[Child of the 7th Age]

First, thanks to everyone for joining in this discussion. I'd hoped to get back to this thread earlier but the last two days have been a little crazy. A large truck ran a red light, narrowly missed a school bus, and came barrelling into my car. I am a bit stiff and sore but otherwise fine. My car was not so lucky! I've been tangled up with appraisers and such since yesterday afternoon.

Now, down to business....

I remember Ronald Hutton's comment at Birmingham that while Tolkien may have set out to create a mythology for England, what he had actually done was to create a mythology for America.

Davem

That is a priceless quote. I think there is a great deal of truth in your passage. However, I did want to add a few words of caution regarding one or two of your other comments.

I wonder if this is the reason for the 'Tolkien cult' that swept American campuses in the sixties, & lead Tolkien to say that some of his American readers were involved in the stories in the way he himself was not. Americans of European origin in particular don't have such a 'cultural/mythic landscape' - there is, of course, such a thing for the native peoples, but its not truly accessible for non Native Americans. Tolkien's mythology is like a European mythology, but its not a specifically English, Germanic, Norse, French, or Romance one. Therefore its one that all European-Americans can relate to (I note that all of the Accademics Child mentions share a white European Ancestry).

For a moment, I'll leave aside the wider question of American readers in search of a "mythic identity" and focus instead on the sixties, which are near and dear to my heart. I was very involved with Tolkien during my college years, including correspondence with Vera Chapman and involvement in local societies. My real impression was that the craziness about Tolkien in the sixties stemmed first and foremost from students who believed they were throwing off the yoke of conformity, the commercialism and such of modern American society. While part of that was re-establishment with a mythic past (even if only an imagined one), an even greater share was focusing on those aspects of the story that represented "rebellion" and a repudiation of certain values. It was the repudiation of modern American values, at least of certain aspects of those values, which was the heart of the thing rather than an emphasis on reconnecting with the "mythic" past. the latter may have been present but was regarded as only a means to achieve the other, more primary goal.

There are two strong indicators of this. One of the things that drew younger readers to Tolkien was his emphasis on the need to respect the earth. It was a time when people were just beginning to realize that you could not abuse the natural world, reaping easy financial profits, without losing something very precious. Tolkien's book was loved by sixties students because they felt it echoed their own views on environmental issues. We could easily argue that such a stance is overly simplistic, but there is no doubt that college students saw this as one of the main attractions of the book.

Secondly, there is the whole issue of pipes and smoking and the general lifestyle of the hobbits. Rightly or wrongly (and undoubtedly wrongly! ) students identified with certain aspects of the hobbit life. They felt the Shire was a reinforcement of their own rejection of many things: too much of an emphasis on machinery and materialism, freedom to "smoke: whatever they wanted, etc. I am sure some of this gave Tolkien kinniptions!

The whole idea of a mythic past attracted only a small number of readers. It was those readers who went on to earn degrees in linguistics, medieval studies, and such. I was one of that group. For me, Tolkien probably represented a reconnecting with a past, whether real or imaginery, at least on some level. But for others, that was much less of a factor. Even I would have to admit that "values" played a huge role in my early attraction to Tolkien.

There is another point to remember here. In the sixties, readers had no idea of the full extent of Middle-earth or the Legendarium. All we had was the Hobbit and LotR. It wasn't until the seventies/early eighties with the release of the Letters, Carpenter's bio, and the Silm that we began to suspect something much larger was at stake. If you had asked me how I viewed Tolkien in 1968, I would not have used the word "myth" as I would today. I think we have to be careful not to read our present and enhanced understanding of Tolkien into the past. It really was different then.

I'll get back in a later post to comment on the general question of the identity of Americans vis a vis Tolkien as well as some of the other ideas expressed in this thread. Now, back to my insurance adjustor.....