cover Huckleberry Finn and we barely scratched the surface. I don't even want to think about if in British Lit if Tolkien was brought up. But then again, my English professors agree with most of the literary community and believe it shouldn't be read except as an extra-curricular reading. But as in an historical aspect, I think he might fit in with the literature of post war. The Lord of the Rings carries well with people beginning to see and becoming more enlightened on the effects of war.

Clarification… In what literary category would a Tolkien discussion be apropos? For example, is there such a thing as 20th Century English Romanticism?

That's one of the things that I do believe that sets Tolkien out of canonization. His writing is out of place. Where do you put him? Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms is easy because it is a war novel. The critics are still not sure where to put Frankenstein by Mary Shelly. Does she belong with the women novelists? Is it a gothic romance? Or is it science-fiction? Well, yes to all these questions. It is the same with Tolkien. Is it Fantasy? Is it a war story? It is yes on a lot of fronts. There is no champion really for Tolkien's work because they have no idea where the story fits. The literary world want to put everything into a category. They all want it to fit into a little box. Sad to say, but is true in most cases. Most things fit in well such as Adrienne Rich's poem Diving into the Wreck fits into feminism. But Tolkien really doesn't fit into the established category. It's like tryinig to fit a square peg into a round hole. The literary world gives up trying and just decides to consider a work not worthy of cannonization.


I wonder what you (forum in general) would like to see happen. Do you want Tolkien to be assigned reading in all British Literature 101 classes? Do you want to see a bust of JRRT in your college library? Do you want his poetry in every anthology text book? Do you want every literature professor to say at least one kind thing about Tolkien every semester? Would you like your college or university establishment to pump out one or two Tolkien essays per year? None of these things are likely to happen. And if they did, what would be the relevance?

I think of they did happen, Tolkien would start to lose some of the magic that surrounds the stories. It would become just like any other novel sitting on our library shelf. When we sit here on the boards talking about the books, we get excited just a bit. We are in a since a few holding something great in our hands that the masses really don't know that much about. That is what makes the stories seem larger than life. It's that feeling along with the greatness that is Tolkien's writing that makes the stories what they are. Now if they were introduced, you would start to see more criticism, more analyzing of the books. We do the same thing here, but it is not what would be on the mass level that every college student is picking up a copy of the criticism and reading it for class. I think it would burst our bubbles just a bit. I myself enjoy reading Tolkien outside of class. It is what I pick up when I know I should be reading the Great Gatsby and doing my deconstructionalist paper. It is my break from the literature world since I'm surrounded by it all day.

Moreover, he disagreed with my fundamental point about the validity of non-ironic literature.

Really? I thought Tolkien has some ironic feeling to his work....

And certainly there is material enough for a few courses devoted entirely to Tolkien.

I couldn’t agree with you more, as long as such courses approach Tolkien from a mythological studies perspective rather than a purely literary perspective

I certainly wish that was on my English degree requirements, I would have signed up in a heatbeat. Then I wouldn't have been handed back my paper on Gandalf as the Archetypal Father Figure in the Hobbit. *sigh*

[ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Sleeping Beauty ]

[Gorwingel]

I have to say that I think the serious assesment of Tolkien's work is beginning

I personally think that it is not being taken as seriously as it could be. But I just noticed something that kind of has something to do with this topic. Recently in my high school's library I have noticed they have put the "Recommended College Reading" stickers on all of Tolkien's books, which I happen to think is kind of cool. They are the only fantasy books in our library with those on them.

[Rimbaud]

I too am increasingly disillusioned with the literary establishment's constant endorsement of self-consciously intellectual and very boring novels by deservedly unknown writers, who produce work solely for the academic market.

I recommend the entertaining and acute "Reader's Manifesto' by B.R. Myers, Squatter. A different argument, in some sense, but the same effect, affectingly. His thesis is fundamentally flawed (good points, imprecise support)... but so are all fun polemics...

That said, I also have to say that, for me, there are considerable passages of purple prose in LOTR which sadly diminishes my great respect for Tolkien's other considerable achievements. His attitude towards "The Other" I also have serious reservations over.

Yes. Part of the reason perhaps for the adversarial 'literary' attitude is the often blind defense of very serious flaws extant within the novel by appreciators. For instance, no-one could claim that the good Prof. had a firm grasp of tone, or consistency in voice. In a way though, with increased subjectivity, this may well be part of the charm; explaining all those odd Bombadil fans.

A weaker point may be made on that; the afore-mentioned attitude is due to the objective approach towards quality in prose that is entrenched in the establishment at present, and Tolkien has always required obeisance to the subjective.

All tone is commentary.

[ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

. in fact, English majors ranked second, right behind Psychology majors, on my list of undergraduate people to avoid.

Oh my! Thanks for that, Bill Ferny... as a philosophy major who rooms with a psych major this gave me a much needed few minutes of rolling on the floor humor.

I have to agree with Sleeping Beauty though, on this subject (and I admit, I'm opinionated smilies/smile.gif). While I think Tolkien is a legitimate subject for serious academic study, I'd hate to have a survey of lit class that covered him. I can't even begin to bring to mind all the classic literature that has been ruined for me by its treatment in lit classes. (Jane Eyre anyone?)

Tolkien's great to read, and while not a "guilty pleasure", I think I want to keep that out-of-class feeling when I read Tolkien. Studying LOTR or Silm in class would make it feel like work.

Serious academic study I'm all for, in fact, I may someday do it, who knows? smilies/wink.gif But Tolkien in undergrad lit classes? God Forbid! he deserves much more respect than butchering by tired bored lit professors who have some vague degree for an audience of yawning uninterested students.

[Lush]

he deserves much more respect than butchering by tired bored lit professors who have some vague degree for an audience of yawning uninterested students.

Well, I don't know what sort of lit classes you've taken... smilies/wink.gif Maybe I just tend to get lucky, in more than the usual sense.

Really, guys, lit class isn't Mordor. Don't discourage the young from majoring in Engslih. Please?

In a way though, with increased subjectivity, this may well be part of the charm; explaining all those odd Bombadil fans.

Odd? You talkin' to me?

It's interesting that you should pick Bombadil as the weak link here, Rimbaud. I've read one article that illustrated its distaste for the LOTR using Bombadil, but having spoken to a variety of people in the subject, it seems that most (myself included) just have a problem with his, um, poetics (I can't read them outloud to my brother without collapsing into hysterics), whereas when someone really wants to rip into the book, they take a shot at Samwise Gamgee, the nature of the Orcs, Arwen, etc. Bombadil disrupts the tone, but charmingly, as you have said, and I think most people tend to recognize that.

[ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Aiwendil]

For instance, no-one could claim that the good Prof. had a firm grasp of tone, or consistency in voice. In a way though, with increased subjectivity, this may well be part of the charm; explaining all those odd Bombadil fans.


I'm a bit distressed by your rather absolutist tone here. I could (and do) claim that he had a firm grasp of tone. Or is your "no one" restricted to a certain subset of the audience who have studied literature sufficiently? I certainly don't think that my view is priveliged and I certainly don't think that the work is flawless - but I also don't think that it's unreasonable to claim that there are no major flaws or that the prose is excellent.

[Bêthberry]

Some of us object to more than just the poetry of Bombadil, Lush. My nick was created in defiance of the depiction of Goldberry--which to me is anything but charming, Rimbaud--and also in opposition to the idea that good exists within gated communities or closed systems.

Bethberry

[ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Lush]

Point taken, Beth, though could you elaborate on what you mean by "gated communities"?

[Bill Ferny]

A gated community is generally a sprawling collection of lots with better than average shoebox homes, surrounded by a fence, or at least a thick hedge, with a gate, often manned by private security guards, and is considered by many an ideal way to spend one’s retirement years, safe behind the hedge with like minded people. The term “gated community” is often used to describe similar constructs… such as monasteries or restricted access on-line libraries, for example… and, of course, Oxford smilies/wink.gif.

I never really saw much of a connection between Tom and Gold and a gated community/closed system, but now that you mention it…hmmm. Wouldn’t the Shire be a gated community, as well? I’m not surprised, though, that Tolkien would be subconsciously or consciously drawn to the gated community after taking into account his Catholicism and family life. After all, the perfect gated community is the loving the family, and Tolkien appears to have one of the more loving ones.

In some ways, I’m a gated community chap, myself, with an enthusiastic interest in such things as the Society of Saint John in Shohola, PA and the Chicago Catholic Youth movement… I call it the Catholic Ghetto Movement (I’m thinking about copyrighting that, so if you are going to steal that moniker, make it quick smilies/wink.gif) There’s good and bad gated communities, Beth. Those that exist to separate one from the world are bad, those that wish to separate from the world in order to benefit the world by their witness, are good. I can’t really think of any gated communities outside of my Catholicism, though, that I would consider good. At any rate, good can, and does exist, within many communities that can be described as gated, but that does not mean that good can not be found elsewhere… and I don’t think Tolkien would make such argument.

Sophia, I was once given a psych major as a dorm mate… once.

Really, guys, lit class isn't Mordor. Don't discourage the young from majoring in Engslih. Please?

Far be it from me. However, I would encourage those who use literature to delve philosophy to seriously consider a philosophy major… I know, I’m shameless.

[lindil]

Hmmm, Bethberry, I must say, have you ever read the Old Forest chapter to a young child? Prior to that I barely tolerated Tom's merry antics, seeming especially bizarre when placed textuallt so close to Gildor's recent hyper-sober ministrations.

However when I came to that part while reading aloud to my daughter it fairly jumped off the page and came to life.
I was impressed yet again by something I had read who knows how many times being far deeper, creative and purely simple than I had hither to managed to discern.

The more I read JRRT the more his many-sided skills and mastery blow me away. And after the LotR he only got better [see HoME 10-12 and UT].

"My nick was created in defiance of the depiction of Goldberry--which to me is anything but charming, Rimbaud--and also in opposition to the idea that good exists within gated communities or closed systems. "

As for the gated communities thing, wow, truly worthy to be it's own thread.

But the implications of it being that Lothlorien for instance could not harbor good? Before launching into a very long reply I will await further clarification.

And Bethberry, have you read Michael Martinez's recent essay on the marriages of Bombadil-Goldberry and the Ent-Entwives?

It may improve your appreciation of Goldberry some, and then again maybe not...

As a married chap myself, I think MM unearthed yet another masterful but subtle treatment of a real world theme by JRRT. I'll did up he link if anyone interested does not know how to access his suite 101 essays [and I know he has a lot of detractors here, but this essay should have something for darn near everyone - married that is smilies/wink.gif ].

[Rimbaud]

My use of 'charm' was dry; my above absolutism is, as correctly pointed out, inaccurate and exclusionary, for which I apologise. For this reader, despite appreciating greatly Tolkien's hand, his perspicacity and underestimated wit, there are distinct and quite noticeable flaws in the novel; this applies to the mechanics as well as my more aloof and indefensible positions regarding structure and the use of voice. My above point had been intended, gently (failed on all points), to point out that many appreciators of this novel shy unnecessarily from criticism of the text.

[ April 01, 2003: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]

[mark12_30]

...if you have not yet 'been there', and you have you want to go back to the experience of Eucatasphrophe. Unless one's professor understands that concept, and understands it in relation to Tolkien they are wasting your time.

Most critics seem to miss the child-like simplicity of the eucatastrophic, and thus miss Tolkien.

I'm still processing your statement. It goes deep. Thank you, lindil.

[Lush]

There is a difference between insisting that a work of literature be taken seriously by literature scholars, and insisting that the said work of literature is flawless.

When you love someone, for example, you love them despite the occasional zit, disagreement, or toilet seat left up. This is my attitude toward the LOTR: it's not perfect, but that alone does not diminish its merit.

A novel such as Finnegan's Wake has its flaws as well, but the acknowledgment of that on a non-specific level does not prevent the work and its author from being treated with respect, zum Biespiel.

[Bêthberry]

I am slow responding here due to events in RL, but let me now reply to at least a few points. And as I take Rimbaud's comment that "All tone is commentary," let me say that I hope my tone is civil, conciliatory, and expansive.

Many appreciators shy unnecessarily from criticism of the text.

This was also my point in first raising the issue of quality of writing, and, in fact, I have been pondering Rimbaud's distinction between objective and subjective texts, which I find wonderfully intriguing--it leads me out into a new way of thinking about the writing. I would prefer to see a discussion of what tone and voice and consistency are, what I meant by purple prose. I would rather have said to Rimbaud, let us examine what you perceive are inconsistencies, and what I call purple prose, to try to understand the legitimacy of our responses. When the response is, 'but it's all great to me', real discussion stops.

And, yes, Lush, there is a difference between insisting that a text be taken seriously and insisting that the text is flawless. Yet I think a balanced assessment of Tolkien's work--or at least a fair and impartial airing of the difficulties of the text--will ultimately do him more credit. I made my comment about purple prose initially because so many of the points raised by your mystery scholar at Duke rose from issues outside Tolkien's texts. (Most of mine were similar, let me hasten to add.) To me, there are issues inside the texts which also bear on the fact that he is not taken seriously. But if the discussion devolves always to one of love, or faith in readers, then almost axiomatically, it seems, discussion stops.

