|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Jan 23 2012, 1:33pm
Post #1 of 16
(1412 views)
Shortcut
|
|
** Rosebury’s ‘Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon’, Introduction ** 1. – Brian Rosebury steps on stage
|
Can't Post
|
|
“The very range and intensity of Tolkien’s appeal to readers means that a high proportion of them will not, at least when initially challenged, be equipped to give a sophisticated explanation of the grounds of their pleasure, and it is easy to find naïve expressions of it and be irritated by them.” – Brian Rosebury, Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon
Welcome to the TORn Reading Room’s first discussion of a book written not by J. R. R. Tolkien, but by a scholarly critic of Professor Tolkien’s fiction. The critic, Brian Rosebury, is a lecturer in Humanities at the University of Central Lancashire. He made a splash in the small world of academic Tolkien Studies when he published a slim volume in 1992 titled Tolkien: A Critical Assessment. In it he attempted to analyze and assess Tolkien not as a fantasist, medievalist, or romantic, but as an author of a major work of 20th century literature, using the same critical and comparative methods that he would with any other contemporary English writer.
His voice – acerbic, skeptical, censorious, and calmly but passionately committed to Tolkien’s artistic worth – was perhaps a shock to some Tolkien fans while sounding a call to excellence for Tolkien scholars. Now, nine years after the publication of his 2003 revised edition (Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon), he remains in the first rank of Tolkien’s critics. Along with Tom Shippey, Verlyn Flieger, and Paul Kocher, Brian Rosebury is who I recommend to those who want to start reading the very best criticism of Tolkien.
I hope you will be able to join in on this discussion. If you have not read Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon, you may have to limit yourself to comments of general interest but I hope you will still participate as much as possible. We cannot post the entire text of the book, obviously. But for my discussion this week at least, if you send me a PM via TORn, I will be glad to send you excerpts from any part of the text you would like to read to help you respond to the questions.
Today we will go through Rosebury’s Introduction, in which he lays out the context of his criticism and the reasons for his particular approach to reading Tolkien. For the rest of the week we will discuss Chapter One on the structure and form of The Lord of the Rings. The remaining five chapters will be covered by others in subsequent weeks.
One last note before we start: because I find the man as interesting as his mind, I would like to be able to discuss both Rosebury’s thoughts about Tolkien, and Rosebury himself as a writer and scholar. I will separate my questions on the two subjects into two discussion sections, as shown below.
1. Addressing the speaker
For the convenience of those who do not have the book at hand, I will provide an outline of the section of the text that I am covering in each post. Here is the first half of the Introduction, with page references from the Palgrave paperback edition given after each major section. I will try to key my questions to specific parts of the text using the outline’s notation.
1. This is a revised edition of a book published in 1992 (page 1)
- A. The intended audience was
-- i. Casual readers of LotR and The Hobbit
-- ii. Also two smaller groups:
--- a. Enthusiasts who know Tolkien other works as well.
--- b. Newcomers looking for guidance in reading him.
- B. The purpose of the book was
-- i. To assess critically the whole of Tolkien’s fiction
--- a. To say at least some new things about it
--- b. Identify its most rewarding elements
--- c. Explain why they are so effective
-- ii. To try to re-station Tolkien as a significant figure in 20th century literature and in the history of ideas
--- a. Not a mere best-seller, as literary critics assert.
---- 1. Comparable to 19th century writers like Poe or Peacock
--- b. Not a writer who is only analyzed by fan-clubs.
2. What has changed between 1992 and 2003 to justify this new edition? (page 1)
-A. Even more than in 1992, Tolkien has great popularity.
-- i. The smash hit New Line film trilogy has attracted many newcomers, leaving the enthusiasts in a smaller minority.
-- ii. The films cap a decades-long growth in Tolkien’s popularity.
-- iii. Tolkien scholarship has advanced significantly.
-B. Even more than in 1992, Tolkien’s literary reputation is contested between lay readers and the critical establishment.
-- i. Tens of thousands of British readers voted LotR as the ‘greatest’ book of the 20th century.
-- ii. In reaction, several noted British critics asserted that only ‘cult fans’ actually think Tolkien is a great writer.
3. Unchanged from 1992, there are two other important points in this continuing debate between fans and critics: (page 2)
-A. In fact most academic critics are not particularly hostile to Tolkien; they are indifferent to it as an aesthetic achievement
-- i. They assume that it is merely a bestseller that can only be studied in the context of some marginal but popular genre
-- ii. If they acknowledge that it does not fit the bestseller model, they relegate it to the status of a cultural curiosity rather than a work of art
-B. The ways in which Tolkien has been published and reviewed invite understandable skepticism from literary professionals.
-- i. Tolkien’s publishers have made him into a minor industry of reprints and marketing spinoffs.
--- a. This almost naturally alienates skeptical observers.
-- ii. Most of the vast posthumous publication of unfinished drafts by Christopher Tolkien shows off Tolkien’s weaknesses.
--- a. As scholarly resources they are invaluable
--- b. As examples of Tolkien’s literary skills they are usually counterproductive
-- iii. Most of the written commentary on Tolkien has been relatively uncritical, and unprofessional.
--- a. It is unrealistically positive and suspiciously voluminous
--- b. It is published by fan clubs or by the same firms that publish his fiction
-- iv. The poor quality of the criticism leads some to dismiss Tolkien as an author of poor quality
--- a. Actually it says more about the difficulty of writing about so distinctive an author
--- b. But it also highlights that too few of his critics and fans have realized that good critical practice requires a comparison of Tolkien to other modern authors.
