Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
03-28-2003, 05:48 PM | #1 |
Fair and Cold
|
LOTR vs. Scholars, or Academics Can Kiss My As-taldo.
As planned, I have contacted, met, and chatted with the lady who is Duke University's resident expert on all things Tolkien. One of the topics of our most interesting conversation were the many aspects of the distaste the scholarly world has, and continues to express in regards to Tolkien's works (I was compelled to contact this lady after reading and posting to Iarwain's "Unworthy" thread).
At the risk of trivializing our very exciting talk, allow me to post some of the issues we discussed: There are several reasons as to why Tolkien's works are not taken seriously by "serious" scholars. One is general prejudice toward medievalism, another is the Catholicism of the author. A humorous suggestion that many academics cannot take Tolkien seriously because he was happily married was mentioned as well. However, it seems that Tolkien is mainly discredited because his works are popular, as in "Joe from the trailer park must enjoy The Lord of the Rings, therefore this could not possibly be a worthy book." It's interesting to note that Shakespeare received the same kind of treatment in his day, and that as late as 1960, Dickens was still not being assigned in schools and universities in the Western world, because he was too "popular" (compare that with the way Dickens is treated today). My personal opinion is that in using this sort of logic in discrediting Tolkien, academics are conveniently forgetting the fact that popular works of art reach many people on many different levels, i.e. an eleven year-old enjoys the character of Eowyn and takes one thing from her, and someone like Mithadan, to give an example of one of our illustrious head-honchos, enjoys reading about Eowyn, but interprets this character in a different manner. The academics, though, point at the eleven year-old and scream: "This book is written for kids!" while completely ignoring our friend Mithadan. Am I making myself clear here? The good lady also confirmed my speculation that a great deal of scholars have personal grudges toward the works of Tolkien, because his stuff is actually being read by a variety of people, as many scholars' own works are gathering dust. It seems that most academics' inability to reach a wider audience creates automatic (though rarely, if ever, admitted) resentment toward a book such as the LOTR. See, kids, even "smart" people aren't above envy! She also had some interesting things to say regarding the treatment of females in the LOTR. I was very intrigued when she said that the assumption that LOTR is a book that's not to be taken seriously because women may not identify with most of it is "insulting to female readers." Furthermore, she said, "how many male readers of the LOTR can identify with the male characters?" Clearly, she believes, the LOTR was meant to invoke a different sort of sentiment other than "oh goody, I'm going exactly what Aragorn is going through!" She does believe that the fact that the LOTR is stuck next to the works of Terry Brooks, for example, is not helping her cause of convincing academics to take the book serisously. "Tolkien's language is on par with that of Joyce," she said, but compare the way these two authors are treated. And yes, she does believe that change will occur, but that it would involve many decades, and a possible re-vamping of the fantasy genre en masse. We talked about a great deal of other things, but I fear this post is gigantic enough already at this point. Comments, anyone? P.S. Lest anyone think that I would have missed my chance to pucker up to the BW: The lady has heard about the Barrow-Downs, and will hopefully visit it more often, especially following my shameless plugs. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [ March 28, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
03-28-2003, 06:10 PM | #2 |
Wight
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hammering away in Valinor
Posts: 126
|
well i can really only agree with you. Haven't ever read to much about scholors opinions, but what you said about it being to popular, and liked by every Tom, **** and Harry and thats why ppl who think of themselves as well read and knowledgable dislike is true. My dad has never read it but already he has refused to read it as he thinks of it as too childish. He keeps calling me narrow minded for rereading it over and over again. He says its not like the Bible, or Shakespeare that contain valuable msges. But its just that its too popular for him to like it.
__________________
For him that is pitiless, the deeds of pity are ever strange and beyond reckoning - of Melkor before his final downfall |
03-28-2003, 06:19 PM | #3 | |
Wight
|
Quote:
__________________
"The blood of the dead mixes with the the flowing sand and grants more power to the killer."--Gaara of the Desert |
|
03-28-2003, 06:26 PM | #4 | |
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|
03-28-2003, 07:10 PM | #5 |
Spectre of Decay
|
I couldn't agree more with Duke's resident expert, Lush. I've read a fairly wide range of "quality" literature, and Tolkien's work ranks among the best of it. Even his books for children, such as The Hobbit and Roverandom include often very subtle references to Classical mythology, the philological debates of the day and every level and stage of English literature. Often there's a certain amount of dry humour to the more academic allusions (Smaug, so letter #25 tells me, is the past tense of the primitive Germanic verb Smugan, to squeeze through a hole). His philosophy is intelligent and humane, his characters well conceived and his plots both well-planned and entertaining. I cannot see why he should be so reviled other than through simple blind snobbery. If a work is to be considered of a high quality purely on the basis of its limited readership (the logical conclusion of the argument that popular literature is unworthy of study) then surely the best literature is that with the fewest readers of all: that which was never published. Of course the highest accolade would be for the works that were never even written, since they have a readership of one.
I too am increasingly disillusioned with the literary establishment's constant endorsement of self-consciously intellectual and very boring novels by deservedly unknown writers, who produce work solely for the academic market. Popularity is not an issue when it comes to the objective assessment of an author's work, but to claim that wide appeal and publishing success in some way denote a lack of literary merit is simply wrong-headed. Tolkien was writing in a very long-established literary tradition, with each stage of which he was completely familiar. His influences include giants like Virgil and Homer. Writings such as Beowulf and The Battle of Maldon, Kalevala and the Younger and Elder Eddas, which contributed greatly to his work, date from the very birth of the medieval period, and his references continue through Chaucer and Shakespeare to his own time. That he avoided appearing pretentious or self-important in airing his deep knowledge of language and literature is remarkable, and is due to his doing so simply because that knowledge was born of personal interest. A deep love of language (you can pick just about any language; he spoke quite a few) shines through in almost every syllable he wrote. If anyone understood what literature was it was he. The sooner the literary establishment begins to assess work on the quality of its writing and the depth of its message the better; although that will require the elimination of pretention and self-importance from the world of literary criticism: a labour worthy of Heracles himself.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? |
03-28-2003, 09:41 PM | #6 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
I agree with the general sentiment expressed by the Duke University expert and others on this thread. In case anyone's interested (and hasn't seen them already), here are some other discussions that have taken place on roughly the same subject: Book of the Century? New Republic Article Are There Any Valid Criticisms? |
|
03-29-2003, 02:33 AM | #7 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arizona, -East of Dunharrow
Posts: 54
|
Interesting post Lush, although Tolkien may not be held in high regard by " scholars" it dose not really matter in the end. I'm quite sure Tolkien will be still in print long after our bones are moldering in the mist- cloaked barrows. I personally find it amazing that Tolkien has such a active, loyal fan base. I write this out of respect, not contemptuousness (whew!) How many fictional bodies of work penned by one author can claim such in-depth discussions as to their content and provide enjoyment with each subsequent re-read? I still am sometimes awed that can log on to the internet and find countless discussions going on about my favorite author-it seems almost surreal. But in the end, it all comes down to one's personal taste. You could shove a hundred endorsements in my face for some new Stephen King book but I would not read his work- I've tried, and found it lacking. But that's one man's opinion, and we all know what opinions are like...
__________________
This is not the time or the place to perform some kind of a half-assed autopsy on a fish... And I'm not going to stand here and see that thing cut open and see that little Kintner boy spill out all over the dock!-Mayor Vaughn |
03-29-2003, 03:33 AM | #8 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
I have to say that I think the serious assesment of Tolkien's work is beginning. It is limited, though. I would cite Verlyn Flieger's two books, Splintered Light, & A Question of Time, & Tom Shippey's Road to Middle Earth & Author of the Century. There are also a couple of collections, Tolkien's Legendarium, & JRR Tolkien & his Literary Resonances, which treat the subject in a very serious (though far from boring) way. But let's face it, there are also, some very poor, trivial, works on Tolkien out there (Finding God in LotR, for example - I don't argue with the author's actually finding God, or anything else, in LotR, but that book for one is just trivial).
