Some History and a Question.....

[drigel]

bbwwaaahh


better said, Form. well done

either way you say it, just another step on the road to the long defeat, if you want to look at it in those terms. One step further away from the heart of the matter...

[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.....

[davem]

Firstly, Im so glad you're ok

Originally Posted by Child

The whole idea of a mythic past attracted only a small number of readers, the stubborn diehards who were drawn beyond these somewhat sweeping, superficial views to the sources that lay behind LotR. 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 a factor in the sixties. Yet, even I can not deny that "values" also played a huge role in my early readings of LotR

I accept your point, though maybe the students who connected with Tolkien's works on a more 'superficial' level were inspired by something deeper - I don't know.

The 'group' you belong to certainly includes the accademics you mentioned in your original post.

Originally Posted by Drigel

Of course it's also subjective. From my point of view, I would sumbit there are some valid arguments that a lack of cultural identity presents more advantages than disadvantages to a democratic society in general.

I think we can find two extremes: the effect Lonrot's Kalevala had on the Finns & the effect Nazi 'philosophy' had on the Germans. Tolkien was clearly inspired by the former & repelled by the latter. Tolkien clearly felt that myth was a way of 'earthing' people, strengthening their connection with their Land & giving them a sense of identity. A loss of cultural identity among any group can lead to all kinds of problems, crime, disaffection, materialism, etc., whereas a sense of belonging to a culture, with shared stories linked to the landscape around them can strengthen individuals' identity & make it possible for them to live more harmoniously with their fellow human beings & with the Land. I suppose its about having a link with previous generations who have lived in the same place.

Perhaps what the students in the 60's were yearning for was that sense of community, which is what myth provides on the most mundane level. Myth may deal with the high (& low) acts of the gods, but the stories often deal with the way those gods created & interacted with the land & people they created. We have to remember that once upon a time every land on earth was 'the Holy Land' to its inhabitants. The number of sites in Britain linked to King Arthur for instance is legion.

The great thing about Tolkien's Middle-earth is that, because it isn't linked specifically to the landscape of England, it can be 'projected' onto any land which has a landscape in any way similar. Of course, Tolkien did write stories (Smith to some degree & Giles specifically) which attempted to mythologise the English landscape (in Giles he set out to account for actual English place names & landscape features & give them a magico-mythical history).

Desire for community, to belong to a group with shared values & to live in a land which has stories linked to it, & which bring it alive, is what myth (which, let's not forget was once the religion of its inhabitants) gives. So, I wonder if that was what those students were looking for, & what they're still looking for, under the guise of studying a work of literature. After all, what is it that we actually get from Tolkien that we don't get elsewhere? Why do we want to spend time in Middle-earth?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Sidetracking on recent posts instead of adding to the main topic - I beg your pardon! It will be brief, just a few thoughts.

Davem, you mention the fact that mythology was once the religion of its time. I wonder if that might not be another significant factor in the effect Tolkien's books had on readers. At a time when religion, especially organised churches, was being rejected by young people (rebelling, as Child so astutely notices), they still needed something to replace it in their lives. Science, the god of the previous years, had proved disappointing and disillusioning. Some turned back to what they considered original Biblical faith (Jesus people, for example); some turned to Eastern religions, even to Satanic cults; others who were concerned with ecology followed that religiously.

LotR provided a deep undercurrent of spirituality without banging anyone on the head with it, presented deep truths in an easily digestible form, and gave role models for just about anyone, so filled a gap for those people who responded. Whether that lead to rabid fandom or to scholarship depended on the personality or circumstances. I doubt that it became a substitute religion for many, and am not sure if it lead many to seek religion in the church (especially Catholic, as Tolkien's influence by his own beliefs shone through only in a muted fachion). However, I do think that the religious aspect is one piece of the mosaic that is the Tolkien phenomenon.

Now, back to the actual topic...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Esty

At a time when religion, especially organised churches, was being rejected by young people (rebelling, as Child so astutely notices), they still needed something to replace it in their lives. Science, the god of the previous years, had proved disappointing and disillusioning.

I think you are on to something here. Western society became increasingly secularised in the second half of the 20th century, and in addition, people lived under a new kind of threat, the very real possibility of total global destruction. I know that equating the Ring with the 'Bomb' is not de rigeur for Tolkienists, but that's not what I am saying; LotR makes a clear case that science applied incorrectly, in the form of destructive technologies, could and would lead to disaster.