4. Rosebury hopes to resolve the debate by writing about Tolkien in the context of literature as a whole. (Page 5)
-A. It will not commit the errors found in too much of Tolkien criticism:
-- i. Praise Tolkien by disparaging other modern writers
-- ii. Claim that Tolkien cannot be compared to any other writers
-- iii. Call the ‘mythic’ mode superior to ‘realism’, etc.
-- iv. Classify rather than analyze the imaginary world of Middle-earth
-- v. Rhapsodize
-- vi. Make coy puns on Tolkien’s nomenclature
-- vii. Use endless metaphors taken from his writings
-- viii. Pretend that Middle-earth really exists
-- ix. Bore the reader with anecdotes of the writer’s life
-B. It will instead:
-- i. Attempt to understand and evaluate Tolkien’s works as written works of art which a reader experiences aesthetically
-- ii. Analyze Tolkien’s ideas about art, religion, morality, and politics
-- iii. Discuss how his works have been received
-- iv. Discuss the cultural phenomena that have arisen as part of that reception
Rosebury says that his intended audience for this book has always been people who have read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but not other Tolkien books.
1.A.i. Are such people (as opposed to more dedicated fans) likely to seek out a fairly sophisticated book of criticism like Rosebury’s? How and where would they find it?
He then sets as his goal to “assess critically the whole of Tolkien’s creative work” and “say at least some new things about it”.
1.B.i. Don’t these goals (the whole of Tolkien…some new things) presume more knowledge or interest of his readership than he should expect of an average non-academic reader of The Lord of the Rings?
Rosebury assumes that virtually all readers, whether they have read Tolkien or not, have heard of him – and think of him as a “best-seller”. Rosebury believes we the reading public should be thinking of Tolkien as a major 20th-century literary figure of the second rank, as Poe or Peacock are regarded among the 19th century writers.
1.B.ii. Do you agree with this? Should readers be aware of the “literary reputation” of the authors they read?
1.B.ii.1. Do you know who Poe or Peacock are? (I know Poe – never heard of Peacock) If so, are they appropriate markers for where Tolkien should stand among his literary contemporaries?
Part of the Introduction explains why a second edition of Rosebury’s book was thought to be needed in 2003. Rosebury lists the “remarkable” New Line films by Peter Jackson, the generally heightened “cultural” awareness of Tolkien since 1992, and the recent “advances in Tolkien scholarship”.
2.A. Perhaps it is too early to judge this, but is Rosebury open to criticism that his revised edition (which is substantially a reprint of the first edition, with two newly appended chapters on the films and other “cultural” manifestations of Tolkien) is simply an unjustified attempt to cash in on Tolkien’s recent film-driven popularity?
More interesting to Rosebury, I think, is his next reason for republishing. At the end of the decade several British reader polls rated Tolkien one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. The media debate that followed led to more popular awareness that literary critics from the academic mainstream seem to look down on or even despise Tolkien as a cult author of no literary merit – an issue that academic Tolkien fans like Rosebury have been aware of for forty years.
2.B. Do you remember this debate from 1999 and 2000, or have you been aware of it before now?
2.B. What is your position, if you have one? (I ask because, basically, Rosebury’s entire book is about this very subject, so get ready for much more of the same!)
Now Rosebury rolls up his sleeves, and I suspect that most of the Introduction from here on is the same as in the first edition of 1992. He wants to emphasize two major points regarding Tolkien’s literary reputation.
First: aside from the rather vitriolic rants in the public press by a few publicity-seekers, academia does not so much dislike Tolkien as it simply ignores him. To the English professors of the world he is merely a curious bestseller who should only be taught, if at all, in the context of his entire genre – perhaps “children’s literature” or “fantasy”. He is decidedly not a “novelist” of literary rank and so is not even argued about in the mainstream published scholarly journals.
3.A. Do you agree with the English professors? Do you have any actual experience with the study of Tolkien in an academic setting?
Second, and with more passion: Tolkien’s fans and advocates have to some degree been their own worst enemy in this regard. Rosebury virtually lashes out at the “Tolkien industry” of innumerable reprints, the posthumous publication of endless drafts of substandard quality, the (mostly) shoddily argued and uniformly glowing “commentaries” published by Tolkien fans with a scholarly bent. It is here that he disdains (as I quoted at the beginning of this post) the naïveté of many Tolkien fans who irritate him because they have not been trained to explain why they like Tolkien so much. And this section closes with the call to action that endeared Rosebury to me when I first read him a few years ago:
Analysis and evaluation are always comparative: it is no use declaring an anathema on modern literature and then worshipping Tolkien in a temple in which he is the solitary idol.
3.B. Is (or was) Rosebury justified in politely savaging the present state of what is now called Tolkien Studies?
3.B.iv. Why should it matter whether J. R. R. Tolkien has what Rosebury calls “such an indifferent secondary literature”?
Rosebury finishes the first part of his Introduction with an atomic-blast manifesto of his intentions to rectify the situation he has so appallingly described. In some of the funniest and most vicious prose in the book, he lists the crimes of his “indifferent” predecessors in critically writing about Tolkien.
4.A. Claiming that Tolkien is unique and incomparable – classifying imaginary beings rather than analyzing the text – coy puns – playing the game that Middle-earth exists – revealing details of ones personal life: my God! Have you ever read any of these awful-sounding books and articles about Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings? Is it as bad as all that?
