Some History and a Question.....

[Child of the 7th Age]

Although many U.S. colleges now offer courses on Tolkien, it wasn’t always that way. Bear with me on a trip down memory lane.

Years ago, you could only find research collections and/or classes at a few schools with Christian ties, including interdenominational Wheaton College in Illinois (Prof. Clyde Kilby) or Catholic Marquette, which had acquired Tolkien’s papers. By the late nineties, a few more professors were working in the field; the best known were Verlyn Flieger - University of Maryland (Her Ph.D. was from Catholic U in 1978) and Tom Shippey who left Leeds to teach at the Jesuit-run St. Louis U..

Over the years, there's been a growing contingent of academic librarians and professors in the U.S. doing research in Tolkien studies. Some of these are well known, others less so, but the numbers are impressive: Richard West (U Wisconsin-Madison), Amy Sturgis (Belmont University), Wayne Hammond (Williams College), Marjorie Burns (Portland State), Jane Chance (Rice University), Neil Isaacs (University of Mississippi), Alfred K. Siewers (Bucknell University), John Rateliffe (Marquette University), Michael Drout (Wheaton College in Mass.), Leslie Donovan (University of New Mexico), David Bratman (Stanford University) as well as independent scholars like Dr. Anne Petty. I could list more, but I don’t want to put you to sleep!

For a long time, the “most selective” schools left Tolkien off their syllabi. (Yale’s Harold Bloom was especially unfriendly.) Now, even this has changed: University of Chicago, Harvard University, and Rice University.

Tolkien is also making an appearance at traditional academic conferences. The International Medieval Congress, a well respected annual session on medieval studies at Western Michigan U, has had as many as three sessions on JRRT.

The question I’m raising is this. Has there been the same expenditure of energy by profs in the UK, and, if not, why? I will admit that the US “kidnapped” T. S. Shippey. Plus, England has always had an amazingly vital Tolkien Society; many dedicated “amateurs” love Middle-earth and turn out wonderful articles and books. In terms of popular culture, there is no other country where Tolkien is so beloved as in England. It's also likely there are university courses being offered in the UK that I am not aware of since I live deep in the backwoods of Texas. Yet, I think I would have caught more names of UK profs on published articles and such, as I do keep an eye on those.

Is this my imagination, or is most of the academic energy in Tolkien studies now coming from the U.S.? I’m not trying to wave a nationalistic flag, and would be happy to be shown that I have overlooked or misjudged something. I am leaving out any consideration of Tolkien studies in Canada or various European countries. since I am woefully ignorant of their contribution.

If my perceptions are accurate, could this be a reflection of the fact that a prophet often fails to receive due respect within his own country? Or is there something about English academics that makes them particularly resistant to Tolkien’s charm, despite the outpouring of love from the rest of their countrymen? Can anyone help or explain?

[Lalwendë]

I'm surprised that you think that Tolkien is more popular in the UK than in the US! I would have it the other way around! Certainly, Tolkien studies are very scant in the UK, and a lot of the English faculties would not approve at all of his inclusion in 'the canon' - some at best may include Tolkien's work in conjunction with studies on Fairy tale or Folklore, or maybe in conjunction with Communication Studies and 'modules' on Sci-Fi or popular culture. I understand the title of one of the Chairs at Oxford is the JRR Tolkien Professor of Medieval English Literature.

However, I have found a couple of links, since I would be interested myself to see if my opinion still holds true or not.... This could also prove to be an interesting project, to compile some kind of 'list' of places where Tolkien might be studied. Some 'Downers contemplating study might also find this useful.

Bristol University has a one semester course on Englishness which includes Tolkien. Bristol is also the home of Ronald Hutton, so potentially some good learning to be had.

The Leeds University School of English is notable for having a few courses including Tolkien's work and Tolkienist- friendly modules. Romance Ballad & fairy Tale includes LotR as a required text. Leeds also has a reputation of having fiercely opposing sides on many critical issues, such as Modernism Vs Romanticism.

I found a PhD student at Manchester researching Tolkien and Empire: The Creation of Middle Earth and though it is not a course, many PhD students also teach.

Royal Holloway (Univ of London) has a course enticingly titled Tolkien's Roots , though I suspect that this is a fancy title to entice would-be first year undergraduates as no Tolkien is studied.

Hopefully I will come back with more links, so I will excuse the possibility of a double post in advance...

[Lalwendë]

Some more bits I've found:

Some scholars of Tolkien include Dr Gray at Chichester University and Josh Bradbury at Bangor University. London Met has a more cultural studies based class within a wider module, which looks at the films. The University of Liverpool has a unit where Tree and Leaf is a required text.

