Quote:
I would encourage those who use literature to delve philosophy to seriously consider a philosophy major
I know, Im shameless.
|
*applause*
Quote:
The problem is, I think, that scholars tend to assume that the only (or at least the chief) value of ancient works lies not in the works in and of themselves, but in the very antiquity of them. I strongly suspect that if Beowulf had been written in the twentieth century, it would have met the same critical hostility as The Lord of the Rings. Detached from their historical and cultural significance, I suspect that ancient works would be of little or no interest to most modern scholars.
|
Where one places Tolkien (as has been discussed before-- many apologies if I simply repeat what's gone before... I get carried away sometimes) is rather difficult. LOTR often gets classified as a fantasy, how many reputable PhD candidates pick up Terry Goodkind to write a thesis on?
But as for classifying Tolkien with myth... I'm hesitant. As mark 12_30 points out myths are historical. True myths grow out of a culture and a language. Perhaps someone writes them out in literature form at some point, but ultimately, the literature is rooted in the history of a people. Tolkien's myths are somewhat smaller, in some ways. They grow out of language, yes, but they aren't rooted in a culture, but rather the history of one man's life.
However, scholars of twentieth century lit study Tolkien? Again, hesitant.
Are there comparable authors whose works are so un-classifiable that recieve their due recognition? I've been trying to think of who that would be, but I'm not doing real well. In fact, I can't think of any whose work is as incompatible with the established genres.
Bethberry- your point about the elves and Otherness is interesting. Have you thought a lot about this? I'd like to hear more sometime, I think.
-Sophia