Why Do Academics Hate Tolkien?
Shanahan
deeply ashamed. While I was in graduate school (liberal arts), I never
stood up for Tolkien when he was sneered at by the oh-so-hip academics. So
now I'm kinda making up for that by rabidly defending him whenever possible.
As an exercise to that end:
Let's speculate on why the academy does hate our dear old Prof so much, and
destroy all their viewpoints in a thorough and satisfying way! (and let's
see if we can leave out Tom Shippey's arguments; not because they're bad,
simply because it would be repetitive).
- Shanahan
| 'Thought you would have been here days ago,' said the balding elf.
'Have any trouble along the way?'
'I could write a book,' Frito said prophetically. |
Raven
news:4009...@news.netacc.net...
> Let's speculate on why the academy does hate our dear old Prof so much,
> and destroy all their viewpoints in a thorough and satisfying way!
Which academics? Some academics do, while others are fond of the old
professor.
Rabe.
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<poq...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
> OK, confession time: There's one episode in my personal history of which I'm
> deeply ashamed. While I was in graduate school (liberal arts), I never
> stood up for Tolkien when he was sneered at by the oh-so-hip academics. So
> now I'm kinda making up for that by rabidly defending him whenever possible.
> As an exercise to that end:
>
> Let's speculate on why the academy does hate our dear old Prof so much, and
> destroy all their viewpoints in a thorough and satisfying way! (and let's
> see if we can leave out Tom Shippey's arguments; not because they're bad,
> simply because it would be repetitive).
i cried because i had no shoes
and then i met a man with no sense of wonder
Anotos
"Shanahan" <poq...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in message
news:4009...@news.netacc.net...
> OK, confession time: There's one episode in my personal history of which
I'm
> deeply ashamed. While I was in graduate school (liberal arts), I never
> stood up for Tolkien when he was sneered at by the oh-so-hip academics.
So
> now I'm kinda making up for that by rabidly defending him whenever
possible.
> As an exercise to that end:
>
> Let's speculate on why the academy does hate our dear old Prof so much,
and
> destroy all their viewpoints in a thorough and satisfying way! (and let's
> see if we can leave out Tom Shippey's arguments; not because they're bad,
> simply because it would be repetitive).
Well, it's not great literature by most measures. Tolkien is popular
because he created an alternate fantasy world out of whole cloth, one that
appeals to many people. But that's not necessarily the function of
"literature" as academics might see it. The fact that most tolkien
afficianados really like the Silm is evidence of that. Silm isn't going to
be considered great literature by virtually anybody, yet for those who
really "get" Tolkien, it's essential, and a great read.
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> because he created an alternate fantasy world out of whole cloth, one that
> appeals to many people. But that's not necessarily the function of
> "literature" as academics might see it. The fact that most tolkien
i best i could understand solshetizen
is that real literature cannot deal with alternate realities
that real literature has to be set in the harrow and sorrow of this world
and no happy endings
(which excludes starwars)
Aris Katsaris
"Anotos" <ano...@helm.com> wrote in message
news:100k1lk...@corp.supernews.com...
> > and
> > destroy all their viewpoints in a thorough and satisfying way! (and let's
> > see if we can leave out Tom Shippey's arguments; not because they're bad,
> > simply because it would be repetitive).
>
> Well, it's not great literature by most measures. Tolkien is popular
> because he created an alternate fantasy world out of whole cloth, one that
> appeals to many people. But that's not necessarily the function of
> "literature" as academics might see it.
In short, academics have a narrow-minded view of literature, which
includes only things that aren't *actually* enjoyed by ordinary people.
For it to be "literature" it has to be pretentious and elaborate so that
only fellow academics can dissect it at their leisure.
Mark Twain and Shakespeare weren't "literature" in their own time
either. Neither was Homer of course.
> The fact that most tolkien
> afficianados really like the Silm is evidence of that. Silm isn't going to
> be considered great literature by virtually anybody, yet for those who
> really "get" Tolkien, it's essential, and a great read.
Not for those who "get" Tolkien, whatever the hell that means, but for
those who *enjoy* Tolkien.
Aris Katsaris
Anotos
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:bud9f7$2ljp$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> In short, academics have a narrow-minded view of literature, which
> includes only things that aren't *actually* enjoyed by ordinary people.
Keep telling yourself that, I'm sure it'll be true eventually.
> For it to be "literature" it has to be pretentious and elaborate so that
> only fellow academics can dissect it at their leisure.
>
> Mark Twain and Shakespeare weren't "literature" in their own time
> either. Neither was Homer of course.
Both Twain and Shakespeare were highly respected writers in their own time.
> > The fact that most tolkien
> > afficianados really like the Silm is evidence of that. Silm isn't going
to
> > be considered great literature by virtually anybody, yet for those who
> > really "get" Tolkien, it's essential, and a great read.
>
> Not for those who "get" Tolkien, whatever the hell that means, but for
> those who *enjoy* Tolkien.
yeah, "get" is pretty obscure - sorry for confusing you.
Conrad B Dunkerson
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mair_fheal-
> i best i could understand solshetizen
> is that real literature cannot deal with alternate realities
> that real literature has to be set in the harrow and sorrow of this world
Which... LotR was. Indeed, that is precisely what it was. The 'harrow and
sorrow' of a 'mythical time' in this world, but if it is to be excluded for
not being 'historically accurate' that'd do in MOST literature.
> and no happy endings
Again, that doesn't exclude LotR.
Chris Kern
the following:
>Well, it's not great literature by most measures. Tolkien is popular
>because he created an alternate fantasy world out of whole cloth, one that
>appeals to many people. But that's not necessarily the function of
>"literature" as academics might see it.
But some "academics" *do* consider The Lord of the Rings to be a great
work of literature. Some don't, but there are other works which are
contested, even by great authors (i.e. some say that Dickens' "Barnaby
Rudge" does not deserve to be called great literature, others think it
does. Other "lesser" works like Eliot's "Romola" are the same way.)
What "measures" would you set up that would disqualify LotR from being
a great work of literature? It comes down to opinion most of the
time.
-Chris
JXStern
<poq...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>OK, confession time: There's one episode in my personal history of which I'm
>deeply ashamed. While I was in graduate school (liberal arts), I never
>stood up for Tolkien when he was sneered at by the oh-so-hip academics. So
>now I'm kinda making up for that by rabidly defending him whenever possible.
>As an exercise to that end:
>
>Let's speculate on why the academy does hate our dear old Prof so much, and
>destroy all their viewpoints in a thorough and satisfying way! (and let's
>see if we can leave out Tom Shippey's arguments; not because they're bad,
>simply because it would be repetitive).
Gawd, I hardly want to spend long hours constructing academic
arguments contra academics, something about rolling in the mud with
pigs comes to mind.
LOTR is fantasy, never a favorite of academia, written in hybrid
Victorian/Elizabethan styles making it seem yet sillier, with only the
loosest direct allegories to current events, which somehow anybody in
litcrit now requires of any work discussed, it is semi-biographically
inspired by someone with the poor taste to actually fight in a war and
survive with all limbs intact, it is derivative of myths so crude and
ancient that they don't even qualify as literature, it has strong
theological elements which alone would disqualify it from academic
consideration, considers some things to be good and others evil which
is of course so primitive you'd be better off deconstructing a
trilobyte, there's no sex so how could it be literature, and almost no
drugs so it's hard for them to identify with, the racial profile of
the characters is of course non-PC and so nearly undiscussable in
public universities, do you really want to talk of the restoration of
the monarchy after all, and what about the environmental cleanup
required in Mordor (talk about the scouring of the shire being a fault
of the movie!), and of course they should simply have negotiated with
Sauron while declaring a no-fly zone around Minas Ithil and the
actions of Gandalf are so unilateral and unethical in favoring the
interest of the wizards' guild, that the politically neanderthal*
structure of the story is repulsive on its own, whatever small merits
the text might have as a travelogue through the mid-twentieth century
id.
*Apologies to neanderthals past and present for this comparison.
>- Shanahan
>| 'Thought you would have been here days ago,' said the balding elf.
>'Have any trouble along the way?'
>'I could write a book,' Frito said prophetically. |
Well, BORED of the Rings is another literary category entirely!
J.
Stan Brown
<bud9f7$2ljp$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr>:
>In short, academics have a narrow-minded view of literature, which
>includes only things that aren't *actually* enjoyed by ordinary people.
>For it to be "literature" it has to be pretentious and elaborate so that
>only fellow academics can dissect it at their leisure.
It is not clear to me whether you were sarcastically agreeing with
the OP's canards, or you actually hold the above view. Academic
snobbery does exist, certainly, and always has; but I think grade-
school teachers are much bigger "lit snobs" than university
academics. IMHO the real truth of the matter is in what you said
next:
>Mark Twain and Shakespeare weren't "literature" in their own time
>either. Neither was Homer of course.
It is very hard to get perspective on a work of art or literature
right away. Anything new is ex hypothesi going to be different from
what has come before, and if it's really new the old standards may
not even apply. Think of how people reacted at the premiere of
almost every work of music now regarded as great: not just critical
pans, but sometimes even riots in concert halls.
Add to this that Tolkien's work seemed, by subject matter anyway, to
belong to a genre that was _justly_ regarded as trivial, that he
himself had a name as an author of one book, and that quite clearly
for children.
Were academics slow to accord Tolkien his place in literature? Yes,
I think most of us would agree (though obviously we're a biased
sample). Were they _unreasonably_ slow, in historical perspective?
That is a much harder question. I am able to say that it _is_ a
question (disagreeing with the OP), but not to answer it.
The OP asked why present-day academics hate Tolkien. There I think
we must say "Objection, m'lud! Assuming facts not in evidence!"
Given the amount of scholarly work done on Tolkien, I think it is at
best an oversimplification and at worst just wrong to assert that
academics, as a class, hate Tolkien.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Orac
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> "Anotos" <ano...@helm.com> wrote in message
> news:100k1lk...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Shanahan" <poq...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in message
> > news:4009...@news.netacc.net...
> > >
> > > Let's speculate on why the academy does hate our dear old Prof so much,
> > > and
> > > destroy all their viewpoints in a thorough and satisfying way! (and let's
> > > see if we can leave out Tom Shippey's arguments; not because they're bad,
> > > simply because it would be repetitive).
> >
> > Well, it's not great literature by most measures. Tolkien is popular
> > because he created an alternate fantasy world out of whole cloth, one that
> > appeals to many people. But that's not necessarily the function of
> > "literature" as academics might see it.
>
> In short, academics have a narrow-minded view of literature, which
> includes only things that aren't *actually* enjoyed by ordinary people.
> For it to be "literature" it has to be pretentious and elaborate so that
> only fellow academics can dissect it at their leisure.
Indeed. Oddly enough, I recently read that Stephen King said nearly the
same thing in a speech he gave when accepting a lifetime achievement
award at the National Book Awards ceremony a couple of months ago. My
favorite line from the speech: "What do you think? You get social
academic brownie points for deliberately staying out of touch with your
own culture?" Direct hit.
> Mark Twain and Shakespeare weren't "literature" in their own time
> either. Neither was Homer of course.
Nor was Charles Dickens, for that matter. Some of his novels were
published in installments for popular magazines before ever being
combined as novels in single volumes. Examples include many of his most
respected works, such as "Nicholas Nickleby," "Oliver Twist," "David
Copperfield," "Bleak House," and "A Tale of Two Cities."
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
zett
I don't know what 'most measures' are, but for me if a book gets me to
examine my inner life and makes me want to learn more about my history
and culture it sure the hell isn't 'lite entertainment.' If that is
not good enough for other folks, well, they can go hang.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip good commentary>
> is of course so primitive you'd be better off deconstructing a
> trilobyte
Humorous techie definitions for trilobytes please....
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Shanahan
> It seems "Aris Katsaris" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien in article
> >includes only things that aren't *actually* enjoyed by ordinary people.
