Are you a literature snob?

[Ecurb]

I actually prefer the Silmarillion to LotR as well, but I'm not a Tolkien fan in general. I think part of the appeal of the Silmarillion is that the individual stories, though sometimes linked, were short enough to make Tolkien's style tolerable. I'm not sure I think the stories are great literature though. Some of them have the same archetypal quality and appeal of minor fairy tales and myths.
.

I'd suggest that myths and fairy tales are the essence of literature. Obviously, if a reader doesn't like myths and fairy tales, he won't like Tolkien.

[JCamilo]

The Jews who wrote the Old Testament didn't distinguish between myth and history, and neither do most preliterate people. It is we moderns who see the supernatural accretions as "mythological" rather than "historical" -- because they strain our credulity. Of course in a fantasy the supernatural aspects of the history don't bother us -- the entire thing is made up, after all. Nonetheless, the Silmarillion, with it's creation stories, pantheon of god-like Valar, and tales of heroic deeds and magical artifacts reads like a mythology more than like a modern history.

To be honest, it didnt matter the distinguish. Mythological societies didnt had an historical view of their myths, not because they mixed both, but simply because Myth predates chronological organization and philosophical explanations .Jews had quite a good notion their texts aren't literal as History book, but my point about Silmarilion not being myth is just that they are more a chronicles of real events. You have not even a slightly doubt: when tolkies says the elves lived in lalala land and tree had light, there was indeed all of this. It was not a linguistic explanation of the world around ,they are factual. Of course, we do call some mythological accounts as possible historical facts, an alegorical view of myths, which is not a tolkien approach. A nitpick from my part maybe.

[Ecurb]

All I meant is that in most preliterate societies there are not two distinct words, one of which could be translated as "myth" and one of which as "history". There are often discrete words that we might translate as "fairy tale" or "riddle" (a well known literary form in many societies, and used by Tolkien in The Hobbit), but what we would call "myth" and what we would call "history" are not distinguished in the vocabularies of most preliterate people.

[Lover]

I read for the pleasure of reading. I read what enjoy, not because it is superior in literary terms, but because it offers me superior pleasure. It just so happens that what I enjoy most is considered good literature. If something I enjoyed was considered low quality I would read it happily. I find most popular books to be dull, overly simple, predictable, and very boring, but I don't find them that way because somebody told me to. My tastes are spoiled. It is kind of like a drug addict, at first I could get the high easily, but now it takes more and more to get me there (and I see little point in reading if I don't get there).

[mal4mac]

There is no kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or any other writer, is 'good'. There is no test of literary merit except survival, an index to majority opinion.

[mal4mac]

If something I enjoyed was considered low quality I would read it happily.

Why? You might enjoy eating low quality ice cream, but if a friend read out the list of additives, and you knew those additives to be unhealthy, you would (I hope!) feel disgusted and stop.

If a friend reads out a list of reasons for what you are reading being low quality, and you agree with them, then why wouldn't you stop reading that literature? Why put rubbish into your mind when you would never put it into your body?

[JCamilo]

There is no kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or any other writer, is 'good'. There is no test of literary merit except survival, an index to majority opinion.

I am sure nobody can show why Beethoveen is better than Britney Spears, therefore from now on you could reffrain from saying something is better or mention Bloom who objectively tries to argue this?

[Drkshadow03]

Why? You might enjoy eating low quality ice cream, but if a friend read out the list of additives, and you knew those additives to be unhealthy, you would (I hope!) feel disgusted and stop.

If a friend reads out a list of reasons for what you are reading being low quality, and you agree with them, then why wouldn't you stop reading that literature? Why put rubbish into your mind when you would never put it into your body?

Well, she qualified all this by saying she reads for pleasure. If she finds books that you or someone else would consider low quality entertaining, but gets pleasure out of it, so what? You yourself have argued that escapism or entertainment has value:

"Of course it's valid! Did you see your favourite Sue Perkins on Saturday, Kiki? She was extolling the virtues of the corniest best sellers, in that, unlike much "serious literature", many have good plots, are easy to read, and allow people to escape from their miserable lives for a few hours. These things have value."

