LOTR vs. Scholars, or Academics Can Kiss My As-taldo.

[Lush]

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 ]

[Aule]

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.

[Ransom]

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.

I'm fairly curious on how much of an impact she thought this had on academia as a whole. Does she think this has a major impact (e.g. on the false assumptions drawn from the popularity of the book) or minor(e.g. putting LOTR next to Terry Brooks <for lack of a better example>)?

[Lush]

I'm fairly curious on how much of an impact she thought this had on academia as a whole. Does she think this has a major impact (e.g. on the false assumptions drawn from the popularity of the book) or minor(e.g. putting LOTR next to Terry Brooks )?

Judging from what we talked about, I would say that it depends on the scholar in question. As for LOTR being placed next to Terry Brooks, that's more related to the nature of the fantasy genre as perceived by the general public than some scholar's jealousy toward Tolkien, though the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

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.

[Aiwendil]

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 guess that makes me the greatest author of all time.

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?

[Pukel-Man]

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...

[davem]

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.

[Diamond18]

Of course the highest accolade would be for the works that were never even written, since they have a readership of one.

We could take that one step further, and assume that the greatest stories of all, must naturally be the stories that were never even thought of. That is to say, stories that are not stories, because they do not exist in anyone’s mind in any form. Or, as it is more commonly known, nothing.

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]

[the phantom]

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.

A Catholic, and happily married?! Egad! Get him out of here!!

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.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

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.

[Bêthberry]

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

[Carorëiel]

>>>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 ]

[Lush]

A Catholic, and happily married?! Egad! Get him out of here!!

The lady reported that Catholics were put down in Tolkien's presence at Oxford (by his peers), at least on one memorable occasion. Charming.

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.

I am not sure that the issue was so much "morality," as it was a standard cliché that applies to writers overall, that Tolkien didn't fit.

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.

Level-headedness? Hm, but that would be boring. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I think the issue is not so much leftism, as it is general snobbery, the kind that has some academics saying that "Shakespeare was an alias! Nobody with so little of an education could possibly have written all those plays!" Just like Bernard-Henri Lévy is "dumb" because he looks good, and Tolkien is "for children" because his works include dragons, and whatnot.

[Lush]

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.

[lindil]

"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.

[Lush]

Lush, I’ve never experienced CS Lewis as being the darling of a great number of academics. In fact, I would say he gets as much (or as little) attention as Tolkien.

Nobody is embarassed to bring in Lewis into a serious discussion, whether during class, or during a lecture, but the attitude is markedly different when Tolkien is mentioned. This sort of attitude is present at Duke to a lesser degree, but much pronounced in, say, Princeton (at least judging from what the people I have corresponded with have told me). And Lewis does get more respect, I have suspected this myself based on conversations with my professors, and the good lady seemed to confirm it for me

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?

[Aiwendil]

Nobody is embarassed to bring in Lewis into a serious discussion, whether during class, or during a lecture, but the attitude is markedly different when Tolkien is mentioned. This sort of attitude is present at Duke to a lesser degree, but much pronounced in, say, Princeton (at least judging from what the people I have corresponded with have told me). And Lewis does get more respect, I have suspected this myself based on conversations with my professors, and the good lady seemed to confirm it for me.

I can give testament that this attitude exists at Columbia. Lewis was brought into discussions in my LitHum class last year several times, but Tolkien was talked about in much the same way as, say, Harry Potter - my professor (whom I otherwise liked very much) seemed to consider both of them mere guilty pleasures rather than serious literature.

Perhaps I should lay some money aside?

Definitely. Shippey's book is excellent. I found his discussion of the ambiguous nature of evil in LotR particularly insightful. My one complaint is that he give the Silmarillion a somewhat more cursory treatment. In my opinion the Silmarillion is probably even more deserving of scholarly attention than LotR; but it is certainly never treated in such a way.

[Bill Ferny]

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.)

[Aiwendil]

for example, I have no idea what a LitHum class would be

Sorry, it seems that certain jargon is a bit too firmly embedded in my head. "LitHum" or "Literature Humanities" is the required freshman western literature survey class here.

I’m curious… In what context would you mention Tolkien in the average college literature lecture or class discussion?

Tolkien came up in my class as a result of some general and fairly abstract discussion of the 'purpose' or nature of literature. The prevailing opinion was the somewhat modernist view that literature is essentially ironic; the author writes a,b,c and means x,y,z. I argued, using Tolkien as an example, that 'heroic' or non-ironic literature is just as valid - that is, a,b,c means a,b,c; it is not code for some other message or argument. Not that I think this is somehow a necessary or even natural discussion in which Tolkien must be used - it's just an example of how he came up in my class.

In what historic or critical literary category would mention of Tolkien’s work be most beneficial?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'beneficial'. In terms of medieval studies or any similar class, of course Tolkien's fiction would be quite useless. But surely not all literature classes merely use literature as a tool for the study of society. A good deal of literature is studied for itself. There are classes on James Joyce that endeavour to examine Joyce's work, not to use it in some way to illuminate another area of study.

