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

[Lush]

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.

Touché. The main problem is, I think, that anyone hardly bothers to even discuss the flaws in Tolkien's work in any sort of thoughtful manner. Mention Tolkien, and the conversation immediately turns to giggling and Harry Potter comparisons. Most scholars out there aren't going to be willing to sit down and discuss, say, the whole problem you have with "gated communitites," because they'll be too busy making fun of the fact that you brought up the issue in the first place. The very fact that such issues are brought up, by you, by Rimbaud, et al, points to how much a work like Tolkien's needs scholarly attention. But that doesn't happen too often because most are too busy roaring with laughter, or holding their tongues. I don't even know which is worse.

But if the discussion devolves always to one of love, or faith in readers, then almost axiomatically, it seems, discussion stops.

But the love of a work is the first step in justification of it. Back in the days of yore (i.e. high school) on of the most respected teachers in the English department, doctorate and all that, asked me this question: "Why is a girl like you lugging around a book like that?" I told him that I loved it. The inevitable question that followed was, "Why does a girl like you love a book like that?" There was a multitude of answers to pick from, and I won't go into what I said, but debate eventually took place that, I think, was beneficial for both of us.

Of course, he could have been just shocked by the fact that blondes read Tolkien, but that assumption aside, isn't it obvious that when one is pressed to justify one's love of Tolkien, that a deep assessment is bound to take place? I don't know, I think at least somewhat useful in a discussion.

[ April 01, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Dininziliel]

Well, I feel a mite cheeky inserting myself into a discussion surrounded by brilliant erudition, but this combination psych and English major will offer some thoughts nevertheless. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

It seems to me that the best and most exciting scholars it has been my privilege to know (none being widely famous to my knowledge) are those who would respond to G.B. Shaw's famous bon mot in a rather Tom Bombadil kind of way--deeply amused but a tad puzzled over all the serious hubbub. There are many in upper academia who are indeed there because they are clever rather than honest, because they cannot teach but merely tell. They fear that, like the emperor in his new clothes, their insecurity and need for validation will be revealed. The best scholars are those who fearlessly and socratically pursue the joy of discovery and truth. Lesser scholars are usually invested in the hollow holiness of existential "realism" and therefore cling to the safety of various movements and stylistic flavors of snobbery.

Regarding the teaching of Tolkien in university & college classrooms--that phrase itself is all I need to discourage me. I doubt that one can "teach" Tolkien or other great authors. However, that has never prevented the dessication of Melville, Eliot, and Shakespeare. Perhaps British/American Lit 101 is the threshing floor for the truly great with Fitzgerald and Joyce (and Shakespeare, of course!) managing to withstand the most didactic approaches. (Thank goodness for Samuel Beckett who seems to defy all such attempts!) But how many potential lovers of literature have been put off it by the putoffingness of the method? Perhaps it is the classroom itself that needs to change. Economic forces may soon accomplish great change, but not for the better.

Tolkien was "taught" at university when I first entered in 1971. It was above my level then. But I can think of some of my then future professors who could have brought ME alive and some who would have gutted it like a fish ("He who overanalyzes a thing breaks it" kind of approach.)

On the whole, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Tolkien is neither legitimized nor defamed by the scholarly community for me, nor does it seem to be for other Barrows folk on this thread. But I suspect that, that is because we are among those who can thrive within the system because of our grasp on learning and the love of it. Until the entire system has been overhauled to embody the epitome of higher learning, as it was classically intended to be, I'd just as soon the popular majority of ivory raisins leave Tolkien's towers alone so that others can discover them and follow them wherever they are led.

Has anyone here entered the Barrows because they studied Tolkien at university/college? I'm not saying universities will kill Tolkien's star, just diminish it and make the path it illuminates fainter and a lot longer.

-----
I, too, would like to know more about "The Other." And, I am hoping it is because my mind is dulled with the need for sleep, but I also need more clarification regarding the relationship of gated communities, metaphorical and otherwise, to this thread.

I greatly enjoy my wee barrow because of its proximity to the quality of scholarship and expression I encounter. Thank you, everyone! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[mark12_30]

Thinking back over bits of the "Unworthy" thread... I wonder how much of it has to do with the idea of "Creating a myth". When I first read the phrase I was skeptical; myths ARE, they're historical, you don't create them, I argued.

It's like trying to create a pyramid. You could, but it wouldn't be the real thing. The real thing already exists in Egypt; if you try to improve it, you will change what it is; it's just there; leave it alone.