You have also written elsewhere that you primarily read for enjoyment and admit people find different things enjoyable.

Last but not least, eating additives in low quality ice cream can possibly cause long-term health problems like cancer. Reading the latest Star Wars novel for fun will not give you brain cancer, will not send you to long trip to the hospital, and has no demonstrable effect on health or quality of life. This is an intellectually dishonest metaphor.

So if she enjoys a romance novel as well as Dickens because she finds both provide her enjoyment, I am failing to see what grounds you're dismissing reading the cheap romance novel.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, she qualified all this by saying she reads for pleasure. If she finds books that you or someone else would consider low quality entertaining, but gets pleasure out of it, so what? You yourself have argued that escapism or entertainment has value:



You have also written elsewhere that you primarily read for enjoyment and admit people find different things enjoyable.

Last but not least, eating additives in low quality ice cream can possibly cause long-term health problems like cancer. Reading the latest Star Wars novel for fun will not give you brain cancer, will not send you to long trip to the hospital, and has no demonstrable effect on health or quality of life. This is an intellectually dishonest metaphor.

So if she enjoys a romance novel as well as Dickens because she finds both provide her enjoyment, I am failing to see what grounds you're dismissing reading the cheap romance novel.

You have worded my own sentiments quite well. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, how are we to try to make a standard of literary worth that rejects some writings worthless that others deem worthwhile?

[JuniperWoolf]

I must say I find it somewhat comic that anyone would place the word "scholars" in quotes... denoting a snide dismissive attitude toward the merit of these individuals whom one would assume earned their position as a result of some degree of serious study and knowledge of literature... right before they turn around and declare "I hate Elitism..." One definition of "elitism" is a sense of superiority over other individuals... including taking a holy-than-thou stance of proclaiming one's own "anti-elitism" (not, perhaps, unlike proudly trumpeting one's own sense of modesty).

Haha, so you're saying that I'm snobby about my lack of snobbery. Cool. That's like having a superiority complex about an inferiority complex.

[mortalterror]

Not to mention if evaluated from factors that determine canonicity or survival I would also say at the moment the evidence is in favor of Tolkien's work surviving into the future, not against it. Let's review:

1) The work has lasted the test of time thus far. It's almost 60 years old. For comparison purposes, keep in mind most best-selling works do well for about two to three months (selling a bagillion copies) and then end up in remainder bins with no one reading them anymore, and eventually out-of-print within a few years. No reason to think this trend will change.

You and I are the same age; so we both remember back to a time before the movies came out when TLOTR was not held in the same esteem it is today. Prior to 2001, it was a known if somewhat niche book, rarely given any serious thought by people who didn't play D&D or read Dragonlance. The movies, which are better than the books, served as advertisements for the books to the tune of several hundred million dollars. Thus the series has justly or unjustly gotten an additional 15 minutes of fame. The Narnia books of C.S. Lewis are also feeling the boost of international blockbuster movie advertising and renewed interest lately. However, I will allow that you could argue their successful adaptation to the blockbuster market is a sign of their continued merit.

2) It's taught in academic classrooms. I've taken an actual class on LOTR, plus I've seen syllabuses at other universities, although they did correspond to movie release dates. However, fantasy courses, which are offered more frequently almost always include LOTR. There is no reason to think this will change anytime soon.

And I've seen courses offered on Star Trek. That doesn't make it great literature. It's more a sign of pandering that sometimes goes on in academic circles, an attempt to be accessible, egalitarian, and relevant to contemporary culture.

If it's taught in fantasy courses, one could at least make the argument that it's better than most other fantasy out there, but that's because fantasy as a whole is at a comparatively lackluster level. Is it as good as Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz? Sure. But I don't know that I could make a compelling argument for fantasy even being as good as mystery what with the likes of Doyle, Hammett, and Chandler on the other side.

3) There are two peer-reviewed journals dedicated to scholarly articles on Tolkien and his work (Tolkien Studies and Mythlore). Academic scholarship on Tolkien has increased, not decreased over the years.

Are there peer-reviewed journals dedicated to scholarly articles on Stephen King?