He balances this nonsensical ledger of indictments with his own idea of what a good critical review of Tolkien should contain. He says he aims to “understand and evaluate Tolkien’s works as compositions, that is, as products of literary art which are for readers aesthetic experiences.” He wants to interpret and understand Tolkien’s underlying philosophies about art and associated moral issues. He wants to analyze how Tolkien has been received by his audience and why Tolkien has had the impact on our culture that he has had.
4.B. Are you ready for more of Brian Rosebury at this point – does this statement of intent engage you or repel you? And why?
2. Comments from the peanut gallery
Does Rosebury’s somewhat snarky tone engage you or put you off?
Do you find yourself wondering “who is this guy?”
Where is Rosebury coming from, that lets him judge an entire literary field (Tolkien Studies) as being badly inadequate?
Furthermore, how can he claim that thousands of English professors over several decades are wrong about Tolkien being merely a generic bestseller?
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Modtheow
Menegroth
Jan 23 2012, 6:30pm
Post #2 of 16
(868 views)
Shortcut
|
|
first responses: who would read this book and why
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
squire,
You really know how to set the bar impossibly high for subsequent discussion leaders! I have some responses to your questions 1 and 2, and I'll tackle the rest later today.
1.A.i. Are such people (as opposed to more dedicated fans) likely to seek out a fairly sophisticated book of criticism like Rosebury’s? How and where would they find it?
1.B.i. Don’t these goals (the whole of Tolkien…some new things) presume more knowledge or interest of his readership than he should expect of an average non-academic reader of The Lord of the Rings?
You can find Rosebury’s book listed on sites like Amazon, so if you were browsing books on Tolkien, you would most likely come across it. I think the subtitle “A Cultural Phenomenon” might not even make the book sound like literary criticism and so be more appealing to general readers. And even though the book is, as you say, “a fairly sophisticated book of criticism,” I think it’s quite readable. It’s not loaded down with theoretical jargon.
I think Rosebury wants to appeal to “casual newcomers” as well as “dedicated admirers” (p.2). From what I’ve seen on TORn and elsewhere, it seems to me that as “casual newcomers” become “dedicated admirers,” they seek out some writings on Tolkien – in the Reading Room, on blogs, in books, at cons, even at scholarly conferences. With Tolkien, much more so than with other writers, I find the divide between academic reader and non-academic to be very blurry (by “academic” I’m thinking of someone who is employed in a scholarly field or training in one – teachers and grad students, mainly). If we look at the topics covered in the Reading Room over the years, it looks like there is an interest among some to “assess critically the whole of Tolkien’s creative work” and an interest in hearing something new about it. But maybe it’s only a minority of fans who are interested in going as far as picking up books of Tolkien criticism –then again, look at all the books about Tolkien on a site like Amazon. Many of them are not what would be considered scholarly publications but books that would appeal to general non-academic readers. There must be a market for these books! Maybe Rosebury is hoping to straddle the academic and non-academic markets.
If Rosebury does want to appeal to general readers though, wouldn’t you think he’d pop up at conventions and conferences? Has anyone ever seen him give a talk at such events? Tom Shippey and Verlyn Flieger are often heard by fans and scholars alike. Does Rosebury give any talks on Tolkien in the UK? Has anyone heard him speak on Tolkien or taken a course on Tolkien with him?
1.B.ii. Do you agree with this? Should readers be aware of the “literary reputation” of the authors they read?
1.B.ii.1. Do you know who Poe or Peacock are? (I know Poe – never heard of Peacock) If so, are they appropriate markers for where Tolkien should stand among his literary contemporaries?
The whole idea of ranking authors is problematic, since opinions and reputations can change from one century to another.
I know who Poe is, but I can’t tell you anything about Peacock, so I don’t feel that I fully understand what Rosebury is getting at here.
Should you be aware of an author’s literary reputation? No reason to be if you’re not a professional literary critic. But can you be unaware of Tolkien’s reputation? You might run across a snide comment in a newspaper or hear a teacher disparage his works, I suppose. I can’t remember, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Tom Shippey doesn’t make some comments on the subject in the LotR DVD commentaries.
2.A. Perhaps it is too early to judge this, but is Rosebury open to criticism that his revised edition (which is substantially a reprint of the first edition, with two newly appended chapters on the films and other “cultural” manifestations of Tolkien) is simply an unjustified attempt to cash in on Tolkien’s recent film-driven popularity?
It could look that way. He’s not the only Tolkien critic who revised books after the films came out. But I do think that including the new material is justified if you’re going to be discussing Tolkien as a cultural phenomenon. That’s one of the reasons I like this book – it goes beyond analyzing the words on the page to look at their effect beyond the book.
2.B. Do you remember this debate from 1999 and 2000, or have you been aware of it before now?
I wasn’t looking for Tolkien criticism around 1999 or 2000, so I wasn’t aware of the debate then, but a few years later I became aware of it after reading Shippey’s books.
2.B. What is your position, if you have one? (I ask because, basically, Rosebury’s entire book is about this very subject, so get ready for much more of the same!)
Not ready to make a position statement yet!
I'd like to respond to the other questions later, but I will say for now that yes, the snarky tone is one I enjoy!
|
|
|
elostirion74
Nargothrond
Jan 23 2012, 11:02pm
Post #3 of 16
(828 views)
Shortcut
|
1.A and 1.B1: Expectations
At first sights Rosebury´s expectations to me appear quite unrealistic. I wouldn´t expect people who are not dedicated fans to seek out Tolkien criticism of this kind. (Personally I found out about Rosebury´s work only through personal recommendation). Also I don´t think you can presume or expect this level of knowledge or interest about Tolkien from non-academic readers.