It seems to me that a real assesment of Tolkien cannot take place until the literary world has managed to take in the posthumous writings, HOME, letters, etc. The problem there, though, is that the literary establishment has to be willing to undertake that reasessment, which will probably take a while. Whether the movies will help is another question, as they seem to have gone out of their way to present LotR as a 'Dungeons & Dragon's' tale, & probably reinforce the 'establishment's view of the book. It is, of course, possible for a work's deepest, most profound levels to be completely missed by the overwhelming majority, who never see them, as they simply refuse to believe they exist. There are none so blind as those who will not see. At the same time, there are serious journals, like Mythlore & Mallorn, produced by the Mythopoeic Society & the Tolkien Society, which regularly produce serious work. I don't think the situation is entirely hopeless. |
03-29-2003, 01:14 PM | #9 | |
Eidolon of a Took
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: my own private fantasy world
Posts: 3,460
|
Quote:
Therefore, I must conclude that true genius lies in complete nothingness, and that the best ideas that have ever been, have never been, and the most stupendous thoughts have ever been thought, have never been thought. Furthermore, the smartest people are those who were never conceived, and they are, by default, the greatest writers who have never been known, and their books are the most intelligent that have ever been not written and not thought of. Not to trivialize your thread, or anything, Lush... But this growing number of posts has rendered it useless, as the best threads are those who were closed without a single reply (or, better yet, were never thought of by members who have not joined). [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
__________________
All shall be rather fond of me and suffer from mild depression. |
|
03-29-2003, 01:56 PM | #10 | |
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
Well, I attend an urban university, so there are, of course, plenty of "scholars" and "academics" here. My little sarcastic outburst above, sadly, represents most of them fairly well. Anything that so much as hints at morality, anything that mentions that there is right and wrong, anything that seems to support standard moral beliefs (eg marriage), and anything that is not controversial to the mainstream crowd is looked down upon. Academia seems to be, from what I've seen all my life, controlled by individuals who are so far out to the left side of things that they are mere specks on the edge of sight. I think the acceptance of Tolkien would be greatly accelerated if some folks who were a bit more level headed filled the ranks of the academic elite. But until that time, I'm with Lush. They can kiss my As-taldo.
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
|
03-29-2003, 03:02 PM | #11 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
I really could care less what those scholars think of Tolkien and his works, it really doesn't matter. Just because his works are so widely and diversely appreciated and enjoyed is no reason to be jealous of him and envy him. His success is not the fault of their lack of success. And if one in a thousand reads thier literature and the rest go for Tolkien's, then there's a reason for it.
__________________
Do Not Touch -Willie |
03-29-2003, 05:41 PM | #12 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Dearest Lushy,
The reasons, I think, are more complex than your Tolkien-friendly academic has suggested, although I concur with her and your ridicule of a standard feminist trip. When LOTR was first published in 1954, very, very conservative attitudes still prevailed about what constituted 'literature' for the purposes of 'advanced, refined thought.' (Please to note sarcasm.) At the time, for instance, many women writers were not included on syllabi. (Even today, I can point to Harold Bloom's derision of, say, the Brontës.) (And, today, the market for women writers remains largely entrenched within 'women's studies' programmes and courses.) Also, there was once a prejudice against studying authors who were still living, the argument being that a definitive appraisal of their work was not attainable given that there was yet no closure to their canon. (I know people who were denied the opportunity to do dissertations on certain authors because