So I was skeptical of the whole idea of mythmaking. And yet, now, I think I understand better, having been one of the beneficiaries of Tolkien's mythmaking, and having realized on a gut-level what I failed to grasp intellectually. Perhaps this ties into lindil's point about eucatastrophe: if you can't open yourself to the tale enough to experience any eucatastrophe at all, will the myth have any effect on you? Perhaps not. And if it has no effect on you, will you take it seriously? Perhaps not.

If one dismisses "new myths" as fakes, then one must dismiss Tolkien, because he indisputably wrote a new myth. However, those whose lives are changed by the myth cannot dismiss it. Whether we can argue the literary merits of Tolkien's myth is another question.

So: rather than being considered along with (for instance) James Joyce and Shakespeare and Dickens, should Tolkien be considered along with Kalevala and the Eddas and such? And if an academic refuses to treat him alongside the Genuine Ancients, should that surprise us?

I wonder whether this is also why George MacDonald, as a mythmaker, is relatively obscure as well.

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Aiwendil]

So: rather than being considered along with (for instance) James Joyce and Shakespeare and Dickens, should Tolkien be considered along with Kalevala and the Eddas and such? And if an academic refuses to treat him alongside the Genuine Ancients, should that surprise us?

It seems to me that these should not be made into fundamentally separate categories. Of course, it makes sense to divide them up for purposes of comparison, analysis of stylistic devices, and so forth. But I have always felt that literary (as opposed to historical) scholars are in error when they study ancient texts in one way, holding them to one set of standards, and modern texts in a different way with a different set.

The problem is, I think, that scholars tend to assume that the only (or at least the chief) value of ancient works lies not in the works in and of themselves, but in the very antiquity of them. I strongly suspect that if Beowulf had been written in the twentieth century, it would have met the same critical hostility as The Lord of the Rings. Detached from their historical and cultural significance, I suspect that ancient works would be of little or no interest to most modern scholars.

This, in turn, seems to me to be tied to the erroneous notion that there is some kind of inevitable progress in the history of art. Modernists and postmodernists have the unfortunate tendency to assume that the evolution of artistic style is a teleological one, or at least that it is directed in some positive direction. But when we identify and examine this supposition, it appears to rest on no firm ground.

So perhaps Tolkien should be studied in conjunction with the Eddas, the Kalevala, Beowulf, etc., for actual analysis of the structure of the work (though many features of LotR are not shared with these works, and many are in fact shared with more modern forms). But a major problem with relegating it to that kind of study in practice (that is, in the non-ideal academic world that we inhabit) is that the works in that class are generally studied not as works in themselves, but for their significance. Tolkien's work, without the actual antiquity, is seen in this view as not being worthy of study.

[Bêthberry]

Time is in short supply these days. I will get back about 'the other', but for the time being here are a few links about the analysis of myth.

The first is to a site which considers the role of hero using Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces. I'll be back with a further link.

The monomyth

Secondly, here is a link to an abridged curriculum vita for Veralyn Flieger, who Davem has mentioned. It lists many of her research papers on Tolkien as well as her books. This site also has links to other sites dealing with Tolkien and mythology. Flieger is in the Department of Comparative Mythology at the University of Maryland.

Prof. Vlieger's bio

Bethberry

[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Bêthberry]

Ah, Lush, love is blind, but the neighbours ain't. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

My apologies for such a tardy response about 'the Other.'

"The Other" or "Otherness" represents a way of thinking about how identities are constructed. It refers to a frame of mind which creates doubleness and which emphasises difference rather than similarity.

Such a frame of mind defines the self in contrast or juxtaposition to this "Other", creating boundaries which help to define the self. Really, a situation of mutually-exclusive oppositions or dichotomies.

What often happens in this context is that the opposition becomes hierarchical. The self projects its own vices, which it cannot acknowledge (think of Freud's repression here), onto the Other, or the not-Self.

One of the most common dichotomies is that between the well-ordered, rational, masculine traits and the chaotic, irrational, feminine traits.

Ideas about Otherness can be found in the writings of the French psychoanalyst, Lacan, the French feminist, Hélène Cixous, and the postcolonial theorist Edward Said, among others.

What does this have to do with Tolkien? I am tempted to read the elves, save for the Vanyar, as those who, with terrible and sombre and horrible consequences, project their failings upon others and look not to themselves as the authors of their own nostalgia.

Bethberry

[ April 06, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I would encourage those who use literature to delve philosophy to seriously consider a philosophy major… I know, I’m shameless.

*applause*

The problem is, I think, that scholars tend to assume that the only (or at least the chief) value of ancient works lies not in the works in and of themselves, but in the very antiquity of them. I strongly suspect that if Beowulf had been written in the twentieth century, it would have met the same critical hostility as The Lord of the Rings. Detached from their historical and cultural significance, I suspect that ancient works would be of little or no interest to most modern scholars.