On the other hand I think Rosebury´s angle of analysis fills a gap in Tolkien scholarship and certainly leaves me craving more works of a similar kind. I would maintain that Rosebury´s work shows an at once broader, different, more accessible and more contemporary look at Tolkien than the medieval scholars which have been prevalent among the other major Tolkien critics I know of.
1.B.ii and 1.B.ii.1: Literary reputation
I don´t see why readers should be aware of the literary reputation of the authors they read. I know who Poe is and has read some of his shorter works, but I´ve never heard of Peacock. What´s more I don´t understand why Rosebury uses these authors like markers for Tolkien´s literary standing.
What I find both interesting and worthwhile, though, is Rosebury´s ambitions of moving the debate about Tolkien from the antagonistic poles of popular appeal vs literary elitism and his focus on comparing Tolkien´s literary approaches with those of other contemporary authors.
Peanuts from the gallery:
Rosebury´s tone and angle certainly engages me. He strikes me as an unusually meticulous critic and unusually conscious of and concerned with expressing nuances. Since he´s a literary scholar himself he has the professional tools to analyse Tolkien´s writing and literary methods as well as a professional knowledge of the assumptions and literary theories and beliefs that the rejection of Tolkien´s literary worth often is based on. He seems to me to be in a good position to engage on their own homeground those critics who either totally ignore Tolkien or openly reject him. And he does so acknowledging and analysing both Tolkien´s strengths and Tolkien´s "weaknesses" seen from a literary point of view.
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Elvenhome
Jan 24 2012, 12:27am
Post #4 of 16
(824 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I had never heard of Peacock either
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but I suppose he meant this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Love_Peacock I wonder if maybe Rosebury did his dissertation on Peacock or something. It does seem like an obscure reference.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories
leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Luthien Rising
Menegroth
Jan 24 2012, 12:28am
Post #5 of 16
(832 views)
Shortcut
|
Like the last two posters, I've no idea what Peacock is doing there and am tempted to blame a proofreader for "fixing" the name, except that I can't think of what it might have been. Poe is there because he was extremely popular in his time but not critically much noticed, as I recall; he's come to be regarded as "canon," to be found in standard survey courses not relegated to genre courses. (Then again, the academic establishment of the time was nascent when it came to English studies, busy establishing its credentials by focusing on older writing — one didn't read "modern" work in the academy — and there was little in the way of what we would see as book reviewing today.) The fact that Poe also wrote literary theory/criticism may have helped to establish his position in later years — and I'll come back to that.
Thomas Love Peacock was not, however, wildly popular — not as much as a lot of his contemporaries, or as Poe. He wrote plotless satire, mock Gothic (there was a lot of that around), and the like, for the most part, and was a friend of Shelley's. Peacock was writing earlier than Poe, at a time when there was no English-lit academy at all but there were active review periodicals that wrote the equivalent to what academics wrote in journals later. Some of them did pay attention to their contemporaries -- and most of those who did were also writers. Peacock is regarded enough that those of us who got deep into the Romantics or the "long eighteenth century" of the novel read him in graduate school, maybe. (I didn't, though I did do the long-eighteenth-century-novel thing, but I think I read, and then forgot, his essay "Four Ages of Poetry".) I can't imagine an undergrad course that would include Peacock.
Both Peacock and Poe wrote about literature as well as writing literature. For Poe in particular, this probably helped nudge him up the respect ranks. The same, I think, might have happened for Tolkien had it not been for the sea-change of structuralism and post-structuralism, which sent his way of thinking about literature into the margins. It may take another sea-change, one that values the way of reading that Rosebury talks about in chapter 1, to nudge Tolkien toward the centre of literary study. Rosebury makes some darned good arguments in chapter 1 that would support that nudging, but they depend on a set of literary values that was deliberately shunned by the English lit academy mid-century and that will have to fight hard to gain space and respect. I hope that's happening. I'm not there anymore (out of the academy now longer than I was in it!) to see.
Lúthien Rising
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. / We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
|
|
Modtheow
Menegroth
Jan 24 2012, 3:52am
Post #6 of 16
(830 views)
Shortcut
|
|
English profs and Tolkien Studies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
3.A. Do you agree with the English professors? Do you have any actual experience with the study of Tolkien in an academic setting?
Well, some English professors do think differently, and courses including Tolkien’s works are much more often taught now. Still, many of these courses that I know of are taught by medievalists who approach Tolkien from that angle or people teaching fantasy or children’s literature. I’m eager to see Leslie Donovan’s volume of essays on Approaches to Teaching Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and Other Works (to be published by the Modern Languages Association) because then we might see how different professors are now teaching Tolkien.
Way back when I was in high school (in 1970/71 – yes, I am ancient!) our English teacher threw out the prescribed reading and had us read The Hobbit instead. That was my first introduction to Tolkien. We thought ourselves very radical, defying the “establishment” in this way. A few years later in university, it seemed like everyone was reading The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, but not in our college courses. What I did read in my medieval courses, though, were Tolkien’s essays on Beowulf and on The Battle of Maldon, and we used his edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In the following years, I would see The Hobbit and “On Fairy-Stories” taught in children’s literature courses which, along with courses on fantasy literature, were becoming more acceptable and popular in academia. I think that all of this must have changed somewhat in the last ten years or so. The fact that the MLA (Modern Languages Association) is considering publishing a volume on teaching Tolkien is a sign that academic respectability is on its way, if it hasn’t already arrived. And having a scholarly journal like Tolkien Studies is also a sign of increasing scholarly acceptance, not to mention the many other critical studies of Tolkien’s work that are now being published. But I’m curious if anyone here has studied Tolkien in a modern literature course? That would be a significant sign of change.
