L.O.T.R. - Scholars

Ever since Edmund Wilson wrote "Oo, those awful Orcs!" scholars have been rising to J.R.R. Tolkien's defense to show that his work is worth considering. Wilson nailed his theme on the head when he wrote "It is essentially a children's book - a children's book which has somehow got out of hand." The book did start out as a sequel to The Hobbit and therefore it did get out of hand. It became something larger and critics like Wilson did not know what to make of it.

But how well do today's scholars know what to make of the book? They cannot agree on whether there is one mythology or several, or a larger thing called a legendarium which is not a mythology at all. They cannot agree on whether the work is done or if more is yet to come. They cannot agree on what needs defense or what needs explaining. And they cannot agree on what the whole thing is about.

Some scholars will tell you that Tolkien got it all out of Anglo-Saxon literature. Other scholars point to Middle English. Some scholars look at Finnish, Welsh, and Irish sources. Some scholars look at Hebrew, Greek, and Latin sources. Tolkien drew from al of these wells, and he mixed his water thoroughly. But did he have just one theme in mind and everything else was dressing? Or did he intend to spread everything evenly and neatly?

And who are the top scholars in the field? Professor Michael Drout seeems determined to be named number 1 Tolkienologist. And yet in 2003 he wrote:

It is an interesting fact that a great many of the very best contemporary Tolkien scholars are not professors: Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull, Doug Anderson, David Bratman, Richard West, Carl Hostetter... many of these scholars have academic affiliations (at libraries, etc.), but they aren't professors of English or history or cultural studies. Yet they are among the best.

There are others Drout did not mention who have made their mark on Tolkien scholarship: David Hardy, Chris Seeman, David Day, Michael Martinez. And some people from academia don't really specialize in Tolkien studies but they are Tolkien scholars. People like John Rateliff, Eugene Hargrove, Robert Foster and others.

I think a Tolkien scholar is someone who makes the effort to do proper research and present his ideas so that other people have the opportunity to think and question and respond. If you try to lay everything out as complete as it can be you leave no room for doubt. And when there is no room for doubt you have left yourself no place to go if you change your mind.

Real scholarship is not about proving everyone else is wrong. It is about learning to understand the subject better today than you did yesterday. Scholarship is like Kung Fu. There is always another level to rise to. You don't need a college degree to be a Tolkien scholar. You don't need anyone else's approval to be a good Tolkien scholar. But you need to look for a growth in your understanding and skill. If you think you have reached the top and learned it all your scholarship has been for nought.