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

[Markluzz]

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 ----------


Populism is a tough bitch to crack.

I don't think you can call Tolkien a horrible writer, especially when there are few that can write books as good as his and as memorable as Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit.

Good literature is often forgotten, but good stories last for an eternity. Proof of this is, most the stories that last over the centuries that people still read today are good stories, and you have to remember stories are a form of literature.

You say it's bad art, but im asking how, being able to paint a fully complete vivid picture (not a picture with different pieces missing) in your mind, and also being able to understand the races surrounding the character. You have to remember that is needed for fantasy and is the reason the fantasy genre took off, there would be no fantasy genre without Tolkien, and that is for a reason. If Tolkien's books were bad art than you wouldn't see his books spawning an entire genre of art.

Tolkien did not like writing allegories and such and was detailed on everything, yes, and somehow he was able to fit all that detail and the whole epic itself within his 300 or so pages. You can see the environment the characters are in completely in your head, some people hate that yes, but I personally love it, it allows the entire book to play out better, and the story to catch on more.

You also must remember why, and how Tolkien chose to write his book, what was he writing it for. When it came to the Hobbit, he was doing multiple things,
1.Creating a mythology, that is what he wanted to do, he was writing an epic not a short symbolic novel to make you think real hard
2.With Bilbo it was almost symbolic of Tolkien's own experience in World War 1, Tolkien was dragged in, not wanting to fight (go on the adventure) and preferred his simpler life much more. Now im not sure if this was on purpose, but it does indeed connect, Tolkien wrote Bilbo's story symbolically maybe intentionally maybe un-intentionally we don't know. Only thing we do know is that the races in Lotr don't represent European nations that was the one set of allegories I remember him saying were not true.

Also remember everything Tolkien wrote in his books was very much his own when it came to the creativity and thought process, sure every fantasy out there now has elves and dwarves, but they came from Tolkien's books.

But then in the end he still only wrote a story, and wasn't trying to write a 'literature piece', which I find stupid as a point of why he barely received any awards for his works, since 'literature pieces' originated from stories and are in fact stories. Most people when they pick up a book it is for a good story, and if it has other symbolic meanings and such then great. Few people however pick up books so they can critically analyze it and grasp at a million straws to find its 'deep meaning'.

Honestly literature would be a much better if it had more good stories, and less writers trying to be 'artistic' when great stories are artistic just from being a great story. Because honestly most the writers trying to be 'artistic' all use the same general themes, and write the same general story, there isn't any creativity in it.

I enjoy the writers trying to 'artistic' when they write poems because poems aren't meant to tell a story, they are meant to convey a message. A story is meant to convey a story and its themes present a message through the story, a story was not meant to be critically nitpicked a part to follow the delusion that every specific word in the 200 page novel has a very specific meaning like it would in poetry. It's there people start grasping at strings for things and the delusion stories are deeper than they really are. (Yes some are deep, but when you get to the point where you have a person saying, 'omg at the end of the story the guy said "Come on George lets go have a drink" it must represent communion! SO DEEP' Its annoying, and that type of over thinking shouldn't be awarded.

[King Shark]

Horrible writer; wonderful story teller. There is a significant distinction.

[kendro1200]

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 respectfully disagree. I found the LotR books amazing, they had an excellent story driving them, and the imagery itself helped the reader better envision the place Tolkien was creating. Remember at the time, a freshly war torn world, green pastures and forests were kinda like a faded image. You had a general idea of what they were like, but nothing too crisp and clear.

To be quite frank and honest, from my viewpoint liberal arts majors and grads are extremely hipster'ish. They are unfairly critical of any form of literature that gains public attention. If the LotR movies had never come out, I'm certain there would have been a different tune sung.

[Magemaer]

Nobel prize, on literature at least, sucks. I have read many really bad books, i mean terrible books that won Nobel. It's not a worthy reference.
That being said, Tolkien is a good author, not a genius. His works are good, but none is a masterpiece.

[Mormolyce]

Well, on the one hand awards tend to go to artsey-fartsey stuff rather than populist stuff, and on the other awards ceremonies are by no means reliable indicators of quality. Hell look at some of the appalling decisions the Oscars have made.

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.

From about the Council of Elrond onwards Tolkien uses a kind of stilted old-worldey prose (the tone shift is actually quite striking). Personally I prefer the lively and charismatic prose of the Hobbit (which was replicated to a degree in the idyllic early chapters of Fellowship in the Shire). But the man was a linguist, he has a certain grave authority when it comes to writing. He wrote carefully to create a deliberate effect in each of his works.

