[Books] Tolkien dashed for 'poor writing prose' (Aswell as Robert Frost and Forster)

[Markluzz]

I just read this article released this year that found out the reason Tolkien lost the Nobel prize to the author from Yugoslovia named Ivo Andric, who I have never heard of, and with Tolkien in the 'losers circle' is Robert Frost, and EM Forster.

http://www.finebooksmagazine.com/fin...el-prize.phtml

Basically Tolkien lost the award because "It has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality." as said by one of the critics, and apparently EM Forster was "a shadow of his former self, with long lost spiritual health." and Robert Frost lost it due to his "advanced age,".

It kind of boggles my mind that authors like Tolkien, and Robert Frost lost an award, especially calling Tolkien's writings bad like they did. I have never heard anything about Ivo Andric but I do know Tolkien was such an influential writer that he created an entire genre, and Robert Frost was very influential in poetry. Now taken books were better in the early 20th century than they are now so of course The Hobbit and Robert Frost will look like a giant mountain of gold compared to today's authors, and there is no way the Nobel Critiques at that time would know how influential and big these two authors would be in the future, however of the older books and poems I have read I still find these two authors/poets to be better than the others.

But this kind of makes me remember that in any big official award show/ceremony 90% of the time the ones that deserve to win don't end up winning, for whatever reasons. This probably goes with the fact the voters/critiques of these things is a very small amount of like-minded people, who are looking for a very specific style of writing, and anything fantasy/sci-fi gets thrown out the window.

[Tripping]

From people who know good english, he isnt a good writer, even if the story is great

[Deleted]

A lot of literary critics are very harsh on two things, firstly what they consider to be popularist rather than having some kind of message or meaning designed to stand the test of time. Secondly fantasy and sci-fi novels are often viewed as escaspist or too detached from reality to have literary worth, although this is much less prominent now I would suggest it was during the time of consideration for the prize.

I'd also agree that great story telling and great literature are far from the same. Consider the Harry Potter stories, they have massive appeal and many people feel empathy and involvement in the story however the books hold no meaning for reality and neither are any masterful writing techniques shown. One can argue that Harry Potter is a much better story than anything say Ian McEwan (popular with critics) has ever written, yet not that Rowling shows mastery of style anywhere near his degree.

[Skelington]

Just because an author is well esteemed doesn't mean that they possess any sort of advanced prose. Tolkien and Frost use pretty low and common english in their works.

[Callace]

I just read this article released this year that found out the reason Tolkien lost the Nobel prize to the author from Yugoslovia named Ivo Andric, who I have never heard of, and with Tolkien in the 'losers circle' is Robert Frost, and EM Forster.

http://www.finebooksmagazine.com/fin...el-prize.phtml

Basically Tolkien lost the award because "It has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality." as said by one of the critics, and apparently EM Forster was "a shadow of his former self, with long lost spiritual health." and Robert Frost lost it due to his "advanced age,".

It kind of boggles my mind that authors like Tolkien, and Robert Frost lost an award, especially calling Tolkien's writings bad like they did. I have never heard anything about Ivo Andric but I do know Tolkien was such an influential writer that he created an entire genre, and Robert Frost was very influential in poetry. Now taken books were better in the early 20th century than they are now so of course The Hobbit and Robert Frost will look like a giant mountain of gold compared to today's authors, and there is no way the Nobel Critiques at that time would know how influential and big these two authors would be in the future, however of the older books and poems I have read I still find these two authors/poets to be better than the others.

But this kind of makes me remember that in any big official award show/ceremony 90% of the time the ones that deserve to win don't end up winning, for whatever reasons. This probably goes with the fact the voters/critiques of these things is a very small amount of like-minded people, who are looking for a very specific style of writing, and anything fantasy/sci-fi gets thrown out the window.

Tolkien's style of writing, even at the time, was incredibly old fashioned and dull. He was greatly influenced by poets like William Wordsworth who specialized in pastoral poetry hundreds of years previously. Even in the 1950s, writing that drones on and on about shrubbery and forestry details was viewed as uninteresting. And the reason the LoTR films are better than the books is just that. The story was great, but it was buried in a mountain of long-windedly-bad writing.

[Deleted]

Tolkien's style of writing, even at the time, was incredibly old fashioned and dull. He was greatly influenced by poets like William Wordsworth who specialized in pastoral poetry hundreds of years previously. Even in the 1950s, writing that drones on and on about shrubbery and forestry details was viewed as uninteresting. And the reason the LoTR films are better than the books is just that. The story was great, but it was buried in a mountain of long-windedly-bad writing.

I'd disagree, the attention to detail is what allowed lord of the rings to feel like such a fully fleshed out world. The writing style is meant to appear old, he was paying tribute to the entire catalog of English story telling. You have references to mulitple anglo-saxon poems, Shakespeare, the metaphysical poets, the pastoral epic... the list goes on.