But how about this course at University of Central Lancashire, AKA Preston University? This is the only entire module devoted to Tolkien that I've yet discovered!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lalwende

Thanks for the quick response. Just wanted to clarify something first.

I'm surprised that you think that Tolkien is more popular in the UK than in the US! I would have it the other way around!

Whoops! My post is giving a misleading impression if that is how you read it. I was trying to say the opposite. (That's what I get for doing a post in the middle of the night when I am half asleep! ) See this sentence (the italics are mine):

.....England has always had an amazingly vital Tolkien Society; many dedicated “amateurs” love Middle-earth and turn out wonderful articles and books. In terms of popular culture, there is no other country where Tolkien is so beloved as in England.

I lived in England for several years when I was younger: working as a nanny, attending school in Cardiff, and later staying in London to do thesis research. I was constantly impressed by how many "people on the street" loved Tolkien and could talk about his writing in a way that showed both passion and intelligence. What I was questioning in my post was strictly Tolkien in an "academic" setting:

• whether there were classes in the UK that university students could take to study the writings of Tolkien, and
• whether there weren't a larger number of professors in the U.S. who focus their scholarly research on Tolkien than in the UK.

In the course of helping my son with college applications, I had noticed how many colleges and universities in the U.S., at least those that had a liberal arts curriculum, now offer electives on Tolkien and his writings. A quarter of the schools that were on his list for consideration had one or more classes in Tolkien (and though he definitely has an interest in Tolkien, that choice of schools wasn't intentional). Thinking about this and making a list of recent "scholarly" publications in my head, I began to wonder if there weren't many more academics in the U.S. than in the U.K. who were specializing in Tolkien.

If that is true--f there is more university scholarship focusing on Tolkien in the U.S. than the U.K., I was very curious why that would be so. One of the things some people who love Tolkien are concerned about is that the writings be regarded as "serious" literature. Part of the process of being accepted as "literature" is that Tolkien be included in the university curriculum in some fashion, critics take him seriously, and so-called academics do "research" on him and his works.

All this rambling really touches on a third set of questions, perhaps questions that are even more important than my original ones. How important is it that Tolkien be embraced by academics to be recognized as an extraordinary piece of literature in the long sweep of history? Or can "popular" acclaim alone, the feelings and assessment of people-at-large, assure that the books continue on from generation to generation? Or is this really a "useless" question? Perhaps, it doesn't matter a fig whether Tolkien's writings are considered "literature"? And yet I sense when we talk with such frustration about critics and the lack of understanding that some show towards Tolkien, some of us do think this question of "literature" is not unimportant.


I have to run now, but your links look enticing. I'll come back later and check them out.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I don't know; I once had to talk about 'Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics' for a seminar, which went into the 'money for old rope' category.

The interesting point is that almost all of the academics mentioned above are concerned in some way with medieval studies. Jane Chance was in Nottingham last year, delivering an Institute for Medieval Studies lecture; Tom Shippey used to occupy Tolkien's old chair at Leeds, and writes mainly on Old English and Old Norse literature. Michael Drout teaches Old English, but has also done work on Herman Melville (an author whose works received hardly any critical approval when they were published). Also, as Lalwende has pointed out, the majority of British Tolkien courses are concerned mainly with his sources, be it from the perspective of folklore, myth or medieval literature. I know that some of the English faculty at Nottingham wanted to set up just such a course to lead students into early medieval studies through a study of Tolkien's influences.

I think that the reason for this, aside from Tolkien's persistent problems with scholars of English literature, is that British universities are often wary of devoting entire courses to single authors. Exceptions tend to be hardy perennials like Chaucer and Shakespeare or the institution's more distinguished alumni, as in the case of D.H. Lawrence. This approach makes sense, since there are just so many British vernacular writers from the seventh century to the present day that much of the corpus can only really be understood in terms of eras and movements. To be honest, I think that as a subject of academic study Tolkien really isn't prolific or accepted enough to warrant his own courses just yet. In the medieval community he's accepted largely for two reasons: firstly because his academic work in that field has been so influential, and secondly because the tools he uses in his fiction are more acceptable to someone who enjoys medieval literature than they are to someone who prefers the late-twentieth-century novel. To my mind, if Tolkien fits into any movement it's the medieval Nordic revival spearheaded by people like William Morris, which was finally killed off by the Nazis when they adopted a lot of its influences. That, I suppose, would make a very interesting course, or at least a lecture, but, like most courses that could involve JRRT, it would require a lot of cross-faculty co-operation and the study of some unfashionable and obscure people.

