LOTR vs. Scholars, or Academics Can Kiss My As-taldo. - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Bêthberry · 03-29-2003, 05:41 PM

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

03-29-2003, 05:41 PM	#11
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	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 __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.