One event that surrounds great literature is the presence of critics,
and interpreters. When a writer hits a chord within men's hearts, one
which has lain dormant for decades, everyone wants to talk about it.
Scholars want to determine why a piece of literature is so popular, and to
add their voice, and maybe their name, to the cacophony of praise. Critics
look for their own recognition by leveling silly charges against the work.
The reader, well the reader knows he has been affected by a work, and in
some way takes away a view of himself, and the world that has been subtly
shaped by words on a page. Tolkien's Middle Earth, and the Lord of the
Rings (LOTR) trilogy is this kind of work. The object of criticism and
praise, through the voices of hobbits, elves and rangers, he was able to
tell us a bit about our selves. I find that as a leader, and as one who
wishes to make an impact on my world, the lives two of the characters
outline two paths, and my life will ultimately follow one of them.
Some reject such high minded critiques, and reject the idea that
great literature can spark a flame in our heart. For example, Edmund
Wilson, one of America's pre-eminent literary critics during his time,
dismissed The Lord of the Rings as "balderdash" in a review for The Nation
titled "Ooh, Those Awful Orcs." (Wilson, 1956) Wilson also took a swing of
his pen at Tolkien defenders, observing that "certain people--especially,
perhaps, in Britain--have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash." (Mooney,
2001) In Britain, Tolkien's literary merits have been the subject of many
public debates. In 1996 a poll of 26,000 readers by Waterstone's bookstore
crowned The Lord of the Rings "book of the century" to which Germaine Greer
expressed her displeasure at the poll results.
Ever since I arrived at Cambridge as a student in 1964 and
tribe of full-grown women wearing puffed...