the authors were still alive.) Thankfully, this atittude has gone the way of the dodo. Furthermore, Tolkien's work in philology was part of a tradition which was usurped by the rising star of linquistics, which also in some quarters was hostile to literature as literature. The prejudice against medievalism I would assume is part of the general trend--displayed so overwhelmingly among university students--against reading anything other than 'relevant' contemporary tales. (Count the number of poetry courses versus fiction courses in many universities.) Reading 'Gawain' even more than Chaucer requires substantive thought and Old English has to be studied as a separate language. There are not many in academe nowadays who wish to do that kind of work, perhaps because they fail to see any reward, but more likely because of job market issues. It is entirely possible these days to talk with literature students who call Shakespeare "Old English"--completely ignorant of the history of the language. Furthermore, even today, work in 'children's literature'--where TH would be classed--is frowned upon, unless it is for librarians. (Reporting personal testimony of friends here who try to teach it.) There was also the overwhelmingly dominant influence of the "New Criticism" with its 'well wrought urn', something that could not subsume the sprawling work of Tolkien. None of this accounts for the continued disregard. I think it is true that writers need champions in the academic world. Jane Austen was ridiculed and ignored until the influential Lionel Trilling took up her cause.(Note, this is not my personal endorsement of Austen.) When T.S. Eliot championed Donne, Milton's star fell. Look at the history of the critical appreciation of D.H. Lawrence. One need only look at F.R. Leavis' The Common Pursuit to see this pattern of academic battle lines. (Allow me here the rhetorical trope of hyperbole.) Davem's examples are valid, but none of the authors she mentions are 'thoroughbreds' in the academic races. (Please observe that I am not dismissing the quality of their work here, but am referring to habits of the academic steeplechase.) No big gun has come out shooting for Tolkien. (I am being deliberately militaristic here.) There is operating as well a great difference between what different readers want of literature. Some (and many of us fall into this category I suspect) read for the interpretation. Here I would include also the delight of many here to argue or argue away the inconsistencies of the legendarium (mythology) which Tolkien created. Critical theory at least since the French structuralists has sought to do something different, to explain how language, how all linquistic signs, has meaning or is validated by the culture consuming it. The work of art, in Jonathan Culler's words, "is taken to be a symptom of the conditions or reality outside of it" (p. xi, The Pursuit of Signs). Particularly fashionable is the desire to explain how works "repress or illuminate by concealing" cultural agendas. Part of this includes the death of the author, so that lauding the brilliant achievements of individual authors is not the particular goal. Tolkien's view of heroism and his considerable antipathy to domination by any mechanistic deus, whether that be machine or consumerism or professionalism, is probably an embarassment to these pursuits. That said, I also have to say that, for me, there are considerable passages of purple prose in LOTR which sadly diminishes my great respect for Tolkien's other considerable achievements. His attitude towards "The Other" I also have serious reservations over. And before Squatter flays me alive for this statement, I should conclude to write my explanation of this position, which I have long been promising him. Fondly, Bethberry
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
03-29-2003, 05:47 PM | #13 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 54
|
>>>We talked about a great deal of other things, but I fear this post is gigantic enough already at this point.
I'd like to hear more about what she had to say . . . . [ March 29, 2003: Message edited by: Carorëiel ]
__________________
"Art is our way of keeping track of what we know and have known, secretly, from the beginning."--John Gardner |
03-29-2003, 06:20 PM | #14 | |||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|||
03-29-2003, 06:49 PM | #15 |
Fair and Cold
|
As usual, thanks for the great post, Beth.
