Read LotR before you die!

[davem]

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/art...721526,00.html

Ok, LotR came third in the poll for World Book Day conducted by the Museum, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) after To Kill a Mockingbird & the Bible, but its still a substantial result (imo). I wonder what this tells us?

Has Tolkien finally been accepted by the literary establishment, or has it always been up there, & we've just fallen for the Literati's narrow-mindedness, & adopted a defensive position?

Its certainly high praise. I'm ashamed to say I haven't read either of the two above it (& only five of the others on the list) - ok, I've read most of number two in various translations, but not the whole thing.

Considering the other books there I have to say it shows Tolkien is considered a major literary figure, in this country at least. But does it tell us anything more?

EDIT

I also wonder what they think people will get from LotR - why is it the third most important book we should read? Considering the other books on the list it seems it wasn't chosen simply for its entertainment value but that it has something to say. What, exactly, do they think it has to say, I wonder.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I would voice one word of caution. This is a recommendation not from academics but librarians. Therefore, I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that Tolkien is now more accepted by the literary establishment. The two groups are not identical.

Incidentally, I'm a librarian by training. When jobs were so tight for medievalists, I went back and got a second master's and worked for a number of years in academic and university libraries. I loved it and actually found the people I worked with a breath of fresh air compared with the more "rarified" but (in my opinion) more self promoting literary and historical establishment.

Librarians are a unique group! Despite the common stereotype, my experience has been that they are far more likely to be nonconformists, willing to go off the beaten track. It doesn't surprise me that a librarians' group would be the one to put Tolkien on their list. Not only do they know something about the quality of a particular title, but they know what people are actually reading.

Believe me! I was a collection development specialist with oversight for the ordering in all the city libraries, and we ended up ordering tons of Tolkien, not because I loved it but because we all knew our readers loved it. There are some titles that a librarian selects with a grimace because, frankly, they are popular works that really have little merit. There was never any hesitation with Tolkien in this regard because obviously the books had great merit.

Just a side note, I concur with To Kill a Mockingbird. I've always felt that is one of the best books out there if you want to understand the American character--both the good and the bad. How interesting that this recommendation comes from a British group!

I have read a number of these title but will try to tackle Birdsong sometime soon.

P.S. It's interesting to note that a number of Tolkien scholars are librarians. The first names that come to mind are Hammond and his wife who are just coming out with all the new companions and guides.

[davem]

Child

I accept what you say about Librarians not being part of the literary establishment, but this isn't a poll of what's most popular among those who frequent their libraries (I accept that LotR would come near the top of that), but of what books they think people must read. After all, I don't see any books by Terry Pratchet, Catherine Cookson, Jeffrey Archer, Jackie Collins, et al.

So, if I went into my local library & asked for a recommendation, I can assume I would be told LotR after TKaM & the Bible (I'm assuming, maybe wrongly, that they're referring to the Authorised Version for the language as opposed to the message, as this is a literary poll not a religious one). I wonder what the reason is for this recommendation, & whether it is the same in all cases - are there different reasons, different 'messages' perceived by different librarians?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Its certainly high praise. I'm ashamed to say I haven't read either of the two above it (& only five of the others on the list) - ok, I've read most of number two in various translations, but not the whole thing.

Well you can get reading because most of those on the list are on the bookshelves in the house right now...

I think Librarians are a pretty eclectic bunch of people, ranging from the academic (of which Philip Larkin was one) to the librarian in charge of the tiny local village library who might sometimes drive the mobile library and bring the old folks their favourite Cookson novels. And the librarians you might find in our own central library might look at you with a look of distrust if you asked them anything, as they are so used to having to shift drunks out who've merely come into the library for a sleep.

As such, the list is itself quite eclectic which I'm pleased to see; it includes both classics and modern fiction and the serious and the light-hearted.

Originally Posted by Child

P.S. It's interesting to note that a number of Tolkien scholars are librarians. The first names that come to mind are Hammond and his wife who are just coming out with all the new companions and guides.

I wonder if it is the wealth of detail which attracts librarians to Tolkien? Much of their working days must be given over to arranging, classifying and searching for items so I can well imagine the attraction to a writer who has filled his work with detail waiting to be 'arranged'.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

All these polls are for is to stimulate discussion on books, and that's fine. It makes me yell to my mother about how To kill a mockingbird shouldn't be anywhere near the top.

I just can't see what it could possibly tell us. It's just a collection of popular books, sorted randomly (at least it might as well have been).

[littlemanpoet]

All Quite on the Western Front? I'll have to check that one out. Seems like it might be a rip-off of All Quiet on the Western Front, don't you think?

"Ja, Helmut, ve're on die Vestern Front hier."