Nonetheless, universities, whatever they might say, are followers of profit and fashion. With more and more people discovering both him and medieval studies, Tolkien may yet appear on more syllabi just as a matter of supply and demand. Obviously Oxford isn't likely to lose many 'customers' (apparently students should be regarded as such nowadays) by ignoring him, but other, less secure, institutions might feel tempted to jump on the Tolkien bandwagon. If, as Germaine Greer lamented, Tolkien has proven to be the most influential writer of his century, it may be inevitable that his work will get its own courses. Time will tell, and the only objection I can think of is that Tolkien would have preferred it if people were to study Cynewulf or Bede rather than him. Personally I prefer to apply academic tools to the private study of his work, which is cheaper and doesn't threaten to take the fun out of it.

[Cailín]

Since you specifically mentioned either the UK or the USA, I’m not really sure whether you would find this relevant, but I thought I would mention it anyway. I’m a Celtic / English (with an emphasis on Old and Medieval English) student at a Dutch university and though Tolkien is often mentioned in relation to Anglo Saxon and Medieval English texts, his Middle Earth and Lord of the Rings are not considered part of the Academic canon and discussing him during sessions can be risky if you have the wrong professor.

However, I am planning to continue my studies somewhere in England, Ireland or Scotland next year and for example, UC Dublin offers a seminar on Tolkien (Twentieth-Century Epic and Romance: The Lord of the Rings and Gormenghast), and so do several other universities I briefly glanced at, but on the other hand at Trinity college it is considered as ‘Popular Literature’ again (though that does not necessarily mean it is less worth looking at).

Perhaps there are simply much more American academics than British ones (which would be rather logical in terms of population). Or the stereotype that Americans more easily except modern and particular genre works as literature than the British might just be true. But I would say that what The Squatter of Amon Rûdh says is quite true; I seem to be hearing more and more Tolkien during lectures and I believe there is actually someone doing their BA thesis on him this year. Though - it could be I’m just getting hyper-sensitive to anything ME related.

[davem]

I remember Ronald Hutton's comment at Birmingham that while Tolkien may have set out to create a mythology for England, what he had actually done was to create a mythology for America.

I wonder if there's some truth in this. I wonder if the reason for the seriousness with which Tolkien is taken in US accademia is that American culture is such a recent creation (relatively speaking) & is still, in many ways, in formation. Mythology is bound up with a nation's culture & history. For all Tolkien missed England's lost mythology, we do have a long history & a strong cultural identity. I grew up in a village with a medieval church, only a few miles from a ruined Priory & a beautiful old castle (Conisborough, which was Walter Scott's inspiration for Ivanhoe). An hours drive from where I currently live there are stone circles.

What I'm suggesting is that while we may not have a mythology which has survived intact from the pre-Christian period, there are 'echoes' of it all around us, which we can almost 'hear' if we listen hard enough. In that sense we don't need another mythology. So, we love Tolkien as a source of entertainment, 'philosophy', & 'escape', even as a way of connecting us to that 'hidden' mythic world that lies all around us, but we don't need him to provide an 'identity' for us.

I wonder if this is the reason for the 'Tolkien cult' that swept American campuses in the sixties, & lead Tolkien to say that some of his American readers were involved in the stories in the way he himself was not. Americans of European origin in particular don't have such a 'cultural/mythic landscape' - there is, of course, such a thing for the native peoples, but its not truly accessible for non Native Americans. Tolkien's mythology is like a European mythology, but its not a specifically English, Germanic, Norse, French, or Romance one. Therefore its one that all European-Americans can relate to (I note that all of the Accademics Child mentions share a white European Ancestry).

In short, for English readers Tolkien's work is a link to our real historical & cultural identity, our mythology, our living link with our ancestral landscape, whereas for European-Americans it is a substitute for their lack of one. Hence it will have a greater value for Americans than for us, & so they will make more of it.


I'll get me coat.......

[drigel]

good thesis davem

There certainly is a link between the lack of cultural identity and the mythology that JRRT presents. And it would be one of the factors that caused the wave of interest across the States. Among us WASP's anyways. After all, we are decendants of colonialists and immigrants who weren't particularly fond of, or at the very least disenchanted with what (the real) western European history wrought for them. Yet one cannot deny genetics. Roots is roots. Not necessarily a need for a mythology, rather a more sympathetic ear for it, if that makes sense. Not a greater value, but perhaps a greater appreciation for what the author is trying to accomplish.