3.B. Is (or was) Rosebury justified in politely savaging the present state of what is now called Tolkien Studies?
Rosebury does shine a light on the Tolkien industry, especially the volume of stuff coming from Tolkien’s publishers who have an interest in seeing only positive assessments of his work. Like you, I was very taken with his aim of producing a comparative study: “it is no use declaring an anthema on modern literature and then worshipping Tolkien in a temple in which he is the solitary idol.” I wanted someone who was better informed about modern literature than I was to assess Tolkien as a 20th-century writer, not as a medievalist who was working with medieval sources (though that interests me immensely as well).
3.B.iv. Why should it matter whether J. R. R. Tolkien has what Rosebury calls “such an indifferent secondary literature”?
Because, as Rosebury says, this secondary literature “might be taken by dismissive critics as a reflection on the quality of his own work” (p. 4). And Rosebury also states that good commentaries give readers the means of expressing effectively what is good about Tolkien’s work.
4.A. Claiming that Tolkien is unique and incomparable – classifying imaginary beings rather than analyzing the text – coy puns – playing the game that Middle-earth exists – revealing details of ones personal life: my God! Have you ever read any of these awful-sounding books and articles about Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings? Is it as bad as all that?
4.B. Are you ready for more of Brian Rosebury at this point – does this statement of intent engage you or repel you? And why?
I’m totally in agreement with Rosebury’s aims for what a good critical review of Tolkien should contain, and I’m drawn in by his statements that he won’t claim that Tolkien is incomparable – good! give us a balanced assessment. He’s promising us some solid literary criticism that will be a valuable addition to the growing body of Tolkien studies.
But hang on about the other stuff. Classifying “imaginary beings, places and sacred objects” (p. 5) – sounds like the kind of thing we might call Middle-earth studies? the kinds of things that non-academic readers like to do? This could be part of a study of the reception of Tolkien’s work, part of the "cultural phenomenon." Or revealing details of one’s personal life – I’ve read and heard very moving accounts of what Tolkien’s work has meant in people’s personal lives. And playing with puns and metaphors from Tolkien’s work, and playing the game that Middle-earth exists – what’s wrong with play? And didn’t Tolkien himself play this game on occasion? And isn’t all of this activity part of the cultural phenomenon that is the reception of Tolkien's works?
That’s not to say that I want to see Rosebury doing these things. Just that I think there’s some value in looking at all of these activities, even the ones that Rosebury disdains.
|
|
|
Modtheow
Menegroth
Jan 24 2012, 3:57am
Post #7 of 16
(828 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for the link. Did you see Peacock's list of unfinished tales? I think this one looks promising! : Boozabowt Abbey
|
|
|
Modtheow
Menegroth
Jan 24 2012, 4:05am
Post #8 of 16
(835 views)
Shortcut
|
The only way the reference to Peacock made sense to me was to imagine that Peacock was somehow wildly popular in his time or shortly afterwards. Do you think his name might have been chosen simply to alliterate with Poe? Clearly, I'm out of ideas.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Jan 24 2012, 8:28am
Post #9 of 16
(835 views)
Shortcut
|
I haven't read Rosebury yet, but based on your post -
1.A.i. Are such people (as opposed to more dedicated fans) likely to seek out a fairly sophisticated book of criticism like Rosebury’s?
Very unlikely. Rosebury is in effect saying that his essay will focus on those two books, and ignore the others. A nice attempt.
How and where would they find it?
Just recently, my sister was in the US, and couldn't find the book at Barnes and Noble. So I'll have to wait for it to come from Amazon - which might be by the time this discussion is over.
On the other hand, in the age of the Internet several people join fan-sites after only a couple of readings of these two major books, and watching Jackson's films. And this discussion might help (A Cultural Phenomenon was already on my to-buy-once lists before, thanks to NEB).
1.B.i. Don’t these goals (the whole of Tolkien…some new things) presume more knowledge or interest of his readership than he should expect of an average non-academic reader of The Lord of the Rings?
Well, a reader of only The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings will get lost by a complete critical assessment of the whole of Tolkien's creative work, wouldn't he?
But on the other hand, in Author of the Century Shippey pretty much does that. Was he influenced by Rosebury's challange, or example? I haven't read enough yet to even start thinking of an answer.
1.B.ii. Do you agree with this?
Yes, I agree that practically every English-reader today has heard of Tolkien.
Do you know who Rosebury considers 20th-century literary figures of the first rank?
Should readers be aware of the “literary reputation” of the authors they read?
Ideally, no.
But once there are so many books out there - and quite a lot which are hardly of any worth - you need some sort of sieve.
1.B.ii.1. Do you know who Poe or Peacock are? (I know Poe – never heard of Peacock) If so, are they appropriate markers for where Tolkien should stand among his literary contemporaries?
Yes.
But I've read very little of Poe, and nothing of Peacock.
2.A. Perhaps it is too early to judge this, but is Rosebury open to criticism that his revised edition (which is substantially a reprint of the first edition, with two newly appended chapters on the films and other “cultural” manifestations of Tolkien) is simply an unjustified attempt to cash in on Tolkien’s recent film-driven popularity?
Yes - but this is pretty much like other authors.
Rosebury at least has the courtesy of acknowledging the films, and refering to them; if he actually discusses them, then - as Modtheow wrote - he is perfectly justified.
2.B. Do you remember this debate from 1999 and 2000,
No.
or have you been aware of it before now?