Lindil, I do know Martinez' essay on Goldberry and Tom; unfortunately, perhaps, it does nothing to address my concerns about Goldberry. And I am glad at a youngster enjoys the Old Forest chapters, but that does not negate, I humbly suggest, my response.

Bill Ferny, what would be the difficulty with Linda Hutcheon considering Tolkien? Why must there be areas off limits to discussion?

And since I was the one who first used the term 'gated community', perhaps it would be best if I was allowed to define my use of it. I will be doing that on the thread which Child of the Seventh Age has started, "Gated Communities."

I am sure that I have missed something. I apologize in advance for my poor articulation of my ideas.

Bethberry

[Aiwendil]

Rimbaud wrote:

My above point had been intended, gently (failed on all points), to point out that many appreciators of this novel shy unnecessarily from criticism of the text.

I agree. I think that criticism of the text is a very good thing.

Lush wrote:

There is a difference between insisting that a work of literature be taken seriously by literature scholars, and insisting that the said work of literature is flawless.

Certainly. But there is also a difference between arguing that the work is flawed and insisting that it is so. My point was that critics who insist that, for example, the prose is poor in places, are just as bad as fans who insist that it is perfect. Also that it is valid to argue that the work is without serious flaw but not to insist upon that.

I would rather have said to Rimbaud, let us examine what you perceive are inconsistencies, and what I call purple prose, to try to understand the legitimacy of our responses. When the response is, 'but it's all great to me', real discussion stops.

Agreed; but you still need to leave room for the argument that that there are no sections of 'purple prose', or that they are not to the detriment of the work. To insist that they are (and that your analysis of them is unquestionably correct) would be as much of a mistake as simply insisting that they are not.

[Lush]

Yet I think a balanced assessment of Tolkien's work--or at least a fair and impartial airing of the difficulties of the text--will ultimately do him more credit. I made my comment about purple prose initially because so many of the points raised by your mystery scholar at Duke rose from issues outside Tolkien's texts. (Most of mine were similar, let me hasten to add.) To me, there are issues inside the texts which also bear on the fact that he is not taken seriously.

Touché. The main problem is, I think, that anyone hardly bothers to even discuss the flaws in Tolkien's work in any sort of thoughtful manner. Mention Tolkien, and the conversation immediately turns to giggling and Harry Potter comparisons. Most scholars out there aren't going to be willing to sit down and discuss, say, the whole problem you have with "gated communitites," because they'll be too busy making fun of the fact that you brought up the issue in the first place. The very fact that such issues are brought up, by you, by Rimbaud, et al, points to how much a work like Tolkien's needs scholarly attention. But that doesn't happen too often because most are too busy roaring with laughter, or holding their tongues. I don't even know which is worse.

But if the discussion devolves always to one of love, or faith in readers, then almost axiomatically, it seems, discussion stops.

But the love of a work is the first step in justification of it. Back in the days of yore (i.e. high school) on of the most respected teachers in the English department, doctorate and all that, asked me this question: "Why is a girl like you lugging around a book like that?" I told him that I loved it. The inevitable question that followed was, "Why does a girl like you love a book like that?" There was a multitude of answers to pick from, and I won't go into what I said, but debate eventually took place that, I think, was beneficial for both of us.

Of course, he could have been just shocked by the fact that blondes read Tolkien, but that assumption aside, isn't it obvious that when one is pressed to justify one's love of Tolkien, that a deep assessment is bound to take place? I don't know, I think at least somewhat useful in a discussion.

[ April 01, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Dininziliel]

Well, I feel a mite cheeky inserting myself into a discussion surrounded by brilliant erudition, but this combination psych and English major will offer some thoughts nevertheless. smilies/wink.gif

It seems to me that the best and most exciting scholars it has been my privilege to know (none being widely famous to my knowledge) are those who would respond to G.B. Shaw's famous bon mot in a rather Tom Bombadil kind of way--deeply amused but a tad puzzled over all the serious hubbub. There are many in upper academia who are indeed there because they are clever rather than honest, because they cannot teach but merely tell. They fear that, like the emperor in his new clothes, their insecurity and need for validation will be revealed. The best scholars are those who fearlessly and socratically pursue the joy of discovery and truth. Lesser scholars are usually invested in the hollow holiness of existential "realism" and therefore cling to the safety of various movements and stylistic flavors of snobbery.

Regarding the teaching of Tolkien in university & college classrooms--that phrase itself is all I need to discourage me. I doubt that one can "teach" Tolkien or other great authors. However, that has never prevented the dessication of Melville, Eliot, and Shakespeare. Perhaps British/American Lit 101 is the threshing floor for the truly great with Fitzgerald and Joyce (and Shakespeare, of course!) managing to withstand the most didactic approaches. (Thank goodness for Samuel Beckett who seems to defy all such attempts!) But how many potential lovers of literature have been put off it by the putoffingness of the method? Perhaps it is the classroom itself that needs to change. Economic forces may soon accomplish great change, but not for the better.

Tolkien was "taught" at university when I first entered in 1971. It was above my level then. But I can think of some of my then future professors who could have brought ME alive and some who would have gutted it like a fish ("He who overanalyzes a thing breaks it" kind of approach.)

On the whole, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Tolkien is neither legitimized nor defamed by the scholarly community for me, nor does it seem to be for other Barrows folk on this thread. But I suspect that, that is because we are among those who can thrive within the system because of our grasp on learning and the love of it. Until the entire system has been overhauled to embody the epitome of higher learning, as it was classically intended to be, I'd just as soon the popular majority of ivory raisins leave Tolkien's towers alone so that others can discover them and follow them wherever they are led.

Has anyone here entered the Barrows because they studied Tolkien at university/college? I'm not saying universities will kill Tolkien's star, just diminish it and make the path it illuminates fainter and a lot longer.

-----
I, too, would like to know more about "The Other." And, I am hoping it is because my mind is dulled with the need for sleep, but I also need more clarification regarding the relationship of gated communities, metaphorical and otherwise, to this thread.

I greatly enjoy my wee barrow because of its proximity to the quality of scholarship and expression I encounter. Thank you, everyone! smilies/smile.gif

[mark12_30]

Thinking back over bits of the "Unworthy" thread... I wonder how much of it has to do with the idea of "Creating a myth". When I first read the phrase I was skeptical; myths ARE, they're historical, you don't create them, I argued.

It's like trying to create a pyramid. You could, but it wouldn't be the real thing. The real thing already exists in Egypt; if you try to improve it, you will change what it is; it's just there; leave it alone.

