Goodness.
First, I would like to agree with Dot's reading of the "affectionate"
criticism of Tolkien--I read the novels (and even *The Simarillion* [sp?])
many, many times between the ages of 9 and 12. I reread all of that
material immediately before the first movie came out, and (sorry David) the
experience was very like watching *Star Wars* again in adulthood: great
fun, once you get used to the tone. (Bill, I just don't see it: have you
tried picking up *The Two Towers* when you haven't read Tolkien in a while,
and just starting there? It's like a bad translation!) OK, the elvish
looked more regular and more comprehensible than it had before, and Pippin
and Merry have aged better than R2D2 and C3PO. But has anyone written about
the obvious similarities between Gandalf and Obi Wan Kenobe?
I don't think I can dismiss my own unease with Tolkien studies as merely
disdain for popular culture. I shudder to think what the late 20th-c. would
look like without the Simpsons. And Philip K. Dick, I would argue, is a
science fiction/fantasy writer worth reading with close, appreciative
attention, as are Ursula LeGuin and Doris Lessing (though I'm not sure she
counts as popular). For my own work I'm willing--even eager--to read any
number of execrable poems, clumsy sermons, or meandering tracts as long as
they were written between 1530 to 1670; to be honest, I probably enjoy them
especially when they are sexist, colonialist, Brownist, or some otherwise
taboo -ist either for us or their own contemporaries. I think that Bill is
right that it's Tolkien's somewhat deceptive proximity to Spenser that
creates (at least my) nervousness; and I would add to that the creation of
a scholarly industry around Tolkien that would seem to legitimate the
comparisons.
For the record, I would also poke fun at the launch of *Fletcher Studies*
if its promotional materials claimed that either Giles or Phineas was a
"marvellous" poet.
--Beth Quitslund
At 02:18 PM 2/18/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello,
>I've been following this discussion with fascination. I
>teach both Spenser and Tolkien (although not together
>yet), and find that students tend to come to Tolkien with
>diminished expectations and leave surprised by what
>they've found. This may change as I begin to get fans of
>the movies, but up until now I've taught English majors
>and honours who've already developed a contempt for
>popular literature. Cultural studies courses often seem to
>give students tools for the study of popular literature
>without giving them any chance for considering that
>literature in more traditional ways or asking whether any
>of it holds up to closer examination.
>
>One question I have relates to the argument of Tom
>Shippey's latest book on Tolkien (which has a good section
>on scholarly animosity to Tolkien's works). Shippey looks
>in detail at Tolkien's treatment of themes like good and
>evil. I think classical virtues like friendship and
>courage, and Christian ones like mercy can be added to the
>list. How much are we prepared to see and think about such
>themes in Spenser, but find them quaint or odd in a modern
>writer who doesn't adopt typical modern irony or
>scepticism?
>
>What my students found is that Tolkien's apparent
>simplicity on many issues gives way to complexity on
>further study. His treatment of race is a good example.
>The good race / bad race dichotomy is surely complicated
>by having every bad race descend from a good one--orcs are
>elves corrupted. The wizards are equivalent to angels and
>just as capable of falling, as we see in Saruman. The
>fellowship itself is created out of multiple races each
>displaying their own prejudices which threaten the quest.
>
>What Tolkien shares most strikingly with Spenser is the
>generous spirit which can imagine a hero tested to the
>breaking point, who fails, but who nevertheless triumphs
>through grace.
>
>Christine
>
>
>**********************
>Dr. Christine Cornell
>Department of English
>St. Thomas University
>Fredericton, NB
>E3B 5G3
>[log in to unmask]
|