Given that the sixties saw the rise in the US of the anti-Vietnam movement, and in the UK (and the US, and rest of the world) of CND, Tolkien's work must have been highly appropriate. And it must not be denied that what Child says is correct - there was also a youth culture of mind-expanding substances and rock music which would be sympathetic to epic fantasy. Interestingly, in Liverpool in the 80s and early 90s, the 'scally' youth culture was strongly focussed on 60s and 70s music, 'substances' and anything vaguely 'mind-expanding' - Tolkien was very popular; one of the more interesting effects of 'Thatcher's Britain'.

Originally Posted by Squatter

Nonetheless, universities, whatever they might say, are followers of profit and fashion. With more and more people discovering both him and medieval studies, Tolkien may yet appear on more syllabi just as a matter of supply and demand. Obviously Oxford isn't likely to lose many 'customers' (apparently students should be regarded as such nowadays) by ignoring him, but other, less secure, institutions might feel tempted to jump on the Tolkien bandwagon. If, as Germaine Greer lamented, Tolkien has proven to be the most influential writer of his century, it may be inevitable that his work will get its own courses. Time will tell, and the only objection I can think of is that Tolkien would have preferred it if people were to study Cynewulf or Bede rather than him. Personally I prefer to apply academic tools to the private study of his work, which is cheaper and doesn't threaten to take the fun out of it.

I'm interested to see how the new focus on Higher Education as a 'market' will pan out. In the US, a University education has always been expensive; over here its a relatively new idea that students should pay in some form for their education. I would like to see if given the new emphasis on students as 'customers', Faculties begin to change their courses to reflect what undergraduates demand. This could either mean that there are a lot of IT and business courses as students are thinking about paying off debts, or it could mean they instead decide to follow purely what interests them.

I think the greater number of Tolkien courses in the US may have something to do with the financing and organisation of Universities. In the US, there are religiously funded Universities which may be more amenable to studying a writer who was a known devout Catholic. Here, barring a handful of tiny (20-30 students) Oxford Private Halls and The Jews' College (if that is still going?), Universities are secular and they work relatively closely with the Government on strategic planning of future courses. Arts subjects are still extremely well-defended against any accusations that they are 'useless'.

English is still a phenomenally popular degree in the UK, and most degrees combine Language and Literature; I cannot see this changing. However, some associated departments are closing down such as Linguistics at Durham and a significant number of Foreign Language departments. If any increase in the number of courses where Tolkien can be studied is likely to happen, then I think it will be most likely to come from former Polytechnics and institutions outside the 'Russell Group' (Oxbridge, London, Durham etc) - as seen with the Brian Rosebury course offered at Central Lancashire University.

I actually agree that to study Tolkien formally may take the fun out of his work. I certainly would not like to see his work forced on unwilling teenagers at school as they would then hate it, but it would be nice to have the opportunity to study his work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

I doubt that it became a substitute religion for many, and am not sure if it lead many to seek religion in the church

Perhaps it filled the gap they felt with the loss of traditional religion. Its interesting that the book which so inspired them was such a 'spiritual' work but one which didn't promote a specific religion. Perhaps it wasn't that they had rejected religion, but that religion had moved away from them.

What LotR offered, I think, was a spritual perspective. I remember that after reading LotR I became much more intensely aware of the natural world around me. Middle-earth 'overlaid' the countryside around me & so made it more 'magical'.

I think the danger of studying Tolkien is that it can actually lead us away from that experience (which is why so many people who love LotR will have nothing to do with HoM-e for instance). Its too easy to get sidetracked into studying his sources & doing what he condemned the Beowulf critics of doing - treating the work not as a poem but as a source of historical & cultural information & in the process rejecting the story & the magic.

I'm glad that most readers don't simply go on to study the sources, or go back to church in response to reading Tolkien. The sense of awe & wonder the work inspires is too precious & too easily lost. Tolkien's work gives us something unique. The sources (& religion) give us something too - maybe something more 'important', but that sense of wonder in the natural world is also important. Those studying Tolkien are perhaps seeking to recapture & even enhance that first experience, to build on it, but I'm not sure they don't risk losing it in the process, by turning it into 'work'.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Esty, Davem, Lalwende,

I don't mind "off-topic". Some of my most enlightening conversations on the Downs have been entirely "off-topic"!

