Has it all been said?

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

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.

I've always found it interesting that there was an upsurge in interest in the Occult at exactly that time too. Not just the fascination with spiritualism, but also Aleister Crowley, AE Waite & the Golden Dawn. Perhaps it was in reaction to the extreme materialism of the Victorian/Edwardian Age, industrialism & the appearance of of Darwin's evolutionary theories. Its as if the one produced the other.

Certainly there was a near obsession with fairy stories & the fantastic among soldiers in the trenches, & both Tolkien & Lewis were WWI veterans who went on to write fantasy. We could also bring in Mervyn Peake, who served as a war artist & who was a witness of the opening of the death camps.

[Lalwendë]

It could possibly have had something to do with the growing interest in Medieval artistry? The Medieval/Elizabethan period seems to have produced a lot of fantastical art and literature in itself, so maybe this was another aspect of this interest?

Of course the move to a greater interest in esoteric/occult subjects could also have been a reaction to incredibly rapid social change and experiencing horror, and hence questioning established religion? There was also the reaction in the late 60s of American youth to Vietnam and the move to New Age philosophies (and of course, Tolkien fandom), so perhaps people do seek out fantasy as a reaction to horror?

[davem]

It is interesting that Both Lewis & Williams were deeply into the 'occult' before becoming Christians & their felllow Inkling, Owen Barfield was a follower of Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy. We don't know that Tolkien ever shared that interest, but we do know that he was very interested in metaphysical subjects (as Flieger has demonstrated, Tolkien was greatly influenced by the ideas of JW Dunne on the nature of time & re-incarnation).

[littlemanpoet]

I hope I'm alive long enough to see the development of a historical perspective on Tolkien and his Legendarium. Perhaps fifty years from now, events will have occurred that will make Tolkien appear (1) dated {I doubt it}, (2) prophetic {I expect it}, (3) the most important modernist of the last four centuries {wouldn't that be fun?}; (4,5,6,7.....) and all kinds of other possibilities. A third world war (War of the Ring)? The passing of democratic forms of government (Scouring of the Shire, Return of a King, Lord over all Mordor)? The eclipse of Western culture (Eriador a wasteland)? So perhaps all that can be said has been said .... for now .... but let some great new cataclysmic (or not so) event shake the current paradigm to its roots, and see what there is then to say about the man.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

but let some great new cataclysmic (or not so) event shake the current paradigm to its roots, and see what there is then to say about the man.

Oh, I don't deny that readers will always find Tolkien's works to be 'applicable', but that's not the same as us finding something new to say about the works themselves, or about Tolkien himself, in terms of origins, sources, what he was really doing (or attempting to do).

BTW, you seem to have a very 'apocalyptic' vision of the future there, LMP.

[drigel]

So, are we destined to see the creation become increasingly placed in the service of finding out more & more detail about the creator? And, if so, will we actually gain all that much from doing so?

Barring a discovery of personal notes or transcripts, I would say the biographical subject had been covered years ago. We even have an entire book of personal correspondance to fans and loved ones, published decades ago for goodness sake... Most of the recent publications look to me like nothing more than money making ventures that are capitalizing on a recent upswing in popularity.

Unfortunately, we can no more get to 'know the man', but we may, at least, get to know each other (feat we already are on the way of accomplishing, however imperfect the medium may be) on the way, which would be quite signigicant gain.

great point. This site has caused me to think about Tolkien in so many different ways. Much like a good analysis from a Shippey or a Fliger, but exponential. The multitude of thoughts create a nice stream of consciousness, as it were.

I love to read some of the threads in the Books forum but this is why I put most of my personal energy into the RPG forums and private short fanfics. I truly believe that, if all I had focused on was the scholarly end of things, I might have left the Downs some time ago.

Im the opposite. Not that I dont appreciate the inspiration, though. And it's not the scholarly end as much either. I find myself most active on threads when the works are treated as a living thing. Their own life has enough power for me.

I honestly hope that LOTR never becomes one of those books that is required to be read and analyzed in classrooms.

please Eru make it so! I have said before that a LOTR analysis would produce more impact in a linguistics or humanties course, rather than an english class. Dickens yes, Faulkner yes, Hemingway yes, but Tolkien... no please.

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

Nicely put. It also depends on how the author constructs the work. IMO Tolkien used many scholarly layers in the construction, but it was for the intended affect of nuance, and the true (and scholarly) love of the essense of those layers. No secret high ended easter eggs (or, "look how clever and smart I am") in his works.

So perhaps all that can be said has been said .... for now .... but let some great new cataclysmic (or not so) event shake the current paradigm to its roots, and see what there is then to say about the man.