[Markluzz]

I'd disagree, the attention to detail is what allowed lord of the rings to feel like such a fully fleshed out world. The writing style is meant to appear old, he was paying tribute to the entire catalog of English story telling. You have references to mulitple anglo-saxon poems, Shakespeare, the metaphysical poets, the pastoral epic... the list goes on.

I agree with this I really enjoy his writing as a writer even if he uses common English, IMO fiction stories are about telling a story you
and making it relatable (which lotr and hobbit are aswell as frost's works) above other things

[Brightamethyst]

I'd also agree that great story telling and great literature are far from the same. Consider the Harry Potter stories, they have massive appeal and many people feel empathy and involvement in the story however the books hold no meaning for reality and neither are any masterful writing techniques shown. One can argue that Harry Potter is a much better story than anything say Ian McEwan (popular with critics) has ever written, yet not that Rowling shows mastery of style anywhere near his degree.

Pretty much this. Good writing and entertainment value are not the same thing. Especially when it comes to things like giving out literary awards. "Boring but well written book" will win a literary award over "entertaining book" almost every time. (though "entertaining book" will probably win more reader's choice awards.)

[Markluzz]

Pretty much this. Good writing and entertainment value are not the same thing. Especially when it comes to things like giving out literary awards. "Boring but well written book" will win a literary award over "entertaining book" almost every time. (though "entertaining book" will probably win more reader's choice awards.)

But the Lord of the Rings is arguably a very well written book series

[Tiptoes]

Tolkien was pretty much jealous of Roman and Greek Mythology and wanted to create mythology for England because he felt it was some what lacking in that department. I do think that is why he used such an old form of writing because he wanted to make you think you were reading a book written a long long time ago just like when you read the Iliad or the Odyssey.

Also I think that trying to add lots of meaning to a story can take away from the story as a whole. It does make for good literature but its kind of dull to read and details of peoples thoughts and reasoning can be just as long winded as details on the environment, except I believe the details of the environment help set the mood in a book like LoTR. I am glad that Tolkien hated allegory. I like to read for the story and not really to sit and ponder. When the mood strikes, yeah, I will pick up some "real" literature, but that is rare and much less preferred than a good story with lots of depth and character.

[nozshtar]

Tolkien's style of writing, even at the time, was incredibly old fashioned and dull. He was greatly influenced by poets like William Wordsworth who specialized in pastoral poetry hundreds of years previously. Even in the 1950s, writing that drones on and on about shrubbery and forestry details was viewed as uninteresting. And the reason the LoTR films are better than the books is just that. The story was great, but it was buried in a mountain of long-windedly-bad writing.

I can't believe what I'm reading right now.

I loved the films, they were an incredible adaptation of the books. However no film can ever fill in the gaps and fulfill a level of detail that a book can. It isn't supposed to, and its ok that it doesn't try to. I'm extremely curious as to what you define as long-windedly-bad writing. I'll be sarcastic for a moment and add that only your mastery of prose could allow you to take harsh judgments upon a literary master and while doing so make up words like "windedly". Back to being serious: I'll make the concession that Tolkien is long winded. But it is because of that fact that the reader can fully immerse themselves into the world that he created. This is in fact the sign of a great writer; that we the readers can create such a powerful connection through detail. We love and hold dear what the characters love and hold dear because we know so much about it.

As for the bad writing part, what constitutes bad writing? I'll also concede that he doesn't use big or fancy words, but why would he? Hes describing a simple, fantastical world not a technical one! Big words are important for science fiction, not fantasy. Do you find his style to be 'bad'? Honestly I can't allow myself to believe that if you've read the books, his style is incredibly consistent and flows well throughout each.

I think if you're going to call someone a bad writer, you should be specific on the points that make him a bad writer. Tolkien is an excellent writer by all accounts whether he won a nobel or not.

Before today I'm not sure I'd heard anyone call Tolkien a bad writer, this is all catching me off guard!
Let me know what you think, and if you can provide counterpoints it would be much appreciated.

-Noz

[Markluzz]

Tolkien was pretty much jealous of Roman and Greek Mythology and wanted to create mythology for England because he felt it was some what lacking in that department. I do think that is why he used such an old form of writing because he wanted to make you think you were reading a book written a long long time ago just like when you read the Iliad or the Odyssey.

Also I think that trying to add lots of meaning to a story can take away from the story as a whole. It does make for good literature but its kind of dull to read and details of peoples thoughts and reasoning can be just as long winded as details on the environment, except I believe the details of the environment help set the mood in a book like LoTR. I am glad that Tolkien hated allegory. I like to read for the story and not really to sit and ponder. When the mood strikes, yeah, I will pick up some "real" literature, but that is rare and much less preferred than a good story with lots of depth and character.

I could agree with that

[Callace]

I'd disagree, the attention to detail is what allowed lord of the rings to feel like such a fully fleshed out world. The writing style is meant to appear old, he was paying tribute to the entire catalog of English story telling. You have references to mulitple anglo-saxon poems, Shakespeare, the metaphysical poets, the pastoral epic... the list goes on.

I understand this, but that still doesn't make it good modern literature. Critics don't hand out cookies for emulating something that was popular hundreds of years in the past. It was his ultimate exercise in self-indulgence. And it is very enjoyable for that. But it is not good art in the objective sense.

[schwarzkopf]

From people who know good english, he isnt a good writer, even if the story is great

You do realise that he was writing a book to be enjoyed, he was a master at language and linguistics - and his writing exactly how it was intended.

You have to remember (in terms of the story) who actually wrote the book.

[Callace]

I'd disagree, the attention to detail is what allowed lord of the rings to feel like such a fully fleshed out world. The writing style is meant to appear old, he was paying tribute to the entire catalog of English story telling. You have references to mulitple anglo-saxon poems, Shakespeare, the metaphysical poets, the pastoral epic... the list goes on.

Detail is not style. Having a "fully fleshed out world" is important to escapist fantasy, but not good literature.

[Wromthrax]

You can always read the book that got him the Nobel prize:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_Drina

I personally found out about Tolkien and his work during high school talking to a friend who was reading Silmarilion at that time.
Had no idea who the guy was before that.

[Rennadrel]

Tolkien's style of writing, even at the time, was incredibly old fashioned and dull. He was greatly influenced by poets like William Wordsworth who specialized in pastoral poetry hundreds of years previously. Even in the 1950s, writing that drones on and on about shrubbery and forestry details was viewed as uninteresting. And the reason the LoTR films are better than the books is just that. The story was great, but it was buried in a mountain of long-windedly-bad writing.

I disagree. The films were not better then the books and that was due to the lack of story telling. Tolkien has been considered a great writer because his books were really quite unique for the time period they were released in, fantasy really was just starting to come about in the form of books. The epics and the stories around that time period were still in music, before him it was all opera and stage theatre telling stories, not novel series. It really wasn't until the turn of the 20th century that writers really started to expand their stories, then you had famed writers like Ayn Rand breaking barriers in literature as well. I think you really have to look at Tolkien's writing from the era and who he was writing it for.

I'd be curious as to know whether or not the likes of Robert Jordan will be treated for a Nobel Prize, even after death, the same way Tolkien has been. Jordan was very much like Tolkien in his writing style, very precise, very indepth and detailed in terms of creating a visual environment in your mind. That's what great writers do, they make you imagine what the world is supposed to be like. When I read Lord of the Rings, I didn't imagine anything that I saw in the films really, it's the same with any adaptation. Good writers let you visualize the world and events yourself, bad writers don't want to give you the details of the environment around the characters.

[Alixie]

Tolkien. I hated his writing so much, I ignored English class and took a summer class with a different author of focus. My teacher was so annoyingly fangirly about Tolkien's books, she'd make us write poems and songs and character bios and other arts and crafts crap declaring how awesome he is for a good chunk of English. I couldnt get past the first chapter because reading about ye olde hobbits and magic was painfully, eye rollingly nerdy.

I thank Tolkien for inspiring countless boring Rpgs based on stupid elves, dwarves, archers, and the like.

[Callace]

Good writers let you visualize the world and events yourself, bad writers don't want to give you the details of the environment around the characters.

You're describing utility, not art. Good writing is about choosing the right detail. Tolkien simply chose every detail. That is why he is a bad writer. I'm sure you love TLotR as do millions of people, but that isn't what makes good art. I love Tolkien, but I still think he's a horrible writer. There is an important difference.

---------- Post added 2012-04-05 at 02:46 AM ----------

Tolkien. I hated his writing so much, I ignored English class and took a summer class with a different author of focus. My teacher was so annoyingly fangirly about Tolkien's books, she'd make us write poems and songs and character bios and other arts and crafts crap declaring how awesome he is for a good chunk of English. I couldnt get past the first chapter because reading about ye olde hobbits and magic was painfully, eye rollingly nerdy.

I thank Tolkien for inspiring countless boring Rpgs based on stupid elves, dwarves, archers, and the like.

Populism is a tough bitch to crack.

[Rennadrel]

I don't really love LoTR, I read it once and that was it. It was a good reading experience at the time, but compared to reading something like Wheel of Time, it just doesn't have that kind of depth as a story, though it's environmentally rich, if a bit overbearing in detail in that order. I think one should approach LoTR with the mindset that it's not written for this era of writing where things are so much different, but for a different time period.