Some History and a Question.....

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I don't know; I once had to talk about 'Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics' for a seminar, which went into the 'money for old rope' category.

The interesting point is that almost all of the academics mentioned above are concerned in some way with medieval studies. Jane Chance was in Nottingham last year, delivering an Institute for Medieval Studies lecture; Tom Shippey used to occupy Tolkien's old chair at Leeds, and writes mainly on Old English and Old Norse literature. Michael Drout teaches Old English, but has also done work on Herman Melville (an author whose works received hardly any critical approval when they were published). Also, as Lalwende has pointed out, the majority of British Tolkien courses are concerned mainly with his sources, be it from the perspective of folklore, myth or medieval literature. I know that some of the English faculty at Nottingham wanted to set up just such a course to lead students into early medieval studies through a study of Tolkien's influences.

I think that the reason for this, aside from Tolkien's persistent problems with scholars of English literature, is that British universities are often wary of devoting entire courses to single authors. Exceptions tend to be hardy perennials like Chaucer and Shakespeare or the institution's more distinguished alumni, as in the case of D.H. Lawrence. This approach makes sense, since there are just so many British vernacular writers from the seventh century to the present day that much of the corpus can only really be understood in terms of eras and movements. To be honest, I think that as a subject of academic study Tolkien really isn't prolific or accepted enough to warrant his own courses just yet. In the medieval community he's accepted largely for two reasons: firstly because his academic work in that field has been so influential, and secondly because the tools he uses in his fiction are more acceptable to someone who enjoys medieval literature than they are to someone who prefers the late-twentieth-century novel. To my mind, if Tolkien fits into any movement it's the medieval Nordic revival spearheaded by people like William Morris, which was finally killed off by the Nazis when they adopted a lot of its influences. That, I suppose, would make a very interesting course, or at least a lecture, but, like most courses that could involve JRRT, it would require a lot of cross-faculty co-operation and the study of some unfashionable and obscure people.

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.

[Cailín]

Since you specifically mentioned either the UK or the USA, I’m not really sure whether you would find this relevant, but I thought I would mention it anyway. I’m a Celtic / English (with an emphasis on Old and Medieval English) student at a Dutch university and though Tolkien is often mentioned in relation to Anglo Saxon and Medieval English texts, his Middle Earth and Lord of the Rings are not considered part of the Academic canon and discussing him during sessions can be risky if you have the wrong professor.

However, I am planning to continue my studies somewhere in England, Ireland or Scotland next year and for example, UC Dublin offers a seminar on Tolkien (Twentieth-Century Epic and Romance: The Lord of the Rings and Gormenghast), and so do several other universities I briefly glanced at, but on the other hand at Trinity college it is considered as ‘Popular Literature’ again (though that does not necessarily mean it is less worth looking at).

Perhaps there are simply much more American academics than British ones (which would be rather logical in terms of population). Or the stereotype that Americans more easily except modern and particular genre works as literature than the British might just be true. But I would say that what The Squatter of Amon Rûdh says is quite true; I seem to be hearing more and more Tolkien during lectures and I believe there is actually someone doing their BA thesis on him this year. Though - it could be I’m just getting hyper-sensitive to anything ME related.

[davem]

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.

I wonder if there's some truth in this. I wonder if the reason for the seriousness with which Tolkien is taken in US accademia is that American culture is such a recent creation (relatively speaking) & is still, in many ways, in formation. Mythology is bound up with a nation's culture & history. For all Tolkien missed England's lost mythology, we do have a long history & a strong cultural identity. I grew up in a village with a medieval church, only a few miles from a ruined Priory & a beautiful old castle (Conisborough, which was Walter Scott's inspiration for Ivanhoe). An hours drive from where I currently live there are stone circles.

What I'm suggesting is that while we may not have a mythology which has survived intact from the pre-Christian period, there are 'echoes' of it all around us, which we can almost 'hear' if we listen hard enough. In that sense we don't need another mythology. So, we love Tolkien as a source of entertainment, 'philosophy', & 'escape', even as a way of connecting us to that 'hidden' mythic world that lies all around us, but we don't need him to provide an 'identity' for us.

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).

In short, for English readers Tolkien's work is a link to our real historical & cultural identity, our mythology, our living link with our ancestral landscape, whereas for European-Americans it is a substitute for their lack of one. Hence it will have a greater value for Americans than for us, & so they will make more of it.


I'll get me coat.......

[drigel]

good thesis davem

There certainly is a link between the lack of cultural identity and the mythology that JRRT presents. And it would be one of the factors that caused the wave of interest across the States. Among us WASP's anyways. After all, we are decendants of colonialists and immigrants who weren't particularly fond of, or at the very least disenchanted with what (the real) western European history wrought for them. Yet one cannot deny genetics. Roots is roots. Not necessarily a need for a mythology, rather a more sympathetic ear for it, if that makes sense. Not a greater value, but perhaps a greater appreciation for what the author is trying to accomplish.

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.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by drigel

After all, we are decendants of colonialists and immigrants who weren't particularly fond of, or at the very least disenchanted with what (the real) western European history wrought for them. Yet one cannot deny genetics. Roots is roots.

I'm not sure if I'd say that the European immigrants of the last centuries were disenchanted with or not fond of their cultural history. By and large, I think that most immigrants had a fondness for "the old country". It was simply the lure of a better life, and a growing overcrowding in their own countries that forced them out.

It would be this very nostalgia for the "old country" and its ways that would make the descendents of the immigrants susceptible to a "fake mythology", recalling as it does the cultural history that we've had glimpses of passed down by our forefathers, but with which we are no longer acquainted.

Of course, I could just be restating what you just said...

[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?