I hope that your statements are only in jest. While I can understand that some of the works which are considered canonical are of rather poor bearing, certainly the greater majority are excellent. John Milton, Voltaire, Hawthorne, Gothe, Shakespeare, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Browning, Sapho, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Shelly (both of 'em), et. al. are well gifted in their own rights, especially when placed in their historical context, but no less so when viewed with a more modern mind. And the Homeric works are no less so, and in parts as exciting as any modern works, or even Tolkien.

As well, I can think of at least ten texts that deal exclusively with Tolkien and his work. I would imagine the lack of numbers to be because of the relative newness (in comparision with Homer) to be the reason for a lack of "2-3000" books of analysis.

I think you judge academia too harshly in this right. The canon of literature is something that is not static, nor is it set in stone. Some no longer consider Melville to be part of the canon, nor Hemingway part of the American canon. Much of what I have read in my pursuit (and eventual atainment) of a degree I found to amazing works, with real depth and insight, and hardly "serious and artistic enough to barely be read by anyone at all".

I wonder what texts you might be refering to by this statement. I may be in complete agreement that they are "unreadable". But as to your general statement, I stand completely opposed.

-RobRoy