> >For it to be "literature" it has to be pretentious and elaborate so that
> >only fellow academics can dissect it at their leisure.
>
> It is not clear to me whether you were sarcastically agreeing with
> the OP's canards, or you actually hold the above view. Academic
Well, red herrings, anyway...<g>
> The OP asked why present-day academics hate Tolkien. There I think
> we must say "Objection, m'lud! Assuming facts not in evidence!"
> Given the amount of scholarly work done on Tolkien, I think it is at
> best an oversimplification and at worst just wrong to assert that
> academics, as a class, hate Tolkien.
>
You're quite right, I was oversimplifying rather badly. I do believe that
the majority of academic opinion is at best indifferent to Tolkien, at worst
contemptuous. It is, I think, part of the larger battle between the old
canon and the attempts to open that up to pop culture, etc. etc. etc.
Tolkien may be perceived as 'pop' culture rather than 'high' culture, simply
because of his popularity (hmm, is there a tautology in there somewhere?
<g>).
I think Tolkien is neither and both, m'self. And I think the dismissal of
Tolkien has much to do with the origins of his works in folktale, a
denigrated genre due to its social origins.
-Shanahan
Stan Brown
5CA4CC.135...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>:
>Stephen King said nearly the
>same thing in a speech he gave when accepting a lifetime achievement
>award at the National Book Awards ceremony a couple of months ago. My
>favorite line from the speech: "What do you think? You get social
>academic brownie points for deliberately staying out of touch with your
>own culture?" Direct hit.
Stephen King is _not_ my own culture. He's the horror-book
equivalent of Danielle Steele: churned out like Hostess cupcakes,
and with about as much nutrition.
Chocoholic
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a74e996e...@news.odyssey.net...
> It seems "Orac" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien in article <orac-
> 5CA4CC.135...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>:
> >Stephen King said nearly the
> >same thing in a speech he gave when accepting a lifetime achievement
> >award at the National Book Awards ceremony a couple of months ago. My
> >favorite line from the speech: "What do you think? You get social
> >academic brownie points for deliberately staying out of touch with your
> >own culture?" Direct hit.
>
> Stephen King is _not_ my own culture. He's the horror-book
> equivalent of Danielle Steele: churned out like Hostess cupcakes,
> and with about as much nutrition.
>
LOL... Yes, the 'paradox' works both ways! The popular authors who are
leaping to point out that 'great literature' doesn't have to be obscure are
not necessarily going to want to recognize the obverse of the coin: that
'popular' is not equivalent to 'good' either...
CC
classes... but "their hatred" - whomever they may be - is probably related
to the themes of pro-monarchy and patriachy in Tolkien's world. This sort of
criticism usually comes from left-wing (socialist and feminist)academics who
generally hate the fantasy (elfs, dragons, etc) literature genre. Usually
they read the books with a particular bias and see what they only want to
see... As for characters like Galadriel or Eowyn - "they" would complain
that the former quits Middle-earth and the latter returns to a subserviant
role as mother-carer.
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<Choco...@Cocoa.org> wrote:
is lotr either popular or good
TeaLady (Mari C.)
> The OP asked why present-day academics hate Tolkien. There I
> think we must say "Objection, m'lud! Assuming facts not in
> evidence!" Given the amount of scholarly work done on Tolkien,
> I think it is at best an oversimplification and at worst just
> wrong to assert that academics, as a class, hate Tolkien.
>
Perhaps he meant English/British academics ? There is (or was) a
huge difference in temperament between US professors and BG. An
entirely different sort of snobbery is practiced in each country -
and I think that the level of snobbery at least was, if it isn't
still, a bit higher in GB than US. Although I am sure there are US
profs that could out-snob anyone. Even in Lit.
TWIAVBP and all, even though it seems quite small sometimes.
--
mc
Anotos
"Chris Kern" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cmvk00tcjbgor4tkc...@4ax.com...
Depth and realization of characters, depth of plot.
What would LotR be without the Silm and other works to flesh out Middle
Earth? Would it have spawned such a following of people convinced that it
was great literature? It's admittedly true that many people enjoy LotR
without reading any other Tolkien works (other than the Hobbit), but are
they the people who think of it as great literature? I doubt it. Those who
think of LotR as great literature are probably immersed in all of Tolkien's
works on Middle Earth, and lose sight of how limited LotR really is, when
considered separately.
Aris Katsaris
>
> "Chris Kern" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cmvk00tcjbgor4tkc...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:06:20 -0600, "Anotos" <ano...@helm.com> posted
> > the following:
> >
> > work of literature. Some don't, but there are other works which are
> > contested, even by great authors (i.e. some say that Dickens' "Barnaby
> > Rudge" does not deserve to be called great literature, others think it
> > does. Other "lesser" works like Eliot's "Romola" are the same way.)
> >
> > What "measures" would you set up that would disqualify LotR from being
> > a great work of literature?
>
> Depth and realization of characters, depth of plot.
>
> What would LotR be without the Silm and other works to flesh out Middle
> Earth? Would it have spawned such a following of people convinced that it
> was great literature?
Since The Silmarillion didn't come out until the 70s and LOTR was popular
before then, then yeah, probably.
> It's admittedly true that many people enjoy LotR
> without reading any other Tolkien works (other than the Hobbit), but are
> they the people who think of it as great literature?
You've still not given us a definition of "great literature".
> I doubt it. Those who
> think of LotR as great literature are probably immersed in all of Tolkien's
> works on Middle Earth,
Though it probably works the other way around -- they became immersed
in all of Tolkien's works *because* they found LoTR to be great literature.
> and lose sight of how limited LotR really is, when
> considered separately.
So, nobody ever claimed LOTR to be "great literature" (whatever the
hell that means), before the Silmarillion was published. I somehow
find that to be very doubtful.
Aris Katsaris
AC
I happen to think it is good. There is no doubt that it is popular.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Anaotos
> > What would LotR be without the Silm and other works to flesh out Middle
> > Earth? Would it have spawned such a following of people convinced that
it
> > was great literature?
>
> Since The Silmarillion didn't come out until the 70s and LOTR was popular
> before then, then yeah, probably.
Big difference between being popular and being worthy of academic study.
> > It's admittedly true that many people enjoy LotR
> > without reading any other Tolkien works (other than the Hobbit), but are
> > they the people who think of it as great literature?
>
> You've still not given us a definition of "great literature".
The definitions of great and literature are as close as your nearest
dictionary, if you want a subjective definition.
If, however, you want to impose an objective definition on the phrase, then
there can really be none other than "that which is, by concensus, considered
great literature".
More to the point, why do you, or the OP, consider LotR to be worthy of
study? What shape would a university-level literature class devoted to LotR
take? Certainly the whole trilogy would have to be read - do you think most
academics would consider that to be a good usage of their students' reading
time? Is LotR so dense with literary ideas worthy of discussion? Would it
measure up to a similar page count of consensus "great literature"?
> So, nobody ever claimed LOTR to be "great literature" (whatever the
> hell that means), before the Silmarillion was published. I somehow
> find that to be very doubtful.
You can find someone to claim any book is great literature. Nobody can take
away the success of Tolkien's works, nor the genius of Tolkien. I just have
to wonder why it should seem so strange to Tolkien afficianados that most
academics don't consider LotR to be particularly worthy of study, in the
grand scheme of things.
Aris Katsaris
"Anaotos" <Ano...@helm.com> wrote in message
news:100mvsn...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:bufqmm$2gr$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> >
> > "Anotos" <ano...@helm.com> wrote in message
> > news:100mpl4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > What would LotR be without the Silm and other works to flesh out Middle
> > > Earth? Would it have spawned such a following of people convinced that
> > > it was great literature?
> >
> > Since The Silmarillion didn't come out until the 70s and LOTR was popular
> > before then, then yeah, probably.
>
> Big difference between being popular and being worthy of academic study.
But that's not the questions you asked, was it? I thought you asked about
it being great literature, not whether it was "worthy of academic study".
There's lots and lots works of "great literature" that stands as great
literature simply on the merits of enduring and deepening enjoyment.
Not on "worthiness of academic study".
> > > It's admittedly true that many people enjoy LotR
> > > without reading any other Tolkien works (other than the Hobbit), but are
> > > they the people who think of it as great literature?
> >
> > You've still not given us a definition of "great literature".
>
> The definitions of great and literature are as close as your nearest
> dictionary, if you want a subjective definition.
Then LOTR is by definition "literature", and your previous question about
whether many people would consider it "great literature" had they
not read the Silmarillion, is indeed quite connected to how many
people would like it, had they not read the Silmarillion.
> More to the point, why do you, or the OP, consider LotR to be worthy of
> study? What shape would a university-level literature class devoted to LotR
> take?
*shrug* What shape would a university-level literature class devoted
to "Macbeth" take? (not Shakespeare as a whole, only "Macbeth")
Or to "A Christmas Carol"?
I wouldn't know. I've never taken university-level literature classes -
I'm a computer science student.
Discuss the correlation between language, culture and thought as
expressed in the various nations of Middle-earth. Discuss the religious
symbolism and significance. Discuss the running themes.
Discuss whether there's common imagery from stories much older than
this. One example that I've recently read about (and which I have no
clue if Tolkien intended) was the the black sails from the south being
regarded as ill news and driving the lord of the city (who believes he
sent his son to his death) to suicide.
That's Theseus and Aegeas I'm talking about, of course.
> Certainly the whole trilogy would have to be read - do you think most
> academics would consider that to be a good usage of their students' reading
> time?
No. But then again I don't have to consider something to be a
"good usage of students' reading time", to consider it great literature.
You seem to think that literature classes *define* what great literature
is, rather than just study it.
> Is LotR so dense with literary ideas worthy of discussion? Would it
> measure up to a similar page count of consensus "great literature"?
Since my "great literature" includes stories like A Christmas Carol and
Oliver Twist, then yes, I daresay I believe it does.
Aris Katsaris
~ Q ~
Nothing is intrinsically good or bad in this context at least. Goodness,
taste etc are based on agreement when enough people hold the same
*opinions* - a critical mass is reached. Matters of taste are all
subjective.
I like the SK quote & I'm not alone in thinking that many academics like
the supposed exclusivity of their status without having to step in the
dirt along with the rest of humanity who they claim to represent. This
recalls an episode of The Twilight Zone where a vindictive food critic
played by Vincent Price gets his comeuppance from a provoked
restaurateur.
My opinion of Tolkien is that he wasn't a great writer but more
importantly, was a brilliant storyteller. I was very pleased when LOTRs
came top in a Waterstone's UK poll of fiction a couple of years back -
made a few critics squirm. The problem with opinion apart from
masquerading as fact too often, is that it's so prone to the
capriciousness of fashion.
--
The map is not the territory
Doug McDonald
> I just have
> to wonder why it should seem so strange to Tolkien afficianados that most
> academics don't consider LotR to be particularly worthy of study, in the
> grand scheme of things.
It is because it does not lend itself to analysis based on
a detailed comparison of itself and the vast majority
of the older works that they compare the stuff they like with.
By detailed, I mean actual references, real or imagined by the
academy, to older academic works.
Also, and perhaps because of this, it is hard to analyze
based on symbolism, metaphor, etc. ... the standard tools
useed by the academy to read more into a work than
was put there by the author.
Also, there is no sex, especially no kinky sex.
Back when I was a grad student (not in the humanities!)
at the center of humanities snobbism in America, Harvard,
I once mentioned Tolkien to an asst. prof of English and
the result was an amazing outpouring of scathing rhetoric.
Especially since the guy had never read much of it ...
he had just skimmed parts. This was in perhaps 1968, well
before the Silmarillion and Christopher Tolkien's
edited version of preliminary drafts were published.
Doug McDonald
Stan Brown
>Offhand, I cannot remember any criticism made about Tolkien in my literature
>classes... but "their hatred" - whomever they may be
"Whoever", please.
