Some History and a Question.....

[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.'

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

It is interesting that even though traditional Western religions have declined and society has become much more secular (I'm thinking of the UK as opposed to the US which seems to be quite the opposite), that there has been enormous growth in 'personal' spiritual exploration. It is now entirely acceptable to make use of astrology, tarot, crystal healing, numerology etc in everyday life as spiritual 'tools'. Even I can remember when such things were considered 'weird' and I'm only in my 30s. Even the Sunday morning BBC 'God Spot' is occupied by a thoroughly ecumenical magazine show exploring faith and spirituality from all angles. I don't think its mere coincidence that interest in Tolkien, fantasy and sci-fi has grown alongside this more personal focus on belief; people might be secular but they still seem to need something meaningful beyond everyday life.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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.

It was only around 15 years ago that I was at University and we had not only optional modules on what was non-traditional 'canon' literature but these texts were included in core modules too. Certainly where I studied, black and women's literature was considered well within the 'canon'. I also undertook a unit on literature of the 1930s which lead me on to a discovery of a whole genre of working class fiction after studying Walter Greenwood's 'Love On the Dole' - much of it only available from small socialist printing presses. However, fantasy and sci-fi were still not considered acceptable as courses of study on my degree even as specialist papers; a fellow student struggled to have his dissertation on graphic novels accepted, and I found difficulty finding someone to mark a paper on Kurt Vonnegut (it was the tutor with an interest in satire who took it on). I still think that in the UK we're a good few years behind the times with regard to studying Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Child

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.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the dismissal of Tolkien by the Arts establishment in the UK is due to his huge fan base in the more 'techie' community. We have to be honest and admit that there is still an image problem with regard to Tolkien in that his fans are viewed as nerdy and into computers and gadgets (as I am, and I have to say, if being into computers and gadgets makes me a nerd then so be it...). Certainly here, there is a pretty big divide between Arts and Sciences. Arts people are 'cool' while Science people are 'geeks'. Yet there is little difference in actual 'grey matter'. I have in the past found this pretty frustrating as I like a lot of 'cool' Arts stuff, yet Tolkien is seemingly always on the mental checklist of 'uncool' things.

I don't know if this will ever change to be honest. In the wake of the films it seemed for a while that to be into Tolkien was a very 'cool' thing indeed, but this seems to have abated a little now. However, as a new generation of young Tolkien fans starts to go through university and demands to study things they enjoy and have those things taken seriously I have some hope. Even if it all comes to naught then it's not going to affect what i think, as I'm old enough to like what I like and not care if it's cool or not!

Have to give you a special nod there as someone who has Lancastrian blood, though davem will not approve, as a proud Yorkshire Tyke.

[Nogrod]

First of all, I must agree with Bethberry's comment: fine discussion - and I'm being so frustrated to see this only this evening! Would like to comment on everything, but for the convenience of other reader's eyes, just spotting some comments of Lalwendë

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It is interesting that even though traditional Western religions have declined and society has become much more secular (I'm thinking of the UK as opposed to the US which seems to be quite the opposite), that there has been enormous growth in 'personal' spiritual exploration. It is now entirely acceptable to make use of astrology, tarot, crystal healing, numerology etc in everyday life as spiritual 'tools'. Even I can remember when such things were considered 'weird' and I'm only in my 30s. Even the Sunday morning BBC 'God Spot' is occupied by a thoroughly ecumenical magazine show exploring faith and spirituality from all angles. I don't think its mere coincidence that interest in Tolkien, fantasy and sci-fi has grown alongside this more personal focus on belief; people might be secular but they still seem to need something meaningful beyond everyday life.

I share Lalwendë's suspicions about this grand story of secularization. It was a story built up by the enlightenment, and it did have great visions: reason against prejudice, truth against magic, progress against conservatism etc. You know this.

And in some sense, this secularization did go on for a long time, the 80's or 90's being the peak, I could guess. But after that, we have had a turn of the tide, a backlash of sorts. At least here in Finland, where I live and teach in senior secondary high school, teaching f.ex. those students that do not belong to church (all the church members' have a mandatory subject in school: religion, I'll have the rest as my pupils).

But into the point. Even as more people are taking leave from the church, the rise of all these new-age "religions", the Wicca-communities etc. have made their mark in western societes, tearing down official church's stature even more. As from a sort of common zeitgeist, people have propably turned to be even more religious, or at least more openly craving for "spiritual" levels in their lives, than the story of secularization would like to admit. The newly emerged fanship of Tolkien could be counted as a part of it (Hollywood wouldn't make films for zero-audiences: they know the bussiness).

Has this something to do with protestantism (or is protestantism a sequel to this overall developement of individualism)? Martin Luther banged his theses at the door of his church in 16th century to show, that he believed in God, but not in a way, that his church teached one should believe. Last year's study here in Finland revealed, that something like 60% or more of lutherans' (83% of the populace)were thinking the same way: I do believe, but in my own way, not the church's way...

Sometimes I wonder if some of the dismissal of Tolkien by the Arts establishment in the UK is due to his huge fan base in the more 'techie' community. We have to be honest and admit that there is still an image problem with regard to Tolkien in that his fans are viewed as nerdy and into computers and gadgets (as I am, and I have to say, if being into computers and gadgets makes me a nerd then so be it...). Certainly here, there is a pretty big divide between Arts and Sciences. Arts people are 'cool' while Science people are 'geeks'. Yet there is little difference in actual 'grey matter'. I have in the past found this pretty frustrating as I like a lot of 'cool' Arts stuff, yet Tolkien is seemingly always on the mental checklist of 'uncool' things.

At least here in Finland, Tolkien's image-problem has been quite clear in the academics'. He's no modernist, to be sure: so the professors' will not like him. And either could he be labelled post-modernist or deconstructionist: so the cool assistants and lectureres' won't talk of him! He is just out of the canon of "high literature".

Well, post-modernism quite died at the last decade, and there has been quite a many burials of modernism already... Still Tolkien is not taken seriously at the arts departments. These Hollywood filmatisations sure did a great job to enforce these banners! So in this regard - with respect to universities - I sadly have to disagree with Lalwendë: the popular success of LotR films kind of closed the doors just as they might have been being opened a bit...

So I don't see this as a arts vs. science -people problem, but as a more general academic problem of fighting out the canon. But the time of Tolkien is coming.

The thing I am afraid of, is that Tolkien could easily be a part of a new nationalistic-mythologic-irrationalistic-spiritualistic-individualistic-emotivistic-racistic etc. -trend, with Lönnrot's Kalevala, and the nazi mythologies (two of the trends mentioned here, there sure are more of these) as well. It would not be the way he would have wanted, but is a way most propable, where his name is drawn upon on days to come. Hope I'm wrong, for I still love his work.