The Fans, the Warriors, and the Critics; or, Some Observations on Tolkien Studies (original) (raw)

2011, EESE (Erfurt Electronic Studies in English)

Discussing Tolkien studies poses several serious problems to a scholar who is trying to approach the subject unbiased and without a specific agenda in mind. Of course, there is by now such an enormous amount of books and articles on Tolkien and his works that it has become quite impossible to keep track of even the most momentous contributions to the critical debate – and this, of course, applies even more to an ‘outsider’ whose academic interests are not fully focused on this particular field of enquiry. In consequence, the following remarks are not intended as a comprehensive survey of Tolkien criticism but rather as an investigation into some aspects of books and articles on Tolkien that need to be addressed in the interest of future research. Tolkien studies tend to be written by Tolkien aficionados. In literary studies it is not uncommon for scholars to work on subjects they enjoy, but it is also understood that individual biases, preferences and tastes should not be foregrounded but, if possible, barred from any influence on the critical assessments. A book or article on an author or work should not praise either but rather explore the relevant properties of the texts to form a coherent argument. In Tolkien studies the line between the scholars and the fans is blurred, and an admiration, frequently bordering on idolatry, is regularly an integral part of the agenda. This has some significant consequences. On the one hand, Tolkien studies take place in a specific atmosphere in which an unconditional devotion to the author may well be more welcome than impeccable but critical research, and every Tolkien scholar will remember a host of conference contributions that offer little more than tales of happy experiences and wonderful encounters with the marvels of the master's works, but are devoid of any academic merit or even informative content. On the other hand, Tolkien studies allow themselves to be far too easily dismissed as a mere expression of fandom by the vast majority of literary critics working in their own respective fields of enquiry. The intellectual exchange between those fields requires productive concepts and theoretical suggestions that may lend themselves to a variety of explorations and possibly influence the most diverse approaches, and while a rigorous quality management is missing in many areas of literary criticism, excessive praise for an author will raise suspicions about the validity of the subsequent arguments. The topic of academic exchange also leads to another aspect that should be taken into account. Literary critics usually have their field or fields of expertise, but then they also use their specialized knowledge and research to contribute to the larger theoretical developments in literary studies. And while most books and articles are focused on a specific author, work, era or phenomenon, the changes in the field are more often than not in consequence of a larger view that synthesizes the findings of numerous studies into a new and, hopefully, productive concept or theory. For this it is, of course, indispensable to be aware of the developments outside of the chosen field of specialization and to reflect them in one’s current work. Tolkien studies, however, tend to be rather closed off against external developments, and a look at the index of books and essay collections usually demonstrates that the concerns do not really leave the narrow confines of Tolkien's immediate mental environment as marked by his fictional and academic works, letters, interviews and his conversations as reported by friends, colleagues or members of his family. This can be confirmed by a simple count of entries and a comparison with similar studies of other authors – some examples will be given later in this paper. What follows is a more extensive elaboration of the problems encountered in Tolkien criticism, but it should perhaps be pointed out that his actual works are beyond the scope of this approach. It is not the intention of this essay to discuss the specific properties or merits of the author or to criticise his writings or views; to criticise the critics is a quite different kettle of fish – or cauldron of stories.