On the whole, I agree with Modtheow here. Both Tolkien's letter, and Shippey's
works on Tolkien, are meant to remind a general readership of the importance of
philology in Tolkien's life. Of course Tolkien's published works are far, far
more than exercises in giving a history to a set of invented languages. But
that is how they started, or rather, that is how the Silmarillion material
started, and from that sprang The Hobbit and finally The Lord of the Rings.
LotR has little to do with philology, of course, and no one could claim that
readers ignorant of philology, like Curious and millions of others, are missing
much in LotR compared to what they do get out of that remarkable book.
But Tolkien himself never forgot. The Elven languages, and Middle-earth, were
not a "hobby" and were not distinct in his own mind from his professional
life's work of analyzing early European literature from a linguistic viewpoint.
Shippey's point, and Modtheow's reminder, is that we should not forget or
overlook Tolkien's own point of view about the origins of his work.
And of course Tom Shippey does not rule the roost. This week, courtesy of
Luthien Rising, we are thinking about Shippey's specialty in analyzing Tolkien.
Next week, and in weeks to come, I have no doubt we will hear many another
point of view fresh from Marquette in how to approach and appreciate Tolkien.
Philology is just one path, but it is too often forgotten entirely.
I don't think Tolkien "protests too much" about things. The more I read his
letters, the more I realize how very intelligent and self-perceptive he was
about his fictional writing, and the underlying strengths and flaws in his own
character that are revealed therein. For instance, along with his insistence
that philology was the root and origin of his stories, he himself is the first
to confess how strongly his Catholic faith and philosophy informed them as they
developed into a coherent universe.
My grandfather was a professor of literature, not a philologist, no more than
Tolkien's College authorities were. Most academics of early English literature
in that time were on the "other side" of the divide that Shippey's books
highlight, and so in fact condemned Tolkien's "fairy tales" as a waste of his
professional energy. That is not evidence that Tolkien is not to be believed in
his clear statements about his own life
work.
Join us in the Reading Room.
'Thinking hard'.
squire online:
Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!" (improved!)
The Valaquenta discussion