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.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by drigel

After all, we are decendants of colonialists and immigrants who weren't particularly fond of, or at the very least disenchanted with what (the real) western European history wrought for them. Yet one cannot deny genetics. Roots is roots.

I'm not sure if I'd say that the European immigrants of the last centuries were disenchanted with or not fond of their cultural history. By and large, I think that most immigrants had a fondness for "the old country". It was simply the lure of a better life, and a growing overcrowding in their own countries that forced them out.

It would be this very nostalgia for the "old country" and its ways that would make the descendents of the immigrants susceptible to a "fake mythology", recalling as it does the cultural history that we've had glimpses of passed down by our forefathers, but with which we are no longer acquainted.

Of course, I could just be restating what you just said...

[drigel]

bbwwaaahh


better said, Form. well done

either way you say it, just another step on the road to the long defeat, if you want to look at it in those terms. One step further away from the heart of the matter...

[Child of the 7th Age]

First, thanks to everyone for joining in this discussion. I'd hoped to get back to this thread earlier but the last two days have been a little crazy. A large truck ran a red light, narrowly missed a school bus, and came barrelling into my car. I am a bit stiff and sore but otherwise fine. My car was not so lucky! I've been tangled up with appraisers and such since yesterday afternoon.

Now, down to business....

I remember Ronald Hutton's comment at Birmingham that while Tolkien may have set out to create a mythology for England, what he had actually done was to create a mythology for America.

Davem

That is a priceless quote. I think there is a great deal of truth in your passage. However, I did want to add a few words of caution regarding one or two of your other comments.

I wonder if this is the reason for the 'Tolkien cult' that swept American campuses in the sixties, & lead Tolkien to say that some of his American readers were involved in the stories in the way he himself was not. Americans of European origin in particular don't have such a 'cultural/mythic landscape' - there is, of course, such a thing for the native peoples, but its not truly accessible for non Native Americans. Tolkien's mythology is like a European mythology, but its not a specifically English, Germanic, Norse, French, or Romance one. Therefore its one that all European-Americans can relate to (I note that all of the Accademics Child mentions share a white European Ancestry).

For a moment, I'll leave aside the wider question of American readers in search of a "mythic identity" and focus instead on the sixties, which are near and dear to my heart. I was very involved with Tolkien during my college years, including correspondence with Vera Chapman and involvement in local societies. My real impression was that the craziness about Tolkien in the sixties stemmed first and foremost from students who believed they were throwing off the yoke of conformity, the commercialism and such of modern American society. While part of that was re-establishment with a mythic past (even if only an imagined one), an even greater share was focusing on those aspects of the story that represented "rebellion" and a repudiation of certain values. It was the repudiation of modern American values, at least of certain aspects of those values, which was the heart of the thing rather than an emphasis on reconnecting with the "mythic" past. the latter may have been present but was regarded as only a means to achieve the other, more primary goal.

There are two strong indicators of this. One of the things that drew younger readers to Tolkien was his emphasis on the need to respect the earth. It was a time when people were just beginning to realize that you could not abuse the natural world, reaping easy financial profits, without losing something very precious. Tolkien's book was loved by sixties students because they felt it echoed their own views on environmental issues. We could easily argue that such a stance is overly simplistic, but there is no doubt that college students saw this as one of the main attractions of the book.

Secondly, there is the whole issue of pipes and smoking and the general lifestyle of the hobbits. Rightly or wrongly (and undoubtedly wrongly! ) students identified with certain aspects of the hobbit life. They felt the Shire was a reinforcement of their own rejection of many things: too much of an emphasis on machinery and materialism, freedom to "smoke: whatever they wanted, etc. I am sure some of this gave Tolkien kinniptions!

The whole idea of a mythic past attracted only a small number of readers. 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 of a factor. Even I would have to admit that "values" played a huge role in my early attraction to Tolkien.

There is another point to remember here. In the sixties, readers had no idea of the full extent of Middle-earth or the Legendarium. All we had was the Hobbit and LotR. It wasn't until the seventies/early eighties with the release of the Letters, Carpenter's bio, and the Silm that we began to suspect something much larger was at stake. If you had asked me how I viewed Tolkien in 1968, I would not have used the word "myth" as I would today. I think we have to be careful not to read our present and enhanced understanding of Tolkien into the past. It really was different then.

I'll get back in a later post to comment on the general question of the identity of Americans vis a vis Tolkien as well as some of the other ideas expressed in this thread. Now, back to my insurance adjustor.....

[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?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Sidetracking on recent posts instead of adding to the main topic - I beg your pardon! It will be brief, just a few thoughts.

