Posted: January 17, 2000 at 14:20:35: by Heorrenda
: Is The Lord of the Rings "literature"? And who is it that decides what is or is not literature? By "literature" I mean that class of writing that is considered to be artistically above or better than other writing. The dictionary isn't much help with a definition since the word "literature" which can refer to the entire body of writing of a culture - which could include Conan The Barbarian I suppose. But most of you will understand what I mean by literature. I thought I'd bring this topic back because it was mentioned a while back but wasn't discussed fully. Naturally all of us here think that LOTR is literature of the highest order, but evidently there are literary critics who dismiss Tolkien and his books as being less than good. Last night I tried to find some negative criticism of LOTR, but there are thousands of references - most of which lead to fan sites or to Amazon.com. Finding negative criticisms isn't easy! So why would I want to read negative reviews anyway. Why can't I just enjoy the book and phooey on the detractors? Because I can't logically argue that LOTR is literature until I understand why some critics think it is not and what rules they are using to measure literary content. Why would they think that Moby Dick is literature (for example), but not The Lord of the Rings?: Some posted a message here that suggested that as time has passed the thinking of literary critics about Tolkien may be changing and that there are some who consider LOTR to be not just a "fantasy" classic, but "true literature" of the highest order. To those of us who have been long time fans of the book that comes as no surprise. I've always thought that the book was a masterpiece - not just the story, which is a conglomeration of many stories from many sources packaged in an original way, but the writing and use of language. And there is the indefinable aspect. At least for me there is an aspect that transcends other books that I've read. I don't know that I can adequately describe what that aspect is, but from reading many of the posts here and elsewhere I think that some of you will understand what I'm trying to say. I like to think that Tolkien transcends literature. And that LotR is above such comparisons. Tolkien was a philologist, an etymologist, a language-inventor, and myth-maker. To call him an author is like calling Churchill a historian. The LotR is a link, a door-way, for entering his Secondary World. (It also, coincidentally, is the best-selling novel ever written.) Heorrenda
|