You are absolutely right that the work of Tolkien has not been "championed," (yet) and that this prevents many others to follow suit and take the man seriously. From what this lady told me, attempts to champion Tolkien are akin to courting "professional suicide." There are medivalists that I know of within the department (some of them better than others) who are sympathetic to "the cause," but will not involve themselves directly. A number of erudite academics refuse to take the first crucial step. We talked about how Tolkien's creation is "the straw-man" to a generation of academics who are in the habit of using medievalism as something to project their work against, and in this rush to draw the line, these people tend to forget of the literary merit of his language, for example (your criticism of some aspects of his work is valid, of course, though I would like to read more). Academics, mind you, not just young students. The current generation of general English-majors is more sympathetic to Tolkien than most of the people who are teaching them. How this is going to play out ten years from now is not up to me to predict, at this point. As an interesting sidenote, it is amazing with what C.S. Lewis gets away with, when compared to Tolkien, in terms of his treatment of female characters. Tolkien is labelled as "mysogynist" and "outdated," whereas Lewis remains the darling of a great number of academics, and nevermind the fact that one of his female characters is basically denied salvation due to her interest in make-up.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
03-30-2003, 04:42 AM | #16 |
Seeker of the Straight Path
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal
Posts: 1,680
|
"you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the lack of a champion for Tolkien"
Having just read Shippey's 'Author of the Century' I feel he is just the sort of 'Scholarly' champion JRRT needs [ though coming from the same chair JRRT held at Oxford he may be dismissed out of hand] but he does a brilliantjob of showing the depths and subtlties of JRRT's many allusions and devices as well as the many overlapping structures imbedded in the LotR. He does not plumb the depths of Elvish Lore or make much use of UT and HoME, but he is most certainly writing an Apologia in the classical sense, disturbed as he rightly is about JRRT's lack of serious acceptance amongst the 'literati'. A most impressive work if you have not yet read it and well worth the 13$ asking price. Lush thank you for sharing your conversation. This kind of thing [along with Squatter's account of his pilgrimage] is what really helps to build both the Tolkien Community but also our wonderous little Downs community as well, much thanks! I cano not easily check back earlier on the thread to ackowledge by name whomever listed all of the Hosteetter and Flieger and company books, but as far as I have been able to experience them, they are also laying the foundation for a deeper appreciation of Tolkien and Tolkien scholarship. Luckily Tolkien's works are spread so far and wide and word of mouth sings his praise so highly that he will continue to be effectively studied and loved despite any lack of critical acclaim from the self appointed literary upper-class.
__________________
The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.
|
03-30-2003, 12:09 PM | #17 | |
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
As a college student, God forbid that I should use this thread as some sort of general insult toward the academia en masse, rather a small protest against the majority's seeming attitude toward Tolkien. As for medievalism, at this point, I am just relaying directly what was said to me. This was the therm that was used when describing why Tolkien's work is grouped with those that are being "projected against" in the academic world. lindil, I was recommended Shippey's book as well. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Perhaps I should lay some money aside?
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|
03-30-2003, 02:22 PM | #18 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-30-2003, 03:08 PM | #19 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bree
Posts: 390
|
Lush, I see. I remember Lewis coming up as often as Tolkien in my undergraduate literature classes… never. But, like I said, my experience is limited (for example, I have no idea what a LitHum class would be), and compounded by not being an English major… in fact, English majors ranked second, right behind Psychology majors, on my list of undergraduate people to avoid.
I’m curious… In what context would you mention Tolkien in the average college literature lecture or class discussion? In what historic or critical literary category would mention of Tolkien’s work be most beneficial? (These are not rhetorical questions or lead-ins, as I have no informed opinions on the matter; I’m sincerely interested in what your opinion is.)
__________________
I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit. |
03-30-2003, 03:30 PM | #20 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
03-30-2003, 06:25 PM | #21 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bree
Posts: 390
|
Clarification… In what literary category would a Tolkien discussion be apropos? For example, is there such a thing as 20th Century English Romanticism?