So I was skeptical of the whole idea of mythmaking. And yet, now, I think I understand better, having been one of the beneficiaries of Tolkien's mythmaking, and having realized on a gut-level what I failed to grasp intellectually. Perhaps this ties into lindil's point about eucatastrophe: if you can't open yourself to the tale enough to experience any eucatastrophe at all, will the myth have any effect on you? Perhaps not. And if it has no effect on you, will you take it seriously? Perhaps not.

If one dismisses "new myths" as fakes, then one must dismiss Tolkien, because he indisputably wrote a new myth. However, those whose lives are changed by the myth cannot dismiss it. Whether we can argue the literary merits of Tolkien's myth is another question.

So: rather than being considered along with (for instance) James Joyce and Shakespeare and Dickens, should Tolkien be considered along with Kalevala and the Eddas and such? And if an academic refuses to treat him alongside the Genuine Ancients, should that surprise us?

I wonder whether this is also why George MacDonald, as a mythmaker, is relatively obscure as well.

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Aiwendil]

So: rather than being considered along with (for instance) James Joyce and Shakespeare and Dickens, should Tolkien be considered along with Kalevala and the Eddas and such? And if an academic refuses to treat him alongside the Genuine Ancients, should that surprise us?

It seems to me that these should not be made into fundamentally separate categories. Of course, it makes sense to divide them up for purposes of comparison, analysis of stylistic devices, and so forth. But I have always felt that literary (as opposed to historical) scholars are in error when they study ancient texts in one way, holding them to one set of standards, and modern texts in a different way with a different set.

The problem is, I think, that scholars tend to assume that the only (or at least the chief) value of ancient works lies not in the works in and of themselves, but in the very antiquity of them. I strongly suspect that if Beowulf had been written in the twentieth century, it would have met the same critical hostility as The Lord of the Rings. Detached from their historical and cultural significance, I suspect that ancient works would be of little or no interest to most modern scholars.

This, in turn, seems to me to be tied to the erroneous notion that there is some kind of inevitable progress in the history of art. Modernists and postmodernists have the unfortunate tendency to assume that the evolution of artistic style is a teleological one, or at least that it is directed in some positive direction. But when we identify and examine this supposition, it appears to rest on no firm ground.

So perhaps Tolkien should be studied in conjunction with the Eddas, the Kalevala, Beowulf, etc., for actual analysis of the structure of the work (though many features of LotR are not shared with these works, and many are in fact shared with more modern forms). But a major problem with relegating it to that kind of study in practice (that is, in the non-ideal academic world that we inhabit) is that the works in that class are generally studied not as works in themselves, but for their significance. Tolkien's work, without the actual antiquity, is seen in this view as not being worthy of study.

[Bêthberry]

Time is in short supply these days. I will get back about 'the other', but for the time being here are a few links about the analysis of myth.

The first is to a site which considers the role of hero using Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces. I'll be back with a further link.

The monomyth (http://ias.berkeley.edu/orias/hero/index.htm)

Secondly, here is a link to an abridged curriculum vita for Veralyn Flieger, who Davem has mentioned. It lists many of her research papers on Tolkien as well as her books. This site also has links to other sites dealing with Tolkien and mythology. Flieger is in the Department of Comparative Mythology at the University of Maryland.

Prof. Vlieger's bio (http://mythus.com/bio.html)

Bethberry

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Bêthberry]

Ah, Lush, love is blind, but the neighbours ain't. smilies/wink.gif

My apologies for such a tardy response about 'the Other.'

"The Other" or "Otherness" represents a way of thinking about how identities are constructed. It refers to a frame of mind which creates doubleness and which emphasises difference rather than similarity.

Such a frame of mind defines the self in contrast or juxtaposition to this "Other", creating boundaries which help to define the self. Really, a situation of mutually-exclusive oppositions or dichotomies.

What often happens in this context is that the opposition becomes hierarchical. The self projects its own vices, which it cannot acknowledge (think of Freud's repression here), onto the Other, or the not-Self.

One of the most common dichotomies is that between the well-ordered, rational, masculine traits and the chaotic, irrational, feminine traits.

Ideas about Otherness can be found in the writings of the French psychoanalyst, Lacan, the French feminist, Hélène Cixous, and the postcolonial theorist Edward Said, among others.

What does this have to do with Tolkien? I am tempted to read the elves, save for the Vanyar, as those who, with terrible and sombre and horrible consequences, project their failings upon others and look not to themselves as the authors of their own nostalgia.

Bethberry

[ April 06, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I would encourage those who use literature to delve philosophy to seriously consider a philosophy major… I know, I’m shameless.

*applause*

The problem is, I think, that scholars tend to assume that the only (or at least the chief) value of ancient works lies not in the works in and of themselves, but in the very antiquity of them. I strongly suspect that if Beowulf had been written in the twentieth century, it would have met the same critical hostility as The Lord of the Rings. Detached from their historical and cultural significance, I suspect that ancient works would be of little or no interest to most modern scholars.


Where one places Tolkien (as has been discussed before-- many apologies if I simply repeat what's gone before... I get carried away sometimes) is rather difficult. LOTR often gets classified as a fantasy, how many reputable PhD candidates pick up Terry Goodkind to write a thesis on?

But as for classifying Tolkien with myth... I'm hesitant. As mark 12_30 points out myths are historical. True myths grow out of a culture and a language. Perhaps someone writes them out in literature form at some point, but ultimately, the literature is rooted in the history of a people. Tolkien's myths are somewhat smaller, in some ways. They grow out of language, yes, but they aren't rooted in a culture, but rather the history of one man's life.

However, scholars of twentieth century lit study Tolkien? Again, hesitant.

Are there comparable authors whose works are so un-classifiable that recieve their due recognition? I've been trying to think of who that would be, but I'm not doing real well. In fact, I can't think of any whose work is as incompatible with the established genres.

Bethberry- your point about the elves and Otherness is interesting. Have you thought a lot about this? I'd like to hear more sometime, I think.

-Sophia

[tifo_gcs]

I just stumbled into this thread because I'm bored at work, so please bear with me if I say anything that might already have been posted. I had three years of discussion with my high-school English teacher over Lord of the Rings. On a scale to ten, he would rate it a 7, not higher. When I pressed why, he said it wasn't literature, for the simple reason that it did not reflect, reveal or refocus anything about life. Simply put, because there where such "fairy-tale" creatures in the books as elves, dwarves, orks, talking trees and the like, it wasn't the real world life, and since literature is about life, Tolkien's works couldn't be considered literature but simply escapist fiction, although the quality of the writing was top notch. What I found very interesting was that we had this discussion at the same time that we were reading Kafka's "Metamorphosis," in preperation for a paper on world LITERATURE. In case any of you don't know the storyline, it's about a guy who wakes up and finds himself transformed into a human-sized beetle. My teacher's response when I pointed out the flaw in his argument that humans becoming beetles was about as plausible as elves and talking trees was some wandering about how it might be purely mental and that people might be seeing Gregor (protagonist in Metamorphosis) as a beetle although he was still human. Please note, my English teacher refuses to lose an argument despite being obviously in the wrong, and so he ended the discussion there.
Point I'm trying to make is that some people may have the same view as my English teacher.
That aside, and this as an aside, Lush is right. Let's not discourage kids from majoring in English. With a good teacher it's a fantastic subject.

[The Saucepan Man]

Simply put, because there where such "fairy-tale" creatures in the books as elves, dwarves, orks, talking trees and the like, it wasn't the real world life, and since literature is about life, Tolkien's works couldn't be considered literature but simply escapist fiction, although the quality of the writing was top notch.

So presumably, your English teacher wouldn't regard A Midsummer Night's Dream, with its fairies, love potions and half-human half-donkey, or The Tempest with Caliban the witch's son and Prospero the magician, as literature? Or Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Or Bram Stoker's Dracula? Or, indeed, Orwell's Animal Farm? Seems to me that JRRT's works are "about life" as much as any of these (accepted) works of literature.

This, like the other reasons given on this thread for JRRT's lack of academic appeal, looks to me to be a poor justification for intellectual snobbery. Take, for example, the popularity of JRRT's works. Have the scholars learned nothing from the history of literature? As Lush points out, the works of both Shakespeare and Dickens (and many others to boot, I should imagine) had mass appeal when first performed/published. Indeed, I recall my English Literature teachers making much of Shakespeare's wide appeal with his audiences, pointing out the jokes and devices thrown in for the benefit of the unschooled masses. If they accept the literary merit of works which were popular in the past, why can't they do so equally with works that are popular now?

In my opinion, whether they are considered fantasy, medaevalist or whatever, the works of JRRT do undoubtedly have considerable literary merit. They are wonderfully written, intricately constructed and fair brimming with relevant and complex themes. That is not to fall into the trap, already mentioned, of considering them flawless. But, they are in my view clearly on a par with, if not greater than, a good many works which are generally considered to be literary masterpieces.

Having said that, I think that Bill Ferny makes a good point in questioning whether there is any great benefit to be derived (for us, the readers) from a wider academic recognition of the literary merit in JRRT's works. Maybe it's because my days of studying literature are long gone, but I don't need some mildewy old (or even young and trendy) professor of literature telling me that it is a worthy pursuit to read LotR in order to justify my enjoyment of it.

Yes, it would be nice if my favourite author wasn't stacked alongside the works of the Tiresome Terrys (Brooks and Pratchett) in the bookshop, but I can live with that. I am sure that some day the works will graduate to the classics shelf, but until that day, I am content to "slum it" in the fantasy section.

As for the inclusion of JRRT's works in school and college literature courses, I am with those who doubt whether this would be such a good thing. Clearly, his books would not be out of place in a literary discussion of the types of themes that feature in them (the many articulate and erudite threads in this forum bear witness to that). But the thought of a book such as LotR being studied in its own right as part of the syllabus of a course instills in me a measure of anxiety. I recall, when studying Shakespeare and novels such as Wuthering Heights and A Farewell to Arms at school, being given the checklist of what each quote meant, as if this was somehow cast in stone. While I accepted it at the time (in order to pass my exams smilies/wink.gif ), such absolutist interpretation seems to me, with the benefit of hindsight, to be quite wrong. And I would hate to see LotR parcelled up into neat little sections of meaning according to some general concensus, leading to those that study it ending up with a "one size fits all" opinion of the book.

Of course, that is not to say that students and teachers alike should not bring up LotR (or any of JRRT's other works) in discussion of a literary theme where it is relevant to that theme, just as Aiwendil did. The literary merit in his works is such that this should be a perfectly valid exercise. And any teacher or lecturer who dismisses an attempt to do so because the works are "simply fantasy novels" or "too popular" is guilty of poor teaching. But, it is not necessary for the books to be included on some syllabus or reading list in order for them to be brought into literary debate, where appropriate.

So, I would be interested to hear any further thoughts on what benefits might be acheived through a greater academic appreciation of JRRT's works. But in the meantime, I shall continue to derive great pleasure from the books (and from discussion of them on this site smilies/smile.gif ) irrespective of their exclusion from the giddy heights of general scholarly acceptance smilies/wink.gif .

[tifo_gcs]

So presumably, your English teacher wouldn't regard A Midsummer Night's Dream, with its fairies, love potions and half-human half-donkey, or The Tempest with Caliban the witch's son and Prospero the magician, as literature?

No, he would say that such things as sorcery and strange creatures such half-humans/half-donkeys were believed to exist during the Shakespearian era and so the plays still give an accurate reflection of life at those times. Tolkien, living in the 20th. century, ought well to know that talking trees and such don't exist.
Also, while we talk about Shakespeare as a literary genius; yes, his plays did have great public appeal when they came out, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that it was as much, if not much more, for their entertainment value as for the people standing on the floor in the globe to go into the theatre and have all manners of catharsis and food for thought.
As for Animal Farm, it's one long analogy (there's a better word for it than that, and I'm sorely wishing I bothered remembering all these terms, my English teacher would have me shot at dawn for this smilies/mad.gif )about any number of political and social situations in the world (or so I do believe my teacher would say)

Take, for example, the popularity of JRRT's works. Have the scholars learned nothing from the history of literature? As Lush points out, the works of both Shakespeare and Dickens (and many others to boot, I should imagine) had mass appeal when first performed/published. Indeed, I recall my English Literature teachers making much of Shakespeare's wide appeal with his audiences, pointing out the jokes and devices thrown in for the benefit of the unschooled masses.
True, but if literature is generalized to be nothing but books that had great popularity when published, that leaves most pompous scholars in the lurch with all their fancy arguments as to why a book is good enough to become literature. As such, it devalues the whole concept of "literature" to me, because literature still conjures up the hope that someone spent time and effort to produce a quality work that is good to read and gives one food for thought on its theme.
Imagine if Danielle Steel or any other author who churned out entertainement books by the dozens became literature in a few hundred years. I'm pulling my hair out already (hope I don't offend anybody, but most airport literature doesn't appeal to me)!

