[Aiwendil]

Clarification… In what literary category would a Tolkien discussion be apropos?

You are right that Tolkien's unique position in literary history makes it difficult to categorize him for inclusion in some classes. But he is not the only twentieth century author whose works reflect themes such as death and the desire for deathlessness, the nature of evil, or the tendency of power to corrupt. I could easily envision survey classes of twentieth century literature focussing on the various treatments that authors have given these subjects, and Tolkien would fit naturally into those discussions, even if his particular views and mode of writing differ somewhat from those of other authors. And certainly there is material enough for a few courses devoted entirely to Tolkien.

But the inclusion or exclusion of Tolkien in college literature classes is not the only relevant point here. Disproportionately few critical studies have been made of Tolkien's works. Members of the literary establishment have routinely derided Tolkien as juvenile trash (and still do); this kind of mindless derision is of course very different from legitimate criticism.

. 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.

I agree with you. But just to be perfectly clear, what you are arguing against is not the inclusion of Tolkien in serious literary study, but rather the poorly done study of Tolkien.

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

My professor actually liked Tolkien, though he did not consider his works serious literature (he felt the same way about Tolkien as he did about Harry Potter). Moreover, he disagreed with my fundamental point about the validity of non-ironic literature, and it seemed that he felt any serious consideration of Tolkien's writing would depend on seeing them as allegorical. I found this very interesting (and somewhat disheartening) since otherwise I thought he was a great professor and I agreed with him in most discussions. The rest of the people in my class seemed to have less well formed opinions on Tolkien, though many of them seemed to agree that allegory or 'meaning' is what is to be sought in literary study.