[PBitt]

I love LoTR, it's a great story, the books were great and the films were as well, and I don't think there ever has been or will be any single person who put more detail into creating a world and a crazy in-depth history that isn't real than him. As someone who has read the books a couple times, I will say his writing isn't really anything spectacular, not to say that it's bad, but if it wasn't for the amazing story, no one would care and no one would know who he was.

Even if other 'classic' authors are better writers, there are very few people out there who can even come close to his ability in telling a story, and at the end of the day, books are the one form of entertainment where story is what really matters, and, again, he wasn't a bad writer, so it really doesn't matter to me much. Look at today's paperback writers, Patterson, for example, the man can write well and that is more what keeps you engaged than the actual story that isn't all that original, and halfway through you'll probably feel like you've already read the book, can guess the ending, etc etc, and you won't be able to remember much of the story, if any, say, when asked a year later down the road, unless it really stands out. Provided the writing is better than mine from seventh grade, story and originality is far more important than using fancy words and not being able to put it to good use by creating a timeless story to par with it...very, very few 'good' writers can do that.

[vizzle]

I don't care to listen to people who've done shit all while they criticize people who've inspired generations of people.

Perhaps Tolkien didn't want to write it in the "perfect prose" because it wouldn't have appealed as much. Or perhaps, everyone should shut up and pay respect to the father of fantasy.

[LoLHellcy]

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.

So basically the Nobel Prize committee is more similar to a high school / grade school english teacher as opposed to a college english professor (masterful use of vocabulary vs. content)?

[vizzle]

So basically the Nobel Prize committee is more similar to a high school / grade school english teacher as opposed to a college english professor (masterful use of vocabulary vs. content)?

Nobel Prize is the equivalent of the Oscars. Pretentious old hipsters.

[Rennadrel]

Well, on the one hand awards tend to go to artsey-fartsey stuff rather than populist stuff, and on the other awards ceremonies are by no means reliable indicators of quality. Hell look at some of the appalling decisions the Oscars have made.

Don't forget the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, like who the fuck inducts a hack like Madonna, or the Bee Gees? The Nobel Prize for literature really isn't the end all be all of writing either, I'd take these guys opinions with a grain of salt to be honest. What matters is whether you enjoyed reading a book or a series and what you have to compare them to at the time. There was nothing in those days to compare to what Tolkien did, which is why he is such a respected author now, because he wasn't appreciated back then.

[Deleted]

The problem behind all awards in the arts whether they be for lit, film or painting is that the judges are attempting to apply an objective worth to a subjective form. It can be argued that the very process is a category error, when I began to study English Literature at a high level we were presented with a list of things that are required for a book to enter what is known as "the canon". The list included such vagueness as "Of a higher aesthetic than other works of its kind" (its pretty writing) and "Of great moral significance to humankind (implying a value judgement based upon the times current relativist view). When a writer gets a Nobel prize what is basically being said is that a group of professors, who in all likelihood are essayists reading into a work more than the author intended, very much like your book.

[Callace]

I respectfully disagree. I found the LotR books amazing, they had an excellent story driving them, and the imagery itself helped the reader better envision the place Tolkien was creating. Remember at the time, a freshly war torn world, green pastures and forests were kinda like a faded image. You had a general idea of what they were like, but nothing too crisp and clear.

To be quite frank and honest, from my viewpoint liberal arts majors and grads are extremely hipster'ish. They are unfairly critical of any form of literature that gains public attention. If the LotR movies had never come out, I'm certain there would have been a different tune sung.

I'm not coming from some young hipster viewpoint. I realize that the sum of history might be the last 10 years to you, but I read them long before Jackson thought about filming them, and I liked the films a lot anyway, so your particular line of thinking doesn't really apply to me. I'm coming from the viewpoint of a modernist from the early half of the 1900s (when they were written) that actually read books that mattered back then.

If you were to appreciate any books of literary significance from the same period. There would also be a different tune sung. Tolkien is like a very lovely nap. But a really, truly good read is pure sex.

---------- Post added 2012-04-05 at 01:43 PM ----------

The bottom line is that people that are defending Tolkien's writing are evaluating something else. Everyone is pointing out how great the story and the atmosphere is, but I don't see anyone coming up with any *words* that stuck with them, and that is even after the fact that there were some memorable quotes in the book!

The best part of the books was the appendices and maps. I think that says it all. And yes, those are some extremely impressive appendices and maps!

---------- Post added 2012-04-05 at 01:53 PM ----------

which is why he is such a respected author now, because he wasn't appreciated back then.