Yes, through Shippey.
2.B. What is your position, if you have one? (I ask because, basically, Rosebury’s entire book is about this very subject, so get ready for much more of the same!)
Well, the excerpts from the detractors which Shippey are not very convincing. But I have yet to read a serious statement of why Tolkien should not be the author of the century. I do not seek one - and cosequently, I have no right to a position. I try (not always successfully) to avoid the folly folly of "I've never heard of it, so it can't be any good" even regarding arguments.
(By the way, squire, have you read Andric yet?)
Now Rosebury rolls up his sleeves, and I suspect that most of the Introduction from here on is the same as in the first edition of 1992. He wants to emphasize two major points regarding Tolkien’s literary reputation.
First: aside from the rather vitriolic rants in the public press by a few publicity-seekers, academia does not so much dislike Tolkien as it simply ignores him.
Half a second!
Do you think that the aforementioned debate of 1999-2000 should have changed Rosebury's argument?
3.A. Do you agree with the English professors?
That depends on one's view of what consists literature. Of they narrow the definition enough, they might be correct.
Do you have any actual experience with the study of Tolkien in an academic setting?
Very tangentially. In a completely unrelated course, the teacher wanted to show how modern culture has degenerated, and did so by reading an excerpt from Harry Potter and saying that compared to Tolkien, Rowling is shallow and superficial.
Never having read HP myself, I have no further comment.
3.B. Is (or was) Rosebury justified in politely savaging the present state of what is now called Tolkien Studies?
Politely? Have I missed something? Or is everything which is not ad hominem four-lettered innuendos considered polite nowadays?
As a matter of fact, I do not know much of Tolkien studies. I have read Shippey, and he does compare Tolkien to others, and so did Drout in the single essay of his I have read.
But literary research is not always comparative. Biography, source studies, and even research for early drafts are also components of it. I think it absurd to accuse Hammond and Scull, for instance, for concentrating on a different aspect.
But yes, highlighting the weaknesses and shortcomings of Tolkien's was never one of the Tolkien scholars faults. And some fans seem to resent it; but nevertheless, I think it is necessary for any critical work.
3.B.iv. Why should it matter whether J. R. R. Tolkien has what Rosebury calls “such an indifferent secondary literature”?
To whom?
To a literary scholar, trying to build a reputation and feeling dragged down by the fact that his favourite author is considered, and the secondary literature regarding him is truly, second-rate - it make a lot of a difference.
And to a fan who doesn't know much of Tolkien scholarship, but is concerned with the potential cost of immersing in it - a reassurance that you're not missing much is very helpful.
4.A. Claiming that Tolkien is unique and incomparable –
We haved done a bit of comparing a couple of years ago. Where have you been?
classifying imaginary beings rather than analyzing the text –
Ha! I knew he was going to deal with Shippey, too!
coy puns –
Guilty as charged, your honour.
But wait - I am no scholar - establishing my guilt is of as much moment as Pickels' confession in the Zinoviev trial.
playing the game that Middle-earth exists –
What Tolkien lauded as "secondary belief".
revealing details of ones personal life:
That's the new genre of criticism, Mister; it's your problem that you are such a classicist.
On the other hand, it is true most of these anecdotes are boring: these scholars seem to lead respectful lives. Why is there no Tolkien-studies book by the likes of Forrest Gump?
my God! Have you ever read any of these awful-sounding books and articles about Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings? Is it as bad as all that?
Does this count?
4.B. Are you ready for more of Brian Rosebury at this point – does this statement of intent engage you or repel you? And why?
It is interesting.
Does Rosebury’s somewhat snarky tone engage you or put you off?
It reminds me of a colleague of mine.
As I like the said colleague very much, it has an endearing quality to it.
Do you find yourself wondering “who is this guy?”
I'm sure I will find out, despite his arguing against others who bore the audience with details from their personal lives.
Methinks the lecturer doth protest too much.
Where is Rosebury coming from, that lets him judge an entire literary field (Tolkien Studies) as being badly inadequate?
Preston, Lancashire - less than an hour's drive from Leeds university!
Furthermore, how can he claim that thousands of English professors over several decades are wrong about Tolkien being merely a generic bestseller?
|
|
|
Luthien Rising
Menegroth
Jan 24 2012, 3:42pm
Post #10 of 16
(811 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien might have chosen if for that reason, though. Peacock wasn't unpopular, but there were similar writers more popular than he was - again, as I recall now.
Lúthien Rising
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. / We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Jan 24 2012, 4:04pm
Post #11 of 16
(831 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Peacock: "too little appreciated by the great variety of readers".