Where one places Tolkien (as has been discussed before-- many apologies if I simply repeat what's gone before... I get carried away sometimes) is rather difficult. LOTR often gets classified as a fantasy, how many reputable PhD candidates pick up Terry Goodkind to write a thesis on?

But as for classifying Tolkien with myth... I'm hesitant. As mark 12_30 points out myths are historical. True myths grow out of a culture and a language. Perhaps someone writes them out in literature form at some point, but ultimately, the literature is rooted in the history of a people. Tolkien's myths are somewhat smaller, in some ways. They grow out of language, yes, but they aren't rooted in a culture, but rather the history of one man's life.

However, scholars of twentieth century lit study Tolkien? Again, hesitant.

Are there comparable authors whose works are so un-classifiable that recieve their due recognition? I've been trying to think of who that would be, but I'm not doing real well. In fact, I can't think of any whose work is as incompatible with the established genres.

Bethberry- your point about the elves and Otherness is interesting. Have you thought a lot about this? I'd like to hear more sometime, I think.

-Sophia

[tifo_gcs]

I just stumbled into this thread because I'm bored at work, so please bear with me if I say anything that might already have been posted. I had three years of discussion with my high-school English teacher over Lord of the Rings. On a scale to ten, he would rate it a 7, not higher. When I pressed why, he said it wasn't literature, for the simple reason that it did not reflect, reveal or refocus anything about life. Simply put, because there where such "fairy-tale" creatures in the books as elves, dwarves, orks, talking trees and the like, it wasn't the real world life, and since literature is about life, Tolkien's works couldn't be considered literature but simply escapist fiction, although the quality of the writing was top notch. What I found very interesting was that we had this discussion at the same time that we were reading Kafka's "Metamorphosis," in preperation for a paper on world LITERATURE. In case any of you don't know the storyline, it's about a guy who wakes up and finds himself transformed into a human-sized beetle. My teacher's response when I pointed out the flaw in his argument that humans becoming beetles was about as plausible as elves and talking trees was some wandering about how it might be purely mental and that people might be seeing Gregor (protagonist in Metamorphosis) as a beetle although he was still human. Please note, my English teacher refuses to lose an argument despite being obviously in the wrong, and so he ended the discussion there.
Point I'm trying to make is that some people may have the same view as my English teacher.
That aside, and this as an aside, Lush is right. Let's not discourage kids from majoring in English. With a good teacher it's a fantastic subject.

[The Saucepan Man]

Simply put, because there where such "fairy-tale" creatures in the books as elves, dwarves, orks, talking trees and the like, it wasn't the real world life, and since literature is about life, Tolkien's works couldn't be considered literature but simply escapist fiction, although the quality of the writing was top notch.

So presumably, your English teacher wouldn't regard A Midsummer Night's Dream, with its fairies, love potions and half-human half-donkey, or The Tempest with Caliban the witch's son and Prospero the magician, as literature? Or Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Or Bram Stoker's Dracula? Or, indeed, Orwell's Animal Farm? Seems to me that JRRT's works are "about life" as much as any of these (accepted) works of literature.

This, like the other reasons given on this thread for JRRT's lack of academic appeal, looks to me to be a poor justification for intellectual snobbery. Take, for example, the popularity of JRRT's works. Have the scholars learned nothing from the history of literature? As Lush points out, the works of both Shakespeare and Dickens (and many others to boot, I should imagine) had mass appeal when first performed/published. Indeed, I recall my English Literature teachers making much of Shakespeare's wide appeal with his audiences, pointing out the jokes and devices thrown in for the benefit of the unschooled masses. If they accept the literary merit of works which were popular in the past, why can't they do so equally with works that are popular now?

In my opinion, whether they are considered fantasy, medaevalist or whatever, the works of JRRT do undoubtedly have considerable literary merit. They are wonderfully written, intricately constructed and fair brimming with relevant and complex themes. That is not to fall into the trap, already mentioned, of considering them flawless. But, they are in my view clearly on a par with, if not greater than, a good many works which are generally considered to be literary masterpieces.

Having said that, I think that Bill Ferny makes a good point in questioning whether there is any great benefit to be derived (for us, the readers) from a wider academic recognition of the literary merit in JRRT's works. Maybe it's because my days of studying literature are long gone, but I don't need some mildewy old (or even young and trendy) professor of literature telling me that it is a worthy pursuit to read LotR in order to justify my enjoyment of it.

Yes, it would be nice if my favourite author wasn't stacked alongside the works of the Tiresome Terrys (Brooks and Pratchett) in the bookshop, but I can live with that. I am sure that some day the works will graduate to the classics shelf, but until that day, I am content to "slum it" in the fantasy section.