I’m not insinuating that literature should be reduced to sociology or cultural anthropology or a philosophy of human nature. Contrary to the opinion of many modernists, the greater part of studying literature should be the study of rhetoric. As Squatter and Beth point out, Tolkien stands with the best in this regard. As far as I’m concerned, only Newman wrote better English prose, and no one has ever written a better story in English. On the other hand, we have to give the modernists their due. An important part of literary criticism, and often a dangerous area for the literary scholar, is the analysis of themes in literature. If one wants to investigate the themes in the works of James Joyce, for example, how could one do so without any mention of the social and cultural context in which he wrote, and his apparent philosophy of the human condition? It is from this aspect that a serious study of Tolkien could become very laborious, and personally I’m bit thankful for academe’s reluctance. Most literary scholars find themselves teetering on the edge of gross inaccuracies when they stretch their expertise “like butter over too much bread.” Too many literary critics masquerade as philosophers as it is, and I shudder to think what would happen to Tolkien if the likes of Linda Hutcheon and Harry Morgan Ayres were to get a hold of him. That is why I would like to see Tolkien continued to be ignored by the literary establishment. I would much rather see Tolkien championed by someone like Joseph Campbell or Kathleen Jenks. Thanks for providing an example, Aiwendil, but what was the reaction of the prof or SI, and your classmates when you mentioned Tolkien? [ March 30, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]
__________________
I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit. |
03-30-2003, 07:36 PM | #22 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
But the inclusion or exclusion of Tolkien in college literature classes is not the only relevant point here. Disproportionately few critical studies have been made of Tolkien's works. Members of the literary establishment have routinely derided Tolkien as juvenile trash (and still do); this kind of mindless derision is of course very different from legitimate criticism. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
03-30-2003, 09:29 PM | #23 | ||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bree
Posts: 390
|
Aiwendil, I find your professor’s response absolutely fascinating. I would suggest that you mention in class that allegory is a rhetorical device used to convey an idea or some meaning; allegory, in-and-of-itself, is not the actual idea or meaning being expressed, but only one device in many that can be employed to express meaning. I always thought that irony was a mere rhetorical device, as well. Well, what would I know?… I was one of those philosophy major types.
Don’t get me wrong, though. It is critically important to discover the meanings in any work of literature. However, to say that meaning can only be expressed via allegory and irony is incredibly shallow minded. I can see it now… a whole generation of writers who confuse the public with trivial irony so that they might be considered good writers. It’s laughable. There is a plethora of many leveled meanings in Tolkien, but, if your professor is a good example of the general literary critic (which I suspect he is), they are ill equipped to find these meanings. Thus, your professor has bolstered my opinion that Tolkien should be left to the mythology experts. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit. |
||
03-30-2003, 10:47 PM | #24 |
Seeker of the Straight Path
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal
Posts: 1,680
|
The genius of Tolkien is that, asssuming you wish or need to hear 'truth', he offers you dozens of 'aproaches'.
Hints of Religion, and higher evolved races Mythology Ethics and Morality Philosophy Language Art/Music Sociology Geography Tolkien has by God's grace, managed to breathe life into his words and a college course might be able to point to this, but to explicate it all requires someone such as Shippey who has walked the same road. Dissecting and analyizing Tolkien serves little point if you have not yet 'been there', and you have you want to go back to the experience of Eucatasphrophe. Unless one's professor understands that concept, and understands it in relation to Tolkien they are wasting your time. Most critics seem to miss the child-like simplicity of the eucatastrophic, and thus miss Tolkien. [ March 30, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]
__________________
The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.
|
03-30-2003, 10:55 PM | #25 |
Fair and Cold
|
There is a Tolkien course being offered in the fall semedster of the 2003/2004 academic year at Duke, taught by no other than the lady I chatted with.
One of the background readings will include the alliterative Morte D'Arthur, by the way. I'm wondering whether or not I can fit it into my schedule at this point.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
03-30-2003, 10:57 PM | #26 | ||||||
Wight
|
Great discussion Lush. Once again these posts get me to thinking about Tolkien when I should be worrying about other things. (Like Spanish) Enjoy the course if you get to take it. The you can start even some more thought-provoking discussions! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Sleeping Beauty ]
__________________
"If I knew all of the answers, I'd run for God." ~ Klinger: M*A*S*H |
||||||
03-30-2003, 11:12 PM | #27 | |
Beholder of the Mists
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Somewhere in the Northwest... for now
Posts: 1,419
|
Quote:
__________________
Wanted - Wonderfully witty quote that consists of pure brilliance |
|
03-31-2003, 11:06 AM | #28 | ||
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,062
|
Quote:
Quote:
A weaker point may be made on that; the afore-mentioned attitude is due to the objective approach towards quality in prose that is entrenched in the establishment at present, and Tolkien has always required obeisance to the subjective. All tone is commentary. [ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
||
03-31-2003, 11:52 AM | #29 | |
Scent of Simbelmynë
|
.