Perhaps - but ill pass on a return of a King! But, IMO, there will always be a yearning (at times more or less) for a time (or an imagination) that is beyond record (and scholars), where the land, and our souls were younger. Struggles there were then, but the air seemed clearer.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

...you seem to have a very 'apocalyptic' vision of the future there, LMP.

The story writer in me, I s'pose. Except that the signs are already there in terms of the waning of Western culture as opposed to African or Asian ones.

But there also could be something in LotR and the rest of the Legendarium that we can't see because of our place in history. The passing of time and its contexts will make it possible for those who follow us to see what we cannot, and that might also be true in terms of Tolkien.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It could possibly have had something to do with the growing interest in Medieval artistry? The Medieval/Elizabethan period seems to have produced a lot of fantastical art and literature in itself, so maybe this was another aspect of this interest?

It is also good to recall that "Old English" and "Old English literature", even the concept of an "Anglo-Saxon People and country", are terms created by modern scholarship. For a wee bit of history in how the Old English texts were discovered and when they came into public knowledge as precursors of our English, see these links:

The Norton Anthology of English Literature online--Beowulf

One contemporary view of how to teach Old English literature

Lets I be called an old serious fussbudget for promoting scholarship, let me say that Tolkien was part of the initial excitement of the first stages of rediscovery of Old English. The philology which to our contemporary times is now old and superceded by linquistics was in Tolkien's time cutting edge--or as cutting edge as Oxford could be in those days.

So, part of this development of fantasy was concurrent with the rediscovery--perhaps it can even be said, discovery--of pre-Christian culture on the British Isles--the recognition of so very many regional dialects, the recovery--yes, that is the better word, recovery--of pagan legends, stories, myths. Perhaps this is why Tolkien so strongly wished to present his Legendarium as a history--part of the zeitgeist of his times, at least pre-WWI.


drigel: About our biographical sources: Carpenter's book is a marvellous read, but as readers of biographies know, there can be many versions of biographies. The Letters we have are selected letters, not collected, and it is very highly possible that letters remain in the hands of heirs of recipients, or trapped in pages of books sold second hand, stashed away in back files of libraries in England, that kind of thing. I also read somewhere--and can't recall now where--that Tolkien left a diary, which is unpublished by will of the Tolkien Estate. I could be wrong about both these facts, of course. Sussing out a writer's character is about as definitive a project as determining canonicity.

We've had bits and bites of discussion over what kind of fantasy Tolkien was writing. As davem said on another thread, Tolkien's fantasy is quite different, from, say, Gaiman's. Gaiman attempts to recoup elements of archetype and chaos and disorder into the 'modern' sensibility. Tolkien--his is historically based I suppose one could say. Lewis was a religious apologist.

Originally Posted by LMP

But there also could be something in LotR and the rest of the Legendarium that we can't see because of our place in history. The passing of time and its contexts will make it possible for those who follow us to see what we cannot, and that might also be true in terms of Tolkien.

They will see what their time helps them see which is not to say they won't also have their blindness along with insight.

All of which is to say that I find it rather funny, these comments which tend to look down on Books--which isn't to say that all BD should be about is Books.

I'm still waiting for a good thread which discusses Tolkien's sense of humour. On the other hand, I can see the possiblity of a werewolf game where the characters are the LotR characters. Now, if that were moderated by pio or Child, boy the cannonical possibilities of the rpg aspects there would be incredible.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Yes...I do hold certain unpleasant memories about journals of school days gone by...A couple of my teachers actually counted any lines I'd left blank at the end of whatever meaningless rambling I'd written, and took points off for not filling them. Little did they know that I already kept a journal hidden away at home, and also wrote short fiction for fun (none of which will ever see the light of day).

The things they do to get kids to write are just as bad as the things they do to get kids to read.

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not sure its possible to define 'western culture' precisely enough to be able to say its waning. Certainly its changing, but its as likely as not to be changing in a 'western' way into another phase of 'western' culture. Change is inevitable in any case, & to be welcomed if only because the alternative is stagnation. Besides, if 'Western Culture' does disappear it will be because it wasn't going anywhere, & couldn't adapt.

Very true... I think it's certainly changing faster than it was 10 years ago, at least in the USA. Changing into what, I'm not quite sure. Who knows what the history books are going to make of the early 2000's...?

On the subject of Tolkien becoming dated that LMP brought up, I also doubt LOTR will ever be dated--Its continued popularity even over half a century after it was written is definite evidence of that. I certainly get different things out of the book each time I read it, depending on what's going on in my immediate surroundings, my own life...and what's going on on a world level. It's always interesting to see what stands out to me on a new read, and how it differs from what I especially noticed the time before.