As for the inclusion of JRRT's works in school and college literature courses, I am with those who doubt whether this would be such a good thing. Clearly, his books would not be out of place in a literary discussion of the types of themes that feature in them (the many articulate and erudite threads in this forum bear witness to that). But the thought of a book such as LotR being studied in its own right as part of the syllabus of a course instills in me a measure of anxiety. I recall, when studying Shakespeare and novels such as Wuthering Heights and A Farewell to Arms at school, being given the checklist of what each quote meant, as if this was somehow cast in stone. While I accepted it at the time (in order to pass my exams [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), such absolutist interpretation seems to me, with the benefit of hindsight, to be quite wrong. And I would hate to see LotR parcelled up into neat little sections of meaning according to some general concensus, leading to those that study it ending up with a "one size fits all" opinion of the book.

Of course, that is not to say that students and teachers alike should not bring up LotR (or any of JRRT's other works) in discussion of a literary theme where it is relevant to that theme, just as Aiwendil did. The literary merit in his works is such that this should be a perfectly valid exercise. And any teacher or lecturer who dismisses an attempt to do so because the works are "simply fantasy novels" or "too popular" is guilty of poor teaching. But, it is not necessary for the books to be included on some syllabus or reading list in order for them to be brought into literary debate, where appropriate.

So, I would be interested to hear any further thoughts on what benefits might be acheived through a greater academic appreciation of JRRT's works. But in the meantime, I shall continue to derive great pleasure from the books (and from discussion of them on this site [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) irrespective of their exclusion from the giddy heights of general scholarly acceptance [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

[tifo_gcs]

So presumably, your English teacher wouldn't regard A Midsummer Night's Dream, with its fairies, love potions and half-human half-donkey, or The Tempest with Caliban the witch's son and Prospero the magician, as literature?

No, he would say that such things as sorcery and strange creatures such half-humans/half-donkeys were believed to exist during the Shakespearian era and so the plays still give an accurate reflection of life at those times. Tolkien, living in the 20th. century, ought well to know that talking trees and such don't exist.
Also, while we talk about Shakespeare as a literary genius; yes, his plays did have great public appeal when they came out, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that it was as much, if not much more, for their entertainment value as for the people standing on the floor in the globe to go into the theatre and have all manners of catharsis and food for thought.
As for Animal Farm, it's one long analogy (there's a better word for it than that, and I'm sorely wishing I bothered remembering all these terms, my English teacher would have me shot at dawn for this [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] )about any number of political and social situations in the world (or so I do believe my teacher would say)

Take, for example, the popularity of JRRT's works. Have the scholars learned nothing from the history of literature? As Lush points out, the works of both Shakespeare and Dickens (and many others to boot, I should imagine) had mass appeal when first performed/published. Indeed, I recall my English Literature teachers making much of Shakespeare's wide appeal with his audiences, pointing out the jokes and devices thrown in for the benefit of the unschooled masses.

True, but if literature is generalized to be nothing but books that had great popularity when published, that leaves most pompous scholars in the lurch with all their fancy arguments as to why a book is good enough to become literature. As such, it devalues the whole concept of "literature" to me, because literature still conjures up the hope that someone spent time and effort to produce a quality work that is good to read and gives one food for thought on its theme.
Imagine if Danielle Steel or any other author who churned out entertainement books by the dozens became literature in a few hundred years. I'm pulling my hair out already (hope I don't offend anybody, but most airport literature doesn't appeal to me)!

Maybe it sounds a bit wierd, but I got the impression that there were certain rules and unwritten contracts that had to be fulfilled in order for something to become literature, and it seems to me that one of the crutial contracts is that the story has to unfold on this planet (Earth, the third rock from the sun in case you have any doubts) among human beings (and I know that bends slightly for Orwell's Animal Farm)

[ April 09, 2003: Message edited by: tifo_gcs ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Imagine if Danielle Steel or any other author who churned out entertainement books by the dozens became literature in a few hundred years. I'm pulling my hair out already (hope I don't offend anybody, but most airport literature doesn't appeal to me)!

Heavens! I don't think anyone's suggesting this... But to do the opposite, ie, say "real literature must at no point have been available on the magazine rack at your local gas station" (where I must say I picked up a very affordable copy of RoTK the other day [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) would rule out things like Shakespeare (although he was before gas stations).

yes, [Shakespeare's] plays did have great public appeal when they came out, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that it was as much, if not much more, for their entertainment value as for the people standing on the floor in the globe to go into the theatre and have all manners of catharsis and food for thought.