"Quite, Heinz. Pass the ketchup."

But seriously folks.....

1. race and prejudice and coming of age
2. bedrock of western civilization
3. a revival of Germanic roots, as well as a good ripping yarn
4. a cautionary tale about power (which one could say about the 3 above it)
5. community versus isolation
6. gender relations in western society? (saw the film but never read the book)
7. class consciousness and breaking free of same
8. Quite. horrors of war. quite.
9. fodder for discussion of atheism versus theism? why the church is evil? :shrug:

I tried to be serious, honest. Each minor point above could be extended, of course, into its own treatise. Just my attempt at exposing what "they tell us".

[Child of the 7th Age]

I wonder if it is the wealth of detail which attracts librarians to Tolkien? Much of their working days must be given over to arranging, classifying and searching for items so I can well imagine the attraction to a writer who has filled his work with detail waiting to be 'arranged'.

Lalwende,

I have to smile.

My gut feeling is that the key must lie elsewhere rather than an "attraction to detail". I would respectfully demur on this image of our poor profession. Librarians spend no more and no less time on "detail" than folk in other walks of life. My lawyering husband devotes endless hours to learning precedents and, in the particular area in which he practices, scrutinizes mounds of federal regulations. (Truthfully, I don't know anyone worse about detail than lawyers, and there aren't a large number of them who qualify as Tolkien scholars, SpM and Mithadan excepted, of course.) Similarly, my MD friend endlessly pours over new studies to find tiny clues to help treat her patients.

Just remember that most of the people you meet in a library are not (technically) "librarians". Librarians are not so good (or perhaps less hung up?) on drawing a sharp line between themselves and their support staff than is generally true in other professions. (Certainly, professors are very careful to make sure that you don't mix up a TA and a prof.) Most of the people behind the desks are not librarians. In fact in most larger systems, librarians spend more time managing staff issues and less time on arranging, classifying or searching for items. That was certainly true in every job I held except for my very first one. Remember, too, that those librarians who tend to be professionally active and serve on this type of body are less likely to be the person in charge of a small local branch and more likely to be someone further up the food chain. (It's easier for the latter to get travel money, permission to take off, etc.)

So, if I went into my local library & asked for a recommendation, I can assume I would be told LotR after TKaM & the Bible

Davem

Oh, my goodness! I hope not. If so, they are lousy librarians. They will hopefully speak with you first to get some good idea of what you are looking for.

I can tell you though what will likely happen to these recommendations, from a purely practical point of view. The local system will probably put them out in some kind of flyer with a little blurb on each telling you what it's about, along with the call number so you can quickly find it. Then when you go to the shelf, it will not be there because everyone else has picked up the flyer and searched out the same books! I would strongly recommend you follow Lalwende's good advice and dig the copies out of your own personal bookshelves.


Littlemanpoet

I think you're definitely on to something! Since our profession has such fuzzy edges, we need some way to distinguish ourselves. We can't assume the public recognizes our credentials in the same way they might clearly acknowledge a lawyer, doctor, teacher, or social worker! Librarians are very big on lists, and we tend to be a socially active bunch. We want people to think about big social questions, and we think it's our job to urge them to go forward in that direction. Therefore, you will often see books about war, gender issues, race, class realities on such lists.

Lord of the Rings does look a bit out of place in this company. That doesn't surprise me. Often on such committee picks, snuck in among the various titles, you can identify books that are there for a totally different reason. Simply put, the people who made the list had read the book and dearly loved it. It made a personal impact on their life.

I have served on TLA/ALA committees that drew up book recommendations and have seen this kind of thing happening (though none of my committees were ever this exalted). My gut feeling is that the Lord of the Rings is there because it was a personal favorite of a substantial chunk of the committee. It's not there to teach anybody anything (despite how we love to argue moral/philosophical/relgious underpinings on this board). Rather it's a good story that the recommenders were personally fond of.

Then again, it may be there because they had the good sense to include a children's librarian on the committee, and children's librarians are notoriously fond of real stories. I really do mean this. In a world that devalues stories, children's librarians are a hidden gem.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

I would strongly recommend you follow Lalwende's good advice and dig the copies out of your own personal bookshelves.

Lalwende prefers short books - I've tried to get her to tackle War & Peace & Don Quixote, Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy is out of the question, & even John Crowley's Little, Big isn't on her reading list! (none of which are on the librarians list btw), so its not all one sided!

Lord of the Rings does look a bit out of place in this company. That doesn't surprise me. Often on such committee picks, snuck in among the various titles, you can identify books that are there for a totally different reason. Simply put, the people who made the list had read the book and dearly loved it. It made a personal impact on their life.

