The day people stop reading this series on their own will be the day that English professors start assigning it.
Faulkner and Joyce and TS Eliot and many of the 20th century's "greats" will be regarded for what they are - an elitist reaction to the fall of real aristocracy and rigidly skewed class system. As soon as "the common folk" learned to read in public schools, had access to affordable transportation with cheap trains and bicycles and later cars, and found extra money and time for their own amusement - they too began to read the books and see the art and enjoy the things that had before been reserved for the aristocractic (and snobby) upper class.
While many of the aristocracy (read: grown-ups) embraced the idea that a common sewer worker could too enjoy the paintings of Rembrant and the writings of Dickens, others needed their elitism - they needed to feel special and apart based on their appreciation of art.
Out of that was born the weird and senseless art forms of Picasso and Faulker, where those who chose to could maintain their form of art-snobbery. Only the truly initiated, after all, could enjoy the random and bizarre stream-of-conciousness works of these new "greats". Mere "commoners" could not possibly appreciate the use of this or that idiotic or ugly new literary or artistic device. And a whole century of art was wasted on a primitive "I'm better than you are because I can appreciate this ugly thing as beautiful" homage to the snooty.
It is these aristocratic-wannabee people who say that Lord of the Rings is unimpressive. After all, people actually like it and read it (even people -gasp- without college degrees.)
What nobody ever seems to remember is that people crammed the streets to hear Chaucer recite his tales, Shakespeare packed houses with the flea-bitten and royal alike, Dickens sold-out copies of his Tale of Two Cities serials, and teachers can barely force college kids majoring in English to read many of the "greats" of the twentieth century.
Lord of the Rings is as much common ground in the literary conciousness of the twentieth century as anything else written. In two hundred years snobby intellectual wish-they-were's (like yourself) will be forcing kids (who think the language is too hard) to read it and will be reflecting on the move of our society to a scientific, post-god, post-royalty, era of comfort and luxury. They will say that some primitive part of our western souls longed for the kings and swords and hard rides to uncertain ends, even as we drove along in air-conditioned, shock-absorbed, side-impact-air-bagged luxury, pondering our 401k's. They will call science fiction a natural reaction to the cultural changes caused by the rapid growth of technology in the twentieth century. And they will say you and your "literary community" were shallow and unenlightened, clinging to your elitism by muttling your way through the mediocrity and marginal works of those who you alone called "great".
Slashdot Mirror
Faulkner and Joyce and TS Eliot and many of the 20th century's "greats" will be regarded for what they are - an elitist reaction to the fall of real aristocracy and rigidly skewed class system. As soon as "the common folk" learned to read in public schools, had access to affordable transportation with cheap trains and bicycles and later cars, and found extra money and time for their own amusement - they too began to read the books and see the art and enjoy the things that had before been reserved for the aristocractic (and snobby) upper class.
While many of the aristocracy (read: grown-ups) embraced the idea that a common sewer worker could too enjoy the paintings of Rembrant and the writings of Dickens, others needed their elitism - they needed to feel special and apart based on their appreciation of art.
Out of that was born the weird and senseless art forms of Picasso and Faulker, where those who chose to could maintain their form of art-snobbery. Only the truly initiated, after all, could enjoy the random and bizarre stream-of-conciousness works of these new "greats". Mere "commoners" could not possibly appreciate the use of this or that idiotic or ugly new literary or artistic device. And a whole century of art was wasted on a primitive "I'm better than you are because I can appreciate this ugly thing as beautiful" homage to the snooty.
It is these aristocratic-wannabee people who say that Lord of the Rings is unimpressive. After all, people actually like it and read it (even people -gasp- without college degrees.)
What nobody ever seems to remember is that people crammed the streets to hear Chaucer recite his tales, Shakespeare packed houses with the flea-bitten and royal alike, Dickens sold-out copies of his Tale of Two Cities serials, and teachers can barely force college kids majoring in English to read many of the "greats" of the twentieth century.
Lord of the Rings is as much common ground in the literary conciousness of the twentieth century as anything else written. In two hundred years snobby intellectual wish-they-were's (like yourself) will be forcing kids (who think the language is too hard) to read it and will be reflecting on the move of our society to a scientific, post-god, post-royalty, era of comfort and luxury. They will say that some primitive part of our western souls longed for the kings and swords and hard rides to uncertain ends, even as we drove along in air-conditioned, shock-absorbed, side-impact-air-bagged luxury, pondering our 401k's. They will call science fiction a natural reaction to the cultural changes caused by the rapid growth of technology in the twentieth century. And they will say you and your "literary community" were shallow and unenlightened, clinging to your elitism by muttling your way through the mediocrity and marginal works of those who you alone called "great".