How many of us loved Tolkien first for the deep literary themes and catharsis? It's quite possible to read good literature for its entertainment value without destroying its literary merit. In fact, I probably wouldn't read it if I didn't find it interesting... There are simply too many Russian names in Dostoevsky for me to tackle without the amazing storylines. Good literature should be interesting.

And as for someone pointing out Tolkien's inconsistent tone or other flaws, again, consider established classics, like Dostoevsky (I'm on a Russian novelist kick, just now). The Brothers Karamazov could hardly be called structurally tidy and sound. Classic? Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So I have so second The Saucepan Man's assessment:

looks to me to be a poor justification for intellectual snobbery.

Sophia

[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks, Sophia. You are right. I was in no way saying that only books that receive widespread popularity should be considered as literary works. What I was saying was that mass appeal should not necessarily rule out literary acclaim.

tifo_gcs, I take your point about people being more superstitious in Shakepeare's time. This argument might even (at a stretch) apply to Frankenstein and Dracula. But I don't think that it follows that a book should deal only with "real life" issues in order to be regarded as a work of literature. The works that I mentioned are still regarded as great works of literature today, and I am pretty sure that there are not many academics who believe that there are fairies (or vampires, for that matter) at the bottom of their garden.

However, I use the word "should" above because, sadly, I think that you are right, tifo_gcs. There does seem to be a prevailing attitude amongst academics that popular contemporary works and/or those that belong to the fantasy, horror or sci-fi genres cannot be proper literary works. It should not be the case that such works automatically be denied literary status, but unfortunately it seems that, to a large degree, it is the case.

But then again, as I said before, why should we care? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ April 09, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[mark12_30]

But then again, as I said before, why should we care?

Those still in lit classes probably care because when one loves a work, one likes to talk about it, and one would think that it would be safe to do so in a literature class. All too frequently it is not. Lush, I sympathize.

But I am not surprised, although my reason for not being surprised may surprise you (then again, maybe not.)

As is mentioned in Tolkien's letters, Tolkien's works are entwined with his Catholic world-view. This comes through to the average reader, although they may not put it into words. Tolkien makes a number of moral judgements, theological implications, and sets up several gleaming heroes whose faults are far less noticable than our own are.

Academics don't always appreciate that.

The fact that the books, in addition to being silently preachy, also are popular, and that many people claim that the books have had a profound influence on their lives, makes it (to the academic community) cloyingly close to moralizing. When a centuries-old work moralizes, professors wink at it and expect their students to be condescendingly patient, because as has been mentioned above, it was written by superstitious folk who let their culture dictate to them. Church, God, fairies, talking trees; it's all dismissable in the average academic environment.

Thankfully this is not true of all academic environments, but it is true of many of them.

Tolkien moralizes, and asks us to suspend our disbelief, and preaches (silently) about God, and gives us larger-than-life heroes whos faults are not adultery or embezzling or treason. And he's twentieth century! Where's the scandal? Where's the intrigue? Where's the disgrace? How can this be serious stuff? It's all far, far too virtuous to be taken seriously.

Self-sacrifice, fidelity, perseverance, and loyalty? Oh, come on.

So, as the Saucepan Man argues, why should we care? I care far more how many people will look back on their lives and say, "Tolkien changed me for the better." That, in my opinion, is the true measure of any book, or song or work of art. It is, I believe, the measure that will be used in eternity. Tolkien will measure up. His work will be a huge success.

I don't expect the academic community to ever look at it like that. I don't expect them to ever see its true worth. If they can't experience any eucatastrophe at all, they can discuss its faults til they are purple, and still miss the point of the writings. I feel sorry for them.

I think the average Downer is way ahead of them.

[The Saucepan Man]

Those still in lit classes probably care because when one loves a work, one likes to talk about it, and one would think that it would be safe to do so in a literature class. All too frequently it is not.

I thoroughly agree with you there. Students should be able, without fear of condescension or mockery, to raise JRRT's works in any discussion of literary styles, themes etc to which they are relevant. There is more than sufficient literary merit in the works to justify that, irrespective of whether or not they enjoy literary recognition on a more general level. And, providing that the works are relevant to the discussion and their use is supported by intelligent argument, any teacher or lecturer who, by whatever means, tries to dismiss or exclude them from the discussion is, in my view, displaying a very poor understanding of the nature of their profession.

But the use of JRRT's works in this way does not depend upon them gaining widespread academic acceptance. Nor does it depend upon them being on any course syllabus, which could in any event be counterproductive to allowing each individual reader to form their own views on them.

I care far more how many people will look back on their lives and say, "Tolkien changed me for the better." That, in my opinion, is the true measure of any book, or song or work of art.