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I found this in The Concise Cambridge History of English Literature by George Sampson (Cambridge University Press, 1959), pp. 612-13 ("concise" runs to more than 1000 pages):
This chapter of remarkable novelists must end with one of the most remarkable of all, Thomas Love Peacock (1785-1866), a writer too little appreciated by the great variety of readers. His works include poems, plays and essays, all with a marked idiosyncrasy. Peacock is a most odd combination of sincerity, satire, cynicism and romance; indeed, he was an oddity in every way. He was like an autocratic old school "don" of the fruity period, yet he was never at any public school or university, and expressed complete contempt for those insitutions. His classical scholarship was immense, though not of the "examination" kind, for he read all the most ancient authors as he read the most modern, for sheer personal enjoyment. Much of his life was spent at East India House, where an official colleague was James Mill. At the other extreme he was a close friend of Shelley, whose Defence of Poetry was a reply to Peacock's The Four Ages of Poetry. His novels (the main concern of this chapter) are seven in number, and fall into two groups, with an odd one in the middle. Headlong Hall (1816) is a delightful diagram of its successors, Nightmare Abbey (1818), the most amusing of all, Crotchet Castle (1831), the most idiosyncratic of all, and Gryll Grange (1860), the ripest of all. The next group contains two novels Maid Marian (1822) and The Misfortunes of Elphin (1829), the first a Robin Hood story and the second a tale of ancient Wales, both intensely romantic and yet delightful satires upon romance. The odd novel is Melincourt (1817), which is much longer than the others, and contains, as they do not, some dull passages, and carries its joke too far. Through his most cynical and prejudiced pages Peacock scattered some of the most singable songs ever written. Almost every political and social craze of his time is pilloried in his fables, and much that he denounced still eminently deserves denunciation. His prose is the most Voltairean achieved by any English writer; but when the right place comes in he slips imperceptibly into passages of real beauty. There was a curious linking of ages, styles and manners when the author of Crotchet Castle became the father-in-law of the author of The Egoist.
That's from the ninth chapter, "The Period of the French Revolution", in the subsection on "The Growth of the Later Novel". I do see a few suggestions of Tolkien in this description, though there as many differences as similarities between them. (Sampson's history stops with authors born after 1890, so Tolkien is not covered.) For unexpected comparisons, it reminds me of Tom Shippey saying that the writer the Beowulf-poet most resembles is Lord Chesterfield. Anyway, I take Rosebury's point to be that Tolkien is a second-rate novelist, and not to mean that pejoratively.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien�s life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Jan 24 2012, 7:07pm
Post #12 of 16
(834 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Authors that are second-rate or second-ranked?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thanks for that reference on Peacock, which I think makes Rosebury's point clearer: there must be any number of interesting 19th-century writers that no one reads (or teaches) anymore, because there is only time now to read the first-ranked authors from any past era. Yet people who live for literature, like Rosebury I imagine, find time to scour the dustier bookshelves and discover some delightful books. Peacock is not taught today, our friends from the English Dept. tell us. But he was probably taught (or read, to be more accurate about early 19th-century literary education) by most of the educated people in his own time.
Thus Rosebury's claim for Tolkien: "second-rate" is not quite it, I think "second-ranked" might be a better term. He seems to see Tolkien as a writer who will still be well worth reading strictly for literary pleasure a century or so hence, long after his claim on popular culture has expired. And so Rosebury thinks that Tolkien ought to be taught and written about today (as an elective, perhaps) in advanced English classes.
Rosebury, who as I said seems to read obscure and/or slightly weird books for a living, delights in citing some absolutely fascinating-sounding authors that are no longer in the popular eye, as I will show in some later posts this week.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Jan 24 2012, 9:24pm
Post #13 of 16
(829 views)
Shortcut
|
Rosebury says that his intended audience for this book has always been people who have read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but not other Tolkien books.
1.A.i. Are such people (as opposed to more dedicated fans) likely to seek out a fairly sophisticated book of criticism like Rosebury’s? How and where would they find it?
Less dedicated fans are less likely to find Rosebury's book, but I think his point was that he was critiquing the books upon which Tolkien's literary reputation should rest, and not all the lesser and incomplete works that have been published. However, does this mean that he does not think much of The Silmarillion? Or that he doesn't count it because Tolkien did not complete it? Since I have not yet read that far, I don't know.
He then sets as his goal to “assess critically the whole of Tolkien’s creative work” and “say at least some new things about it”.
1.B.i. Don’t these goals (the whole of Tolkien…some new things) presume more knowledge or interest of his readership than he should expect of an average non-academic reader of The Lord of the Rings?
That does seem contradictory, but I guess he's trying to be all things to all people, reassuring less dedicated readers that they do not have to have read anything beyond The Hobbit and LotR, while at the same time assuring more dedicated readers that he intends to address and, he hopes, say something new about everything Tolkien has written.
Rosebury assumes that virtually all readers, whether they have read Tolkien or not, have heard of him – and think of him as a “best-seller”. Rosebury believes we the reading public should be thinking of Tolkien as a major 20th-century literary figure of the second rank, as Poe or Peacock are regarded among the 19th century writers.
1.B.ii. Do you agree with this? Should readers be aware of the “literary reputation” of the authors they read?
1.B.ii.1. Do you know who Poe or Peacock are? (I know Poe – never heard of Peacock) If so, are they appropriate markers for where Tolkien should stand among his literary contemporaries?
If they intend to address Tolkien's critics, as Rosebury does, then it is good to assess what the critics have said. Clearly they do not number Tolkien among the first rank of 20th century literary figures, but it might be too harsh to say that they have judged Tolkien as having no merit whatsoever. The second rank sounds about right -- although Poe sound better than Peacock, since I have heard of Poe. What about Arthur Conan Doyle and other 19th century genre writers who are still popular today?
Part of the Introduction explains why a second edition of Rosebury’s book was thought to be needed in 2003. Rosebury lists the “remarkable” New Line films by Peter Jackson, the generally heightened “cultural” awareness of Tolkien since 1992, and the recent “advances in Tolkien scholarship”.
2.A. Perhaps it is too early to judge this, but is Rosebury open to criticism that his revised edition (which is substantially a reprint of the first edition, with two newly appended chapters on the films and other “cultural” manifestations of Tolkien) is simply an unjustified attempt to cash in on Tolkien’s recent film-driven popularity?
Hey, I won't begrudge that. For me, one of the best side effects of the movies is the way it makes tangential works about Tolkien marketable.
