Very interesting reading a review that has to make the case that Tolkien should be taken seriously. And of course, he's quite right: not just that Tolkien should be taken seriously, but that (like Hopkins and others) he should be taken seriously (at least in part) because of the aesthetic theories implicit in everything he wrote.
This seems to be missing large sections of text, beginning immediately. The full text does not seem to be available for free to the public on the surface web. Bummer.
The thing about Tolkien we cannot possibly 'get' is the novelty of fantasy in the way he wrote it. Reading LOTR having not been immersed in the genre of fantasy must have felt very different. The review is fascinating with its comparisons to the Waste Land, Ulysses, and comment that it might not be a novel at all.
In some ways Dracula or Frankenstein have the same issues. We read them as originators of a genre, not as utterly different and unique artefacts of culture.
It always makes me wonder about the space of genres. What other genres are possible, waiting only for a progenitor?
6 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 27.7 ms ] threadIn some ways Dracula or Frankenstein have the same issues. We read them as originators of a genre, not as utterly different and unique artefacts of culture.
It always makes me wonder about the space of genres. What other genres are possible, waiting only for a progenitor?