I don't know whether I'm just recently noticing a long-standing
phenomenon, but "whom" and its forms, which seem to have been nearly
pushed out of their proper place as _objects_ of verbs, have
counterattacked and are now usurping the place of "who" and its
forms as _subjects_ of verbs.
I don't mean to bash anyone in particular, just call attention to a
depressingly common error, of which this is but one example.
English has case distinctions only in its pronouns, having lost them
for nouns hundreds of years ago(*). I wonder if eventually there
will be no more distinction between "I" and "me", "she" and "her",
"whoever" and "whomever", and illiteracies like "between Sheila and
I" will have to be accepted as correct.
(*) except for the "possessive case", which I was told as a student
isn't really a "case" in the grammatical sense at all. I am not
enough of an expert to know wether that's true.
Stan Brown
>> Earth? Would it have spawned such a following of people convinced that it
>> was great literature?
>
>Since The Silmarillion didn't come out until the 70s and LOTR was popular
>before then, then yeah, probably.
Indeed. I think Silm would never have been published -- , because
Christopher would never have taken the time and trouble to pull it
together -- if not for the huge interest in LotR.
>> It's admittedly true that many people enjoy LotR
>> without reading any other Tolkien works (other than the Hobbit), but are
>> they the people who think of it as great literature?
>
>You've still not given us a definition of "great literature".
I doubt we'll get one. As I recall, we had a thread about
"literature" a few months back, and no one was able to come up with
a satisfactory definition.
Perhaps it's like what Justice White said about pornography: Though
he couldn't define it, "I know it when I see it."
Stan Brown
>More to the point, why do you, or the OP, consider LotR to be worthy of
>study? What shape would a university-level literature class devoted to LotR
>take? Certainly the whole trilogy would have to be read - do you think most
>academics would consider that to be a good usage of their students' reading
>time?
Why not? It takes no longer than reading a novel of Dickens, and
less than reading say /Moby-Dick/.
When was _length_ ever an indicator of literature?
Stan Brown
Is that a serious question? The huge amount of traffic in this
newsgroup demonstrates that it is.
I don't mean all the movie threads, or arguments about some plot
detail, or speculations about some matter of fact Tolkien never
revealed to us (like where the potatoes came from). Exclude all
those and you still have a significant body of discussion of
characters' motives, of duty and honor versus self interest, of good
and evil and how the one must fight the other, of faith, of
"providence", etc. etc. etc.: all perfectly good fodder for a lit
course.
And of course you have also the use of English, itself worthy of
study.
Stan Brown
>literature simply on the merits of enduring and deepening enjoyment.
>Not on "worthiness of academic study".
I'm trying hard, but failing, to think of a book that have the one
without the other. :-)
Chocoholic
"cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
news:mair_fheal-18...@c102.ppp.tsoft.com...
Well, at 100 million+ copies sold I think it qualifies as 'popular' in the
most common sense of 'widely liked'. Whether it is 'popular' in the literary
sense of "Fit for, adapted to, or reflecting the taste of the people at
large" is another question. I don't think it is 'popular' in that sense,
it's full of archaic language and doesn't have any sex scenes... :) and that
makes its popularity in the first sense a paradox in itself.
That is probably the best guess at why some academics hate it. They could
never have guessed that it would be successful. It defies the expectations
of the 'experts' on literature and calls their 'expertise' into question.
"Good" is of course subjective. I think it's "good" but I also like to read
dictionaries of mythology, so I am hardly an example of 'average' taste.
Chocoholic
"~ Q ~" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:buh4jn$hf9r3$1...@ID-173588.news.uni-berlin.de...
What about Theatre of Blood where he plays a Shakespearean actor who gets to
literally slay his critics? I'd think that was more appropos. :)
> My opinion of Tolkien is that he wasn't a great writer but more
> importantly, was a brilliant storyteller. I was very pleased when LOTRs
> came top in a Waterstone's UK poll of fiction a couple of years back -
> made a few critics squirm. The problem with opinion apart from
> masquerading as fact too often, is that it's so prone to the
> capriciousness of fashion.
Yes, he displays all the technical faults of academic writing (heavy use of
difficult and/or obscure words, enormously complicated sentences, etc.) but
the immensely involving plot and the strength of the symbolic imagery
carries the story forward.
Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
why do academics (to overgeneralize a bit) hate fantasy and SF
literature? The proximal answer to that is not that 90% of
fantasy and SF is crap; 90% of everything is crap, including the
mystery genre (beloved by many academics despite its
similarities in many respects to F&SF), the comic-literature
genre, and the "sexual indiscretions in Basingstoke" genre,
which gets far more academic study than it deserves IMHO.
I think the proximal answer is that "fantasy culture" in
general is considered shallow and immature by a large number of
educated folks. When I say "fantasy culture" I am referring to
the loose subculture of people who are (e.g.) fans of fantasy
and SF literature, movies and comics, players of war games,
role-playing games and collectible card games, and members of
medieval recreation groups like SCA. LOTR is one of the
standouts of this culture, notwithstanding the fact that Tolkien
himself probably would never have considered himself a part of it.
As to why fantasy culture is considered shallow and
immature, and things like mystery novels are not considered
shallow and immature, I am not sure what the ultimate answer is.
Perhaps it's because all of the activities that I mentioned
involve some level of acting out of fantasies, or of
identification with fantastical characters or beings, which
children often do and adults don't often do. Perhaps it's
because children and teenagers are *capable* of understanding
aspects of this culture on some level, and *some* of it is aimed
at children and teenagers.
But even that isn't a complete answer, because there are
mystery novels aimed at kids and teenagers, and that doesn't
stop academics from looking benignly on Agatha Christie and
P. D. James. So maybe it's just raw prejudice about fantasy.
_Teletubbies_ is definitely fantasy taking place in a
fantasy world, but I don't expect adults to find much of value
in it (though it's interesting and ironic that it was the last
thing Iris Murdoch was able to appreciate). LOTR is an entirely
different beast. Academics need to become more open to the idea
that fantasy role-playing and identification with fantastic
characters is not *only* a childish or immature thing, and that
there can be something of value to adults in it.
--Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
Doug McDonald
>
> It seems "Aris Katsaris" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >There's lots and lots works of "great literature" that stands as great
> >literature simply on the merits of enduring and deepening enjoyment.
> >Not on "worthiness of academic study".
>
> I'm trying hard, but failing, to think of a book that have the one
> without the other. :-)
>
>
Finnegan's Wake?
Doug McDonald
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<Choco...@Cocoa.org> wrote:
why is stephen king bad literature
Bruce Tucker
> I think the proximal answer is that "fantasy culture" in
> general is considered shallow and immature by a large number of
> educated folks. When I say "fantasy culture" I am referring to
> the loose subculture of people who are (e.g.) fans of fantasy
> and SF literature, movies and comics, players of war games,
> role-playing games and collectible card games, and members of
> medieval recreation groups like SCA. LOTR is one of the
> standouts of this culture, notwithstanding the fact that Tolkien
> himself probably would never have considered himself a part of it.
You've hit the nail *almost* on the head. It's because a large part of
that fantasy culture is aimed at a purpose which academia does not
recognise as a legitimate one for art or literature - pure escapism for
its own sake. Many fans of "genre" literature, and fantasy probably more
so than any other genre (aside from a few specific and mostly TV-based
SF franchises such as Star Trek), read it as an only slightly more
literate equivilant form of "Penthouse Forum", grist for the wank
fantasies of geeks. Many fans imagine that their lives would be much
simpler, happier, and more rewarding if only they could be Elves or
Wizards or Starfleet Commanders and go about going interesting and
rewarding pursuits like slaying orcs and dragons and fighting Romulans
and exploring new worlds instead of facing the mind-numbing reality of
high school or of punching a clock and saying "Would you like fries with
that, sir?"
Another trouble is that it becomes hard to distinguish between mere
enthusiastic hobbyists who collect props or costumes on the one hand and
dysfunctional neurotics who insist on bringing parts of their fantasy
lives into their everyday lives and forcing people around them to
reinforce their delusions, by, say, wearing costumes or "garb" away from
hobby events and insisting that everyone refer to them by their SCA or
"Trekker" name and rank. This certainly doesn't foster the image that
the literature that inspires such behavior is anything but escapist crap
for socially retarded loons.
I think academics would expect that literature should expose us to new
ideas and experiences, not simply pander to existing prejudices and
indulge in our escapist urge to close ourselves off to the limited
contact we already have with the world of ideas and experiences outside
our dark little closet of self-absorbed fantasies.
Of course we may understand that Tolkien is not about providing little-f
fantasies for people whose literary tastes and aspirations encompass
nothing more than escaping the alienated hells they've made of their own
lives, but unfortunately we're outnumbered about 50 to 1 in the
marketplace, and the nerds have largely defined the genre. Walk into any
Barnes and Noble and look at the selections in the Fantasy section and
see if almost every single book doesn't seem much more like something
custom-made for what I just described than like anything Tolkien would
ever have dreamed of. And whether he'd have approved or not, half the
lumpendorks still read his books (though most don't finish TSil), and
they *all* love the movies.
> As to why fantasy culture is considered shallow and
> immature, and things like mystery novels are not considered
> shallow and immature, I am not sure what the ultimate answer is.
Because every genre has not been corrupted equally. Westerns are and
always have been every bit as bad; most of them are pure escapist dreck
for bored accountants who imagine themselves as free spirits on the vast
open range. Mystery novels, OTOH, are not; the reader is usually invited
to admire the detective's mental skill and apply his or her own
intellect to the puzzle rather than to fantasize that he or she would
actually be more at home, much less happier and more fulfilled, in the
time and place in which the story is set than in the present day -
they're mental exercises, neutral, but harmless, and capable of being
more. There's a divide, though, with detective stories (Philip Marlowe,
Mike Hammer, et al) which are escapist. Horror varies; ten years ago it
was dominated by splatterdreck, but the kidz seem to have moved on, and
only a few of the most popular of the populists (King) still seem to be
writing, leaving the field to the more serious writers the academics
prefer.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
TeaLady (Mari C.)
> My opinion of Tolkien is that he wasn't a great writer but more
> importantly, was a brilliant storyteller.
Yes - great story, but not the greatest writing. Good enough,
and better than a lot of "popular" writers, but not the greatest.
The story, tho, now that was brilliant.
>I was very pleased
> when LOTRs came top in a Waterstone's UK poll of fiction a
> couple of years back - made a few critics squirm. The problem
> with opinion apart from masquerading as fact too often, is that
> it's so prone to the capriciousness of fashion.
>
I remember visiting some of my friends a few years after the
finished college. High-brow lit and fancy titles lined the eye-
level shelves of their bookcases, and even Mark Twain was
consigned to lower shelves. But on the bottom, hidden behind low
stools and tables, well thumbed and gently worn, were the books
they really read, and liked, LoTR and Hobbit among them. Of
course, it wasn't the thing, you see, the fashion, to be reading
such books then.
I have Stephen Hawking's "Time in a Nutshell" right next to "The
Complete Tales of Winnie-the-Pooh" and a few books down from
"Driving Over Lemons" and "Bailey's Cafe". My friends shudder
when they look at my bookcases; there are books in there they
have, but don't want others to know they have. Might give out the
wrong opinion, you know. Must keep up with current fashions in
text as well as furniture, fabric and paint.
--
mc
TeaLady (Mari C.)
@corp.supernews.com:
> it's full of archaic language and doesn't have any sex scenes...
You can always read between the lines, and add a few...
--
mc
Brian Grassie
news:400C1771...@scs.uiuc.edu...
> Anaotos wrote:
> > I just have
> > to wonder why it should seem so strange to Tolkien afficianados that
most
> > academics don't consider LotR to be particularly worthy of study, in the
> > grand scheme of things.
