Which major American or UK universities have lit. courses that include The Lord of the Rings in the curriculum? (I’m arbitrarily excluding the rest of the English-speaking world, especially New Zealand, for this one; I just want to know how accepted Tolkein is in the hallowed halls of academia these days.) Back in my student days, he was not considered a literary heavyweight. Of course, back in my dad’s student days, neither was Dickens.
Oh, and as a bit of a follow-up, what other authors are represented in the courses that feature Tolkein? Is he presented in the same league as, say, C.S. Lewis or Anthony Burgess? Would he be featured in a course on fantasy literature, 20th Century literature, or some other specific category? With which literary peers would he be presented as being on a par?
Can’t really answer your question, but I’d say the reason LOTR isn’t generally considered great literature is because it contains little insight into human nature or society. Its a good story, but I doubt many university courses would consider using it as part of their curriculum.
I believe that there are several dozen universities which offer courses on The Lord of the Rings. It will take me a little while to come up with a list of them. For what it’s worth, I think that The Lord of the Rings is great literature and does offer insight into human nature and society. But this is really a huge hijack. That discussion surely belongs in another thread, not here.
When I got my MA they were revising the reading list and allowed students to recommend additions. Tolkien was nominated by a lot of people. I myself nominated Nabokov. Both made the cut. There’s no objective way to say a book does or doesn’t show insight into the human condition, but what makes literature “great” might as well be how much it is valued by people who take literature seriously and want to make a career of it. I can tell you having been surrounded by such people for most of my adult life that Tolkien means a lot more to more people who take literature seriously than a lot of canonized names that haven’t fared well in the test of time.
I would teach it either as war-era literature in an historical context, or as a thematic course on fantasy in British literature, including Beowulf through Spenser through McDonald and other 19th Century fairytale writers and into the 20th, probably ending with Tolkien.
BTW, google “Tolkien” and “syllabus” and you will discover the syllabi from universities all over North America and Europe with literature classes not only including Tolkien, but about Tolkien.
I just remembered I read Tolkien in college – a literary analysis class, which featured “Leaf by Niggle.” It is one of my favorite stories, and is perfect for a class on literary analysis since it is a compelling one to discuss in class. It is accompanied by an essay on the importance of fairy stories which is illuminating. You can find both in The Tolkien Reader.
When I was at San Francisco State University (1994-2000) they offered a Fall course in Science Fiction lit, and a Spring course in Fantasy lit. (Actually, it was the same class as far as your GPA went, but the professor split the syllabus so he could focus on different things.) I took both courses, and we read LotR and “Leaf by Niggle.” We also read, among other things, Ursula LeGuin’s A Wizard of Earthsea, John Gardener’s Grendel, and Crockett Johnson’s Harold and the Purple Crayon, which the professor insisted was a bleak and defeatist metaphor for the inherently flawed and ultimatly pointless nature of human endeavor.
I don’t know about that but my four year old son and I both think it is a great bedtime story.
Not quite the same, but when I was in 8th grade in 1971-72 we read The Hobbit in English class.
By the time I got to college, Tolkien was really big business. The Hildebrandt Bros. calendars on sale and folks walking around calling themselves “Strider” and so on. I wouldn’t have been surprised if they taught Tolkien in the electrical engineering courses at that time. . .
In January, 1981, I took a course on The Inklings, which covered Tolkien as well as C. S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, and others. Went to Wheaton College in Illinois to use their collection of Inklings papers and the very first day a user there greeted us speaking elvish. None of us could understand or answer him.
Try tracking down Johnson’s Barnaby comic strips. They’re even better (though for adults). (Harold is really Barnaby, anyway.)
Neither has Shakespeare. Insight into the human condition is something that comes after the book is written, from overpaid Lit profs. ^^
But seriously, it does have a lot of insight into humanity, and really “what evil is”.
In, um, 1988 I think, in college anyway, I took a course. It was a Germanic Languages and Literature course. We read Beowulf, and Njal’s Saga and Roland and Wolfram’s Parzifal and Mallory and…some other stuff I don’t remember offhand, but it’s all still on my bookshelf. I took the course because I wanted to read the medieval stuff, but it was billed as a survey of Tolkien’s sources, and we read LOTR at the end of it all. Thinking back, and having done more reading since, I think the professor should have had us read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight too, but he didn’t. At any rate, I suspect the prof was using Tolkien as a draw so he could get people to read the medieval texts.
And count me as another person puzzled by the idea that LOTR has no insight into humanity or society.
