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
fantasyHiragino Kaku Gothic Pro―our
Hiragino Kaku Gothic Prostudents―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
