[Aiwendil]

Sophia wrote:

How many of us loved Tolkien first for the deep literary themes and catharsis? It's quite possible to read good literature for its entertainment value without destroying its literary merit.

I disagree with your distinction between "deep literary themes" on the one hand and "entertainment" on the other. Let us probe the meaning of the first term. If by "deep literary themes" you mean some underlying message or purpose in the work beyond the story as such, then you are speaking of allegory. There is no allegory in LotR. If you are speaking of the kind of 'applicability' Tolkien talked about, surely this cannot be distinguished from the entertainment value of the story. That is, does not the applicability of the story manifest itself in making the story a good story and an enjoyable one? I would personally take it a step further and say that the purpose of any work of literature, and the attribute by which it ought to get literary acclaim, is its beauty - i.e., its ability to entertain.

I can't help but to feel that the term 'catharsis' is a bit out of place here. 'Catharsis', I believe, refers to the theory that by reading (or viewing) a tragic story, one may purge oneself of certain associated emotions, like sorrow. LotR is surely not a tragedy, and even if one were to accept the theory of catharsis as valid, I don't think one would be likely to find it in LotR.

So I suppose I agree with the main thrust of your argument - that entertainment value is not a bad thing. But I would go further and say that such things as deep themes are, or should be, tributary to the entertainment value rather than opposed to it.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

But I don't think that it follows that a book should deal only with "real life" issues in order to be regarded as a work of literature.

Very true. Not only does this (as you point out) restrict the classification of 'good literature' unfairly; it also relegates non-modern works of literature to being mere historical artifacts. This was the distressing tendency I mentioned in an earlier post - the tendency to treat older works not as literature but merely as data for the study of the period in which they were created, scarcely tolerable save for their historical value.

If Shakespeare's use of magic in his plays is only to be tolerated because at the time when he wrote some people actually believed in magic, then it follows that the quality of a work depends not on its own merits as art, but on extraneous factors like the time when it was written. This seems to me to be quite absurd. It marks a thinly veiled contempt for earlier works on the part of the literary establishment, and by the same token a snobbish belief in the superiority of modern literature. Even worse, it shows that the modern critic is not interested in art as such but in historical study on the one hand and social commentary on the other. Hence the sharp distinction drawn between ancient works and modern works. This at least explains the exclusionary attitude toward modern fantasy.

mark12_30 wrote:

Tolkien moralizes, and asks us to suspend our disbelief, and preaches (silently) about God, and gives us larger-than-life heroes whos faults are not adultery or embezzling or treason. And he's twentieth century! Where's the scandal? Where's the intrigue? Where's the disgrace? How can this be serious stuff? It's all far, far too virtuous to be taken seriously.

Exactly. The problem is that modern critics do not read literature as literature, but always treat it as if it is merely code for some other, deeper meaning. When they find either that that deeper meaning displeases them, or that the work is not fundamentally concerned with 'saying something' about the real world, they take issue with it.