>
> It is because it does not lend itself to analysis based on
> a detailed comparison of itself and the vast majority
> of the older works that they compare the stuff they like with.
> By detailed, I mean actual references, real or imagined by the
> academy, to older academic works.
>
> Also, and perhaps because of this, it is hard to analyze
> based on symbolism, metaphor, etc. ... the standard tools
> useed by the academy to read more into a work than
> was put there by the author.
>
> Also, there is no sex, especially no kinky sex.
Shakespeare doesn't have a lot of explicit sex scenes, either.
More importantly, there are ways of analyzing a work that do not depend on
detailed comparisons with other works. I don't know exactly how they do
things in English departments, but in Great Books programs (my Minor)
discussions of characters, themes, moral dilemmas and the like are more than
enough. Nor have any of my professors dismissed LOTR - the only answer
*any* of them have ever given as to its absence from the curriculum is that
there isn't room in any of the courses to read the entire trilogy, and that
reading just part wouldn't work.
A history professor at my university did give a lecture on Tolkien (more
specifically, on how he was influenced by Northern works, as this was a
course on Viking history).
So clearly not all academics hate it. Given my experience with reading
Shakespeare, there would be plenty in Tolkien to discuss. (I'd guess that
2-3 weeks would be given to LOTR, where it to be done, and we wouldn't cover
everything we wanted to.)
This is not to deny that many people, and many academics, are biased against
fantasy. Merely to say that in my own experience, many academics have
nothing against Tolkien, and some are fans of his writing.
~Brian
Brian Grassie
"Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:buhmhr$hb$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
I guess where I'd disagree is with the blanket condemnation of escapism that
I think your post implies.
There's a role for escapism. Indeed, LOTR can fulfill this role - along
with others.
A need for escape doesn't imply "escaping the alienated hells they've made
of their own
lives" but rather a need for a break from a less-than-perfect reality.
Nor is escapism incompatible with exploring new ideas. Allegory functions
on the basis that escaping into a different world can open one up to new
ideas. While Tolkien did not set out to write an allegory, many of his
themes - particularly relating to the nature of evil - are extremely
resonant both when he was writing, and today. (And probably at all times.)
~Brian
Shanahan
> I think the question is part of a broader question, i.e.
> why do academics (to overgeneralize a bit) hate fantasy and SF
> literature? The proximal answer to that is not that 90% of
> fantasy and SF is crap; 90% of everything is crap
Sturgeon's Law!
mark edelstein
For a different perspective on such things.
mark edelstein
It's an academic who *gasp* studies Tolkien-and teaches it to undergrads.
Stan Brown
Good point. I should have said "has the first without the second".
:-)
Note smiley; I've never read /Finnegans Wake/, frankly being scared
off by the reports of how tough it is to make sense of.
Bruce Tucker
> I guess where I'd disagree is with the blanket condemnation of
escapism that
> I think your post implies.
I wouldn't say it's entirely a condemnation... escapism can be okay as a
hobby or as pure entertainment. Where I condemn it is when it becomes an
obsession, a substitute for engagement in and with real life. "I hate my
life, so instead of trying to deal with it I'll withdraw to the extent
possible and deal with my pretend world instead." What I've seen more of
is a tendency for this approach to become common in the larger fan
community.
The "Commander" in the movie "Trekkies" - a real person, not a fictional
character created for the movie - was a perfect example. Apparently
there are dozens of these clubs around the country, who form Federation
starship crews with uniforms, props, etc. - all of which would be fine,
re-enactors do the same thing - but the scary thing is, some of them
have apparently tried to get official recognition of their military
ranks!
The reason I think some academics dismiss fantasy as a genre is the
assumption that this tendency towards escapism is so pronounced that it
blocks the genre's ability to accomplish anything else. And for the most
part with today's books they're right - people are reading this stuff
precisely to *avoid* having to think about anything troubling, because
in the good kingdom of Dawok-Foon everything is straightforward and easy
to understand; the villains are mean and nasty and environmentally
insensitive and above all UGLY, and all problems are easily solved in
250 pages (times three volumes, since thanks to LotR *everything's* a
trilogy now) by a stalwart barbarian prince or Priestess of the Goddess
or whatever with no pesky politics or moral gray areas - such things are
for babbling fools and cowards! And the mass-market, shared universe SF
stuff - Star Wars and Star Trek, at least - is the same way.
> There's a role for escapism. Indeed, LOTR can fulfill this role -
along
> with others.
I don't think LotR was intended to be escapist in the sense I mean,
although it has been taken that way.
A great way to sum up the escapist approach is George Lucas' take on why
Star Wars was so popular. He said something about how miserable modern
life was and then said he wanted to give people an experience of pure
entertainment - "For two hours they could go into the theater and
FORGET!" Well, it was fun, but at the end of the day that's all it was -
no one's going to be studying it in a film class a hundred years from
now asking what Lucas was trying to say with it all.
I don't think Tolkien wanted people to bring the specific *issues* of
their times (and certainly not the events) into Middle-earth, but I
don't think he meant for them to turn their brains off at the door in
that way either.
> A need for escape doesn't imply "escaping the alienated hells they've
made
> of their own
> lives" but rather a need for a break from a less-than-perfect reality.
As I said, I only condemn to the extent it becomes an excuse not to deal
with real life.
I think we've seen that potential realized a lot more during the last
twenty years. I've been involved with a variety of geek hobbies -
gaming, SF & fantasy, writing groups, Usenet, a few cons, known people
in SCA, etc., for about 25 years now, and I don't think the percentage
of people who live purely for the chance to express themselves through
fictional personae has ever been higher. They literally cannot engage
with the real world as Joe Smith or Mary Pudnowski, it is only by
pretending they are Lorde Dorkolas GreatRod or Ladye Ravenclawe of
WicceRede, wielder of the GoddessFire that they are able to feel they
are in touch with their "true" selves. But if they mean to escape from
reality this way, rather than simply have it as a hobby on the weekends,
it's an escape that's doomed to failure when reality refuses to
recognize or respond to their self-image.
And of course Ladye Ravenclawe is never going to be open to *any* new
idea as long as that new idea would require her to approach it from the
standpoint that she is Mary Pudnowski, ordinary human student, and not
Ladye Ravenclawe, Mistresse of the Mystical Goddesse Powers. It's her
escape that will require her to seek out reinforcement for her escapist
fantasy rather than any new ideas or anything else which might be
applicable to a real world which is increasingly intolerable to her
(since her escapism makes her position in it only worse off than ever).
And yes, I *do* have a lot of contact with these people, and my
impressions are strongly negative, why do you ask? ;-) But I've watched
what at first looked like a harmless little sideshow of the genre and
hobby become a larger and larger freak show that now forms many people's
dominant impression of, say "fantasy fans" or "Tolkien geeks", among
other groups.
> Nor is escapism incompatible with exploring new ideas.
Sadly, I think it is. Escapism works by building a wall against having
to deal with anything new, unfamiliar, or challenging. It works by
allowing the reader or viewer to retreat to the safe, the familiar, the
infantile, only clothing it in more fun and interesting outer
trappings - but that's the key, they're just empty trappings. There
aren't any new ideas in the endless piles of Dragonlance or Star Trek
books churned out by hack writers for their respective franchises.
> Allegory functions
> on the basis that escaping into a different world can open one up to
new
> ideas.
That's not escapism. The "escape" in escapism isn't escape from the
boundaries of the familiar, it's escape from the unpleasant, the
worrying, the complex and intractable problems that make the modern
world so frightening. This is why the 150th Louis L'Amour novel can
still be "escapist" even though by then the reader knows and understands
every nitty-gritty detail of the Old West world, at least, the world in
which L'Amour's characters move, better than he understands the world in
which he actually lives.
Please understand that *I'm* not saying fantasy is inherently escapist
and incapable of literary merit. I'm saying that I think many academics
have overlooked the works that have merit because the gobs and gobs of
shallow escapist trash, and worse, the legions of vapid fans who
actually *prefer* the trash and don't even like something better when
they find it, have led them to believe that strictly enforced genre
conventions have made it unlikely or impossible for any works of
artistic merit to be produced from within the genre.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Chris Kern
the following:
>
>"Chris Kern" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cmvk00tcjbgor4tkc...@4ax.com...
>> What "measures" would you set up that would disqualify LotR from being
>> a great work of literature?
>
>Depth and realization of characters, depth of plot.
But this is opinion. Some people feel that LotR has both of those.
And LotR is far from the only work like this in dispute -- Eliot's
"Silas Marner" is a good example of a work that some academics feel is
a great work of literature, and others feel is not (because of "depth
of plot" or other reasons like that)).
It doesn't really surprise me that LotR is not taught in literature
classes in colleges, but that's not because I don't consider LotR to
be great literature.
-Chris
Chris Kern
the following:
>Big difference between being popular and being worthy of academic study.
True. I'm personally not trying to draw any comparisons between the
popularity of LotR and it's literary qualities -- the two are not
related (great works of literature do not need to have been popular,
but popular works can also be great works of literature.)
>If, however, you want to impose an objective definition on the phrase, then
>there can really be none other than "that which is, by concensus, considered
>great literature".
By who? And how many people does it take? There are PhD's in English
literature who consider LotR to be great literature. I don't know how
many there are, or what the percentage is, or anything like that; but
they do exist.
> I just have
>to wonder why it should seem so strange to Tolkien afficianados that most
>academics don't consider LotR to be particularly worthy of study, in the
>grand scheme of things.
I don't think it's strange at all. The book is too recent.
I think that there would be a number of reasons why an academic would
not consider LotR to be worthy of study:
1. Too popular (this may affect them at an unconsious level) -- and
this may not be just necessarily "popular = bad", but also a belief
that less popular works should be chosen in order to expose the
students to a wider variety of material
2. Genuine belief that LotR is not great literature
3. Prejudice against fantasy stories
4. Personal dislike of LotR
5. Belief that other works of literature are "greater" and more worthy
of study than LotR
I imagine that for most people it would be a mix of those reasons (and
others I didn't list).
You can't simply say that because LotR is not taught in classrooms
that means it lacks the qualities to be "great literature" (aside from
the "quality" of being considered great).
-Chris
Pradera
>>Finnegan's Wake?
>
> Good point. I should have said "has the first without the second".
>:-)
>
> Note smiley; I've never read /Finnegans Wake/, frankly being scared
> off by the reports of how tough it is to make sense of.
I'm trying to read it constantly for the last few years. Never got past
first chapter. Guess I have to grow up to it yet.
--
Pradera
---
The Greatest Tolkien Fan Ever(tm)
Books are books, movies are movies, PJ's LotR is crap.
http://www.pradera-castle.prv.pl/
http://www.tolkien-gen.prv.pl/
Chris Kern
the following:
>What shape would a university-level literature class devoted to LotR
>take?
(Note that an entire class would not have to be devoted to this -- 4-5
weeks at most should be enough for a university-level class to do
LotR.)
>Certainly the whole trilogy would have to be read - do you think most
>academics would consider that to be a good usage of their students' reading
>time? Is LotR so dense with literary ideas worthy of discussion? Would it
>measure up to a similar page count of consensus "great literature"?
Here are some sample topics that discussions and papers could cover (a
number of these topics have been discussed on this group):
(Some of these involve Letters, but "real" literature classes
frequently use letters and the like as well. I have assumed knowledge
of *only* LotR (not even The Hobbit) in this. In addition, I have
eschewed any questions that would involve the "fantasy genre" as a
whole -- restricting these purely to LotR itself.)
- Tolkien said that LotR was "fundamentally a religious and Catholic
work". Do you agree with this? In what sense can it be considered
"Catholic"? Can it be called a "Christian work" or is it necessary to
make the narrower "Catholic" definition? How does this relate to
Tolkien's repeatedly expressed dislike for allegory?
- Are there racist elements in Tolkien's work (unconcious or not)?
