[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lal

The whole business of doing a degree in English is designed to make you almost hate literature. I wouldn't recommend the subject to someone who finds a lot of 'magic' in their leisure reading, as you will be required to pull apart and analyse everything you read, and you will also have to read a lot - not just the primary texts (AKA the novel, story, or poem, in human language) but also many critical works and articles. You will be required not just to analyse but to apply types of critical analysis, maybe doing a feminist criticism or a marxist one or a post structuralist one.

Originally Posted by davem

Well, we've had the 'sources' approach, the 'biographical' approach', the 'religio-philosophical' approach & the 'socio-cultural-historical' approach. We've had the 'applicability' approach ('ie 'This is what it means to me'). I'm sure there will be new angles/insights from the 'scholars', but the 'creative' side seems to be very much a poor second, apart from fan-fic. In other words the division seems to be 'scholarly=Proffessional' & 'creative=Amateur'.

It could be argued, I suppose, that the 'creative' side could include those professional writers of fantasy who were inspired by Tolkien to create their own secondary worlds (Patricia McKillip & Gene Wolf spring to mind), or the movie makers & the people behind the musical.

As an aside I do find myself wondering how much 'analysis' a work of literature can survive? Does a novel only get accepted as 'literature' once it can be dissected for analysis & taught in class?

On the one hand, I think both Lal and davem rightly identify an overwhelming aspect of formal English studies, its tendency towards autopsy. Traditional university curricula gave prominence to abstract thought and philosophical debate and looked it long nose down at many things which didn't fit this ancient model of study. The themes and topics and approaches at universities have shifted slightly in the last few years and performing arts as well as creative studies can be found at least in the newer unis--dare I say redbrick?

On the other hand, I am often amused by those who have such a negative response to traditional literary studies, because Tolkien himself was part of that entire enterprise. While his best work opened up literature to appreciation as literature (my own POV here), he also produced, as an academic, lots of textual analysis of language that ignored the creative aspects of the books--or manuscripts as the case was. (For a very tiny look at that aspect, see this post about Tolkien on medieval dialect )

At its best, discussion of literature ought to be a process of learning how to read with greater awareness, which to my mind means learning how to appreciate/enjoy story and book and verse in as wide a range as possible. Like all learning, sometimes this requires analysis. It also requires self-reflection and awareness of all the 'tricks' of language available to writers. Too often academics don't approach stories as creative writers would, but that in itself does not mean their approach can't produce minds in greater awareness of themselves and of story. My favourite teachers were always those who insisted upon a reading of the text and not the outside apparatus of scholarship, except where that scholarship actually illuminated something. One sad result of all the emphasis on 'critical theory' it seems to me is this emphasis on the theorists first and the creative texts second. Backwards!

Originally Posted by Mister U

Learning about sources and inspirations of a favorite author can lead you to many interesting works. But in my opinion, if you read Tolkien's inspirations (or supposed inspirations) primarily with an eye out for how they influenced the professor, you're doing both Tolkien and the original work a disservice.

I think this is the wrong way 'round--or maybe we are agreeing. I don't think people necessarily read "the sources" to understand how they influenced Tolkien--this was always one of the reasons why I downplay 'author' as opposed to 'text'--but because they are interested in fantasy, in all its forms and permutations. It is a shame that De La Motte Fouqué is being marketed as Tolkien's 'source', but that marketing ploy should not itself detract from what might be a fascinating read. I would really like to see how Moorish Spain is handled! Also fascinating is the question why fantasy developed at this cusp of the twentieth century. Maybe that doesn't lend itself to enjoying the fantasy on its own--a biggish maybe--but it is nonetheless a legitimate reading response.

Why should any one way of reading literature be the only way? After all, Tolkien himself likely had many different reading strategies behind his eyes.

Oh, and Azaelia--it isn't only literature and essays than can ruin kids' reading. Nowadays teachers force kids to keep journals, even if the kids don't wish to put their private feelings on the page for a teacher to read. There's always something out of whack when learning is structured.