Hear hear. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Aiwendil]

Sophia wrote:

How many of us loved Tolkien first for the deep literary themes and catharsis? It's quite possible to read good literature for its entertainment value without destroying its literary merit.

I disagree with your distinction between "deep literary themes" on the one hand and "entertainment" on the other. Let us probe the meaning of the first term. If by "deep literary themes" you mean some underlying message or purpose in the work beyond the story as such, then you are speaking of allegory. There is no allegory in LotR. If you are speaking of the kind of 'applicability' Tolkien talked about, surely this cannot be distinguished from the entertainment value of the story. That is, does not the applicability of the story manifest itself in making the story a good story and an enjoyable one? I would personally take it a step further and say that the purpose of any work of literature, and the attribute by which it ought to get literary acclaim, is its beauty - i.e., its ability to entertain.

I can't help but to feel that the term 'catharsis' is a bit out of place here. 'Catharsis', I believe, refers to the theory that by reading (or viewing) a tragic story, one may purge oneself of certain associated emotions, like sorrow. LotR is surely not a tragedy, and even if one were to accept the theory of catharsis as valid, I don't think one would be likely to find it in LotR.

So I suppose I agree with the main thrust of your argument - that entertainment value is not a bad thing. But I would go further and say that such things as deep themes are, or should be, tributary to the entertainment value rather than opposed to it.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

But I don't think that it follows that a book should deal only with "real life" issues in order to be regarded as a work of literature.

Very true. Not only does this (as you point out) restrict the classification of 'good literature' unfairly; it also relegates non-modern works of literature to being mere historical artifacts. This was the distressing tendency I mentioned in an earlier post - the tendency to treat older works not as literature but merely as data for the study of the period in which they were created, scarcely tolerable save for their historical value.

If Shakespeare's use of magic in his plays is only to be tolerated because at the time when he wrote some people actually believed in magic, then it follows that the quality of a work depends not on its own merits as art, but on extraneous factors like the time when it was written. This seems to me to be quite absurd. It marks a thinly veiled contempt for earlier works on the part of the literary establishment, and by the same token a snobbish belief in the superiority of modern literature. Even worse, it shows that the modern critic is not interested in art as such but in historical study on the one hand and social commentary on the other. Hence the sharp distinction drawn between ancient works and modern works. This at least explains the exclusionary attitude toward modern fantasy.

mark12_30 wrote:

Tolkien moralizes, and asks us to suspend our disbelief, and preaches (silently) about God, and gives us larger-than-life heroes whos faults are not adultery or embezzling or treason. And he's twentieth century! Where's the scandal? Where's the intrigue? Where's the disgrace? How can this be serious stuff? It's all far, far too virtuous to be taken seriously.

Exactly. The problem is that modern critics do not read literature as literature, but always treat it as if it is merely code for some other, deeper meaning. When they find either that that deeper meaning displeases them, or that the work is not fundamentally concerned with 'saying something' about the real world, they take issue with it.

[tifo_gcs]

The problem is that modern critics do not read literature as literature, but always treat it as if it is merely code for some other, deeper meaning. When they find either that that deeper meaning displeases them, or that the work is not fundamentally concerned with 'saying something' about the real world, they take issue with it.

True.. this is what sparks literary debate... the fact that you disagree with what the author is saying about a certain theme. And the way I've been taught English during my High School career is that literature has a conflict. Other books and writings have problems. A conflict being defined as having your cake and eating it too, whereas a problem is how to run a marthon faster than everyone else to win the New York Marathon (yes, I'm simplifying a bit).

Are there conflicts in LOTR? yes certainly. Everyone who gets close to the ring, except for some reason most of the fellowship, is tempted by the power of it. But ulitmatley, the conflict boils down to good versus evil. There is a right and a wrong, and the author tells you which is which, by saying that no-one can use the ring for good.
In literature, such as my English teacher defines it, conflicts and themes are not merely good vs. evil, they are more of the sylla and charibdis (hope the spelling is right) type, where there isn't any one right answer, but two alluring (or anything but alluring) choices, both with their pitfalls and upsides. There is no right or wrong, but a whole bunch of grey, which inspires a lot of discussion as to what the "right choice is." You don't hear many people arguing that Frodo should have overthrown Sauron using the power of the ring, because (as I wrote earlier) Tolkien says it can't be done. End of discussion, Tolkien is the absolute authority on Middle Earth.

Some people say there is an absolute right or wrong in the world. The vast majority of these people have a monotheistic religion they adhere to. Monotheistic religions all have guidelines as to what is right and wrong. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a religion that doesn't have guidelines. But it seems to me, that in this world, there is no absolute authority to tell you what is right or wrong, assuming religion is a choice for each person, that each person can chose to not believe in any religion.