Davem, you mention the fact that mythology was once the religion of its time. I wonder if that might not be another significant factor in the effect Tolkien's books had on readers. At a time when religion, especially organised churches, was being rejected by young people (rebelling, as Child so astutely notices), they still needed something to replace it in their lives. Science, the god of the previous years, had proved disappointing and disillusioning. Some turned back to what they considered original Biblical faith (Jesus people, for example); some turned to Eastern religions, even to Satanic cults; others who were concerned with ecology followed that religiously.

LotR provided a deep undercurrent of spirituality without banging anyone on the head with it, presented deep truths in an easily digestible form, and gave role models for just about anyone, so filled a gap for those people who responded. Whether that lead to rabid fandom or to scholarship depended on the personality or circumstances. I doubt that it became a substitute religion for many, and am not sure if it lead many to seek religion in the church (especially Catholic, as Tolkien's influence by his own beliefs shone through only in a muted fachion). However, I do think that the religious aspect is one piece of the mosaic that is the Tolkien phenomenon.

Now, back to the actual topic...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Esty

At a time when religion, especially organised churches, was being rejected by young people (rebelling, as Child so astutely notices), they still needed something to replace it in their lives. Science, the god of the previous years, had proved disappointing and disillusioning.

I think you are on to something here. Western society became increasingly secularised in the second half of the 20th century, and in addition, people lived under a new kind of threat, the very real possibility of total global destruction. I know that equating the Ring with the 'Bomb' is not de rigeur for Tolkienists, but that's not what I am saying; LotR makes a clear case that science applied incorrectly, in the form of destructive technologies, could and would lead to disaster.

Given that the sixties saw the rise in the US of the anti-Vietnam movement, and in the UK (and the US, and rest of the world) of CND, Tolkien's work must have been highly appropriate. And it must not be denied that what Child says is correct - there was also a youth culture of mind-expanding substances and rock music which would be sympathetic to epic fantasy. Interestingly, in Liverpool in the 80s and early 90s, the 'scally' youth culture was strongly focussed on 60s and 70s music, 'substances' and anything vaguely 'mind-expanding' - Tolkien was very popular; one of the more interesting effects of 'Thatcher's Britain'.

Originally Posted by Squatter

Nonetheless, universities, whatever they might say, are followers of profit and fashion. With more and more people discovering both him and medieval studies, Tolkien may yet appear on more syllabi just as a matter of supply and demand. Obviously Oxford isn't likely to lose many 'customers' (apparently students should be regarded as such nowadays) by ignoring him, but other, less secure, institutions might feel tempted to jump on the Tolkien bandwagon. If, as Germaine Greer lamented, Tolkien has proven to be the most influential writer of his century, it may be inevitable that his work will get its own courses. Time will tell, and the only objection I can think of is that Tolkien would have preferred it if people were to study Cynewulf or Bede rather than him. Personally I prefer to apply academic tools to the private study of his work, which is cheaper and doesn't threaten to take the fun out of it.

I'm interested to see how the new focus on Higher Education as a 'market' will pan out. In the US, a University education has always been expensive; over here its a relatively new idea that students should pay in some form for their education. I would like to see if given the new emphasis on students as 'customers', Faculties begin to change their courses to reflect what undergraduates demand. This could either mean that there are a lot of IT and business courses as students are thinking about paying off debts, or it could mean they instead decide to follow purely what interests them.

I think the greater number of Tolkien courses in the US may have something to do with the financing and organisation of Universities. In the US, there are religiously funded Universities which may be more amenable to studying a writer who was a known devout Catholic. Here, barring a handful of tiny (20-30 students) Oxford Private Halls and The Jews' College (if that is still going?), Universities are secular and they work relatively closely with the Government on strategic planning of future courses. Arts subjects are still extremely well-defended against any accusations that they are 'useless'.

English is still a phenomenally popular degree in the UK, and most degrees combine Language and Literature; I cannot see this changing. However, some associated departments are closing down such as Linguistics at Durham and a significant number of Foreign Language departments. If any increase in the number of courses where Tolkien can be studied is likely to happen, then I think it will be most likely to come from former Polytechnics and institutions outside the 'Russell Group' (Oxbridge, London, Durham etc) - as seen with the Brian Rosebury course offered at Central Lancashire University.

I actually agree that to study Tolkien formally may take the fun out of his work. I certainly would not like to see his work forced on unwilling teenagers at school as they would then hate it, but it would be nice to have the opportunity to study his work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

I doubt that it became a substitute religion for many, and am not sure if it lead many to seek religion in the church

Perhaps it filled the gap they felt with the loss of traditional religion. Its interesting that the book which so inspired them was such a 'spiritual' work but one which didn't promote a specific religion. Perhaps it wasn't that they had rejected religion, but that religion had moved away from them.

