Print

---

I woke up this morning drafting in my head a message for this list that
would compare Spenser and Tolkein and discuss fantasy.  However, when I
turned on my computer, most had done it for me.  But I want to add that --
the Kalamazoo Medieval Congress held several sessions on Tolkein last
year; a course in Tolkein, taught by a medievalist, is offered at a nearby
university; and -- my first exposure to "THe Lord of the Rings" was as a
grad. student assisting Constance B. Hieatt in a Children's
Lit. course.  She gave wonderful lectures, bringing out her knowledge of
Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse literature.  She also gave a superb lecture on
Celtic fairylore -- a lecture that compelled me to spend a great deal of
time, then, through the years, and now, exploring the lore of
fairies.  When I saw "Lord of the Rings," no. 3, I thought to myself,
"Yes, that is what elves looked like."  How strange!
But I believe that fantasy is a genre that can have many layers of
meanings, allegory, etc., as does "THE FQ."  Has anyone written on Tolkein
and Spenser?

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Jacob Johnson wrote:

> 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
> >
>