The point I'm trying to make (in a very roundabout fashion) is that literature is a way (mainly for intellectuals, I'll admit) for people to wrangle these thoughts out in their head or with someone else. You can argue about Holden Caulfield (protagonist from Catcher in the Rye, by J. D: Salinger) until your face turns blue, because Salinger presents a possible solution. But you as the reader you get to decide whether the answer is right or wrong. You can do that because the story is based in this world. How many Frodos do you know, who can set out with a group of comrades and save the world? How many Holdens do you know, young people trying to figure out what they're doing in school, weighed down by the expectations of family and others (I've been there, and I'll bet a fair amount of anything that most people have)? You can't argue choices of the same magnitude with Tolkien as a frame of reference because the 'rules' i Middle Earth are different than the ones 'here.' Ultimately, it is much more foreign to us than the world we inhabit. Literature, as I see it, is a way for people to see the different ways of living their lives, and possilby to help them decide how to live it, not by giving them the answer, but by asking questions, posing problems and sparking debates about the way we live our lives.

Alas, I have now opened up the great can of worms known as religion, which gives me plenty of attempts at stepping on peoples toes. If I do, I apologize.

Here's the editied bit: As to seeing the "classics" merely as interesting anecdotes from old times, I disagree. They still have relevance to us, or we wouldn't read Sophocles and Homer. Point is, they raise timelss issues. Oedipus talks about pride, destiny (does it exist, and if it does, can it be overcome). Those two issues are still very relevant to us all.

Self-sacrifice, fidelity, perseverance, and loyalty

I'm going to stick my neck out once more and say that at least fidelity, perseverance and loyalty don't strike me as themes.
And then I'm going to hide behind the escuse that I've spent over an hour on this reply and my brain is on the fritz, so I can't find the energy (or spare time at work [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] ) to argue that

[ April 10, 2003: Message edited by: tifo_gcs ]

[mark12_30]

tifo_gcs,

fidelity, perseverance and loyalty don't strike me as themes.

Why not?

--mark12_30

[Bêthberry]

Sophia the Thunder Mistress, my apologies for not replying sooner to your request for an elaboration of my point about The Other. I have had computer problems all last week.

That elaboration would really take this thread off topic, so I will save it and ponder it for a different thread some time in the future. I hope to see you there!

Regards to all for keeping this thread going,
Bethberry

[tifo_gcs]

At the danger of being wrong in relation to the textbook definition of themes (which I can't quite remember what is), I don't feel that they are themes because all three of them are positive. I don't see any of those three character traits being negative in a any way. Pride, the example I used earlier, has both good and bad sides. Self-esteem is the upside, but arrogance is the downside, to make a brief example. A theme is about exploring the good and the bad sides.The reason I don't include self-sacrifice is because it can easily be self-destructive, which is definitely negative in my book.

[mark12_30]

tifo, I don't remember a requirement that a theme had to have a negative... but reviewing the three in question, fidelity, perseverance and loyalty, I would say that Gollum, and Boromir (who thankfully repented), provide some antithesis to Sam's and Aragorn's loyalty and fidelity; and Denethor provides the opposite of perseverance: despair.

In addition, you could say that in the very end, poor Frodo, crushed and broken and at the end of all his reserves, falls himself into despair, faithlessness and even treason. Sam provides the antithesis for him, and Gollum is the (uncooperative) vehicle of grace by which Frodo's effort is redeemed.

So, in cnsidering your definition, I would still say that these are themes.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Feeling a need to defend myself... Aiwendil said,

I disagree with your distinction between "deep literary themes" on the one hand and "entertainment" on the other. Let us probe the meaning of the first term. If by "deep literary themes" you mean some underlying message or purpose in the work beyond the story as such, then you are speaking of allegory.

When I said themes, I wasn't at all referring to allegorical content, but to the sorts of qualities that tifo-gcs and mark12_30 have been discussing; qualities that run through the work, such as the opposition between despair and hope, loyalty and treason. I am quite familiar with what the Professor had to say about allegory, yet I must contend that if looking for underlying emphases in the work is allegorical, then, I'm guilty as charged. But fortunately, I don't think that's what either you or Tolkien meant by allegory, my apologies for expressing myself badly last time. Catharsis, was another term Aiwendil objected to my use of, I was using it, as it had been used in a previous post, which my post was responding to. I believe the word has been brought in on the Eucatastrophe thread as well, in the same spirit, referring to an emotional reaction to the text.