What LotR offered, I think, was a spritual perspective. I remember that after reading LotR I became much more intensely aware of the natural world around me. Middle-earth 'overlaid' the countryside around me & so made it more 'magical'.

I think the danger of studying Tolkien is that it can actually lead us away from that experience (which is why so many people who love LotR will have nothing to do with HoM-e for instance). Its too easy to get sidetracked into studying his sources & doing what he condemned the Beowulf critics of doing - treating the work not as a poem but as a source of historical & cultural information & in the process rejecting the story & the magic.

I'm glad that most readers don't simply go on to study the sources, or go back to church in response to reading Tolkien. The sense of awe & wonder the work inspires is too precious & too easily lost. Tolkien's work gives us something unique. The sources (& religion) give us something too - maybe something more 'important', but that sense of wonder in the natural world is also important. Those studying Tolkien are perhaps seeking to recapture & even enhance that first experience, to build on it, but I'm not sure they don't risk losing it in the process, by turning it into 'work'.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Esty, Davem, Lalwende,

I don't mind "off-topic". Some of my most enlightening conversations on the Downs have been entirely "off-topic"!

I agree with everyone completely on this. When I speak of the search for values, I am talking about identity and meaning. While that may not be religion in an institutional sense, it certainly involves the search for what is spiritual. There was an explicit repudiation of the emphasis on material values and a desire to go beyond that. Part of that could and did take the form of Tolkien whose writings carried a message of faith and hope without pinning the reader down to the specifics of belief.

Davem - I'm not sure if I see the sharp dichotomy between the "search for the personal" and the "search for the sources". I can only speak from anecdotal evidence: my own experience and that of friends. . My perception is that people don't go on to the latter unless they have first experienced the former. The Ph.D. route is such a terrible grind, and the economic benefits of following such a route are often negligible. It's not like going to med or law school. I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US many doctorates in humanities fields fail to get "real" jobs, at least full-time academic teaching positions. That was certainly true when I came out in the seventies, but it is even the case today. Graduates often have to patch together a series of adjunct positions, work in museums or libraries, etc. Most humanities people know this when they sign on the dotted line to undertake a course of study. In order to embark on the quest for the sources, you have to have an underlying passion or love that fuels that desire and gets you over the hard places. I can't imagine going through a doctoral program without that underlying love in your gut.

Sometimes, you sense that love in the writing that scholars produce and sometimes you don't. When I read Verlyn Flieger, I have no doubt that she has a strong personal attraction to Lord of the Rings that is more than a simple fascination with sources. It is more than a text to dissect and analyze. With a scholar like Jane Chance, you don't see it that much in her writing. But if you speak to her in person, you get a totally different impression. (She lives here in Houston.) Whether you see it or not in the end product (and that may have to do with personality and how talented a given writer is), I believe it's there at the base of what they do.

As you've pointed out there are so many medievalists on my list of professors in the U.S. who do research on Tolkien. It's interesting to ask what came first....the chicken or the egg. Did Tolkien lead to medieval studies, or did medieval studies lead to Tolkien? My guess is that it is largely the former, although I have no means to prove that. If so, Tolkien may be responsible for a modest but real rise in the number of professors, classes and programs in the field of medieval studies. I think he would have liked that.

Lalwende - Thanks for reminding me about Brian Rosebury. He is certainly a professor who's done an interesting book on Tolkien. For some reason, I had him pegged in my mind as a "Yank." I didn't realize he taught at Lancashire. (That's where part of my dad's family was from. The rest hailed from Cornwall.)

Your comment on polytechnics is interesting. I think you are correct. We don't have such fine distinctions in categorizing colleges. There are certainly schools like Georgia Tech but they are still considered universities. It's also interesting to me that so many serious science people have an interest in Tolkien. At my son's school, two of his teachers were interested in Tolkien on much more than a casual basis. One was in physics and the other held a doctorate in chemistry.

I also like Davem's idea of the importance of community. I think that did play a role. To tell the truth, with the emergence of the internet, I think it reinforces that particular factor. The concept of community seen in Tolkien is reinforced by boards like this one. It's almost a case of life emulating art.

[Bêthberry]

What an excellent discussion your thread generated, Child! I'm sorry I missed its initial activity, but perhaps I can suggest a context in which to view the inclusion of Tolkien in more American curricula.

Before we take this inclusion to represent something specifically related to Tolkien, I think it would be relevant to consider how American university curricula have changed over the last fifty or even one hundred years.

