Litrerary Crit Comparison

 Literary Criticism: The Narnia Code Versus Frodo's Journey

I came to a conclusion recently. Not all literary criticism works the same way.

In the space of a month, I had the joy of reading some literary criticism on works by some of my favorite authors. One was a reader-friendly version of a dissertation on C. S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia series, and the other a collection of essays addressing themes in The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien. Although I love the works of both authors deeply, I found that reading the commentaries about their works was a completely different experience. It wasn't different because the subjects were different. My experience as a reader was so varied because of the style the commentators took. 

Style?

What do I mean by "style"? I think there are several different things I mean by it in this case. Writing style, overall structure, and presentation of evidence are perhaps three different things I mean by this one word. I'll break it down a bit.

Writing Style

Really, this is probably the least dissimilar of the three elements I'm looking at today. There is a too-heady, dense way of writing, and an easy-to-read way of writing. Michael Ward, in his Planet Narnia, was very much guilty of the too-academic language that made me abandon the project of reading his original work. Joseph Pearce, in Frodo's Journey, has a pretty readable prose, although I found his belaboring of alliteration and even some wordplay distracting at times, or even annoying. Ward's prose was much better in The Narnia Code - which was excellent - but I found the personal stories of how he developed his theory a little out of place. I think I perhaps prefer a bit more of the style where the commentator just sits down with the work and talks about it, not bringing much of himself into the review, at least directly.  Pearce plays with that line a little bit when he makes claims that such-and-such an element obviously refers to this, or can't help but remind one of that, but I appreciate that he leaves out the personal stories of how he came to his ideas.

Overall Structure

There is a time and a place for short essays that are somewhat linked together, but I think that structure is best employed when lots of authors are talking about various facets of the same story. I don't think it served Pearce well in Frodo's Journey, as it left me wondering why it bore that title when the personal journey that Frodo makes is mentioned so little throughout the work.  think Pearce did a bit of a better job in Bilbo's Journey, but I read that ages ago and can't be sure that most of the work truly was focused on Bilbo and his development as a character.

Ward's organization worked much better in The Narnia Code; he  gave background information, stated his claim, and then proceeded to systematically walk through how his ideas could be interpreted as playing out in Lewis' series. I'd argue that there were still some flaws with structure, but it made sense to me as a reader and helped get me interested in hearing what he had to say next.

Presentation of Evidence

Both Pearce and Ward had trouble substantiating claims. They used circumstantial evidence and speak from a place of authority that one could contend they may or may not truly hold. There was a slight difference in how they made their claims, though. Ward carefully laid the groundwork for establishing why we can probably assume things - it's not the strongest or best claim, but he tries. Pearce, on the other hand, has no problem with stating things are self-evident that are not necessarily so for the reader. I think I appreciate a more - shall we say - humble attempt at literary criticism. But, how far can we trust that, seeing as it is an absolute amateur making her critique of two published authors who are well-known in the world of Inklings scholarship?

Overall Effect

I'm going to end my rambling, not-well-organized brief critique with a thought on the overall effect the two works of literary criticism had on me. Ward left me wanting to reread the original series sometime, but with his book handy for me to reference. Pearce left me kind of glad I was done with his work; it's not fair to say if it would have had me wanting to reread the original series, though, because I am in the midst of finishing up listening to an audiobook version as I write out these thoughts. 

I often enjoy reading literary criticism, but I want what I read to point me back to the original work as well as keep me coming back to itself to get those ideas again.