- How does Tolkien develop the theme of nature vs. the industrial
revolution? Is there anything in LotR that would indicate he had the
slightest respect for technological advancement? Can we relate the
theme of the loss of magic and the "rise of Men" to this in any way?
- Tolkien claims that Frodo failed. Do you agree with this? Does a
reading of the story suggest to you that Frodo's failure was
inevitable (as Tolkien said)? How does Frodo's failure relate to the
themes of the book?
- The "Journey" or "Quest" is a major element of LotR's plot. Compare
Tolkien's idea of a Journey or Quest with various mythological stories
(i.e. Odysseus' journey, other "quests" of Greek mythology). I seem
to recall some classic literary definition of a "hero" -- Frodo could
be compared with this definition.
- What elements of tragedy can you find in LotR? Do any of the
characters in the book fit Aristotle's definition of a "tragic hero"?
(possible candidates might be Denethor, Saruman, Boromir, and Gollum)
- Is the depiction of Sam's service to Frodo acceptable to a modern
audience? Do you think Tolkien is supporting a class system with this
portrayal (and is there anything else in the book to support or refute
this)? Does this relate at all to his seeming opposition to the
products of advanced technology?
- Tolkien wrote many of the early chapters (particularly chapters 4-8
of Book I) when he still had no idea what the overall plot of the book
was going to be (indeed it was still "a story about Hobbits" at that
time). The chapters were retained in the end -- do they contribute to
the overall work in an important way, or do they seem like irrelevant
side episodes?
- Are there too many hobbits in the book? Does Tolkien do enough
interesting things with each of the 4 hobbits, or do some of them seem
like dead weight?
- The love story of Aragorn and Arwen is not really told in the book,
only referred to obliquely (and told mostly in the Appendices). Is
this a flaw of the story or not?
- Some have called The Scouring of the Shire "anticlimactic", or
otherwise suggested that the ending of the book is too long. Tolkien
considered The Scouring to be an essential part of the book. Discuss
this issue, especially looking at how "homecomings" fit into Journey
or Quest stories in literature (The Odyssey or The Aeneid, for
instance).
- Is LotR "great literature"? What literary qualities do you think it
has, and what weaknesses does it have that might disqualify it? In
particular, make a critical evalution of some of the commonly
expressed "weakness" of the book (e.g. a lack of female characters,
flat characterization).
I came up with all of those in about 20 minutes, so certainly a
professor planning a class would be able to come up with enough to
fill the time.
-Chris
ste...@nomail.com
: It seems "Anaotos" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
:>Is LotR so dense with literary ideas worthy of discussion?
: Is that a serious question? The huge amount of traffic in this
: newsgroup demonstrates that it is.
I do not think "Do Balrogs have Wings" is really a literary
idea. The vast majority of the discussions here are not
literary.
Stephen
Doug McDonald
>
> "J
>
> I think academics would expect that literature should expose us to new
> ideas and experiences, not simply pander to existing prejudices and
> indulge in our escapist urge to close ourselves off to the limited
> contact we already have with the world of ideas and experiences outside
> our dark little closet of self-absorbed fantasies.
Unfortunately, the kind of writings that the academics like,
or rather, liked when I was forced to endure their rantings, DON'T
do any such thing. Very few works of any sort do or did that. The
very best
were the best things in science fiction during its all to brief
golden age.
Doug McDonald
ste...@nomail.com
: And for the most
: part with today's books they're right - people are reading this stuff
: precisely to *avoid* having to think about anything troubling, because
: in the good kingdom of Dawok-Foon everything is straightforward and easy
: to understand; the villains are mean and nasty and environmentally
: insensitive and above all UGLY, and all problems are easily solved in
: 250 pages (times three volumes, since thanks to LotR *everything's* a
: trilogy now) by a stalwart barbarian prince or Priestess of the Goddess
: or whatever with no pesky politics or moral gray areas - such things are
: for babbling fools and cowards!
I admit to being quite out of touch with today's "popular" fantasy,
but last I saw, most of it tended to be far more morally ambiguous
than you describe. Even something as fluffy as "Dragonlance"
had politics and moral ambiguity. Indeed, a common complaint
about LOTR by "modern" fantasy fans was its lack of moral ambiguity.
Stephen
Doug McDonald
>
> It seems "Doug McDonald" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems "Aris Katsaris" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >> >There's lots and lots works of "great literature" that stands as great
> >> >literature simply on the merits of enduring and deepening enjoyment.
> >> >Not on "worthiness of academic study".
> >>
> >> I'm trying hard, but failing, to think of a book that have the one
> >> without the other. :-)
> >
> >Finnegan's Wake?
>
> Good point. I should have said "has the first without the second".
> :-)
>
> Note smiley; I've never read /Finnegans Wake/, frankly being scared
> off by the reports of how tough it is to make sense of.
>
>
No smiley here
I've never read it either, but I have just decided
to actually try.
Doug MCDonald
~ Q ~
> I remember visiting some of my friends a few years after the
> finished college. High-brow lit and fancy titles lined the eye-
> level shelves of their bookcases, and even Mark Twain was
> consigned to lower shelves. But on the bottom, hidden behind low
> stools and tables, well thumbed and gently worn, were the books
> they really read, and liked, LoTR and Hobbit among them. Of
> course, it wasn't the thing, you see, the fashion, to be reading
> such books then.
Lets side with the underdogs here for a moment: there is plenty of junk
being read so academics have plenty to rail against. One problem is the
common human response to overdo the response that leaves out plenty of
fiction which might not be high art but is adequately written & a good
story. I read fiction to be entertained, for its social comment, to be
transported elsewhere & to counterbalance my own experiences.
Intellectual depth in either style or content is not unimportant but
certainly not paramount. I wouldn't want to read escapist stuff
exclusively either. If I was a literary academic & wanted a Hobby Horse,
I'd campaign to have grammar taught in schools!
> I have Stephen Hawking's "Time in a Nutshell" right next to "The
> Complete Tales of Winnie-the-Pooh" and a few books down from
> "Driving Over Lemons" and "Bailey's Cafe". My friends shudder
> when they look at my bookcases; there are books in there they
> have, but don't want others to know they have. Might give out the
> wrong opinion, you know. Must keep up with current fashions in
> text as well as furniture, fabric and paint.
Don't think DOL will disappoint. I recently listened to a BBC R4
interview with Chris Stewart at his farm in Andalusia. Interesting
enough to have me rerunning the hot tap! CS was unnervingly coherent,
as were the excerpts, especially about the local crusties & the Spanish
police's reaction to them. A highly engaging person who was Genesis's
original drummer before they became famous. I was given Hawking's ABHOT
for Xmas when launched. Finished Boxing Day which was very fast for me -
helped by being partially familiar with the subject no doubt. His views
on Newton are memorable.
I'm reading "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" which
has a pretty unique perspective: giving insight into Asperger's
Syndrome. It is very explicit (with a small e) & the description of the
meaning of a simile as opposed to a metaphor is priceless. "Bailey's
Cafe" sounds interesting as well from a quick google, so happy reading.
--
The map is not the territory
Bruce Tucker
> Unfortunately, the kind of writings that the academics like,
> or rather, liked when I was forced to endure their rantings, DON'T
> do any such thing. Very few works of any sort do or did that.
Admittedly you're correct there - it's a lot harder to explain why some
academics like the crap they *do* like.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Shanahan
<snip>
> story. I read fiction to be entertained, for its social comment, to be
> transported elsewhere & to counterbalance my own experiences.
> Intellectual depth in either style or content is not unimportant but
> certainly not paramount. I wouldn't want to read escapist stuff
I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories,
and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the
tone of scorn or pity with which "Escape" is now so often used: a tone for
which the uses of the world outside literary criticism give no warrant at
all. In what the misusers are fond of calling Real Life, Escape is
evidently as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic. ... Evidently
we are faced by a misuse of words, and also by a confusion of thought. Why
should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out
and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other
topics than jailers and prison-walls? The world outside has not become less
real because the prisoner cannot see it. In using Escape in this way the
critics have chosen the wrong word, and what is more, they are confusing,
not always by sincere error, the Escape of the Prisoner with the Flight of
the Deserter. ... In the same way these critics ... stick their label of
scorn not only on to Desertion, but on to real Escape, and what are often
its companions, Disgust, Anger, Condemnation, and Revolt.
...
For my part, I cannot convince myself that the roof of Bletchley station is
more "real" than the clouds. And as an artefact I find it less inspiring
than the legendary dome of heaven. The bridge to platform 4 is to me less
interesting than Bifrost guarded by Heimdall with the Gjallarhorn. From
the wildness of my heart I cannot exclude the question whether
railway-engineers, if they had been brought up on more fantasy, might not
have done better with all their abundant means than they commonly do.
(JRRT, essay 'On Fairy-Stories')
Dogger the Filmgoblin
> It seems "Aris Katsaris" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien in article
> <bud9f7$2ljp$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr>:
> >In short, academics have a narrow-minded view of literature, which
> >includes only things that aren't *actually* enjoyed by ordinary people.
> >For it to be "literature" it has to be pretentious and elaborate so that
> >only fellow academics can dissect it at their leisure.
>
> It is not clear to me whether you were sarcastically agreeing with
> the OP's canards, or you actually hold the above view. Academic
> snobbery does exist, certainly, and always has; but I think grade-
> school teachers are much bigger "lit snobs" than university
> academics. IMHO the real truth of the matter is in what you said
> next:
>
> >Mark Twain and Shakespeare weren't "literature" in their own time
> >either. Neither was Homer of course.
>
> It is very hard to get perspective on a work of art or literature
> right away. Anything new is ex hypothesi going to be different from
> what has come before, and if it's really new the old standards may
> not even apply. Think of how people reacted at the premiere of
> almost every work of music now regarded as great: not just critical
> pans, but sometimes even riots in concert halls.
>
> Add to this that Tolkien's work seemed, by subject matter anyway, to
> belong to a genre that was _justly_ regarded as trivial, that he
> himself had a name as an author of one book, and that quite clearly
> for children.
>
> Were academics slow to accord Tolkien his place in literature? Yes,
> I think most of us would agree (though obviously we're a biased
> sample). Were they _unreasonably_ slow, in historical perspective?
> That is a much harder question. I am able to say that it _is_ a
> question (disagreeing with the OP), but not to answer it.
>
> The OP asked why present-day academics hate Tolkien. There I think
> we must say "Objection, m'lud! Assuming facts not in evidence!"
> Given the amount of scholarly work done on Tolkien, I think it is at
> best an oversimplification and at worst just wrong to assert that
> academics, as a class, hate Tolkien.
A very measured and reasonable defence of academia, though I would
like to point out that as recently as 1991, I was forced to drop out
of a fourth year university Fantasy Literature course because of the
professor's attitude towards Tolkien. Throughout the entire course,
the usual tools you would use to describe an author's quality, e.g.
noting how form and imagery combine to excellent effect, etc., were
somehow off-limits, and the prof seemed to want to brush off any
authorial skill as accidental. I had a huge argument with him over
John Brunner's the Sheep Look Up, which is a brilliant and innovative
book, but which he only wanted to think of as a way to analyse the
culture's attitudes toward fantasy, and not as a work of art in its
own right. And when we got to Tolkien, and he attacked it in exactly
the same way, well that was just the last straw. I had to leave in
utter disgust. And this was a course of people in their final year.
The elitism is definitely there, and is probably still there today,
after all that professor is still there and certainly was not going to
change his mind about Tolkien. Perhaps certain quarters are prepared
to accept him as a valid object for study as a work of art rather than
as a sociological phenomenon, but I don't think more is going to
change until the generational turnover of professors is complete and
those who cut their teeth on 'the moderns' are mostly gone.
DB.
Brian Grassie
I have to admit I don't have a lot of contact with the sort of totally
obsessed fans you describe.