Quote:
I have to agree with Sleeping Beauty though, on this subject (and I admit, I'm opinionated [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). While I think Tolkien is a legitimate subject for serious academic study, I'd hate to have a survey of lit class that covered him. I can't even begin to bring to mind all the classic literature that has been ruined for me by its treatment in lit classes. (Jane Eyre anyone?) Tolkien's great to read, and while not a "guilty pleasure", I think I want to keep that out-of-class feeling when I read Tolkien. Studying LOTR or Silm in class would make it feel like work. Serious academic study I'm all for, in fact, I may someday do it, who knows? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] But Tolkien in undergrad lit classes? God Forbid! he deserves much more respect than butchering by tired bored lit professors who have some vague degree for an audience of yawning uninterested students.
__________________
The seasons fall like silver swords, the years rush ever onward; and soon I sail, to leave this world, these lands where I have wander'd. O Elbereth! O Queen who dwells beyond the Western Seas, spare me yet a little time 'ere white ships come for me! |
|
03-31-2003, 01:46 PM | #30 | ||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Really, guys, lit class isn't Mordor. Don't discourage the young from majoring in Engslih. Please? Quote:
It's interesting that you should pick Bombadil as the weak link here, Rimbaud. I've read one article that illustrated its distaste for the LOTR using Bombadil, but having spoken to a variety of people in the subject, it seems that most (myself included) just have a problem with his, um, poetics (I can't read them outloud to my brother without collapsing into hysterics), whereas when someone really wants to rip into the book, they take a shot at Samwise Gamgee, the nature of the Orcs, Arwen, etc. Bombadil disrupts the tone, but charmingly, as you have said, and I think most people tend to recognize that. [ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
||
03-31-2003, 02:58 PM | #31 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
|
|
03-31-2003, 04:37 PM | #32 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Some of us object to more than just the poetry of Bombadil, Lush. My nick was created in defiance of the depiction of Goldberry--which to me is anything but charming, Rimbaud--and also in opposition to the idea that good exists within gated communities or closed systems.
Bethberry [ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
03-31-2003, 05:03 PM | #33 |
Fair and Cold
|
Point taken, Beth, though could you elaborate on what you mean by "gated communities"?
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
03-31-2003, 11:20 PM | #34 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bree
Posts: 390
|
A gated community is generally a sprawling collection of lots with better than average shoebox homes, surrounded by a fence, or at least a thick hedge, with a gate, often manned by private security guards, and is considered by many an ideal way to spend one’s retirement years, safe behind the hedge with like minded people. The term “gated community” is often used to describe similar constructs… such as monasteries or restricted access on-line libraries, for example… and, of course, Oxford [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].
I never really saw much of a connection between Tom and Gold and a gated community/closed system, but now that you mention it…hmmm. Wouldn’t the Shire be a gated community, as well? I’m not surprised, though, that Tolkien would be subconsciously or consciously drawn to the gated community after taking into account his Catholicism and family life. After all, the perfect gated community is the loving the family, and Tolkien appears to have one of the more loving ones. In some ways, I’m a gated community chap, myself, with an enthusiastic interest in such things as the Society of Saint John in Shohola, PA and the Chicago Catholic Youth movement… I call it the Catholic Ghetto Movement (I’m thinking about copyrighting that, so if you are going to steal that moniker, make it quick [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) There’s good and bad gated communities, Beth. Those that exist to separate one from the world are bad, those that wish to separate from the world in order to benefit the world by their witness, are good. I can’t really think of any gated communities outside of my Catholicism, though, that I would consider good. At any rate, good can, and does exist, within many communities that can be described as gated, but that does not mean that good can not be found elsewhere… and I don’t think Tolkien would make such argument. Sophia, I was once given a psych major as a dorm mate… once. Quote:
__________________
I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit. |
|
04-01-2003, 06:30 AM | #35 |
Seeker of the Straight Path
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal
Posts: 1,680
|
Hmmm, Bethberry, I must say, have you ever read the Old Forest chapter to a young child? Prior to that I barely tolerated Tom's merry antics, seeming especially bizarre when placed textuallt so close to Gildor's recent hyper-sober ministrations.
