[Bill Ferny]

Clarification… In what literary category would a Tolkien discussion be apropos? For example, is there such a thing as 20th Century English Romanticism?

I’m not insinuating that literature should be reduced to sociology or cultural anthropology or a philosophy of human nature. Contrary to the opinion of many modernists, the greater part of studying literature should be the study of rhetoric. As Squatter and Beth point out, Tolkien stands with the best in this regard. As far as I’m concerned, only Newman wrote better English prose, and no one has ever written a better story in English.

On the other hand, we have to give the modernists their due. An important part of literary criticism, and often a dangerous area for the literary scholar, is the analysis of themes in literature. If one wants to investigate the themes in the works of James Joyce, for example, how could one do so without any mention of the social and cultural context in which he wrote, and his apparent philosophy of the human condition?

It is from this aspect that a serious study of Tolkien could become very laborious, and personally I’m bit thankful for academe’s reluctance. Most literary scholars find themselves teetering on the edge of gross inaccuracies when they stretch their expertise “like butter over too much bread.” Too many literary critics masquerade as philosophers as it is, and I shudder to think what would happen to Tolkien if the likes of Linda Hutcheon and Harry Morgan Ayres were to get a hold of him. That is why I would like to see Tolkien continued to be ignored by the literary establishment. I would much rather see Tolkien championed by someone like Joseph Campbell or Kathleen Jenks.

Thanks for providing an example, Aiwendil, but what was the reaction of the prof or SI, and your classmates when you mentioned Tolkien?

[ March 30, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]