[davem]

Firstly, Im so glad you're ok

Originally Posted by Child

The whole idea of a mythic past attracted only a small number of readers, the stubborn diehards who were drawn beyond these somewhat sweeping, superficial views to the sources that lay behind LotR. It was those readers who went on to earn degrees in linguistics, medieval studies, and such. I was one of that group. For me, Tolkien probably represented a reconnecting with a past, whether real or imaginery, at least on some level. But for others, that was much less a factor in the sixties. Yet, even I can not deny that "values" also played a huge role in my early readings of LotR

I accept your point, though maybe the students who connected with Tolkien's works on a more 'superficial' level were inspired by something deeper - I don't know.

The 'group' you belong to certainly includes the accademics you mentioned in your original post.

Originally Posted by Drigel

Of course it's also subjective. From my point of view, I would sumbit there are some valid arguments that a lack of cultural identity presents more advantages than disadvantages to a democratic society in general.

I think we can find two extremes: the effect Lonrot's Kalevala had on the Finns & the effect Nazi 'philosophy' had on the Germans. Tolkien was clearly inspired by the former & repelled by the latter. Tolkien clearly felt that myth was a way of 'earthing' people, strengthening their connection with their Land & giving them a sense of identity. A loss of cultural identity among any group can lead to all kinds of problems, crime, disaffection, materialism, etc., whereas a sense of belonging to a culture, with shared stories linked to the landscape around them can strengthen individuals' identity & make it possible for them to live more harmoniously with their fellow human beings & with the Land. I suppose its about having a link with previous generations who have lived in the same place.

Perhaps what the students in the 60's were yearning for was that sense of community, which is what myth provides on the most mundane level. Myth may deal with the high (& low) acts of the gods, but the stories often deal with the way those gods created & interacted with the land & people they created. We have to remember that once upon a time every land on earth was 'the Holy Land' to its inhabitants. The number of sites in Britain linked to King Arthur for instance is legion.

The great thing about Tolkien's Middle-earth is that, because it isn't linked specifically to the landscape of England, it can be 'projected' onto any land which has a landscape in any way similar. Of course, Tolkien did write stories (Smith to some degree & Giles specifically) which attempted to mythologise the English landscape (in Giles he set out to account for actual English place names & landscape features & give them a magico-mythical history).

Desire for community, to belong to a group with shared values & to live in a land which has stories linked to it, & which bring it alive, is what myth (which, let's not forget was once the religion of its inhabitants) gives. So, I wonder if that was what those students were looking for, & what they're still looking for, under the guise of studying a work of literature. After all, what is it that we actually get from Tolkien that we don't get elsewhere? Why do we want to spend time in Middle-earth?