[The Saucepan Man]

Simply put, because there where such "fairy-tale" creatures in the books as elves, dwarves, orks, talking trees and the like, it wasn't the real world life, and since literature is about life, Tolkien's works couldn't be considered literature but simply escapist fiction, although the quality of the writing was top notch.

So presumably, your English teacher wouldn't regard A Midsummer Night's Dream, with its fairies, love potions and half-human half-donkey, or The Tempest with Caliban the witch's son and Prospero the magician, as literature? Or Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Or Bram Stoker's Dracula? Or, indeed, Orwell's Animal Farm? Seems to me that JRRT's works are "about life" as much as any of these (accepted) works of literature.

This, like the other reasons given on this thread for JRRT's lack of academic appeal, looks to me to be a poor justification for intellectual snobbery. Take, for example, the popularity of JRRT's works. Have the scholars learned nothing from the history of literature? As Lush points out, the works of both Shakespeare and Dickens (and many others to boot, I should imagine) had mass appeal when first performed/published. Indeed, I recall my English Literature teachers making much of Shakespeare's wide appeal with his audiences, pointing out the jokes and devices thrown in for the benefit of the unschooled masses. If they accept the literary merit of works which were popular in the past, why can't they do so equally with works that are popular now?

In my opinion, whether they are considered fantasy, medaevalist or whatever, the works of JRRT do undoubtedly have considerable literary merit. They are wonderfully written, intricately constructed and fair brimming with relevant and complex themes. That is not to fall into the trap, already mentioned, of considering them flawless. But, they are in my view clearly on a par with, if not greater than, a good many works which are generally considered to be literary masterpieces.

Having said that, I think that Bill Ferny makes a good point in questioning whether there is any great benefit to be derived (for us, the readers) from a wider academic recognition of the literary merit in JRRT's works. Maybe it's because my days of studying literature are long gone, but I don't need some mildewy old (or even young and trendy) professor of literature telling me that it is a worthy pursuit to read LotR in order to justify my enjoyment of it.

Yes, it would be nice if my favourite author wasn't stacked alongside the works of the Tiresome Terrys (Brooks and Pratchett) in the bookshop, but I can live with that. I am sure that some day the works will graduate to the classics shelf, but until that day, I am content to "slum it" in the fantasy section.

As for the inclusion of JRRT's works in school and college literature courses, I am with those who doubt whether this would be such a good thing. Clearly, his books would not be out of place in a literary discussion of the types of themes that feature in them (the many articulate and erudite threads in this forum bear witness to that). But the thought of a book such as LotR being studied in its own right as part of the syllabus of a course instills in me a measure of anxiety. I recall, when studying Shakespeare and novels such as Wuthering Heights and A Farewell to Arms at school, being given the checklist of what each quote meant, as if this was somehow cast in stone. While I accepted it at the time (in order to pass my exams [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), such absolutist interpretation seems to me, with the benefit of hindsight, to be quite wrong. And I would hate to see LotR parcelled up into neat little sections of meaning according to some general concensus, leading to those that study it ending up with a "one size fits all" opinion of the book.

Of course, that is not to say that students and teachers alike should not bring up LotR (or any of JRRT's other works) in discussion of a literary theme where it is relevant to that theme, just as Aiwendil did. The literary merit in his works is such that this should be a perfectly valid exercise. And any teacher or lecturer who dismisses an attempt to do so because the works are "simply fantasy novels" or "too popular" is guilty of poor teaching. But, it is not necessary for the books to be included on some syllabus or reading list in order for them to be brought into literary debate, where appropriate.

So, I would be interested to hear any further thoughts on what benefits might be acheived through a greater academic appreciation of JRRT's works. But in the meantime, I shall continue to derive great pleasure from the books (and from discussion of them on this site [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) irrespective of their exclusion from the giddy heights of general scholarly acceptance [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .