Tolkien and the Literary Canon: Case for Canonical Status
This essay argues that J.R.R. Tolkien deserves canonical literary status, challenging critics — most notably Harold Bloom — who have excluded him from surveys of essential Western literature. The paper begins by examining the origins and criteria of canon formation, then scrutinizes Bloom's aesthetic standards as inconsistent and ultimately subjective. It traces Tolkien's unexpected commercial success and his own self-understanding as a linguistic experimenter. Finally, drawing on John Garth's scholarship, the essay contends that The Lord of the Rings is deeply rooted in Tolkien's lived experience of twentieth-century warfare, giving it a historical and thematic depth that refutes charges of mere escapist fantasy.
- The Idea of a Literary Canon: Origins of canon concept and Tolkien's candidacy
- Harold Bloom and the Western Canon: Bloom's inconsistent aesthetic criteria exclude Tolkien
- Tolkien's Unlikely Success and Self-Understanding: Tolkien's surprise popularity and linguistic intentions
- Historical Depth and the Case for Canonicity: Garth's war scholarship affirms Tolkien's canonical merit
- Works Cited: Full bibliography in MLA format
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay opens with a strong conceptual move, tracing the word "canon" to its religious origins before applying it to literary criticism — this gives the argument historical grounding from the outset.
- The critique of Harold Bloom is precise and evidence-based: the paper uses Bloom's own stated criteria against his conclusions, citing both the inclusion of Tony Kushner and the exclusion of Harriet Beecher Stowe to expose the inconsistency of his aesthetic standards.
- The turn to John Garth's scholarship in the final section elevates the argument beyond popular appeal, showing that Tolkien's work has serious scholarly dimensions rooted in lived historical experience.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective counter-argument construction: it anticipates objections (popularity does not equal quality; fantasy lacks allegorical depth), addresses each one directly with cited evidence, and then advances a positive claim. This back-and-forth structure models how to engage seriously with opposing scholarly positions rather than dismissing them.
Structure breakdown
The essay moves in four stages: (1) defining canon and its criteria; (2) critiquing Bloom's exclusion of Tolkien through internal contradiction; (3) contextualizing Tolkien's reception and his own stated intentions; and (4) making an affirmative case for canonicity via Garth's historical reading. A Works Cited section closes the paper in MLA format.
The Idea of a Literary Canon
Is J.R.R. Tolkien a canonical writer? This depends, of course, on how we define canonical status — or indeed who we acknowledge as our arbiter of canonicity. It is worth noting at the outset the whiff of sanctimony in the very idea of a "canon." The term is originally derived from religion: as Christianity underwent a centuries-long process of defining its own orthodoxy, extant Christian writings were arranged into a canon by religious authorities, separating the essential sacred texts from the inessential. It was these same religious authorities who, in the process of debating which works to include and which to exclude, chose to include the four canonical Gospels found in any copy of the New Testament, while excluding the non-canonical or "apocryphal" Gospel of Thomas — let alone the Gospel of Judas, which was not even translated into English until 2006. By analogy, the literary canon-making process suggested itself to secular authorities — literary critics inside and outside the academy — who were interested in drawing up lists of non-sacred texts that might be regarded as essential.
I think the case of Tolkien can provide an interesting glimpse into the canon-making enterprise and how it proceeds. My contention is that Tolkien clearly is a canonical writer — or should be — but the question of how his status has become established among arbiters of literary taste is interesting in its own right. I hope to address those critics who denigrate Tolkien's status as well as make a positive case for Tolkien as a canonical writer.
To some degree any literary canon is always, at best, an interim affair. New works are being written all the time, and it is possible that a new canonical work might be produced at any moment. None but the most hidebound conservative would believe the canon itself to be closed to new entries — although, as we shall note later, Tolkien himself was just such a hidebound conservative. The important thing is to establish what the criteria for entry into the canon actually are.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.