Tolkien moralizes, and asks us to suspend our disbelief, and preaches (silently) about God, and gives us larger-than-life heroes whos faults are not adultery or embezzling or treason. And he's twentieth century! Where's the scandal? Where's the intrigue? Where's the disgrace? How can this be serious stuff? It's all far, far too virtuous to be taken seriously.

I hope this is not true-- but I'm afraid it is. I remember as far back as my junior high english classes hearing about the necessity of flawed characters and "human" protagonists (meaning hard to tell if they're acutally the good guys...) This has a place, but other approaches should have a place as well.

Bethberry I'm looking forward to the thread on the Other-- will be there! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

And finally, as a sidenote to this thread, I just turned in (as a Undergrad Philosophy student) a paper for Ethics on Aesthetics in Tolkien, related to the function of the eucatastrophe. We'll see how that goes... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I'm pressed for time, sorry about the disorganization of this post.

Sophia

[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]

[Ainaserkewen]

You are very right. Those scholars are so stuck up. They wouldn't know enjoyment if it hit them in the face. It's like this is music sometimes too. If the composer is very popular, the pros don't want to play him. Just a note. I'd become a Tolkien scholar if I was dedicated enough. To study something so great would be worth the work, plus it's more enjoyable work.

[Aiwendil]

Sophia wrote:

I am quite familiar with what the Professor had to say about allegory, yet I must contend that if looking for underlying emphases in the work is allegorical, then, I'm guilty as charged. But fortunately, I don't think that's what either you or Tolkien meant by allegory, my apologies for expressing myself badly last time.

You did not express yourself badly; I was merely trying to deconstruct and analyze what you said. I understood that you probably did not mean allegory. My main point was that applicability/themes cannot be distinguished from entertainment. The essence of my point was:

If you are speaking of the kind of 'applicability' Tolkien talked about, surely this cannot be distinguished from the entertainment value of the story. That is, does not the applicability of the story manifest itself in making the story a good story and an enjoyable one? I would personally take it a step further and say that the purpose of any work of literature, and the attribute by which it ought to get literary acclaim, is its beauty - i.e., its ability to entertain.

[Jessica Jade]

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!

Wow, i haven't been here for a while. Great thread! I'm writing an essay on Tolkien, actually , for my IB extended essay, and that's a really interesting point...do you think you could tell me where to find any sources that verify the claim you made above? If you could, or if the lady you talked to knows, that'd save me a whole bunch of time, so i was just wondering if you might be able to help me out just a little. Thanks anyway! I'll be back~

[ April 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jessica Jade ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Quoting Aiwendil yet again:

If you are speaking of the kind of 'applicability' Tolkien talked about, surely this cannot be distinguished from the entertainment value of the story. That is, does not the applicability of the story manifest itself in making the story a good story and an enjoyable one?

I'm hesitant to agree with this, but I need to gather my thoughts a bit before I can coherently say why.

Sophia

[Lalaith]

What a fascinating, erudite thread. So many brilliant posts. I've been hankering to make a humble contribution, but felt it would be rude to do so without having read the whole thing. At last I've had time to do so.
Bethberry, your summary of lit crit is masterly. It seemed to me, many moons ago when I did my lit crit paper, that so much of it served not as a tool of understanding but as a master. So, for example, during the time that social realism was all the rage, everyone adored Zola and disregarded Jane Austen, and so on...when in fact both are brilliant authors but for very different reasons and cannot and should not be judged by identical criteria.
For some years now, linear narrative has been deeply unfashionable. Its all been about form, and the 'old-fashioned yarn', ie the kind that Tolkien wrote, is passe.
His stately kind of writing is also regarded with suspicion. Look at this quote from the highly celebrated writer Salman Rushdie:

Like its precursor, The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson's picture is an improvement on its source material, if only because Jackson's film language is subtler, more sophisticated and certainly more contemporary than the stilted, deliberate archaisms of JRR Tolkien's descriptive prose and, even more problematically, of his dialogue. (I am a big fan of the book version of The Lord of the Rings, but nobody ever read Tolkien for the writing.)

(I personally find Rushdie's prose unreadable but there you go...)

And then there is the image problem that Lush and others have referred to - the kind of shelf-mates Tolkien has in bookshops, the kind of people who are believed to enjoy him.

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.

Davem, you're spot on about this. The films have been even more 'linear' than the books, the fellowship in particular: 'walk, walk, fight, walk, walk, fight'.
But I would like to end on a bright note. Currently, there seems to be a swing in favour of 'whatever gets kids reading again is good.' Harry Potter for one has benefitted from this (although clearly no-one is going to be doing their MAs on 'the Goblet of Fire - a well-wrought urn?') LotR consistently tops favorite book lists, and maybe the new egalitarian mood will also encompass Tolkien.

[ April 17, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]