I’d agree we shouldn’t leave the definition of “great literature” to Lit professors. Anyway, we’d probably be unable to agree on a definition. Mine would be “thoroughly entertaining, but also offering insight into human nature and society”. If your definition of great literature is simply “a riveting read” then you could fairly describe LOTR as such, and so is Harry Potter.
Notice that I said LOTR contains little insight into human nature, I didn’t say no insight. It has a bit to say about corruption, a bit about despair, but nothing to say about society. In Middle Earth, we have a totalitarian state (Mordor), and idealised kingships, where every member of the population demonstrates unquestioning loyalty to their ruler. Well, this helps a lot with the telling of the story, which is an epic fantasy. If all the characters had different motivations and beliefs, the book would be 5 times longer.
Its the simplistic and unrealistic treatment of evil which I feel is the major weakness of the book. Historically, most atrocities have been committed by ordinary people.
Personally, I view LOTR as good quality light entertainment. Like someone said, a bit of a thread hijack, but I was trying to explain why it isn’t generally regarded as great literature. 
Btw, if anyone wants to argue that LOTR is deeply insightful and meaningful, I’d be interested to hear what you have to say. Maybe a good candidate for another thread.
Here’s a list of places I was able to quickly find have taught courses in Tolkien at some point (besides the places that other people list):
Bowling Green State University
University of Maryland
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
Virginia Tech
University of Maryland
St. Vincent College (Latrobe, PA)
University of Oklahoma
Rice University
Wheaton College (Wheaton, MA)
Belmont University (Nashville, TN)
University of Illinois
Washington University (St. Louis, MO)
St. Louis University (St. Louis, MO)
University of Rochester
So there are English departments that do consider Tolkien to be significant literature. There have been quite a few Ph.D. dissertations on Tolkien. There are also a lot of literary sorts who don’t consider his stuff to be good literature, but then pretty much any significant work of literature is considered not quite up to snuff by somebody.
reply to Uncivil - I’m replying to your slight hijack (I think the thread you suggested sounds interesting btw). -
Above you said "Its the simplistic and unrealistic treatment of evil which I feel is the major weakness of the book. Historically, most atrocities have been committed by ordinary people.
I agree that LOTR has a fairly unrealistic treatment of evil. I think Tolkien was much more interested in the “good” characters and how they met their challenges. I don’t see this as a reason to discount it (the book) as literature. I think the book says a lot to me, and others, about facing the challenges of living purposefully within a mortal life. Yes, the nation-states and politics are unrealistic, but that’s the setting where these particular characters work out their lives. I don’t think the unrealistic setting discounts its value as literature, either.
All I have to add for the moment. I think this is an interesting question & enjoy others opinions.
Great literature is always a riveting read. If it’s not, it’s not great literature. It may not appeal to everyone, but it needs to be important for more people that just lit professors. Harry Potter will long outlive “On the Road”.
Why does great literature have to say anything about society. None of Shakespeares works do, IMHO. They are essentially interesting stories about interesting people.
Half right. Most people just want to glive another day. BUt of course the book isn’t about Bob the Gondorian who gets an arm wound and makes it through and Hilda his wife.
Err… did you read it? Every character had different reasons for doing what he did.
Ah, no; that’s the strength. The book isn’t about evil in the form of man, but about evil as a force. Everywhere and anywhere in the book evil is present there is a lesson about what it is. But its also not about that. It’s the struggles of the heros, not the moral monologue of Gorm the Orc butcher.
No, you explained why you don’t think its great literature. I think if you actually got around the checking what peopel in general think, you might find that a lot of people disagree. So how many does it take to make a book great literature?
I just realized that there is no way we are ever going to agree on great literature here. I think Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer, etc. is just trash but many people say it’s “literature”; I found the Harry Potter novels dull & repetitive after the first one but love LOTR to pieces.
So anyway Unless somebody out there has a boffo definition of great literature that we can all agree on, it’s just a matter of who likes what. Are there any objective criteria? I mean, I’ll agree Jane Austen’s books are important literature even tho I find them boring.
LOTR is taught in literature and mythology classes. Some University/intellectual types think it’s great; others think it’s trash.
This post has gotten too disjointed. must end now.
I explained why LOTR does not meet my definition of great literature. Other people might have a different definition of what constitutes great literature, and of course they are entitled to it. As I said at the top of my post.
As for checking, I’ve spoken to many people who greatly enjoyed both the book and the film. However, I’ve never heard anyone claim there was any great meaning behind it.
If you’d like to discuss your other points in more detail, I’m happy to do so, but I think you should start another thread.