It is not only Tolkien who has been newly included. We can find other popular writers besides Tolkien now being included on reading lists and being made the subject of scholarly lectures. We would also find that other forms of previously overlooked literatures are now the subject of courses, such as literature of the formerly British colonies, Black literature (particularly in the U.S.), working class literature. Norman Feltes at York University in Toronto was responsible for 'unearthing' a substantial amount of reading material which was devoured by the working classes in nineteenth century England but which was largely ignored by the leisurely and academic classes. I doubt I need to mention that women writers have in particular been the recipients of a great deal of academic interest where previously most were ignored.

So, I wonder if it less a new found respect for and interest in Tolkien and more a wider appreciation of what constitutes acceptable reading material for academic study. One could of course be as cynical as Squatter and suggest that, in the 'publish or perish' academic world, finding new authors to publish about is tantamount to an academic version of 'Survivor.'

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Perhaps it filled the gap they felt with the loss of traditional religion. Its interesting that the book which so inspired them was such a 'spiritual' work but one which didn't promote a specific religion. Perhaps it wasn't that they had rejected religion, but that religion had moved away from them.

It is interesting that even though traditional Western religions have declined and society has become much more secular (I'm thinking of the UK as opposed to the US which seems to be quite the opposite), that there has been enormous growth in 'personal' spiritual exploration. It is now entirely acceptable to make use of astrology, tarot, crystal healing, numerology etc in everyday life as spiritual 'tools'. Even I can remember when such things were considered 'weird' and I'm only in my 30s. Even the Sunday morning BBC 'God Spot' is occupied by a thoroughly ecumenical magazine show exploring faith and spirituality from all angles. I don't think its mere coincidence that interest in Tolkien, fantasy and sci-fi has grown alongside this more personal focus on belief; people might be secular but they still seem to need something meaningful beyond everyday life.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

It is not only Tolkien who has been newly included. We can find other popular writers besides Tolkien now being included on reading lists and being made the subject of scholarly lectures. We would also find that other forms of previously overlooked literatures are now the subject of courses, such as literature of the formerly British colonies, Black literature (particularly in the U.S.), working class literature. Norman Feltes at York University in Toronto was responsible for 'unearthing' a substantial amount of reading material which was devoured by the working classes in nineteenth century England but which was largely ignored by the leisurely and academic classes. I doubt I need to mention that women writers have in particular been the recipients of a great deal of academic interest where previously most were ignored.

It was only around 15 years ago that I was at University and we had not only optional modules on what was non-traditional 'canon' literature but these texts were included in core modules too. Certainly where I studied, black and women's literature was considered well within the 'canon'. I also undertook a unit on literature of the 1930s which lead me on to a discovery of a whole genre of working class fiction after studying Walter Greenwood's 'Love On the Dole' - much of it only available from small socialist printing presses. However, fantasy and sci-fi were still not considered acceptable as courses of study on my degree even as specialist papers; a fellow student struggled to have his dissertation on graphic novels accepted, and I found difficulty finding someone to mark a paper on Kurt Vonnegut (it was the tutor with an interest in satire who took it on). I still think that in the UK we're a good few years behind the times with regard to studying Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Child

Thanks for reminding me about Brian Rosebury. He is certainly a professor who's done an interesting book on Tolkien. For some reason, I had him pegged in my mind as a "Yank." I didn't realize he taught at Lancashire. (That's where part of my dad's family was from. The rest hailed from Cornwall.)

Your comment on polytechnics is interesting. I think you are correct. We don't have such fine distinctions in categorizing colleges. There are certainly schools like Georgia Tech but they are still considered universities. It's also interesting to me that so many serious science people have an interest in Tolkien. At my son's school, two of his teachers were interested in Tolkien on much more than a casual basis. One was in physics and the other held a doctorate in chemistry.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the dismissal of Tolkien by the Arts establishment in the UK is due to his huge fan base in the more 'techie' community. We have to be honest and admit that there is still an image problem with regard to Tolkien in that his fans are viewed as nerdy and into computers and gadgets (as I am, and I have to say, if being into computers and gadgets makes me a nerd then so be it...). Certainly here, there is a pretty big divide between Arts and Sciences. Arts people are 'cool' while Science people are 'geeks'. Yet there is little difference in actual 'grey matter'. I have in the past found this pretty frustrating as I like a lot of 'cool' Arts stuff, yet Tolkien is seemingly always on the mental checklist of 'uncool' things.