But I've watched or read some of what you talk about, and I disagree with
your assessment. Star Trek, for example, frequently deals in moral
dilemmas. The safety of the universe lets what would otherwise be
uncomfortable explorations of these dilemmas take place, and be watched.
(When the show works. Voyager went over the top for a while.)
Tolkien is sometimes seen as simplistic in its view of good and evil (as
Stephen pointed out). Yet that simplicity, that dichotomy, contains a great
deal of truth when applied to the real world.
I also disagree with your differentiation of kinds of escape. You're right
that there is a difference, but they aren't mutually incompatible - I think
perhaps that an escape from the unpleasant is a precondition for escaping
from familiar modes of thought. It doesn't necessarily continue, but that's
where it starts.
Of course, you're right that escapism can be abused. So can alcohol. But
in moderation I believe both are beneficial to your health.
~Brian
Christopher Kreuzer
> That's not escapism. The "escape" in escapism isn't escape from the
> boundaries of the familiar, it's escape from the unpleasant, the
> worrying, the complex and intractable problems that make the modern
> world so frightening.
This reminded me strongly of what I recently read in Tolkien's letters
over the last few years of his life. He really did seem very
disillusioned with the way the world was going and made frequent
references to how characters from LotR would have done things. If that's
not escapist, then I don't know what is.
I am probably being unfair though, as Tolkien was in his late seventies
and early eighties by this time (late 1960s and early 1970s). And he
always deplored the worst excesses of fandom.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Anotos
> >If, however, you want to impose an objective definition on the phrase,
then
> >there can really be none other than "that which is, by concensus,
considered
> >great literature".
>
> By who? And how many people does it take? There are PhD's in English
> literature who consider LotR to be great literature. I don't know how
> many there are, or what the percentage is, or anything like that; but
> they do exist.
To objectify the phrase "great literature" one must specify the subjects to
whom the literature is great. Academics, as maligned as they may be, seem
to be the obvious choice here. As far as how much of a consensus there
needs to be, who knows. Enough so that students don't get the impression
that "most academics scoff" at the writing in question, for starters. But
I'm just going by what the OP said. I have no experience with what most
academics might think. I can, however, understand a reticence to consider
Tolkien to be "great literature" on the same level as, for instance,
Dostoevsky.
zett
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:bufqmm$2gr$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> >
> > "Anotos" <ano...@helm.com> wrote in message
> > news:100mpl4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > What would LotR be without the Silm and other works to flesh out Middle
> > > Earth? Would it have spawned such a following of people convinced that
> it
> > > was great literature?
> >
> > Since The Silmarillion didn't come out until the 70s and LOTR was popular
> > before then, then yeah, probably.
>
> Big difference between being popular and being worthy of academic study.
>
> > > without reading any other Tolkien works (other than the Hobbit), but are
> > > they the people who think of it as great literature?
> >
> > You've still not given us a definition of "great literature".
>
> The definitions of great and literature are as close as your nearest
> dictionary, if you want a subjective definition.
>
> If, however, you want to impose an objective definition on the phrase, then
> there can really be none other than "that which is, by concensus, considered
> great literature".
>
> study? What shape would a university-level literature class devoted to LotR
> take? Certainly the whole trilogy would have to be read - do you think most
> academics would consider that to be a good usage of their students' reading
> time? Is LotR so dense with literary ideas worthy of discussion? Would it
> measure up to a similar page count of consensus "great literature"?
I think you were asking Aris this, but let me jump in if I may. There
is a 400 level course to be offered this fall(an on-line course.) It
is actually a class on Beowulf, but Lord of the Rings is being used to
help study the poem. So there is one person out there apparently who
thinks it is worth their students' time to not only read the Norton
Anthology Beowulf, but Seamus Heaney's Beowulf *and* Lord of the Rings
in its entirety. If you require a cite, I will contact the friend who
told me about this, as I no longer have the url.
I think LoTR has plenty of ideas worth studying, but they are tend
more towards theology/philosophy.
[snip]
> You can find someone to claim any book is great literature. Nobody can take
> away the success of Tolkien's works, nor the genius of Tolkien. I just have
> to wonder why it should seem so strange to Tolkien afficianados that most
> academics don't consider LotR to be particularly worthy of study, in the
> grand scheme of things.
It seems strange to this afficianado because, as you yourself wrote,
Tolkien did have genius. I wonder why one kind of genius has to be
"less important" than another, that's all. :shrug:
zett
> It seems "Doug McDonald" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems "Aris Katsaris" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >> >There's lots and lots works of "great literature" that stands as great
> >> >literature simply on the merits of enduring and deepening enjoyment.
> >> >Not on "worthiness of academic study".
> >>
> >> I'm trying hard, but failing, to think of a book that have the one
> >> without the other. :-)
> >
> >Finnegan's Wake?
>
> Good point. I should have said "has the first without the second".
> :-)
>
> Note smiley; I've never read /Finnegans Wake/, frankly being scared
> off by the reports of how tough it is to make sense of.
I have read it. Be scared, Stan. Be very scared.
>
[snip]
Stan Brown
>or rather, liked when I was forced to endure their rantings,
"M'lud, I renew my objection. Counsel persists in assuming facts not
in evidence."
You do realize you're stereotyping an entire profession now based on
your experience with a very few members at some date in the past?
If you said _some_ academics dislike Tolkien, that would be true.
But to say that "academics" do, i.e. to make a statement about the
class as a couple of people persist in ding, is just wrong.
It's certainly false that _all_ dislike Tolkien. I don't think it's
been established that even a _majority_ dislike Tolkien.
Chris Kern
> Indeed, a common complaint
>about LOTR by "modern" fantasy fans was its lack of moral ambiguity.
Very true -- by "modern fantasy" standards, Sauron is a very poor
villian because there's no motivation given for his actions beyond
"he's evil and wants to rule the world", which is basically considered
unacceptable now.
-Chris
AC
It isn't spelled out in LotR, but Tolkien did give Sauron slightly more
motivation than that in later writings.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
~ Q ~
> Disgust, Anger, Condemnation, and Revolt. ...
> For my part, I cannot convince myself that the roof of Bletchley
> station is more "real" than the clouds. And as an artefact I find it
> less inspiring than the legendary dome of heaven. The bridge to
> platform 4 is to me less interesting than Bifrost guarded by
> Heimdall with the Gjallarhorn. From the wildness of my heart I
> cannot exclude the question whether railway-engineers, if they had
> been brought up on more fantasy, might not have done better with all
> their abundant means than they commonly do. (JRRT, essay 'On
> Fairy-Stories')
If I wanted to indulge in Escapism fully, I join some fundamentalist
church rather than reading Tolkien et al. It should be seen as balancing
real life rather than replacing it which few people do in anything but
some academic's head. The problem with Academia is not just snobbery but
class differentiation. Many academics seem to be the way they are out of
insecurity rather than knowledge. Just as well there is a difference
between being an academic, intellectual or plain well-versed - the 3
don't necessarily go together.
I naturally gravitate to anything that others tell me is unfashionable &
dismiss the stuff that is with good reason. What goes round, comes
round. Nothing wrong with Popularism: even the queen shits, farts &
fucks.
Pradera
> Nothing wrong with Popularism: even the queen shits, farts &
> fucks.
>
I beg to differ. The queen, at best, defecates, breaks wind and fornicates.
~ Q ~
> On 21 sty 2004, "~ Q ~" <m...@privacy.net> scribbled loosely:
>
>> Nothing wrong with Popularism: even the queen shits, farts &
>> fucks.
>>
>
> I beg to differ. The queen, at best, defecates, breaks wind and
> fornicates.
LOL
Just like the unwashed see prostitutes where politicians are visited by
call-girls (or boys). What's in a name? Quite a lot.
Kristian Damm Jensen
<snip>
>Nothing wrong with Popularism: even the queen
> shits, farts & fucks.
But neither smells very good to the bystander, even when it's the
Queen doing it.
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
damm (at) ofir (dot) dk
Aris Katsaris
"Anotos" <b...@memem.com> wrote in message
news:100rl3t...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Chris Kern" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3kpp00pnon7ig7mfp...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:54:23 -0600, "Anaotos" <Ano...@helm.com> posted
> > the following:
>
> > >If, however, you want to impose an objective definition on the phrase,
> > > then there can really be none other than "that which is, by concensus,
> > >considered great literature".
> >
> > By who? And how many people does it take? There are PhD's in English
> > literature who consider LotR to be great literature. I don't know how
> > many there are, or what the percentage is, or anything like that; but
> > they do exist.
>
> To objectify the phrase "great literature" one must specify the subjects to
> whom the literature is great. Academics, as maligned as they may be, seem
> to be the obvious choice here.
Um, no. To me atleast, *readers* seem to be the obvious choice.
Aris Katsaris
Anotos
> > To objectify the phrase "great literature" one must specify the subjects
to
> > whom the literature is great. Academics, as maligned as they may be,
seem
> > to be the obvious choice here.
>
> Um, no. To me atleast, *readers* seem to be the obvious choice.
That renders the concept of "great literature" to be redundant with that of
"popular literature". To have the resource of a class of intelligent people
who've devoted their lives to the study of a certain art form, and then
choose to ignore them simply because they tend to express opinions about
that subject with which you disagree, seems pretty silly to me. But it all
may be a moot point, since we haven't established that they do express
opinions that differ from yours (in general).
Aris Katsaris
"Anotos" <helh...@heron.com> wrote in message
news:100ucrc...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:bun4rv$4oc$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> >
> > "Anotos" <b...@memem.com> wrote in message
> > news:100rl3t...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > To objectify the phrase "great literature" one must specify the subjects
> > > to
> > > whom the literature is great. Academics, as maligned as they may be,
> > > seem to be the obvious choice here.
> >
> > Um, no. To me atleast, *readers* seem to be the obvious choice.
>
> That renders the concept of "great literature" to be redundant with that of
> "popular literature".
Only if its popularity lasts and it isn't a passing fad.
And only if I agree with your definition-by-consensus, which I don't
really. I think that what constitutes "great literature" is just an opinion,
and no more significant a phrase than "beautiful painting".
> To have the resource of a class of intelligent people
> who've devoted their lives to the study of a certain art form, and then
> choose to ignore them simply because they tend to express opinions about
> that subject with which you disagree, seems pretty silly to me.
Oh no, I ignore them not because I disagree with them, I ignore them
because their opinion is irrelevant on matters of enjoyment. The work
of people like Tom Shippey ofcourse *is* relevant, but not because
his judgment on whether LOTR is "great literature" or not, but rather
because his analysis of the text itself brought even further enjoyment
to me, and appreciation/understanding of the subtleties of the original
text.
In short: If academic study is used in purpose to lead to further
understanding and appreciation, then it's useful and good. But if
it only serves to separate works into "worthy" and "unworthy" then
said academic study (and the ones that practice it) can be safely
and utterly ignored.
But that's why I disagree with you when you defined "great literature"
based on "worthiness of academic study" -- as if "academic study"
should be a self-pursuit. Academic Study should stand in service
of the work, not vice versa.
It's "academic study" that IMAO should be judged based on
how much it heightens appreciation or understanding of the
original. Not literature that should intentionally twist
itself to turn itself into an object of study.
A great dinner is IMO one that's nutritious and wonderful to
the taste. Perhaps it will be better tasted with spoon and
fork, and the tools of "academic study".
But if it's not "worthy of spoon and fork", if it tastes just
as well when grabbed by the hands and hungrily
devoured... that's just as well.
And not a thousand chefs can tell me that this was not a
great dinner, when I know I've enjoyed it far more than
I have enjoyed *their* offerings.
Aris Katsaris
Jane Lumley
<kats...@otenet.gr> writes
>*shrug* What shape would a university-level literature class devoted
>to "Macbeth" take? (not Shakespeare as a whole, only "Macbeth")
>Or to "A Christmas Carol"?
No one shape. Could be hundreds of different shapes because those are
such rich texts.