4) The work even managed to make one of those contentious Best of lists (the Time's 100 Best Novels from 1923 to the present).

Some of those books are definitely better than others. I have no objection to TLOTR sharing space with Deliverance and Are You There God? It's Me Margaret.

Keep in mind I'm not actually a big fan of Tolkien myself and agree with a lot of the criticisms of his work.

I've been reading some of those articles Mal4mac mentioned and I think the criticisms are sound. Sauron is a pretty lame villain. The ring wraiths don't do much but hang around looking scary. The hobbits are ineffectual children. The prose is awful, the climax underwhelming. The number of times that characters come out of dangerous situations unscathed is frustrating and unrealistic. It has that Johnny Quest or Hardy Boys feel about it far too often.

I can definitely stand behind that charge of infantilism Moorcock levels at Tolkein. It's a story about kids who found a magic ring and have to fight a vague Evil being. There's a lot of that stuff in fantasy, even the more grown up stuff. Take some of the other popular fantasy series for example. Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar: youths with magical horses. Anne McCaffrey's Dragonrider's of Pern: basically a boy and his dragon stories. Even George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire has a side to it where those direwolves might as well be Clifford the Big Red Dog. At least Frodo doesn't have a magical pet.

[Jozanny]

Haha, so you're saying that I'm snobby about my lack of snobbery. Cool. That's like having a superiority complex about an inferiority complex.

Although luke can take care of himself, in this case he happens to be right about reverse snobbery leading to a kind of tunnel vision, like what Daniel Schneider does with Cosmoetica, attacking scholarship and its investment in a serious competitive product like the Virginia Quarterly Review as a sinecure that hurts the poor.

Schneider isn't stupid, and his brashy working class cut to the chase mentality is similar to mine, but I do not resent excellence because of my low rung in the publishing pecking order; he does.

I value the high end market that VQR strove to have as a literary press, destroying that endowment won't make my inner city life any better.

As to ego, yes, I have one, but I am old enough to respect those who have knowledge that I lack; perhaps that is something to think about.

[Drkshadow03]

You and I are the same age; so we both remember back to a time before the movies came out when TLOTR was not held in the same esteem it is today. Prior to 2001, it was a known if somewhat niche book, rarely given any serious thought by people who didn't play D&D or read Dragonlance. The movies, which are better than the books, served as advertisements for the books to the tune of several hundred million dollars. Thus the series has justly or unjustly gotten an additional 15 minutes of fame. The Narnia books of C.S. Lewis are also feeling the boost of international blockbuster movie advertising and renewed interest lately. However, I will allow that you could argue their successful adaptation to the blockbuster market is a sign of their continued merit.

And I've seen courses offered on Star Trek. That doesn't make it great literature. It's more a sign of pandering that sometimes goes on in academic circles, an attempt to be accessible, egalitarian, and relevant to contemporary culture.

If it's taught in fantasy courses, one could at least make the argument that it's better than most other fantasy out there, but that's because fantasy as a whole is at a comparatively lackluster level. Is it as good as Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz? Sure. But I don't know that I could make a compelling argument for fantasy even being as good as mystery what with the likes of Doyle, Hammett, and Chandler on the other side.



Are there peer-reviewed journals dedicated to scholarly articles on Stephen King?



Some of those books are definitely better than others. I have no objection to TLOTR sharing space with Deliverance and Are You There God? It's Me Margaret.

I've been reading some of those articles Mal4mac mentioned and I think the criticisms are sound. Sauron is a pretty lame villain. The ring wraiths don't do much but hang around looking scary. The hobbits are ineffectual children. The prose is awful, the climax underwhelming. The number of times that characters come out of dangerous situations unscathed is frustrating and unrealistic. It has that Johnny Quest or Hardy Boys feel about it far too often.

I can definitely stand behind that charge of infantilism Moorcock levels at Tolkein. It's a story about kids who found a magic ring and have to fight a vague Evil being. There's a lot of that stuff in fantasy, even the more grown up stuff. Take some of the other popular fantasy series for example. Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar: youths with magical horses. Anne McCaffrey's Dragonrider's of Pern: basically a boy and his dragon stories. Even George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire has a side to it where those direwolves might as well be Clifford the Big Red Dog. At least Frodo doesn't have a magical pet.

