Perusing the New York Times this morning, I found this lovely little tidbit from Christopher Hitches on Harry Potter. My favorite bit:
Perhaps Anglophilia continues to play its part, but if I were one of the few surviving teachers of Anglo-Saxon I would rejoice at the way in which such terms as muggle and Wizengamot, and such names as Godric, Wulfric and Dumbledore, had become common currency. At this rate, the teaching of “Beowulf” could be revived. The many Latin incantations and imprecations could also help rekindle interest in the study of a “dead” language.
Few? Surviving? I realize Hitchens is trying to make a point here, but it's kind of lost in the implication that anyone who wants to teach Anglo-Saxon must be slightly nuts and hopelessly lost in the fantasy that Beowulf has something to do with popular culture.
I'm being touchy, clearly, but still: that unfortunate collocation of adjectives suggests that Anglo-Saxonists are a dying breed. Hitchens continues to convey the false impression that all Anglo-Saxonists are both old and throwbacks to another era, irrelevant to modernity (though, apparently not without hope, impressively drawn through philological use of names rather than actual ideas or storylines) -- and given that Hitchens seems incapable of mentioning a female author who can match his beloved Orwell, Conan Doyle, and Pullman (whose entire oeuvre ends up a tedious attack on CS Lewis), that they're all men too.
Yes, I'm being unfair. But as a female Anglo-Saxonist who turned 25 last Monday and loves such authors as Ursula K. LeGuin and Agatha Christie -- I couldn't just let it slide.
8 comments:
iiidjot.
not to mention he buys into the silly logic which vaules HP for it's "Latin incantations". I think it was Chris Pyrdum who had some very snarky things to say about that kind of thinking a few months back now...
I think I agree with you, but you can't dish Pullman when he writes like an angel (if a fallen one!). C.S.Lewis was asking for it, in a way, though Narnia will always be close to my heart because of the amazing descriptions of the magical land...
Anyway... I've nominated you for a thinking blogger award. It's sort of a meme, which you can take part in if you feel like, or not. Details back at my blog. It's mainly just to say that I really like your blog.
And goodluck with all that exam prep!
My hunch is that because Hitchens doesn't really move in academic circles, his understanding of the field is based on news reports from around 2000 about the possible elimination of A-level exams in Old English and the removal of OE as a mandatory subject in the undergraduate English curriculum at Oxford. Neither of those things ended up happening, but except for the publication of Heaneywulf around that same time, Old English hasn't really been in the news for a while. Hitchens is probably no more out of the loop than any other non-scholars--but he probably should have done a little homework before alluding to the state of the field.
jeff said "Hitchens doesn't really move in academic circles". I think that for me really sums up the value of Hitchens. The stuck up journalist who apparently knows EVERYTHING has for me constantly gotten almost EVERYTHING wrong. Mr. Pyrdum over at Got Medieval already showed that he lacks any sort of rudimentary respect/knowledge of the Middle Ages as a whole.
Oh yeah, next to Ursula Le Guin in the ranks of good female fantasy authors I would place Evangeline Walton. But of course, we wouldn't expect that grand pop-philospher extraodinaire Hitchens with his purported knowledge spanning so many areas to have spent too much time researching the fantasy genre anyway, would we?
On another note, I feel fully justified in enjoying Lewis and Pullman each in their own right. But enough of me.
highlyeccentric: I remember that post. I should re-read it.
Meli: I should really explain my beef with Pullman. I rather like him, and his books marked a very important transition in my life, one that influenced me a lot academically, spiritually, intellectually. C.S. Lewis was asking for it -- but I guess my issue with Pullman is I just don't know why he bothered taking him on in such a pedantic way. It ends up, upon much reflection, being just a tedious as Lewis himself was (though you're right -- endlessly better as a writer). I guess in the end I'm always disappointed by my favorite fantasy / sci-fi authors -- the opening up of the stage of their vision is never equaled by the way they bring it to a close. I don't know what I'm looking for -- all I know is neither Lewis' allegory or Pullman's diatribes against the bureaucratization of spirituality in formalized religion do it for me.
For something completely different: Thank you so much for the "thinking blogger award". I'm glad you enjoy my thoughts, and thank you for sharing your own!! And thanks for the luck -- as I'm still slogging through Troilus, I definitely need it!!
Jeff: Hitchens is probably no more out of the loop than any other non-scholars--but he probably should have done a little homework before alluding to the state of the field. Well said! I wonder why Old English Studies is never in the news except when it seems to be going extinct....
Anonymous Medievalist: Thank goodness other thinking people have noticed this about Hitchens -- and clearly I haven't been reading Pyrdum's blog enough! That'll teach me to get behind in my blog reading.
But lest this become too bashing of Hitchens (as I don't know his work): I think the most important thing to note here is that people don't pay attention to the manner in which they talk about Old English, or the Middle Ages more generally. Hitchens somehow manages to pull together the feeling of something irrelevant, old to the point of extinction, and that has an near exclusive focus on philology into one analysis of a fantasy author.
I guess my main point is -- it matters.
The stuck up journalist who apparently knows EVERYTHING has for me constantly gotten almost EVERYTHING wrong.
Well, he is a very, very good writer, and quite fast, which is something I can't help but admire. So he has a right to be stuck up. That said, he's an absolute cad, not only on a personal level (as a gross drunk, or, more to the point, his nasty comments on the inability of women to be funny, or his repulsive ode to the blowjob), but also on a political level (at least when he threw his lot in with the neocons after 9/11). He has been right on some things: I'm glad he's on the side of the nonangels with his atheism, and I think his attack on Mother Theresa and humanitarian interventions more generally is a well-needed overturning of the cart of mere charity.
hmmm, I found The Amber Spyglass compelling reading, but a lot of people have said to me that they thought he let his anti-christian sentiments overtake the story a bit there. Esp the god-in-a-box bit. I found the ex-nun's excitement at finding a new source of meaning pretty moving. I can see where you're coming from though. As a child, The Last Battle worked perfectly for me, I adored it, but I'm not sure it would now. (I was steeped in bible stories as a child, mainly OT stuff, but I kept Narnia firmly apart from that in my mind - it was my world, as far as I was concerned, and no allegory...)
I think, in fantasy, what you want is hints and suggestions, not straight allegory - you want the story to work for itself, not just as an image of something else. Maybe LOTR succeeds better in that respect?
(we've also been talking about endings - in a different capacity - over at eglantine's cake.)
Post a Comment