More interesting to Rosebury, I think, is his next reason for republishing. At the end of the decade several British reader polls rated Tolkien one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. The media debate that followed led to more popular awareness that literary critics from the academic mainstream seem to look down on or even despise Tolkien as a cult author of no literary merit – an issue that academic Tolkien fans like Rosebury have been aware of for forty years.
2.B. Do you remember this debate from 1999 and 2000, or have you been aware of it before now?
2.B. What is your position, if you have one? (I ask because, basically, Rosebury’s entire book is about this very subject, so get ready for much more of the same!)
I remember it. I think there is a snobbery among literary critics that considers wide popularity a mark against an author, or at least reason to be suspicious of an author. How can something so popular also be among the first rank of literature? Surely the unwashed masses should not be choosing our best books. To be fair, just because something is popular does not mean it is complex, nuanced, intelligently made, etc. But some art can work on multiple levels.
On the other hand, I do think that fans sometimes exaggerate the perceived offenses of literary critics. The Hobbit and LotR both received plenty of favorable reviews. It's just that The Hobbit and LotR are not generally considered part of the genre of literary fiction, which is what most academics consider worthy of further study.
First: aside from the rather vitriolic rants in the public press by a few publicity-seekers, academia does not so much dislike Tolkien as it simply ignores him. To the English professors of the world he is merely a curious bestseller who should only be taught, if at all, in the context of his entire genre – perhaps “children’s literature” or “fantasy”. He is decidedly not a “novelist” of literary rank and so is not even argued about in the mainstream published scholarly journals.
3.A. Do you agree with the English professors? Do you have any actual experience with the study of Tolkien in an academic setting?
From what I have seen, when Tolkien is studied in an academic setting, it is usually as an introduction to medieval literature. I have rarely seen a course which just studies what Tolkien wrote, and not any of the ancient literature that inspired him.
3.B. Is (or was) Rosebury justified in politely savaging the present state of what is now called Tolkien Studies?
I'm not sure you are fairly characterizing what he does as "savaging." I think he is just noting the deficiencies in the present field of Tolkien Studies, without necessarily savaging anyone.
3.B.iv. Why should it matter whether J. R. R. Tolkien has what Rosebury calls “such an indifferent secondary literature”?
Rosebury suggest that his book fills a need.
Rosebury finishes the first part of his Introduction with an atomic-blast manifesto of his intentions to rectify the situation he has so appallingly described. In some of the funniest and most vicious prose in the book, he lists the crimes of his “indifferent” predecessors in critically writing about Tolkien.
4.A. Claiming that Tolkien is unique and incomparable – classifying imaginary beings rather than analyzing the text – coy puns – playing the game that Middle-earth exists – revealing details of ones personal life: my God! Have you ever read any of these awful-sounding books and articles about Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings? Is it as bad as all that?
Well, most of it is not intended for academic circles, so there is nothing wrong with having a little fun. Rosebury just wants to make sure we understand that he has loftier goals.
He balances this nonsensical ledger of indictments with his own idea of what a good critical review of Tolkien should contain. He says he aims to “understand and evaluate Tolkien’s works as compositions, that is, as products of literary art which are for readers aesthetic experiences.” He wants to interpret and understand Tolkien’s underlying philosophies about art and associated moral issues. He wants to analyze how Tolkien has been received by his audience and why Tolkien has had the impact on our culture that he has had.
4.B. Are you ready for more of Brian Rosebury at this point – does this statement of intent engage you or repel you? And why?
He sounds a bit pretentious, but I'm willing to give him a chance.
2. Comments from the peanut gallery
Does Rosebury’s somewhat snarky tone engage you or put you off?
I guess I don't find it as snarky as you do, and it does not put me off.
Do you find yourself wondering “who is this guy?”
Sure.
Where is Rosebury coming from, that lets him judge an entire literary field (Tolkien Studies) as being badly inadequate?
I don't know.
Furthermore, how can he claim that thousands of English professors over several decades are wrong about Tolkien being merely a generic bestseller?
As I noted before, there is a deep suspicion of bestsellers in the academic community. Most English professors take the safe course and study the standards, or else bring in something popular because it has connections to what they really want to teach.
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
Jan 30 2012, 8:28am
Post #14 of 16
(817 views)
Shortcut
|
The academics and critics do insist that there are genuine definitions of "good writing", which tend to add up to "what I like to read" with some trimmings. To be sure, there's a lot of drivel out there, which you don't have to be an English Lit scholar to recognize. Some of it's popular because it's fun, some is just drivel. But there's a level of literature out there that is clearly not drivel, but is simply not to everyone's taste. IMO Tolkien falls into that category.
The issue of "Tolkien being a bad writer" crops up here from time to time, most recently in this thread. In 2010, a blog celebrating Tolkien Reading Day drew a few nay-sayers, and this interesting analysis (& consequent discussion).
I thoroughly enjoyed this book (and Shippey, as well), once they got over being defensive about negative criticisms, which they felt honor-bound to dispute and disprove. Surely it's ok to acknowledge that fantasy, even superb fantasy, isn't to everyone's taste? The problem, of course, is that it's the critics who seem to feel that their professional responsibility is to use their lit crit toolkit to explain exactly why it's not to their taste and therefore no one else of intelligence and discernment should like it either.
Stay tuned for a Reading Room discussion of Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon by Brian Rosebury, starting January 23!
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
Modtheow
Menegroth
Jan 30 2012, 4:36pm
Post #16 of 16
(933 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't even remember going on that rant. I should calm down a little.
|
|
|
|
|