[Bill Ferny]

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 ]

[Aiwendil]

Clarification… In what literary category would a Tolkien discussion be apropos?

You are right that Tolkien's unique position in literary history makes it difficult to categorize him for inclusion in some classes. But he is not the only twentieth century author whose works reflect themes such as death and the desire for deathlessness, the nature of evil, or the tendency of power to corrupt. I could easily envision survey classes of twentieth century literature focussing on the various treatments that authors have given these subjects, and Tolkien would fit naturally into those discussions, even if his particular views and mode of writing differ somewhat from those of other authors. And certainly there is material enough for a few courses devoted entirely to Tolkien.

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.

. 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.

I agree with you. But just to be perfectly clear, what you are arguing against is not the inclusion of Tolkien in serious literary study, but rather the poorly done study of Tolkien.

Thanks for providing an example, Aiwendil, but what was the reaction of the prof or SI, and your classmates when you mentioned Tolkien?

My professor actually liked Tolkien, though he did not consider his works serious literature (he felt the same way about Tolkien as he did about Harry Potter). Moreover, he disagreed with my fundamental point about the validity of non-ironic literature, and it seemed that he felt any serious consideration of Tolkien's writing would depend on seeing them as allegorical. I found this very interesting (and somewhat disheartening) since otherwise I thought he was a great professor and I agreed with him in most discussions. The rest of the people in my class seemed to have less well formed opinions on Tolkien, though many of them seemed to agree that allegory or 'meaning' is what is to be sought in literary study.

[Bill Ferny]

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.

I could easily envision survey classes of twentieth century literature focussing on the various treatments that authors have given these subjects, and Tolkien would fit naturally into those discussions, even if his particular views and mode of writing differ somewhat from those of other authors.

You have a valid point. However, the utility issue arises. In order to get the whole breath of Tolkien’s imagery and thought, the whole of LotR would have to be tackled at the very least. Then there would have to be some considerable digging to unearth the potency of his imagery. Because of the sheer length of Tolkien’s work, I would find it hard to include him in a survey class without his work taking center stage.

And certainly there is material enough for a few courses devoted entirely to Tolkien.

I couldn’t agree with you more, as long as such courses approach Tolkien from a mythological studies perspective rather than a purely literary perspective.

[lindil]

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 ]

[Lush]

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.

[Sleeping Beauty]

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]

I’m curious… In what context would you mention Tolkien in the average college literature lecture or class discussion?

In an average college lit class, it would be a hard thing to pull off. Tolkien is too deep to go into. War, the nature of good and evil, and Frodo himself has brought enough discussions here on the board I could write dozens of papers. Unless you had a semester at least, you couldn't even begin to unravel the depth to the stories. In my American Lit class we took a week to cover Huckleberry Finn and we barely scratched the surface. I don't even want to think about if in British Lit if Tolkien was brought up. But then again, my English professors agree with most of the literary community and believe it shouldn't be read except as an extra-curricular reading. But as in an historical aspect, I think he might fit in with the literature of post war. The Lord of the Rings carries well with people beginning to see and becoming more enlightened on the effects of war.

Clarification… In what literary category would a Tolkien discussion be apropos? For example, is there such a thing as 20th Century English Romanticism?

That's one of the things that I do believe that sets Tolkien out of canonization. His writing is out of place. Where do you put him? Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms is easy because it is a war novel. The critics are still not sure where to put Frankenstein by Mary Shelly. Does she belong with the women novelists? Is it a gothic romance? Or is it science-fiction? Well, yes to all these questions. It is the same with Tolkien. Is it Fantasy? Is it a war story? It is yes on a lot of fronts. There is no champion really for Tolkien's work because they have no idea where the story fits. The literary world want to put everything into a category. They all want it to fit into a little box. Sad to say, but is true in most cases. Most things fit in well such as Adrienne Rich's poem Diving into the Wreck fits into feminism. But Tolkien really doesn't fit into the established category. It's like tryinig to fit a square peg into a round hole. The literary world gives up trying and just decides to consider a work not worthy of cannonization.

I wonder what you (forum in general) would like to see happen. Do you want Tolkien to be assigned reading in all British Literature 101 classes? Do you want to see a bust of JRRT in your college library? Do you want his poetry in every anthology text book? Do you want every literature professor to say at least one kind thing about Tolkien every semester? Would you like your college or university establishment to pump out one or two Tolkien essays per year? None of these things are likely to happen. And if they did, what would be the relevance?

I think of they did happen, Tolkien would start to lose some of the magic that surrounds the stories. It would become just like any other novel sitting on our library shelf. When we sit here on the boards talking about the books, we get excited just a bit. We are in a since a few holding something great in our hands that the masses really don't know that much about. That is what makes the stories seem larger than life. It's that feeling along with the greatness that is Tolkien's writing that makes the stories what they are. Now if they were introduced, you would start to see more criticism, more analyzing of the books. We do the same thing here, but it is not what would be on the mass level that every college student is picking up a copy of the criticism and reading it for class. I think it would burst our bubbles just a bit. I myself enjoy reading Tolkien outside of class. It is what I pick up when I know I should be reading the Great Gatsby and doing my deconstructionalist paper. It is my break from the literature world since I'm surrounded by it all day.

