Tolkien A or B?

[Lalwendë]

I read an interesting item (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/07/a_or_b_do_novels_fall_into_two.html) in the Grauniad's books blog this week examining Anthony Burgess's claim that all novels are either:
A - conventional, using plot and character to engage with the world
or
B - ultimately devoted to exploring form and language

To quote the blogger, in case you aint read the article:
In his meditation on the works of James Joyce, Anthony Burgess delineated the two different types of novel, categorised into types A and B. The A novel, to summarise his argument, is completely in thrall to convention, tapping into traditional literary archetypes with a distinct focus on plot and character. The B novel, however, can incorporate plot and character (though it occasionally dispenses with such trivialities altogether) but its ultimate aim is to explore literary form, narrative and language.

Typical examples of the A novel range from Pride and Prejudice and The Hound of the Baskervilles to Portnoy's Complaint and Saturday. Tellingly, the ultimate B novel is considered to be Finnegan's Wake. Then there are, of course, those A novels that trespass upon B territory such as Martin Amis's Time's Arrow which has a linear narrative style (albeit recounted backwards) but in its reversal of conventional speech encroaches upon ideals more common to the B novel.

There are some interesting comments following the article so it's worth reading - and one comment concerns what immediately came to my mind. What About Tolkien?

What distinguishes Tolkien from so much other fantasy to me is his love of language, his play with narrative form, his sense that language and culture are deeply linked. In many ways to me, he awakens a sense of Englishness and English history by exploring the roots of our language. Yet he also churned out a cracking yarn and it has much to say about The World.

What do you think? Is Tolkien A or B?

[Boromir88]

As C.S. Lewis remarks in Tolkien's obituary...he says that Tolkien 'had been inside language.' I think that's an excellent way of putting it and part of the reason why Tolkien wrote a fantasy story people love to read.

I'm going to use another author (J.K. Rowling) as an example. Rowling by no means is an awful author who can't write her way out of a paper bag. But the difference between Rowling and Tolkien is simply Tolkien was in a whole different league.

Rowling has managed to write several stories that are a great joy to just sit down and read. She (like Tolkien) managed to create a believable fantasy world of her own (in my opinion :D).

But what seperates Tolkien apart from Rowling is, I think, Tolkien's knowledge of language. I guess this is what happens when a philologist writes a story as Tolkien points out in an interview with The New York Times:
The invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. To me a name comes first and the story follows.
Now we see what Lewis meant by his remarks that Tolkien 'had been inside language.' :)

[Bêthberry]

his play with narrative form,

Busy with a holiday weekend here with little time for keeping up. But in the mean time, Lal could you explain what you mean by this phrase?

Thanks muchly and see y'all after the festivities.

[Lush]

There are actually three types of novels in this world:

Novels for people who can count, and for people who can't.

;)

I'm personally allergic to the idea that you can categorize novels this way, and I'd spank Burgess if I had the chance.

Not to say that this is a bad thread, naturally. It's an interesting question. I'd say Tolkien is both. I think most great writers are both - be it apparent or not.

[Lalwendë]

Busy with a holiday weekend here with little time for keeping up. But in the mean time, Lal could you explain what you mean by this phrase?

Thanks muchly and see y'all after the festivities.

Plenty of things ;) The story of LotR is expressed mostly through the eyes of the Hobbits as they undertake their journeys. Tolkien also uses varying styles and forms within the text itself - moving from poetry (itself of various types, including both comic and epic) through the style of the sagas, through Boys' Own adventure etc etc... He also expresses character via speech and deed instead of via internal monologue. And that's just for starters...

Boro - Rowling is a good example here. I think in some ways she does approach language, but it's quite limited. I wonder if that's because of her preferred narrative style or just to keep it simple for her target audience? Where she does tackle language is in her use of names - Dumbledore's for example are quite revealing (it's worth a look on Wikipedia for some more ideas on what her names mean).

But there's the rub for me. Tolkien's original intention for writing was to find a place for language, to position his created languages within stories - as where would language go if it was not for stories? For him, narrative and language were inextricably linked, a much older way of looking at the idea of story. Maybe it's not that Burgess was wrong, just that he was only referring to modern views of the novel?

[Firefoot]

I dislike the separation of all novels into one of those two categories. While some, no doubt, fit squarely into one or the other (having read few of the novels given as examples in the blurb that Lal quoted, I can't really express an opinion), I think that the very best of stories combine the two elements; they should be intrinsically linked with each other.

Nor do I see why a novel using plot and character to drive the story must be "conventional."

This, in particular, revolted me:B novel, however, can incorporate plot and character (though it occasionally dispenses with such trivialities altogether) While I have read a story or two that can be described as 'without a plot,' the ones I can think of were exceedingly dull. A fascinating exercise for the writer, no doubt, but uninteresting to read. If a piece must be analyzed before it has interest and significance to the reader, it's hardly worth the read, in my opinion. It should catch your attention, be excellent in itself, and all the better if there are further depths to be analyzed... but then you have to put it back together. It should be more than the sum of its parts, I guess.

The language is like the framework and structure of writing; the story it tells should be the picture... or even, in some cases, the other way around. But you can't dispense with either part. An unframed picture is incomplete, and a frame without a picture is simply ridiculous.

[CSteefel]

But what seperates Tolkien apart from Rowling is, I think, Tolkien's knowledge of language. I guess this is what happens when a philologist writes a story as Tolkien points out in an interview with The New York Times:

Not quite sure what you mean by this. I don't find the linguistic references in Tolkien as interesting as his language, or more accurately, his writing style, but then I am not a philologist...

What really strikes me about Tolkien is how well the books hold up as they are reread. Every single sentence has a role in the book and they can be appreciated at multiple levels, but sometimes more so on the 3rd (or 6th or 9th) reading. He captures the physical texture of the landscape, for example, and this contributes to the overall mood on the earlier readings, but evokes additional "texture" on subsequent readings. His prose style is beautifully delineated at every level, whether he is describing a great event, or a simple landscape through which his characters are moving.

Rowling has some of this ability, especially in her later books where the prose description becomes much better, but she is not going to match the Master. This ability of Tolkien to capture the great themes while maintain absolute crystalline, laser-like clarity (sort of like a great white Burgundy) is what makes him a great writer IMO...

The comparison here would be more likely Joyce's Ulysses, which is "championship game" prose, as Nabokov said, and not the murkier alphabet soup of Finnegan's Wake...