However when I came to that part while reading aloud to my daughter it fairly jumped off the page and came to life. I was impressed yet again by something I had read who knows how many times being far deeper, creative and purely simple than I had hither to managed to discern. The more I read JRRT the more his many-sided skills and mastery blow me away. And after the LotR he only got better [see HoME 10-12 and UT]. "My nick was created in defiance of the depiction of Goldberry--which to me is anything but charming, Rimbaud--and also in opposition to the idea that good exists within gated communities or closed systems. " As for the gated communities thing, wow, truly worthy to be it's own thread. But the implications of it being that Lothlorien for instance could not harbor good? Before launching into a very long reply I will await further clarification. And Bethberry, have you read Michael Martinez's recent essay on the marriages of Bombadil-Goldberry and the Ent-Entwives? It may improve your appreciation of Goldberry some, and then again maybe not... As a married chap myself, I think MM unearthed yet another masterful but subtle treatment of a real world theme by JRRT. I'll did up he link if anyone interested does not know how to access his suite 101 essays [and I know he has a lot of detractors here, but this essay should have something for darn near everyone - married that is [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ].
__________________
The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.
|
04-01-2003, 03:35 PM | #36 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,062
|
My use of 'charm' was dry; my above absolutism is, as correctly pointed out, inaccurate and exclusionary, for which I apologise. For this reader, despite appreciating greatly Tolkien's hand, his perspicacity and underestimated wit, there are distinct and quite noticeable flaws in the novel; this applies to the mechanics as well as my more aloof and indefensible positions regarding structure and the use of voice. My above point had been intended, gently (failed on all points), to point out that many appreciators of this novel shy unnecessarily from criticism of the text.
[ April 01, 2003: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
04-01-2003, 04:01 PM | #37 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
04-01-2003, 04:02 PM | #38 |
Fair and Cold
|
There is a difference between insisting that a work of literature be taken seriously by literature scholars, and insisting that the said work of literature is flawless.
When you love someone, for example, you love them despite the occasional zit, disagreement, or toilet seat left up. This is my attitude toward the LOTR: it's not perfect, but that alone does not diminish its merit. A novel such as Finnegan's Wake has its flaws as well, but the acknowledgment of that on a non-specific level does not prevent the work and its author from being treated with respect, zum Biespiel.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
04-01-2003, 05:56 PM | #39 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
I am slow responding here due to events in RL, but let me now reply to at least a few points. And as I take Rimbaud's comment that "All tone is commentary," let me say that I hope my tone is civil, conciliatory, and expansive.
Quote:
And, yes, Lush, there is a difference between insisting that a text be taken seriously and insisting that the text is flawless. Yet I think a balanced assessment of Tolkien's work--or at least a fair and impartial airing of the difficulties of the text--will ultimately do him more credit. I made my comment about purple prose initially because so many of the points raised by your mystery scholar at Duke rose from issues outside Tolkien's texts. (Most of mine were similar, let me hasten to add.) To me, there are issues inside the texts which also bear on the fact that he is not taken seriously. But if the discussion devolves always to one of love, or faith in readers, then almost axiomatically, it seems, discussion stops. Lindil, I do know Martinez' essay on Goldberry and Tom; unfortunately, perhaps, it does nothing to address my concerns about Goldberry. And I am glad at a youngster enjoys the Old Forest chapters, but that does not negate, I humbly suggest, my response. Bill Ferny, what would be the difficulty with Linda Hutcheon considering Tolkien? Why must there be areas off limits to discussion? And since I was the one who first used the term 'gated community', perhaps it would be best if I was allowed to define my use of it. I will be doing that on the thread which Child of the Seventh Age has started, "Gated Communities." I am sure that I have missed something. I apologize in advance for my poor articulation of my ideas. Bethberry
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
04-01-2003, 07:04 PM | #40 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Rimbaud wrote:
Quote:
Lush wrote: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|