Maybe it sounds a bit wierd, but I got the impression that there were certain rules and unwritten contracts that had to be fulfilled in order for something to become literature, and it seems to me that one of the crutial contracts is that the story has to unfold on this planet (Earth, the third rock from the sun in case you have any doubts) among human beings (and I know that bends slightly for Orwell's Animal Farm)

[ April 09, 2003: Message edited by: tifo_gcs ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Imagine if Danielle Steel or any other author who churned out entertainement books by the dozens became literature in a few hundred years. I'm pulling my hair out already (hope I don't offend anybody, but most airport literature doesn't appeal to me)!

Heavens! I don't think anyone's suggesting this... But to do the opposite, ie, say "real literature must at no point have been available on the magazine rack at your local gas station" (where I must say I picked up a very affordable copy of RoTK the other day smilies/wink.gif ) would rule out things like Shakespeare (although he was before gas stations).

yes, [Shakespeare's] plays did have great public appeal when they came out, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that it was as much, if not much more, for their entertainment value as for the people standing on the floor in the globe to go into the theatre and have all manners of catharsis and food for thought.


How many of us loved Tolkien first for the deep literary themes and catharsis? It's quite possible to read good literature for its entertainment value without destroying its literary merit. In fact, I probably wouldn't read it if I didn't find it interesting... There are simply too many Russian names in Dostoevsky for me to tackle without the amazing storylines. Good literature should be interesting.

And as for someone pointing out Tolkien's inconsistent tone or other flaws, again, consider established classics, like Dostoevsky (I'm on a Russian novelist kick, just now). The Brothers Karamazov could hardly be called structurally tidy and sound. Classic? Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So I have so second The Saucepan Man's assessment: looks to me to be a poor justification for intellectual snobbery.

Sophia

[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks, Sophia. You are right. I was in no way saying that only books that receive widespread popularity should be considered as literary works. What I was saying was that mass appeal should not necessarily rule out literary acclaim.

tifo_gcs, I take your point about people being more superstitious in Shakepeare's time. This argument might even (at a stretch) apply to Frankenstein and Dracula. But I don't think that it follows that a book should deal only with "real life" issues in order to be regarded as a work of literature. The works that I mentioned are still regarded as great works of literature today, and I am pretty sure that there are not many academics who believe that there are fairies (or vampires, for that matter) at the bottom of their garden.

However, I use the word "should" above because, sadly, I think that you are right, tifo_gcs. There does seem to be a prevailing attitude amongst academics that popular contemporary works and/or those that belong to the fantasy, horror or sci-fi genres cannot be proper literary works. It should not be the case that such works automatically be denied literary status, but unfortunately it seems that, to a large degree, it is the case.

But then again, as I said before, why should we care? smilies/tongue.gif

[ April 09, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[mark12_30]

But then again, as I said before, why should we care?

Those still in lit classes probably care because when one loves a work, one likes to talk about it, and one would think that it would be safe to do so in a literature class. All too frequently it is not. Lush, I sympathize.

But I am not surprised, although my reason for not being surprised may surprise you (then again, maybe not.)

As is mentioned in Tolkien's letters, Tolkien's works are entwined with his Catholic world-view. This comes through to the average reader, although they may not put it into words. Tolkien makes a number of moral judgements, theological implications, and sets up several gleaming heroes whose faults are far less noticable than our own are.

Academics don't always appreciate that.

The fact that the books, in addition to being silently preachy, also are popular, and that many people claim that the books have had a profound influence on their lives, makes it (to the academic community) cloyingly close to moralizing. When a centuries-old work moralizes, professors wink at it and expect their students to be condescendingly patient, because as has been mentioned above, it was written by superstitious folk who let their culture dictate to them. Church, God, fairies, talking trees; it's all dismissable in the average academic environment.

Thankfully this is not true of all academic environments, but it is true of many of them.

Tolkien moralizes, and asks us to suspend our disbelief, and preaches (silently) about God, and gives us larger-than-life heroes whos faults are not adultery or embezzling or treason. And he's twentieth century! Where's the scandal? Where's the intrigue? Where's the disgrace? How can this be serious stuff? It's all far, far too virtuous to be taken seriously.

Self-sacrifice, fidelity, perseverance, and loyalty? Oh, come on.

So, as the Saucepan Man argues, why should we care? I care far more how many people will look back on their lives and say, "Tolkien changed me for the better." That, in my opinion, is the true measure of any book, or song or work of art. It is, I believe, the measure that will be used in eternity. Tolkien will measure up. His work will be a huge success.

I don't expect the academic community to ever look at it like that. I don't expect them to ever see its true worth. If they can't experience any eucatastrophe at all, they can discuss its faults til they are purple, and still miss the point of the writings. I feel sorry for them.

I think the average Downer is way ahead of them.

[The Saucepan Man]

Those still in lit classes probably care because when one loves a work, one likes to talk about it, and one would think that it would be safe to do so in a literature class. All too frequently it is not.

I thoroughly agree with you there. Students should be able, without fear of condescension or mockery, to raise JRRT's works in any discussion of literary styles, themes etc to which they are relevant. There is more than sufficient literary merit in the works to justify that, irrespective of whether or not they enjoy literary recognition on a more general level. And, providing that the works are relevant to the discussion and their use is supported by intelligent argument, any teacher or lecturer who, by whatever means, tries to dismiss or exclude them from the discussion is, in my view, displaying a very poor understanding of the nature of their profession.

But the use of JRRT's works in this way does not depend upon them gaining widespread academic acceptance. Nor does it depend upon them being on any course syllabus, which could in any event be counterproductive to allowing each individual reader to form their own views on them.

I care far more how many people will look back on their lives and say, "Tolkien changed me for the better." That, in my opinion, is the true measure of any book, or song or work of art.

Hear hear. smilies/smile.gif

[Aiwendil]

Sophia wrote:
How many of us loved Tolkien first for the deep literary themes and catharsis? It's quite possible to read good literature for its entertainment value without destroying its literary merit.

I disagree with your distinction between "deep literary themes" on the one hand and "entertainment" on the other. Let us probe the meaning of the first term. If by "deep literary themes" you mean some underlying message or purpose in the work beyond the story as such, then you are speaking of allegory. There is no allegory in LotR. If you are speaking of the kind of 'applicability' Tolkien talked about, surely this cannot be distinguished from the entertainment value of the story. That is, does not the applicability of the story manifest itself in making the story a good story and an enjoyable one? I would personally take it a step further and say that the purpose of any work of literature, and the attribute by which it ought to get literary acclaim, is its beauty - i.e., its ability to entertain.

I can't help but to feel that the term 'catharsis' is a bit out of place here. 'Catharsis', I believe, refers to the theory that by reading (or viewing) a tragic story, one may purge oneself of certain associated emotions, like sorrow. LotR is surely not a tragedy, and even if one were to accept the theory of catharsis as valid, I don't think one would be likely to find it in LotR.