I'm not sure why you think LotR is 'out of place' on the list. Even the ones I haven't read I'm familiar with the themes of, having seen adaptations, or read synopses of, & I'd say LotR deals with many of the same issues/questions. Does it really not 'belong', & how do we know that all the others are there for different reasons?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I think you're definitely on to something! Since our profession has such fuzzy edges, we need some way to distinguish ourselves. We can't assume the public recognizes our credentials in the same way they might clearly acknowledge a lawyer, doctor, teacher, or social worker! Librarians are very big on lists, and we tend to be a socially active bunch. We want people to think about big social questions, and we think it's our job to urge them to go forward in that direction. Therefore, you will often see books about war, gender issues, race, class realities on such lists.

Hah. Proof in the pudding. In 1989 I seriously thought about becoming a librarian but was strongly discouraged on the grounds that the internet was going to do away with libraries. Talk about a prediction being off!

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not sure why you think LotR is 'out of place' on the list. Even the ones I haven't read I'm familiar with the themes of, having seen adaptations, or read synopses of, & I'd say LotR deals with many of the same issues/questions. Does it really not 'belong', & how do we know that all the others are there for different reasons?

I'm with davem on this. I hold that, along with dealing with big issues/questions in a subtle way, Tolkien has 'bedrocked' them in a resuscitation of the Germanic roots of western civilization. He made it okay to be descended culturally from Nordic/Germanic stock, regardless of how embarrassed the literati are by such roots (preferring Greek/Latin culture by comparison). I'm not sure librarians are likely to word it the way I have, but I bet they are in favor of the "good ripping yarn" (as you say, Child), but also how LotR is rooted in fairy tale, not unlike the Grimm stories.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Lalwende prefers short books - I've tried to get her to tackle War & Peace & Don Quixote, Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy is out of the question, & even John Crowley's Little, Big isn't on her reading list! (none of which are on the librarians list btw), so its not all one sided!

Tch! So Lord of the Rings is short eh? Now, why do I need to invest time on Don Quixote when you can tell me all about it? I don't tend to 'do' reading lists as I have a memory of many years of long reading lists and enjoy what I call 'random reading'.

I always wonder how people put together such lists. Do they go on choosing 'what is good for you to read', or do they simply pick what they like? Or in some cases, do they simply go for what will impress? I suspect the latter is often the case when broadsheet newspapers such as The Observer create lists like this. It surprises me how often Ulysses turns up on these lists as I suspect most people wouldn't exactly enjoy it - I found it was more about the language rather than the story, and I often think it's a case of 'look at me, I've read Ulysses! Or I want you to think I have!'.

If I had to pick a top twenty of my favourite books it would be exactly that - my favourites. Those books that stayed in my mind and those that I can return to and enjoy reading again, and those which affected me and I was very sorry to finish.

[the guy who be short]

I wasn't going to post here but you've drawn me in Lal!

I myself have a "reading list" spanning over a page of books and authors, fiction and non-fiction. This was the direct result of a long period (to me) of booklessness when I couldn't find anything new. I add books to it according to recommendations from friends, newspapers, magazines, the internet, authors or Downers.

As for Ulysses - I'm a couple of hundred pages into it now after spotting in a Guardian list of books to read - I believe either you or davem posted a thread about it. The poet laureate, or whatever the obsolete man is called, had it on his list. The name caught my interest and later, as I went a-hunting in my library, I found it and took it out.

Not enjoying Ulysses? I enjoy all fo what I've read so far, simply because it's so different from what I'm accustomed to. It is indeed related to the language - the way Joyce composes the thoughts of each character in half-phrases and unfinished ideas strikes me as revolutionary genius (presuming he was the first to do this). And the complex language also helps - it pleases me when the book goes into French or German, or when I can deduce meaning from latin phrases. When the language is above me, it is a learning experience. It pleases, whichever angle I look at it from.


Now I've finished ranting! Hourra! What were we meant to be discussing?

I always wonder how people put together such lists. Do they go on choosing 'what is good for you to read', or do they simply pick what they like?

The article claims that they were asked which book people should read. That's a completely ambiguous and pointless question with no meaning behind it. I presume there would have been a few librarians in both of those categories, plus others choosing books relevant to culture or with moral messages or whatever. The question "what book should people read?" is so poorly phrased that we can't really get anything from it.

[Lalaith]

Ahem, it was I who posted that thread, tgwbs....
I agree that it's interesting that Tolkien is included in a 'must-read', usually he only makes the 'most popular' polls....
One thing that strikes me about both this list and the one I mentioned is the absence of foreign classics.
A "read before you die" list that doesn't include Tolstoy is fundamentally flawed IMO. No Zola, Balzac, or Flaubert either, TUT.
Tolkien meanwhile would I suspect have been tutting about the absence of classical literature.
I have read over half of the books on that list, and most of those near the top (...I too am very fond of To Kill a Mockingbird....) better get cracking I suppose on the rest, never know how much time one's got...