I agree with everyone completely on this. When I speak of the search for values, I am talking about identity and meaning. While that may not be religion in an institutional sense, it certainly involves the search for what is spiritual. There was an explicit repudiation of the emphasis on material values and a desire to go beyond that. Part of that could and did take the form of Tolkien whose writings carried a message of faith and hope without pinning the reader down to the specifics of belief.

Davem - I'm not sure if I see the sharp dichotomy between the "search for the personal" and the "search for the sources". I can only speak from anecdotal evidence: my own experience and that of friends. . My perception is that people don't go on to the latter unless they have first experienced the former. The Ph.D. route is such a terrible grind, and the economic benefits of following such a route are often negligible. It's not like going to med or law school. I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US many doctorates in humanities fields fail to get "real" jobs, at least full-time academic teaching positions. That was certainly true when I came out in the seventies, but it is even the case today. Graduates often have to patch together a series of adjunct positions, work in museums or libraries, etc. Most humanities people know this when they sign on the dotted line to undertake a course of study. In order to embark on the quest for the sources, you have to have an underlying passion or love that fuels that desire and gets you over the hard places. I can't imagine going through a doctoral program without that underlying love in your gut.

Sometimes, you sense that love in the writing that scholars produce and sometimes you don't. When I read Verlyn Flieger, I have no doubt that she has a strong personal attraction to Lord of the Rings that is more than a simple fascination with sources. It is more than a text to dissect and analyze. With a scholar like Jane Chance, you don't see it that much in her writing. But if you speak to her in person, you get a totally different impression. (She lives here in Houston.) Whether you see it or not in the end product (and that may have to do with personality and how talented a given writer is), I believe it's there at the base of what they do.

As you've pointed out there are so many medievalists on my list of professors in the U.S. who do research on Tolkien. It's interesting to ask what came first....the chicken or the egg. Did Tolkien lead to medieval studies, or did medieval studies lead to Tolkien? My guess is that it is largely the former, although I have no means to prove that. If so, Tolkien may be responsible for a modest but real rise in the number of professors, classes and programs in the field of medieval studies. I think he would have liked that.

Lalwende - Thanks for reminding me about Brian Rosebury. He is certainly a professor who's done an interesting book on Tolkien. For some reason, I had him pegged in my mind as a "Yank." I didn't realize he taught at Lancashire. (That's where part of my dad's family was from. The rest hailed from Cornwall.)

Your comment on polytechnics is interesting. I think you are correct. We don't have such fine distinctions in categorizing colleges. There are certainly schools like Georgia Tech but they are still considered universities. It's also interesting to me that so many serious science people have an interest in Tolkien. At my son's school, two of his teachers were interested in Tolkien on much more than a casual basis. One was in physics and the other held a doctorate in chemistry.

I also like Davem's idea of the importance of community. I think that did play a role. To tell the truth, with the emergence of the internet, I think it reinforces that particular factor. The concept of community seen in Tolkien is reinforced by boards like this one. It's almost a case of life emulating art.

[Bêthberry]

What an excellent discussion your thread generated, Child! I'm sorry I missed its initial activity, but perhaps I can suggest a context in which to view the inclusion of Tolkien in more American curricula.

Before we take this inclusion to represent something specifically related to Tolkien, I think it would be relevant to consider how American university curricula have changed over the last fifty or even one hundred years.

It is not only Tolkien who has been newly included. We can find other popular writers besides Tolkien now being included on reading lists and being made the subject of scholarly lectures. We would also find that other forms of previously overlooked literatures are now the subject of courses, such as literature of the formerly British colonies, Black literature (particularly in the U.S.), working class literature. Norman Feltes at York University in Toronto was responsible for 'unearthing' a substantial amount of reading material which was devoured by the working classes in nineteenth century England but which was largely ignored by the leisurely and academic classes. I doubt I need to mention that women writers have in particular been the recipients of a great deal of academic interest where previously most were ignored.

So, I wonder if it less a new found respect for and interest in Tolkien and more a wider appreciation of what constitutes acceptable reading material for academic study. One could of course be as cynical as Squatter and suggest that, in the 'publish or perish' academic world, finding new authors to publish about is tantamount to an academic version of 'Survivor.'