LoTR: One Book To Rule Them All?

[Crust]

I also found it odd that an English teacher, right after stating that he was an English teacher, would make the kind of mistake English teachers are known for catching, not making. It's a mistake I'm sure we've all made; it just jumped out, given the context.

Strangely enough, Tolkien uses the spelling "led" in his writing, as oppose to "lead," so though archaic and not entirely popular in American culture, "led" does work, and shouldn't be that confusing (certainly not worth commenting on, unless trolling was the intent).

Allow me to provide an example:

"They began to feel that all this country was unreal, and that they were stumbling through an ominous dream that led to no awakening" (pg. 137, Fellowship of the Ring, Del Rey paperback).

So there.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

One book to rule them all!

 

[Crust]

Tolkien is a fairly difficult read for HS students. LOTR is a fairly difficult read for college students. If I were to add LOTR to my syllabus for a sophomore survey lit class, I could do so because ANY work can be approached critically. I wouldn't assign LOTR, however, as there are many works of greater literary value that are equally as interesting, and of comparable difficulty. This is not to say that Tolkien would always be a poor choice, but such a choice would require a specific or focused academic context.

Precisely. Grouped together with Beowulf and The Hobbit, the second semester of my Eng 12 class is devoted to Tolkien and an Anglo-Saxon text that helped to influence him (though certainly not the only text that influenced him, its one common example). I try to focus on a connection across literature, incorporating novels and films, showing my students that certain themes and ideas are universal and exist in multiple forms, thus approaching some truth about our world and who we are as people.

My class is more of an elective rather than a required course, and I've been given the freedom to choose texts that exist outside what might be assigned in an Eng 9, 10, 11, or 12 (Brit. lit) class. In fact, administration insisted that I choose "non-traditional" texts. The Giver, Ender's Game, and 1984 are three other novels we read (out of 11 total for the year), those being covered in the 1st semester, and those also focusing on a specific theme as well (Plato's allegory of the cave/the embracing of ignorance).

I daresay that most of my Eng 12 students have never read so much (many have told me so), and if that's a bad thing, then I'm a bad person. So far everyone is buying into it. I'm waiting for someone in administration to realize that I'm a fraud (as I often doubt myself and my effectiveness). I mean, I obviously can't spell, so I already have one foot in the grave.

And my students have already had enough of the "classics" when one considers the focus on Shakespeare in 9 (Romeo and Juliet) and 10 (Julius Caesar), and the year-long focus on American literature in Eng 11 (everything from American Indian folktales to Irving, Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, Dickinson, Hemmingway, Poe, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Frost, Carver, Tan, etc. etc...

 

[Jdvn1]

You have missed out. Bigtime.

Ignore the films; they're a big pile of jobby. Just dig into the original trilogy, and enjoy. Especially enjoy finding out where many of the fantasy tropes you've played came from.

LotR is a lot of things. Cheesy is one of those things. Well-written is another. Original is a third. They're not original today, but then they were written before I was fuggin' born, and that's very nearlt 29 years ago.

Interestingly, I like the films.

I read authors I consider highly superior.

 

[Crust]

Nah, it's just one of those very embarrassing situations - someone says he's an English teacher and then makes a mistake like that. Maybe we have found the reason all those people on the internet can't spell crap: Their teachers can't, either

It's like those people calling someone else stupid and making glaring errors in that very sentence.

Or it could be that my MS spellchecker didn't catch the word when I ran it through.

Or it could be that I don't really care about spelling things correctly on a message board forum where the worst consequence is some ignorant poster trolling me.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Eesh.

Everyone makes mistakes.

Yeah. Tolkien too.

 

[usdmw]

Spelling is tyranny.

 

[mmadsen]

Strangely enough, Tolkien uses the spelling "led" in his writing, as oppose to "lead," so though archaic and not entirely popular in American culture, "led" does work, and shouldn't be that confusing (certainly not worth commenting on, unless trolling was the intent).

Allow me to provide an example:

"They began to feel that all this country was unreal, and that they were stumbling through an ominous dream that led to no awakening" (pg. 137, Fellowship of the Ring, Del Rey paperback).

So there.

Am I missing a joke here? Led is the correct past tense of to lead.

 

[Darth Shoju]

... but in the interest of civility I suggest we let this tangent die at that point.

As the OP I would appreciate that greatly. I guess I've learned a lesson about starting threads about LoTR. The purpose of this thread was to determine what elements of LoTR need to be present in a story before it is considered derivative to the point where it diminishes the quality of the work. As an example, I've seen people criticize The Wheel of Time as derivative of Tolkien. While I'd say that that story has its faults, I can't see how it can be said to draw very heavily upon The Lord of the Rings. The character of Lan is obviously influenced by Aragorn, and one could draw parallels between the humble origins of the protagonists and their involvement with a powerful magic-user that comes to lead them to realize a greater destiny, but personally I don't see those comparisons alone as damaging to the quality of the story.

But I didn't start this thread as a defense of The Wheel of Time; what I *did* want to know is what does it take before a story is derivative of LoTR to the point of deserving the criticism. There have been some great responses thus far that have gone a long way toward answering my question. I'd love to see more of those.

 

[Enkhidu]

Sorry you're insulted.

I believe I made three statements:

(A) Most people agree that experts are experts. If that weren't true, why would anyone bother jumping through all the hoops that are required to achieve distinction?

(B) Tolkien is a poor choice for a formal literature class because in the vast diversity of literature there are better choices, both in terms if artistry and societal relevance.

(C) Tradition should inform our decisions. Critical scrutiny should inform our decisions. Personal taste should inform our decisions. In the context of scholarship, that is probably the correct order. We must be informed. We must be rigorous. We must be creative and true to ourselves.

Which of these contentions insults you most?

I will read your reply if you post one, but in the interest of civility I suggest we let this tangent die at that point.

Let me be clear - I have agreed/continue to agree with your conclusion that Tolkein should get bumped down the list or early twentieth century authors in comparison to Huxley or Joyce,. I was fishing for a more meaty counterpoint to Crust from someone else who (and I'm reading between the lines here) does this for a living.

I didn't get that meaty counterpoint. Instead I got a short statement that it was "a decision based on instinct and reverence for literary tradition." I also got the (still insulting) remark that reasonable people accept the decisions of the better educated. If you had left that word out, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't have a problem with your conclusion. I take issue with its conveyance.

EDIT: Shoju's request as OP came while I was still typing. Consider it dropped.