I would have to say that I agree with Dorothy Stephens when she says
that an exploration of the "historicist and gendered arguments developed
by current Spenserian scholars" gets students excited about reading
Spenser. As a recent grad from Cornell, I would have to say that Prof.
Carol Kaske's course on Spenser and Malory was a lightning rod that
charged my desire to study Spenser, so much so, that I wrote my honor
thesis on the FQ.
That said however, through my discussions of Spenser with Prof. Kaske,
it became increasingly clear to me that what Spenserian scholarship
lacks most is a more thorough examination of primary documents
surrounding the FQ - not by scholars, but by undergrads. Too often
academia expects us to rely on the scholarly writings of "alpine guides"
to explore the depths (or heights if I am to stay in the metaphor) of
FQ, but I found, and other students I have discussed with found, that
the most rewarding aspect of Spenserian study came not with a simplified
acceptance of the views and interpretations of Spenser's influences as
handed to us by scholars, but by a in depth study of those sources
themselves. What dis-illusions students most is not that we need guides
to study Spenser, but that we are hardly ever allowed to explore for
ourselves, even if it is under the watchful eye of the guides.
As to the study of Tolkien in the same fashion as Spenserian, or for
that matter, other types of romance, it seems to me that the questions
that would be the most compelling would consist of those same types
addressed to Spenser: 1) Can we look to the historical period in which
Tolkien was writing and say honestly that his works were addressing real
and relevant issues surrounding England? What does his blatant depiction
of a good race or races and a bad race or races say about the political
ideology of the time, etc.? 2) I think that Charlie Butler's questions
on the disappearance of fantasy as a compelling and communicative
literary discourse are not only valid, but important. In looking at
Tolkein, could it be that we discount him because he is writing in a
form that is rather too rigid (and therefore somehow too simplistic) for
our enlightened, pluralistic minds? Why?
Also I heard something about Tolkien saying that he did not intend to
write what many have now labeled an allegory - specifically and allegory
of Christianity, but simply a compelling story. Do we believe him? Why
or why not? And how does that affect the way in which we should approach
his works? Also, on the allegory front, why not explore more deeply his
relationship with someone whom we hold fairly esteemed in Spenser
studies - C.S. Lewis?
Finally, I can't stand reading Tolkien. I barely got through the Hobbit,
and quit in the first volume of the Rings. Possibly, just possibly, this
is because I've lost any ability - thanks to Cornell and my "alpine
guides" - to read anything that has, at least in my limited opinion, no
critical value. However, this discussion is causing me to reconsider
whether, my limited opinion is worth much of anything.
Jacob Johnson
On Wednesday, February 18, 2004, at 08:49 AM, Charles Butler wrote:
> Bill Oram
>> At the same time many of the enthusiastic defenders of
>> fantasy―our
> students―are equally undiscriminating and this makes us―or at least
> me―uneasy. They don't see all that great a difference between Spenser
> and
> Tolkien and indeed between Tolkien and Robert Jordan. I think that part
> of
> the need to draw lines in the sand has to do with the sense that books
> in
> which we're heavily invested are coming under attack by being confused
> with
> books that are harder to defend. And that in a climate dismissive of
> much
> that we give our lives to.
>
> Ain't that the truth? I think this is a very healthy thread, in that is
> forcing us to face the fact that we (and others) tend to
> compartmentalize
> our aesthetic standards according to chronology: fantasy and unironic
> grandeur of language are fine when Homer, Virgil, Dante and Spenser use
> them, but become at best 'minor' and at worst embarrassing when
> practised,
> say, post WWI - at which point we unconsciously don the mantle of the
> modernist aesthetic (and yes, I know I'm oversimplifying), and disdain
> fantasy except when it comes trimmed with sophisticated scare quotes. Of
> course, we might want to argue that it isn't fantasy so much as
> Tolkien's
> particular offerings in that line that we dislike, but in that case
> where
> are the other modern fantasists at the heart of the twentieth-century
> canon?
> Considering that fantasy was arguably . the dominant mode in western
> literature until the Enlightenment, their absence should give everyone,
> and
> especially Spenserians, pause.
>
> Charlie
>
|