So I suppose I agree with the main thrust of your argument - that entertainment value is not a bad thing. But I would go further and say that such things as deep themes are, or should be, tributary to the entertainment value rather than opposed to it.

The Saucepan Man wrote:
But I don't think that it follows that a book should deal only with "real life" issues in order to be regarded as a work of literature.

Very true. Not only does this (as you point out) restrict the classification of 'good literature' unfairly; it also relegates non-modern works of literature to being mere historical artifacts. This was the distressing tendency I mentioned in an earlier post - the tendency to treat older works not as literature but merely as data for the study of the period in which they were created, scarcely tolerable save for their historical value.

If Shakespeare's use of magic in his plays is only to be tolerated because at the time when he wrote some people actually believed in magic, then it follows that the quality of a work depends not on its own merits as art, but on extraneous factors like the time when it was written. This seems to me to be quite absurd. It marks a thinly veiled contempt for earlier works on the part of the literary establishment, and by the same token a snobbish belief in the superiority of modern literature. Even worse, it shows that the modern critic is not interested in art as such but in historical study on the one hand and social commentary on the other. Hence the sharp distinction drawn between ancient works and modern works. This at least explains the exclusionary attitude toward modern fantasy.

mark12_30 wrote:
Tolkien moralizes, and asks us to suspend our disbelief, and preaches (silently) about God, and gives us larger-than-life heroes whos faults are not adultery or embezzling or treason. And he's twentieth century! Where's the scandal? Where's the intrigue? Where's the disgrace? How can this be serious stuff? It's all far, far too virtuous to be taken seriously.

Exactly. The problem is that modern critics do not read literature as literature, but always treat it as if it is merely code for some other, deeper meaning. When they find either that that deeper meaning displeases them, or that the work is not fundamentally concerned with 'saying something' about the real world, they take issue with it.

[tifo_gcs]

The problem is that modern critics do not read literature as literature, but always treat it as if it is merely code for some other, deeper meaning. When they find either that that deeper meaning displeases them, or that the work is not fundamentally concerned with 'saying something' about the real world, they take issue with it.

True.. this is what sparks literary debate... the fact that you disagree with what the author is saying about a certain theme. And the way I've been taught English during my High School career is that literature has a conflict. Other books and writings have problems. A conflict being defined as having your cake and eating it too, whereas a problem is how to run a marthon faster than everyone else to win the New York Marathon (yes, I'm simplifying a bit).

Are there conflicts in LOTR? yes certainly. Everyone who gets close to the ring, except for some reason most of the fellowship, is tempted by the power of it. But ulitmatley, the conflict boils down to good versus evil. There is a right and a wrong, and the author tells you which is which, by saying that no-one can use the ring for good.
In literature, such as my English teacher defines it, conflicts and themes are not merely good vs. evil, they are more of the sylla and charibdis (hope the spelling is right) type, where there isn't any one right answer, but two alluring (or anything but alluring) choices, both with their pitfalls and upsides. There is no right or wrong, but a whole bunch of grey, which inspires a lot of discussion as to what the "right choice is." You don't hear many people arguing that Frodo should have overthrown Sauron using the power of the ring, because (as I wrote earlier) Tolkien says it can't be done. End of discussion, Tolkien is the absolute authority on Middle Earth.

Some people say there is an absolute right or wrong in the world. The vast majority of these people have a monotheistic religion they adhere to. Monotheistic religions all have guidelines as to what is right and wrong. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a religion that doesn't have guidelines. But it seems to me, that in this world, there is no absolute authority to tell you what is right or wrong, assuming religion is a choice for each person, that each person can chose to not believe in any religion.

The point I'm trying to make (in a very roundabout fashion) is that literature is a way (mainly for intellectuals, I'll admit) for people to wrangle these thoughts out in their head or with someone else. You can argue about Holden Caulfield (protagonist from Catcher in the Rye, by J. D: Salinger) until your face turns blue, because Salinger presents a possible solution. But you as the reader you get to decide whether the answer is right or wrong. You can do that because the story is based in this world. How many Frodos do you know, who can set out with a group of comrades and save the world? How many Holdens do you know, young people trying to figure out what they're doing in school, weighed down by the expectations of family and others (I've been there, and I'll bet a fair amount of anything that most people have)? You can't argue choices of the same magnitude with Tolkien as a frame of reference because the 'rules' i Middle Earth are different than the ones 'here.' Ultimately, it is much more foreign to us than the world we inhabit. Literature, as I see it, is a way for people to see the different ways of living their lives, and possilby to help them decide how to live it, not by giving them the answer, but by asking questions, posing problems and sparking debates about the way we live our lives.

Alas, I have now opened up the great can of worms known as religion, which gives me plenty of attempts at stepping on peoples toes. If I do, I apologize.

Here's the editied bit: As to seeing the "classics" merely as interesting anecdotes from old times, I disagree. They still have relevance to us, or we wouldn't read Sophocles and Homer. Point is, they raise timelss issues. Oedipus talks about pride, destiny (does it exist, and if it does, can it be overcome). Those two issues are still very relevant to us all.

Self-sacrifice, fidelity, perseverance, and loyalty I'm going to stick my neck out once more and say that at least fidelity, perseverance and loyalty don't strike me as themes.
And then I'm going to hide behind the escuse that I've spent over an hour on this reply and my brain is on the fritz, so I can't find the energy (or spare time at work smilies/frown.gif ) to argue that

[ April 10, 2003: Message edited by: tifo_gcs ]

[mark12_30]

tifo_gcs,

fidelity, perseverance and loyalty don't strike me as themes.


Why not?

--mark12_30

[Bêthberry]

Sophia the Thunder Mistress, my apologies for not replying sooner to your request for an elaboration of my point about The Other. I have had computer problems all last week.

That elaboration would really take this thread off topic, so I will save it and ponder it for a different thread some time in the future. I hope to see you there!

Regards to all for keeping this thread going,
Bethberry

[tifo_gcs]

At the danger of being wrong in relation to the textbook definition of themes (which I can't quite remember what is), I don't feel that they are themes because all three of them are positive. I don't see any of those three character traits being negative in a any way. Pride, the example I used earlier, has both good and bad sides. Self-esteem is the upside, but arrogance is the downside, to make a brief example. A theme is about exploring the good and the bad sides.The reason I don't include self-sacrifice is because it can easily be self-destructive, which is definitely negative in my book.

[mark12_30]

tifo, I don't remember a requirement that a theme had to have a negative... but reviewing the three in question, fidelity, perseverance and loyalty, I would say that Gollum, and Boromir (who thankfully repented), provide some antithesis to Sam's and Aragorn's loyalty and fidelity; and Denethor provides the opposite of perseverance: despair.