Moreover, he disagreed with my fundamental point about the validity of non-ironic literature.

Really? I thought Tolkien has some ironic feeling to his work....

And certainly there is material enough for a few courses devoted entirely to Tolkien.

I couldn’t agree with you more, as long as such courses approach Tolkien from a mythological studies perspective rather than a purely literary perspective

I certainly wish that was on my English degree requirements, I would have signed up in a heatbeat. Then I wouldn't have been handed back my paper on Gandalf as the Archetypal Father Figure in the Hobbit. *sigh*

[ March 31, 2003: Message edited by: Sleeping Beauty ]

[Gorwingel]

I have to say that I think the serious assesment of Tolkien's work is beginning

I personally think that it is not being taken as seriously as it could be. But I just noticed something that kind of has something to do with this topic. Recently in my high school's library I have noticed they have put the "Recommended College Reading" stickers on all of Tolkien's books, which I happen to think is kind of cool. They are the only fantasy books in our library with those on them.

[Rimbaud]

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.

I recommend the entertaining and acute "Reader's Manifesto' by B.R. Myers, Squatter. A different argument, in some sense, but the same effect, affectingly. His thesis is fundamentally flawed (good points, imprecise support)... but so are all fun polemics...

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.

Yes. Part of the reason perhaps for the adversarial 'literary' attitude is the often blind defense of very serious flaws extant within the novel by appreciators. For instance, no-one could claim that the good Prof. had a firm grasp of tone, or consistency in voice. In a way though, with increased subjectivity, this may well be part of the charm; explaining all those odd Bombadil fans.

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 ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

.

in fact, English majors ranked second, right behind Psychology majors, on my list of undergraduate people to avoid.

Oh my! Thanks for that, Bill Ferny... as a philosophy major who rooms with a psych major this gave me a much needed few minutes of rolling on the floor humor.

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.

[Lush]

he deserves much more respect than butchering by tired bored lit professors who have some vague degree for an audience of yawning uninterested students.

Well, I don't know what sort of lit classes you've taken... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Maybe I just tend to get lucky, in more than the usual sense.

Really, guys, lit class isn't Mordor. Don't discourage the young from majoring in Engslih. Please?

In a way though, with increased subjectivity, this may well be part of the charm; explaining all those odd Bombadil fans.

Odd? You talkin' to me?

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 ]

[Aiwendil]

For instance, no-one could claim that the good Prof. had a firm grasp of tone, or consistency in voice. In a way though, with increased subjectivity, this may well be part of the charm; explaining all those odd Bombadil fans.

I'm a bit distressed by your rather absolutist tone here. I could (and do) claim that he had a firm grasp of tone. Or is your "no one" restricted to a certain subset of the audience who have studied literature sufficiently? I certainly don't think that my view is priveliged and I certainly don't think that the work is flawless - but I also don't think that it's unreasonable to claim that there are no major flaws or that the prose is excellent.

[Bêthberry]

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 ]

[Lush]

Point taken, Beth, though could you elaborate on what you mean by "gated communities"?

[Bill Ferny]

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.

Really, guys, lit class isn't Mordor. Don't discourage the young from majoring in Engslih. Please?

Far be it from me. However, I would encourage those who use literature to delve philosophy to seriously consider a philosophy major… I know, I’m shameless.

[lindil]

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] ].

[Rimbaud]

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 ]

[mark12_30]

...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.

I'm still processing your statement. It goes deep. Thank you, lindil.

[Lush]

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.

[Bêthberry]

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.

Many appreciators shy unnecessarily from criticism of the text.

This was also my point in first raising the issue of quality of writing, and, in fact, I have been pondering Rimbaud's distinction between objective and subjective texts, which I find wonderfully intriguing--it leads me out into a new way of thinking about the writing. I would prefer to see a discussion of what tone and voice and consistency are, what I meant by purple prose. I would rather have said to Rimbaud, let us examine what you perceive are inconsistencies, and what I call purple prose, to try to understand the legitimacy of our responses. When the response is, 'but it's all great to me', real discussion stops.

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

[Aiwendil]

Rimbaud wrote:

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.

I agree. I think that criticism of the text is a very good thing.

Lush wrote:

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.

Certainly. But there is also a difference between arguing that the work is flawed and insisting that it is so. My point was that critics who insist that, for example, the prose is poor in places, are just as bad as fans who insist that it is perfect. Also that it is valid to argue that the work is without serious flaw but not to insist upon that.

I would rather have said to Rimbaud, let us examine what you perceive are inconsistencies, and what I call purple prose, to try to understand the legitimacy of our responses. When the response is, 'but it's all great to me', real discussion stops.

Agreed; but you still need to leave room for the argument that that there are no sections of 'purple prose', or that they are not to the detriment of the work. To insist that they are (and that your analysis of them is unquestionably correct) would be as much of a mistake as simply insisting that they are not.