I am an academic and I love JRRT, but loving someone's books is not the
same as thinking them great literature.
Hugely loveable and entertaining, yes. But not a serious contender for
last century's pantheon. I'm not saying this because I get any kind of
kick out of being mean to the vox pop. Since so many of the people I
know have higher degrees, I don't find them automatically impressive or
important, and would rather talk to a bartender than to many of my
colleagues. However, you really can't think of LOTR as a great novel in
the sense of Mrs Dalloway or A La Recherche de Temps Perdu. It isn't as
complex or as sophisticated or as beautiful.
--
Jane Lumley
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> complex or as sophisticated or as beautiful.
what is the purpose of literature
to be complex and sophisticated and beautiful (as you see it)
or tell a story
ive listened to art critics
and ive listened to artists
they talk about two completely different realities
the softrat
<lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Hugely loveable and entertaining, yes. But not a serious contender for
>last century's pantheon. I'm not saying this because I get any kind of
>kick out of being mean to the vox pop. Since so many of the people I
>know have higher degrees, I don't find them automatically impressive or
>important, and would rather talk to a bartender than to many of my
>colleagues. However, you really can't think of LOTR as a great novel in
>the sense of Mrs Dalloway or A La Recherche de Temps Perdu. It isn't as
>complex or as sophisticated or as beautiful.
Hmmmmm.
I consider myself very well read. Who is 'Mrs. Dalloway'?
the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
My opinions are my own unless I steal them from someone else.
Joshua B
> This reminded me strongly of what I recently read in Tolkien's letters
> over the last few years of his life. He really did seem very
> disillusioned with the way the world was going and made frequent
> references to how characters from LotR would have done things. If that's
> not escapist, then I don't know what is.
>
> I am probably being unfair though, as Tolkien was in his late seventies
> and early eighties by this time (late 1960s and early 1970s). And he
> always deplored the worst excesses of fandom.
>
> Christopher
Tolkien often denounced much of the new 'concepts' arriving into the
modern world. He reasoned automobile transportation unnecessary and
did away with any cars in his own life. But besides physical,
mechanicle objects there were other things of the modern world which
Tolkien lamented for. He despised the rise of democracy, believing the
separated and levelized class system of ancient and feudal governments
to be the more wise. Was this 'escapist?' Or was a man simply
expressing his major, and very much correct (yet overlooked by much,
if not all, of modern society - except by those terrible 'escapists'
of today), belief that just because a concept is modern does not give
it automatic merit to be the best, or even better! He found things
that made living much better, and he saw its manifestations in the
past (as do all, if not most, who study such things come to find out).
Though there are rising of benifits in this new age, not all is
better. Some good, some bad.
But Tolkien's work in Rings is not to be cast out as merely
'escapist.' I would call it more like 'idealist.' He wanted to get a
message across, I think, in his heart of hearts and he did this in the
way he knew best - mythmaking. After all, is that not the way that all
of civilization, pre-modern, has taught much things, much of life
itself, to the generations? In Tolkien we see a rise of the way things
once were. I think for that he should be rewarded, for though his work
seems far off, distant at times, it somehow applies to where we are
today. And that is something that many of us cannot sit down and write
out from the top of our head! I conclude the modernists as being
'escapist' for their retreat into modern 'knowledge' and science, as
if the rest of the world, unknowing of our great works, shall forever
lament and weep for it cannot understand life as we know it. For we
know life to its end, do we not? We know all there is to know, for we
are Modern Man. But what is life that we should know it all? Is life
merely advancement? But what is advancement? Is it technology? Modern
Man has 'technology.' We have plastics and silicon - therefore we are
'better', correct?
Or maybe we are just 'different.'
Christopher Kreuzer
news:3262406f.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
> > This reminded me strongly of what I recently read in Tolkien's
letters
> > over the last few years of his life. He really did seem very
> > disillusioned with the way the world was going and made frequent
> > references to how characters from LotR would have done things. If
that's
> > not escapist, then I don't know what is.
> >
> > I am probably being unfair though, as Tolkien was in his late
seventies
> > and early eighties by this time (late 1960s and early 1970s). And he
> > always deplored the worst excesses of fandom.
>
> modern world. He reasoned automobile transportation unnecessary and
> did away with any cars in his own life.
Did he ever expand on his reasoning?
I am starting to read the biography of Tolkien by Carpenter, and early
on there is a horrifying passage where Tolkien was acting as a guide for
a Mexican woman who was run over by a car that mounted the pavement. She
died a few hours later. This was in France before the First World War.
Can we speculate that this had some effect?
I'd be interested to know if it was the 'machine' aspect or the
'pollution' aspect that Tolkien reacted against. I would say the machine
aspect.
> But besides physical,
> mechanicle objects there were other things of the modern world which
> Tolkien lamented for. He despised the rise of democracy, believing the
> separated and levelized class system of ancient and feudal governments
> to be the more wise. Was this 'escapist?' Or was a man simply
> expressing his major, and very much correct (yet overlooked by much,
> if not all, of modern society - except by those terrible 'escapists'
> of today), belief that just because a concept is modern does not give
> it automatic merit to be the best, or even better!
A worthy concept. No need to discard the past. On the other hand, the
present evolves from the past and it is difficult to be objective about
the immediate past. Maybe it is easier to think about the remote past,
but this, by its very nature, may be somewhat alien to 'modern' minds
and so difficult to comprehend. Also, the links to the remote past may
distort the view we have of that past. I find it difficult to imagine
Tolkien's mindset of Victorian and Edwardian Britain before the First
World War, and that is 'only' a century past. If you are thinking of the
Anglo-Saxon and Northern European mindset from his readings, then that
is even more difficult.
> He found things
> that made living much better, and he saw its manifestations in the
> past (as do all, if not most, who study such things come to find out).
Are you thinking of anything in particular?
> Though there are rising of benifits in this new age, not all is
> better. Some good, some bad.
> But Tolkien's work in Rings is not to be cast out as merely
> 'escapist.' I would call it more like 'idealist.'
I agree that idealism is one way to describe it.
> He wanted to get a
> message across, I think, in his heart of hearts and he did this in the
> way he knew best - mythmaking. After all, is that not the way that all
> of civilization, pre-modern, has taught much things, much of life
> itself, to the generations? In Tolkien we see a rise of the way things
> once were. I think for that he should be rewarded, for though his work
> seems far off, distant at times, it somehow applies to where we are
> today. And that is something that many of us cannot sit down and write
> out from the top of our head! I conclude the modernists as being
> 'escapist' for their retreat into modern 'knowledge' and science, as
> if the rest of the world, unknowing of our great works, shall forever
> lament and weep for it cannot understand life as we know it.
Modernists as being escapist! :-)
What exactly do you mean by modernists?
> For we
> know life to its end, do we not? We know all there is to know, for we
> are Modern Man. But what is life that we should know it all? Is life
> merely advancement? But what is advancement? Is it technology? Modern
> Man has 'technology.' We have plastics and silicon - therefore we are
> 'better', correct?
In some ways, I would say yes. Many of the horrors of the past have been
banished by modern medicine. That is reason enough to be glad to be
living in this age.
But this discussion reminds me of the idea that the psychological
consequences of technology and modern city life has outstripped human
minds still best suited to living the life of a hunter-gatherer.
> Or maybe we are just 'different.'
That as well.
Stan Brown
>I consider myself very well read. Who is 'Mrs. Dalloway'?
Mr. Dalloway : Virginia Woolf :: Mr. Bliss : Tolkien
Chelsea Christenson
> Hmmmmm.
>
> I consider myself very well read. Who is 'Mrs. Dalloway'?
A character created by Virginia Woolf, I believe.
Aris Katsaris
"Jane Lumley" <lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PF6oZTDJ...@purkiss.demon.co.uk...
I've not read either of the two examples you gave, unfortunately, so I
can't judge them...
... but I think it all depends on what criteria one has for "great literature",
something I asked Anaotos about, but he (in essense) refuse to give
them..
"Complexity" and "Sophistication" aren't criteria in this respect for me.
My primary criterion is "Sustained enjoyability" -- and Tolkien's works
(most of them) pass with full marks in this respect, where I'm
concerned.
So do stuff like "Little Prince" ofcourse, which I also classify in the
category of great literature.
I'll wait a decade to pass before I pass judgment on JKR's works
however... Plot-holed as they tend to be, I think they may end
up having a place in the category of "great literature" on the basis
of pure whimsy and fun characters alone. :-)
Aris Katsaris
MP
thewol...@hotmail.com (Joshua B) wrote:
> He despised the rise of democracy, believing the
> separated and levelized class system of ancient and feudal governments
> to be the more wise.
Nonsense. If you read his letters, you'll see that he was quite the
libertarian and even referred to himself as an anarchist of the non-bomb
throwing sort. For him, the very desire to rule others, either as part
of a class system or under the various socialisms (national/Nazi,
international/communist or merely modern/secular) was a virtual
indication of an unfitness to rule. (Power corrupts, as with the Ring.)
He loathed the class system that then ruled the U.K., referring to it
(and especially Churchill) as a loathsome "theyocracy." His ideal
society would have resembled the Shire, virtually classless and
structureless. The king would be far away, concerned primarily with
putting down crime and only enter the Shire with the resident's
approval. It would be a place where Sam, the son of a poor gardener, can
become a much-loved mayor and have daughters in the courts of kings. And
notice how easily Sam is able to slip into the Council of Elrond, the
equivalent of a top-level national security meeting, with no one
involking social rank on him.
Tolkien's distrust of democracy was linked to a legitimate distrust of
demogagery at the hands of Saruman-like figures. All it takes to see the
sense of that are two good eyes. Over half the population of Europe
currently see the U.S. and Israel as the two greatest threat to world
peace. Is that intelligent? Should that widely held point of view be
used as a basis for foreign policy? Hardly. As one African newspaper I
saw put it (in French), it indicates that "The Europeans Know Nothing
about the World." But such nonsense is what they're being told by what
passes for 'leadership' in countries such as France and Germany.
Tolkien wasn't mindlessly anti-technology either. He loved answering
machines and central heating (who wouldn't). Given his desire for a
typewriter with changable fonts, I suspect he would have been delighted
to have a personal computer (a Mac, naturally) that could display and
print the fonts of his various languages.
I discuss in more detail some of Tolkien's views about politics,
environmentalism, technology and history in the commentary sections of
my book, Untangling Tolkien. On such topics he had a very independent
and creative mind.
--Mike Perry
http://www.inklingbooks.com/
--
****************
Preorder Lord of the Ring DVDs and videos.
http://www.inklingbooks.com/
****************
Jane Lumley
>> separated and levelized class system of ancient and feudal governments
>> to be the more wise. Was this 'escapist?'
Far from it; life in that system was much, much worse for most people
than modernity.
It was, however, rather stupid of JRRT. People nostalgic for past
hierarchies generally imagine themselves on the top rung of said
soceity, not the bottom rung. I don't think JRRT would have flourished
as a Saxon churl. All those people who think they are reborn ancient
Egyptians always think they were Hatshepsut, not a mudslinger on the
Pyramids
BTW, I assume the previous poster was joking about not having heard of
Mrs Dalloway, but in case you weren't, I suggest you try it.
--
Jane Lumley
Joshua B
> Nonsense. If you read his letters, you'll see that he was quite the
> libertarian and even referred to himself as an anarchist of the non-bomb
> throwing sort. For him, the very desire to rule others, either as part
> of a class system or under the various socialisms (national/Nazi,
> international/communist or merely modern/secular) was a virtual
> indication of an unfitness to rule. (Power corrupts, as with the Ring.)
Mike, may I post a quite good quote from Dr. Ralph Wood:
" [Tolkien] opposed democracy as an attempt to mechanize and formalize
equality. He feared that modern egalitarianism results not in
universalizing humility but in materialistic slavery. Though there was
a good deal of historical nostalgia in Tolkien's reverence for the old
feudal and hierarchical society, he also believed that respect for
one's superiors is spiritually bracing: 'Touching your cap to the
Squire may be damn bad for the Squire, but it's damn good for you.'"
