Mentioned in the "Year's Work in Tolkien Studies 2016"
Ah . . . . I've made my first appearance(s) in "The Year's Work in Tolkien Studies," the literature review published each year by Tolkien Studies. Personally, I love "TYW." As a grad student who knew very little about the secondary scholarship on Tolkien when he hit ABD, this bibliographic essay was a life-saver -- an exhaustive treatment of all the relevant scholarship since 2001.** (TS began in 2004, and the TYW does three years in the past.)
So, my mentions:
#1
My first essay in Tolkien Studies, which argued that The Silmarillion should be read as a unified text rather than a compilation. The reviewer, John Magoun, whose work I've not previously encountered, was rather ambivalent. On one hand, he said the article is an "extended and clever brief" (206), and it "semi-plausibly" defends its viewpoint. He did, however, think my final section was "rather weak." Still, what really stings is this: "Ignoring questions of writing style and readability. . ." Doh.
Now, I grant you, it's been three years since I've re-read the essay . . . and I'm very concerned with good academic style, BUT . .. . well, even without having re-read the essay, I fear Magoun might be right on that one. Maybe. But my academic prose has improved immensely in the last three years, especially in terms of tightness, and while I certainly remember some very finely phrased statements from my TS article, I have to admit that half the reason I haven't re-read it is all the stylistic infelicities I'm sure to find
Alas. I'm still very proud of that article, even if I'm unsure of it's ultimate importance to the field. (Next to my hiring by the University of Arizona, breaking into TS was the highlight of my academic life thus far.)
Which brings me to . . . .
#2
This article is "Harken Not to Wild Beats" in The Journal of Tolkien Research, which argued that Saruman falls into the classic philosophical critique of rhetoric in the Western tradition. The reviewer is David Bratman, a savvy and informed Tolkienist with some strong opinions, so I was very pleasantly gratified to read that he called my article "a remarkable essay" (236). Well, spin me around and call me Sally -- I'll take that!
----------------------------
** Beyond the primary texts, I'd only read Tom Shippey's two major monographs, the Carpenter biography, some of the Letters, and a few odd articles on Tolkien. Otherwise, I was a complete neophyte.
So, my mentions:
#1
My first essay in Tolkien Studies, which argued that The Silmarillion should be read as a unified text rather than a compilation. The reviewer, John Magoun, whose work I've not previously encountered, was rather ambivalent. On one hand, he said the article is an "extended and clever brief" (206), and it "semi-plausibly" defends its viewpoint. He did, however, think my final section was "rather weak." Still, what really stings is this: "Ignoring questions of writing style and readability. . ." Doh.
Now, I grant you, it's been three years since I've re-read the essay . . . and I'm very concerned with good academic style, BUT . .. . well, even without having re-read the essay, I fear Magoun might be right on that one. Maybe. But my academic prose has improved immensely in the last three years, especially in terms of tightness, and while I certainly remember some very finely phrased statements from my TS article, I have to admit that half the reason I haven't re-read it is all the stylistic infelicities I'm sure to find
Alas. I'm still very proud of that article, even if I'm unsure of it's ultimate importance to the field. (Next to my hiring by the University of Arizona, breaking into TS was the highlight of my academic life thus far.)
Which brings me to . . . .
#2
This article is "Harken Not to Wild Beats" in The Journal of Tolkien Research, which argued that Saruman falls into the classic philosophical critique of rhetoric in the Western tradition. The reviewer is David Bratman, a savvy and informed Tolkienist with some strong opinions, so I was very pleasantly gratified to read that he called my article "a remarkable essay" (236). Well, spin me around and call me Sally -- I'll take that!
----------------------------
** Beyond the primary texts, I'd only read Tom Shippey's two major monographs, the Carpenter biography, some of the Letters, and a few odd articles on Tolkien. Otherwise, I was a complete neophyte.
Comments
Post a Comment