In addition, you could say that in the very end, poor Frodo, crushed and broken and at the end of all his reserves, falls himself into despair, faithlessness and even treason. Sam provides the antithesis for him, and Gollum is the (uncooperative) vehicle of grace by which Frodo's effort is redeemed.

So, in cnsidering your definition, I would still say that these are themes.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Feeling a need to defend myself... Aiwendil said, I disagree with your distinction between "deep literary themes" on the one hand and "entertainment" on the other. Let us probe the meaning of the first term. If by "deep literary themes" you mean some underlying message or purpose in the work beyond the story as such, then you are speaking of allegory.
When I said themes, I wasn't at all referring to allegorical content, but to the sorts of qualities that tifo-gcs and mark12_30 have been discussing; qualities that run through the work, such as the opposition between despair and hope, loyalty and treason. I am quite familiar with what the Professor had to say about allegory, yet I must contend that if looking for underlying emphases in the work is allegorical, then, I'm guilty as charged. But fortunately, I don't think that's what either you or Tolkien meant by allegory, my apologies for expressing myself badly last time. Catharsis, was another term Aiwendil objected to my use of, I was using it, as it had been used in a previous post, which my post was responding to. I believe the word has been brought in on the Eucatastrophe thread as well, in the same spirit, referring to an emotional reaction to the text.

Tolkien moralizes, and asks us to suspend our disbelief, and preaches (silently) about God, and gives us larger-than-life heroes whos faults are not adultery or embezzling or treason. And he's twentieth century! Where's the scandal? Where's the intrigue? Where's the disgrace? How can this be serious stuff? It's all far, far too virtuous to be taken seriously.

I hope this is not true-- but I'm afraid it is. I remember as far back as my junior high english classes hearing about the necessity of flawed characters and "human" protagonists (meaning hard to tell if they're acutally the good guys...) This has a place, but other approaches should have a place as well.

Bethberry I'm looking forward to the thread on the Other-- will be there! smilies/biggrin.gif

And finally, as a sidenote to this thread, I just turned in (as a Undergrad Philosophy student) a paper for Ethics on Aesthetics in Tolkien, related to the function of the eucatastrophe. We'll see how that goes... smilies/rolleyes.gif

I'm pressed for time, sorry about the disorganization of this post.

Sophia

[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]

[Ainaserkewen]

You are very right. Those scholars are so stuck up. They wouldn't know enjoyment if it hit them in the face. It's like this is music sometimes too. If the composer is very popular, the pros don't want to play him. Just a note. I'd become a Tolkien scholar if I was dedicated enough. To study something so great would be worth the work, plus it's more enjoyable work.

[Aiwendil]

Sophia wrote:
I am quite familiar with what the Professor had to say about allegory, yet I must contend that if looking for underlying emphases in the work is allegorical, then, I'm guilty as charged. But fortunately, I don't think that's what either you or Tolkien meant by allegory, my apologies for expressing myself badly last time.

You did not express yourself badly; I was merely trying to deconstruct and analyze what you said. I understood that you probably did not mean allegory. My main point was that applicability/themes cannot be distinguished from entertainment. The essence of my point was:

If you are speaking of the kind of 'applicability' Tolkien talked about, surely this cannot be distinguished from the entertainment value of the story. That is, does not the applicability of the story manifest itself in making the story a good story and an enjoyable one? I would personally take it a step further and say that the purpose of any work of literature, and the attribute by which it ought to get literary acclaim, is its beauty - i.e., its ability to entertain.

[Jessica Jade]

The good lady also confirmed my speculation that a great deal of scholars have personal grudges toward the works of Tolkien, because his stuff is actually being read by a variety of people, as many scholars' own works are gathering dust. It seems that most academics' inability to reach a wider audience creates automatic (though rarely, if ever, admitted) resentment toward a book such as the LOTR. See, kids, even "smart" people aren't above envy!
Wow, i haven't been here for a while. Great thread! I'm writing an essay on Tolkien, actually , for my IB extended essay, and that's a really interesting point...do you think you could tell me where to find any sources that verify the claim you made above? If you could, or if the lady you talked to knows, that'd save me a whole bunch of time, so i was just wondering if you might be able to help me out just a little. Thanks anyway! I'll be back~

[ April 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jessica Jade ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Quoting Aiwendil yet again: If you are speaking of the kind of 'applicability' Tolkien talked about, surely this cannot be distinguished from the entertainment value of the story. That is, does not the applicability of the story manifest itself in making the story a good story and an enjoyable one?

I'm hesitant to agree with this, but I need to gather my thoughts a bit before I can coherently say why.

Sophia

[Lalaith]

What a fascinating, erudite thread. So many brilliant posts. I've been hankering to make a humble contribution, but felt it would be rude to do so without having read the whole thing. At last I've had time to do so.
Bethberry, your summary of lit crit is masterly. It seemed to me, many moons ago when I did my lit crit paper, that so much of it served not as a tool of understanding but as a master. So, for example, during the time that social realism was all the rage, everyone adored Zola and disregarded Jane Austen, and so on...when in fact both are brilliant authors but for very different reasons and cannot and should not be judged by identical criteria.
For some years now, linear narrative has been deeply unfashionable. Its all been about form, and the 'old-fashioned yarn', ie the kind that Tolkien wrote, is passe.
His stately kind of writing is also regarded with suspicion. Look at this quote from the highly celebrated writer Salman Rushdie:
Like its precursor, The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson's picture is an improvement on its source material, if only because Jackson's film language is subtler, more sophisticated and certainly more contemporary than the stilted, deliberate archaisms of JRR Tolkien's descriptive prose and, even more problematically, of his dialogue. (I am a big fan of the book version of The Lord of the Rings, but nobody ever read Tolkien for the writing.)
(I personally find Rushdie's prose unreadable but there you go...)

And then there is the image problem that Lush and others have referred to - the kind of shelf-mates Tolkien has in bookshops, the kind of people who are believed to enjoy him.
Whether the movies will help is another question, as they seem to have gone out of their way to present LotR as a 'Dungeons & Dragon's' tale, & probably reinforce the 'establishment's view of the book.
Davem, you're spot on about this. The films have been even more 'linear' than the books, the fellowship in particular: 'walk, walk, fight, walk, walk, fight'.
But I would like to end on a bright note. Currently, there seems to be a swing in favour of 'whatever gets kids reading again is good.' Harry Potter for one has benefitted from this (although clearly no-one is going to be doing their MAs on 'the Goblet of Fire - a well-wrought urn?') LotR consistently tops favorite book lists, and maybe the new egalitarian mood will also encompass Tolkien.

[ April 17, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]