[Iris Alantiel]

Child of the Seventh Age, you’re scaring me. I am also about to start training to be a librarian, and my boyfriend is entering law school. Spooky.

Actually, I’m in my last year of my undergrads right now, and I’m taking an English course on Fantasy. The professor is a little bit . . . interesting, and he has a few sort of frightening ideas about Tolkien (especially concerning his intentions regarding Shelob), but he did say a few things about fantasy in academia that, based on my observations, seemed dead-on. He noted that, when you ask academics to name the most important book of the twentieth century, they say James Joyce’s Ulysses . . . but when you ask the general public, they choose The Lord of the Rings. That’s starting to change, but change is slow. And with some of the things they tried to teach me this year, I can’t say I’m sorry. I’ve learned miles more about Tolkien from you fine folk than from that crazy prof (whom I was actually correcting in front of the class when he misspoke on Tolkien, so I fear he doesn’t like me all that much). I’m starting to think that maybe our dear Professor Tolkien should be left to the people who love him.

But still, it is encouraging to see The Lord of the Rings on this list. I suppose you could see the story as “saying something”, but personally, I don’t see what’s so wrong with it if it isn’t. I think some of the most valuable, most enriching works I’ve ever read are those that don’t have any major political or social agendas, but just say something about our archetypal emotions and what it means to be human, to struggle with the issues of life and death, good and evil, and what all those things mean – questions we all ask. Just my thoughts, of course . . . but I believe those are the books we should read before we die, because I think those are the questions we all want to be able to answer by that time.

[JennyHallu]

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee -- X
The Bible -- X
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by JRR Tolkien -- X
1984 by George Orwell -- X
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens -- X
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte -- X
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen -- X
All Quite on the Western Front by E M Remarque
His Dark Materials Trilogy by Phillip Pullman -- X
Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Lord of the Flies by William Golding -- X
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time by Mark Haddon
Tess of the D'urbevilles by Thomas Hardy -- X
Winnie the Pooh by AA Milne -- X
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham -- X
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell -- X
Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold
The Prophet by Khalil Gibran
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens -- X
The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov
Life of Pi by Yann Martel
Middlemarch by George Eliot -- X
The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzenhitsyn

X's mean I've read them...but I'm afraid there are many on this list that I simply cannot see as important enough to be on a must-read list, and as much as I love it, LotR falls within that category. Where are Crime and Punishment, Vanity Fair, Tom Sawyer, The Iliad, The Good Earth, Catch-22, and so many TRUE classics?

And yet His Dark Materials is a must read? I know that book was very popular, but it was published what? 5-6 years ago? An interesting list...but I feel it is a sad comment on our society that some of these are on the list.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by JennyHallu

I'm afraid there are many on this list that I simply cannot see as important enough to be on a must-read list, and as much as I love it, LotR falls within that category. Where are Crime and Punishment, Vanity Fair, Tom Sawyer, The Iliad, The Good Earth, Catch-22, and so many TRUE classics?

I agree with your list of "why aren't these in the list?" - but not with your opinion of LotR. Why do you think it should NOT be on a cultural must-read list (assuming that such lists are worth making)?

[Legolas]

Why does Lord of the Rings not fall in this category, Jenny?

I agree that some epic poetry should be read before death - Paradise Lost, The Faerie Queene, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid, The Iliad, The Odyssey - but I wouldn't expect that they were eligible for this list (or poetry, or drama) since it was World Book Day (not World Work of Literature Day), and they can be difficult reading.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by JennyHallu

And yet His Dark Materials is a must read? I know that book was very popular, but it was published what? 5-6 years ago? An interesting list...but I feel it is a sad comment on our society that some of these are on the list.

At least seven of the books listed were published within the last ten years, some are very recent works. It is inevitable that lists of "the best..." or "the greatest..." will always include some contemporary work as it will be fresh in the mind of those choosing or voting. What is really interesting to see is how such lists change over the years, and whether certain works still make the list.

How do we know if a book will still be incredibly popular in decades to come? I remember Bob Geldof being very nasty about Madonna back in the early 90s, when she was amongst those voted "most influential musicians" - he stated she was a 'has-been'. Bet he had to eat his words in order to get her to appear at Live8.

This is a list compiled by librarians too, who will be used to recommending 'good reads' to all kinds of people; this would explain why more difficult works might not have been included, though few of these are 'easy' reads!