This was already in my mind when I had read from Wood - I only had to
agree with him.
> He loathed the class system that then ruled the U.K., referring to it
> (and especially Churchill) as a loathsome "theyocracy." His ideal
> society would have resembled the Shire, virtually classless and
> structureless. The king would be far away, concerned primarily with
> putting down crime and only enter the Shire with the resident's
> approval. It would be a place where Sam, the son of a poor gardener, can
> become a much-loved mayor and have daughters in the courts of kings. And
> notice how easily Sam is able to slip into the Council of Elrond, the
> equivalent of a top-level national security meeting, with no one
> involking social rank on him.
An ideal society would be that of the Shire for anyone, Mike, of
course (unless you are a modern Democrat). The system of government in
Britain in his day was hardly that of the feudal times (which I
believe he loved the most). I did not say he loved the class system of
his day (the parlaimentary 'theyocracy'). But that of another day he
did. After all, if it wasn't for Gondor, the Shire would have fallen.
And its citizens did acknowlege the King. His system of the Shire was
a type of "democracy under monarchy." Quite unlike the unsuccessful
modern mixture of the two.
And I don't think the Council liked Sam to be there.
> Tolkien's distrust of democracy was linked to a legitimate distrust of
> demogagery at the hands of Saruman-like figures. All it takes to see the
> sense of that are two good eyes. Over half the population of Europe
> currently see the U.S. and Israel as the two greatest threat to world
> peace. Is that intelligent? Should that widely held point of view be
> used as a basis for foreign policy? Hardly. As one African newspaper I
> saw put it (in French), it indicates that "The Europeans Know Nothing
> about the World." But such nonsense is what they're being told by what
> passes for 'leadership' in countries such as France and Germany.
I think his distrust was also linked to his belief that we live in a
fallen world. You cannot deny his Christian influence as far as his
beliefs are concerned that undermined his toughts and writings, Mike.
He also believed in contentment, which was a large aspect of
hierarchial living, and that men should be happy to be low, so to
speak. The modern misconeption of the feudal system of the Middle Ages
is a veiw that is was a manifestation of harsh dictatorship. This, of
course, would be entirely false. The feudal lifestyle was, in all
truth, a much happier existance than is our more modern one.
Therefore I do not fall back on what I had said before - he loathed
modern democracy (and modern a-lot-of-things). As do I, so that is not
a problem.
> Tolkien wasn't mindlessly anti-technology either. He loved answering
> machines and central heating (who wouldn't). Given his desire for a
> typewriter with changable fonts, I suspect he would have been delighted
> to have a personal computer (a Mac, naturally) that could display and
> print the fonts of his various languages.
I did not say that Tolkien lived in a cave. I, however, would have to
strongly disagree with you. Tolkien would have loved a PC with the
latest version of RedHat (due mainly to the PC's quite cheap
upgradability as opposed to the dictatorship of Mac's component
world).
> I discuss in more detail some of Tolkien's views about politics,
> environmentalism, technology and history in the commentary sections of
> my book, Untangling Tolkien. On such topics he had a very independent
> and creative mind.
I should like to pick it up sometime.
Good Day,
Josh
Jane Lumley
<kats...@otenet.gr> writes
>"Complexity" and "Sophistication" aren't criteria in this respect for me.
>My primary criterion is "Sustained enjoyability" -- and Tolkien's works
>(most of them) pass with full marks in this respect, where I'm
>concerned.
The problem with this criterion is that it's entirely subjective; that
is, it's all about you, not the work. Not everyone enjoys LOTR.
Complexity, OTOH, is somewhat more objective (open to dispute, but not
entirely about what you feel when you read).
--
Jane Lumley
Christopher Kreuzer
> The feudal lifestyle was, in all
> truth, a much happier existance than is our more modern one.
How on earth do you justify that statement?
Experience from a previous life?
Who wrote the history of feudal times? At least more people today can
send their thoughts across time to future generations. Could the feudal
peasants?
Raven
news:3262406f.04012...@posting.google.com...
> The feudal lifestyle was, in all truth, a much happier existance than
> is our more modern one.
Save for those peasants who were occasionally massacred in the wars of
the nobility. This happened on occasion - a noble reducing his enemy's
economic base by killing his tenants.
Jon Lennart Beck.
Anotos
> ... but I think it all depends on what criteria one has for "great
literature",
> something I asked Anaotos about, but he (in essense) refuse to give
> them..
As much as you would have liked me to make some futile attempt at providing
a recipe for great literature, I felt disinclined to do so. No definition
of the kind you're looking for could be made without resorting to subjective
terms, and the only reason you asked was so you could pedantically nitpick
any answer I gave in an effort to prove me wrong. I'm hardly going to play
such a silly game.
In my opinion, the answer I gave is the best possible answer, and the
judgements I would trust, overall, would be those of academics over a group
of uber-fans of a particular author.
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >He despised the rise of democracy, believing the
> >> separated and levelized class system of ancient and feudal governments
> >> to be the more wise. Was this 'escapist?'
>
> Far from it; life in that system was much, much worse for most people
> than modernity.
>
> It was, however, rather stupid of JRRT. People nostalgic for past
youre confusing tolkien with morris
jrrt was writing about mostly anarchial societies
with less need for technology
not hierarchial medieval societies
with less ability to understand technology
the softrat
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>It seems "the softrat" wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>
>>I consider myself very well read. Who is 'Mrs. Dalloway'?
>
>Mr. Dalloway : Virginia Woolf :: Mr. Bliss : Tolkien
Oh. (The only wolf that I read is Nero.)
the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own.
You may both be wrong." Dandemis
Aris Katsaris
"Anotos" <moi...@moses.com> wrote in message
news:1018oiv...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:buv7da$2k5t$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> > ... but I think it all depends on what criteria one has for "great
> literature",
> > something I asked Anaotos about, but he (in essense) refuse to give
> > them..
>
> As much as you would have liked me to make some futile attempt at providing
> a recipe for great literature, I felt disinclined to do so. No definition
> of the kind you're looking for could be made without resorting to subjective
> terms, and the only reason you asked was so you could pedantically nitpick
> any answer I gave in an effort to prove me wrong.
I wouldn't bother to care and prove you wrong in what I consider to be a
subjective issue. I'm quite willing to accept that LOTR is not "great
literature"
according to your *own* criteria -- the same way that it's great literature
according to *mine*... Meaning that I enjoy it, and you don't really.
However, if we are attempting to measure its worth as "great literature"
based on some sort of "consensus", you've argued that we must only care
about the opinion of academics, and I've argued that we must care about
the opinions of all readers.
In this respect we disagree on the meaning of "consensus", I think, rather
than on the meaning of "great literature"...
> In my opinion, the answer I gave is the best possible answer, and the
> judgements I would trust, overall, would be those of academics over
> a group of uber-fans of a particular author.
A scientific paper published in a scientific journal may perhaps be better
judged by academics. But LOTR wasn't given to only academics but
published for the whole world to read -- and as such I think I will trust
the lasting judgment of that entire *readership*, which has repeatedly
named it the most loved book of the 20th century.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
> In article <buv7da$2k5t$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr>, Aris Katsaris
> <kats...@otenet.gr> writes
> >"Complexity" and "Sophistication" aren't criteria in this respect for me.
> >My primary criterion is "Sustained enjoyability" -- and Tolkien's works
> >(most of them) pass with full marks in this respect, where I'm
> >concerned.
>
> The problem with this criterion is that it's entirely subjective; that
> is, it's all about you, not the work.
Indeed. I think that "great literature" is after all as subjective as
"great song", "great music", "great painting" or "great whatever".
Anotos solved that problem, by claiming we must accept the
consensus of the academics in this respect. I counterargued that
if some consensus must be sought, then that's the consensus of all
its readers.
> Not everyone enjoys LOTR.
> Complexity, OTOH, is somewhat more objective (open to dispute, but not
> entirely about what you feel when you read).
True, it's a more objective criterion, but at the same time it doesn't say
anything about the "greatness" of the work. A complex recipe may be
much more foul-tasting than a simple one.
Complexity is orthogonal to quality. Complexity is only of value when
it furthers enjoyment, not for its own sake. I have no particular reason
to consider complexity as intrinsically more worthwhile than simplicity.
Indeed when I've beta-read for fic authors, I think I remember criticizing
plot-points that were so complex that they ended up muddling the issue
and adding nothing interesting to the story except confusion, when a
simpler explanation would be just as worthwhile.
But I get the feeling that simplicity is scorned by academics, because it
can't be "analyzed" as much, aka it doesn't give them much of a purpose
for existence. But literature should strive for the readers' enjoyment,
not to justify academical existence.
Aris Katsaris
Anotos
> However, if we are attempting to measure its worth as "great literature"
> based on some sort of "consensus", you've argued that we must only care
> about the opinion of academics, and I've argued that we must care about
> the opinions of all readers.
By your definition, academics would agree, I'm sure, that Tolkien is great
literature. In fact, by your definition, Tolkien is self-evidently great
literature. However that still leaves the original point of the thread
unresolved: why academics don't particularly respect Tolkien (if we accept
that that's the case).
ste...@nomail.com
: "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
: news:bv22f8$15d8$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
:> However, if we are attempting to measure its worth as "great literature"
:> based on some sort of "consensus", you've argued that we must only care
:> about the opinion of academics, and I've argued that we must care about
:> the opinions of all readers.
: By your definition, academics would agree, I'm sure, that Tolkien is great
: literature. In fact, by your definition, Tolkien is self-evidently great
: literature.
By that definition, Elvis is a better musician than Mozart.
Stephen
waltonic
news:hOXQb.21250$2v6....@news.get2net.dk...
I haven't got the original post to reply to [btopenworld news servers aren't
the best], suffice to say that I can't imagine anything remotely "happy"
about living daily with malnutrition and starvation; deadly communicable
diseases that kept life expectancy very low, and infant mortality rates
extremely high [bubonic plague, anyone?]; a class structure where there was
little upward mobility; the majority weren't allowed an education, and
display of anything above average intelligence would have had you burnt at
the stake... I could go on, and on, and on :) but I am interested to know on
what basis Joshua makes his supposition, and whether he has studied any
medieval history.
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0 Anti-Virus System.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 22/01/2004
Eddie
all wrong
it was better back then cos they wore cool cloaks and there were knights and
they were the subject of good films today
;) ;) ;) ;)
thats probably the basis of his supposition ;)
"waltonic" <she...@kebab.net> wrote in message
news:bv2m36$k3a$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Öjevind Lång
news:hOXQb.21250$2v6....@news.get2net.dk...
And then there was no medical science, no dentistry, no central heating, no
cheap goods (clothes and all kinds necessities or nice things for
everybody), no printing press to make general literacy possible, and no
agricultural machinery, which meant that the peasants had to work their
arses off to produce enough food to subsist on and create a little surplus
for the noblemen and priests. And sometimes there was a crop failure, which
led to famine - for the peasants, that is.
Tolkien carefully refrains from mentioning that behind Bag End, there was
a smelly outhouse where Frodo took his dumps. It was Sam's job to empty it,
cart away the shit and scrub the place clean every Saturday.
Öjevind
waltonic
news:EA6Rb.6173$zm5....@nntpserver.swip.net...
Wrong! Jeez, they didn't cart the shit away! The gaffer sticks it on his
taters! :)
Flame of the West
> Tolkien carefully refrains from mentioning that behind Bag End, there was
> a smelly outhouse where Frodo took his dumps. It was Sam's job to empty it,
> cart away the shit and scrub the place clean every Saturday.
Although in general I approve of being on-topic, perhaps in this
case it would have been better to leave Tolkien out of it.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.