He had tons of fans back in the day. They spraypainted LotR graffiti in London subways, camped on his lawn, there were too many for him to turn away. Later on, he was eventually annoyed with all of the hippies that took to his work. They found a common ground in the anti-industrial theme of the novels.

[HeyJoe]

It's cool to diss Tolkien. Also, Shakespeare was a hack. Those two statements make me hip.

[Callace]

It's cool to diss Tolkien. Also, Shakespeare was a hack. Those two statements make me hip.

If this is directed at me, you haven't comprehended anything I said. I love Shakespeare. I have no disrespect for Tolkien, he was a genius philologist, but he wasn't really a great writer. Maybe you should look up the definition for "respect", it seems to elude you. You can respect a person without drooling all over their labors. Making statements about books doesn't have anything to do with being hip or not. Hipsters don't read. I never should have responded to this thread because criticizing Tolkien on a fantasy-anything-related forum presents an ultimatum for troll bait.

[OrcsRLame]

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.

I'm sorry, what?

You're complaining about how nerdy it was to read his books, when you have a gnome avatar, while posting on a World of Warcraft fansite? *mind=blown*

[Markluzz]

If this is directed at me, you haven't comprehended anything I said. I love Shakespeare. I have no disrespect for Tolkien, he was a genius philologist, but he wasn't really a great writer. Maybe you should look up the definition for "respect", it seems to elude you. You can respect a person without drooling all over their labors. Making statements about books doesn't have anything to do with being hip or not. Hipsters don't read. I never should have responded to this thread because criticizing Tolkien on a fantasy-anything-related forum presents an ultimatum for troll bait.

So apparently we are trolls because we like Tolkien's work and you don't? Not everybody wants to dig deeper into a story than it was meant to be dug into, I personally hated it when I had to do it, it made me feel like gagging when I had to read a Steinback book and critically analyze it (he was a great author by the way, I enjoyed the books until I had to spend a couple months of 'studying' one of them) deeper than it was probably intended and grasping at straws the author didn't intend for them to mean if they meant anything.

People are assuming the author's are trying to convey a giant deep message with every sentence and if that cannot be found then the author is a bad writer, even if they tell an amazing story (the point of literature imo, its to tell a story not to present a symbolic message, that is what poetry is for). Tolkien told an amazing story, and made me want to find out the reasons he wrote the books, and look for some of the themes within the book. He wrote it story first, themes and messages later, all stories should be written like that. If they story and the storytelling is at the highest quality then I could care less about the themes quality.

Also using more advanced words doesn't mean anything for a story, anybody can do that. Depending on the setting and where the story takes place and how it was written is how the author should decide the words. Tolkien was writing a mythology and wrote it like a mythology would be written.

[Callace]

So apparently we are trolls because we like Tolkien's work and you don't?

Not at all, I take your opinion seriously. I was only referring to the one poster who actually trolled me, who had no opinion to share.
And by the way, I do like Tolkien, but I know that his writing isn't great. I don't see how you cannot separate those ideas.

Also using more advanced words doesn't mean anything for a story, anybody can do that.

Skelington was way off earlier in the thread. Tolkien uses some VERY advanced language in LotR. He invented entire languages, so of course his vocabulary was incredible. That still isn't what it means to be a good writer. If you want to give him an award for "World's Best Story Imaginer" great! He deserves that! But writing is not judged that way, it is judged by *style*. He was terrible at crafting the text itself! Sure he is easily better than most writers today, but when he was writing, his work truly did not merit rewards over the competition. I'm sorry there aren't any story telling awards, you just have to understand that it isn't the same thing.

[Fuzzzie]

Please try to post with respect here. There is no need to start throwing around accusations of trolling. If anyone crosses any lines then report them.

As for the actual findings from the 61 selection process, I will say that appreciating literature is a subjective thing. Tolkien's popularity was a gradual rise, not that that would be taken into account for selecting a Nobel Laureate.

People should really just focus on their enjoyment of the books and what it means to them. They shouldn't concern themselves with what others think. Plenty of people enjoy the Twilight books. They may not be the best written, but they have their audience of people who like them and you can't really take that away with an opinion or prize.

[Fuzzzie]

I reported it. It went ignored. I don't like responding to "those kinds of posts" (I won't even label them), but when nothing happens, it's not like I'm going to go unresponsive.

I'm sorry, I've been really busy this week, I'll get to my reports momentarily.

[Shadowbane]

To be honest, if I were Tolkien, I'd be lolling all the way. Let them have their prizes. I got me some Middle Earth movies.