JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SIDNEY-SPENSER Archives


SIDNEY-SPENSER Archives

SIDNEY-SPENSER Archives


SIDNEY-SPENSER@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SIDNEY-SPENSER Home

SIDNEY-SPENSER Home

SIDNEY-SPENSER  February 2004

SIDNEY-SPENSER February 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: CFP: Theorizing J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (3/01/04; MLA '04)

From:

Marianne F Micros <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sidney-Spenser Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:05:58 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (114 lines)

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
> >
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager