XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: steuard@slimy.com   
      
   In message , Troels Forchhammer   
    wrote:   
   > Shaun wonders what happened to the 'great debates'   
   [...]   
   > He acknowledges that Tolkien Studies has become more 'mature' or   
   > 'mainstream' and that as a result of this issues such as source   
   > criticism and biographical history dominate the discussions.   
      
   I don't have time right now to really do this reply justice, but it   
   boggles my mind that he'd have to ask. The Great Debates have   
   stagnated because casual fans don't have the patience for them and   
   serious scholars are told quite emphatically that they aren't worth   
   discussing.   
      
   I agree that the splintering of the online community has had something   
   to do with it, too, as the Great Debates were the bread and butter of   
   these groups for many years. Those debates require a *lot* of   
   concentrated expertise for productive discussion these days: there   
   were probably a dozen people here at the height of those discussions   
   who today would simply *end* the conversation on most Tolkien forums   
   by posting a quick summary of what's known on the topic (whether they   
   were trying to shut everyone else up or not).   
      
   But the real issue, I think, is that the "mature" side of Tolkien   
   Studies has made a significant effort to separate itself from   
   story-internal discussions. That has value in the academic world, of   
   course: it helps to emphasize that you're doing real scholarship   
   rather than just engaging in fannish games. But it does mean that   
   anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a Tolkien scholar is   
   strongly discouraged from story-internal study.   
      
   Troels, weren't you the one who commented somewhere (not too long ago)   
   that you couldn't think of any journal today that might be interested   
   in publishing my Bombadil essay? Not that it's perfect (I have a grand   
   revision I'd love to make if I had time), but I'd still claim that it   
   was a pretty substantial piece of story-internal scholarship (and it   
   even gets occasional academic citations). I completely agree with you   
   that understanding Middle-earth *can* make a real contribution to   
   understanding Tolkien in more academic ways, but name me the journal   
   that would agree. (I saw papers in "Chaucer Studies" that were   
   substantially story-internal in focus, back when I was in a related   
   college course, but I don't think that there's currently a place for   
   that in Tolkien scholarship.)   
      
   I agree that it would be nice to see that change.   
      
   Steuard Jensen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)