Oh, I'm not doubting at all that a large part of LOTR's recent academic appearances is a kind of pandering to the masses due to the films, but LOTR is a seminal book to the fantasy genre that it should be on most fantasy syllabuses.

To your Stephen King question, there are peer-reviewed articles written about Stephen King's work, but as far as I know there isn't any peer-reviewed journals dedicated to him.

As far as LOTR being ignored in academia prior to the films, one of the advantages of taking a LOTR course myself is I got to delve into a great deal of the scholarship and know this isn't entirely true. Now I have no idea if LOTR courses were offered in academia with any frequency prior to the film; I would probably say no. But there were definitely a large group of Ph. D scholars with academic positions writing both book-length works and scholarly articles about the work prior to the films (80s and early 90s). So while I agree the main audience of these books were D&D nerds, there were definitely academics interpreting and saying positive things about LOTR long before the films.

I also never said I disagreed with Mal4mac's critics. Like I said I'm not a huge fan of LOTR myself. I think it's okay. Meanwhile I really really like Are You There God? It's Me Margaret.

[JCamilo]

LoTR was one of the top selling books of XX century before the movie. Before RPG was even invented, they are extremelly popular already. So, it is not wonder academics may work with Lotr, which is often a flaw in the arguments reggarding the importance of a given book due the presence of academic works, as they can pick subjects for reasons other than literary merit. In this case, Tolkien is without doubt iconic of fantasy literature, either for good or evil, just like Arthur Clarke or Isac Asimov are for science fiction, even if both are just ok writers. Or like Robert Howard is for fantasy, almost as important as tolkien.

As the movies (i only watched the 3 and half hour thraillers) they are awful. They do not even improve tolkien's flaws with the character. At first they help with action scenes, but the logical destruction of tolkien main merit, his geography is not worth of it.

[Lokasenna]

Prior to 2001, it was a known if somewhat niche book, rarely given any serious thought by people who didn't play D&D or read Dragonlance.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Not only is it one of the best-selling books of the century, but academics have been writing on Tolkien since he started publishing. The movies notwithstanding, Tolkien scholarship has been building in strength for decades.

And I've seen courses offered on Star Trek. That doesn't make it great literature. It's more a sign of pandering that sometimes goes on in academic circles, an attempt to be accessible, egalitarian, and relevant to contemporary culture.

That might be the case with some institutions. For example, my old university offered a module called 'Narratives of Witchcraft' that, as well as several medieval texts, offered a seminar on Harry Potter, with the open aim of drawing more people along. I also know that the academic who ran the module was desperate to jetison HP off it, so that he could get some serious academia going. In my current university, however, one of the most popular undergraduate modules is called 'Germanic Myth and Legend' - not only does this study the medieval texts, but it also has a look at the post-medieval reception of the literature in the figures of William Morris, Richard Wagner, and Tolkien; Tollers is in there with some big figures. It's rigourously academic, and I can tell you now that I have recieved some utterly fantastic and scholarly essays on Tolkien.

If it's taught in fantasy courses, one could at least make the argument that it's better than most other fantasy out there, but that's because fantasy as a whole is at a comparatively lackluster level.

Well, that's subjective. I like mystery novels as well, but I'd take a good fantasy over a good crime novel any time.

Sauron is a pretty lame villain. The ring wraiths don't do much but hang around looking scary. The hobbits are ineffectual children. The prose is awful, the climax underwhelming. The number of times that characters come out of dangerous situations unscathed is frustrating and unrealistic.

But this reflects the style and topoi of early medieval literature! It's a concious act of imitation. That's not to say you, or even most people, have to like it - if they did, more people would be reading Old Norse literature for fun. But the artistry of Tolkien's vision is manifestly apparent to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with his medieval antecedents. Personally, I love Tolkien's prose style - it is in no sense realistic, but then it's not supposed to be; it captures the medieval style beautifully.