I don't know if this will ever change to be honest. In the wake of the films it seemed for a while that to be into Tolkien was a very 'cool' thing indeed, but this seems to have abated a little now. However, as a new generation of young Tolkien fans starts to go through university and demands to study things they enjoy and have those things taken seriously I have some hope. Even if it all comes to naught then it's not going to affect what i think, as I'm old enough to like what I like and not care if it's cool or not!

Have to give you a special nod there as someone who has Lancastrian blood, though davem will not approve, as a proud Yorkshire Tyke.

[Nogrod]

First of all, I must agree with Bethberry's comment: fine discussion - and I'm being so frustrated to see this only this evening! Would like to comment on everything, but for the convenience of other reader's eyes, just spotting some comments of Lalwendë

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It is interesting that even though traditional Western religions have declined and society has become much more secular (I'm thinking of the UK as opposed to the US which seems to be quite the opposite), that there has been enormous growth in 'personal' spiritual exploration. It is now entirely acceptable to make use of astrology, tarot, crystal healing, numerology etc in everyday life as spiritual 'tools'. Even I can remember when such things were considered 'weird' and I'm only in my 30s. Even the Sunday morning BBC 'God Spot' is occupied by a thoroughly ecumenical magazine show exploring faith and spirituality from all angles. I don't think its mere coincidence that interest in Tolkien, fantasy and sci-fi has grown alongside this more personal focus on belief; people might be secular but they still seem to need something meaningful beyond everyday life.

I share Lalwendë's suspicions about this grand story of secularization. It was a story built up by the enlightenment, and it did have great visions: reason against prejudice, truth against magic, progress against conservatism etc. You know this.

And in some sense, this secularization did go on for a long time, the 80's or 90's being the peak, I could guess. But after that, we have had a turn of the tide, a backlash of sorts. At least here in Finland, where I live and teach in senior secondary high school, teaching f.ex. those students that do not belong to church (all the church members' have a mandatory subject in school: religion, I'll have the rest as my pupils).

But into the point. Even as more people are taking leave from the church, the rise of all these new-age "religions", the Wicca-communities etc. have made their mark in western societes, tearing down official church's stature even more. As from a sort of common zeitgeist, people have propably turned to be even more religious, or at least more openly craving for "spiritual" levels in their lives, than the story of secularization would like to admit. The newly emerged fanship of Tolkien could be counted as a part of it (Hollywood wouldn't make films for zero-audiences: they know the bussiness).

Has this something to do with protestantism (or is protestantism a sequel to this overall developement of individualism)? Martin Luther banged his theses at the door of his church in 16th century to show, that he believed in God, but not in a way, that his church teached one should believe. Last year's study here in Finland revealed, that something like 60% or more of lutherans' (83% of the populace)were thinking the same way: I do believe, but in my own way, not the church's way...

Sometimes I wonder if some of the dismissal of Tolkien by the Arts establishment in the UK is due to his huge fan base in the more 'techie' community. We have to be honest and admit that there is still an image problem with regard to Tolkien in that his fans are viewed as nerdy and into computers and gadgets (as I am, and I have to say, if being into computers and gadgets makes me a nerd then so be it...). Certainly here, there is a pretty big divide between Arts and Sciences. Arts people are 'cool' while Science people are 'geeks'. Yet there is little difference in actual 'grey matter'. I have in the past found this pretty frustrating as I like a lot of 'cool' Arts stuff, yet Tolkien is seemingly always on the mental checklist of 'uncool' things.

At least here in Finland, Tolkien's image-problem has been quite clear in the academics'. He's no modernist, to be sure: so the professors' will not like him. And either could he be labelled post-modernist or deconstructionist: so the cool assistants and lectureres' won't talk of him! He is just out of the canon of "high literature".

Well, post-modernism quite died at the last decade, and there has been quite a many burials of modernism already... Still Tolkien is not taken seriously at the arts departments. These Hollywood filmatisations sure did a great job to enforce these banners! So in this regard - with respect to universities - I sadly have to disagree with Lalwendë: the popular success of LotR films kind of closed the doors just as they might have been being opened a bit...

So I don't see this as a arts vs. science -people problem, but as a more general academic problem of fighting out the canon. But the time of Tolkien is coming.

The thing I am afraid of, is that Tolkien could easily be a part of a new nationalistic-mythologic-irrationalistic-spiritualistic-individualistic-emotivistic-racistic etc. -trend, with Lönnrot's Kalevala, and the nazi mythologies (two of the trends mentioned here, there sure are more of these) as well. It would not be the way he would have wanted, but is a way most propable, where his name is drawn upon on days to come. Hope I'm wrong, for I still love his work.