Hmmm [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]
Quote:
1) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged inferior, as a writer, to the 20th century greats;
2) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged superior, as a writer, to the 20th century greats; and
3) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged to be marking out new territory and therefore not comparable to the 20th century greats, while still worth considering among the 20th century greats.
This will require outlining a basically agreeable list of 20th century greats, writing in English.
|
I'm not necessarily keen on listing the ways in which Tolkien is "inferior" to any other writers. Apart from the inevitable antagonism that results, it's perhaps an unfair exercise. He finished two complete books (one ostensibly a short-ish children's story) and a handful of short stories. The rest of his works come to us edited and even addended through the efforts of his son, and arise from the tremendous public interest and demand. It would be harsh to judge a canon of significantly unfinished drafts and notes against a lifetime of published works by, say, Orwell, Steinbeck, Conrad, Hemingway, Lawrence etc.
Perhaps the more interesting comparison - and one I made in another thread - is between Lord of the Rings - as in some ways the 'epiphany' of Tolkien's writing career : one work that, completed and published, contained itself all those elements that exemplify his creative vision, and all the elements that can explain his standing and popularity - and, for example,
Ulysses by James Joyce, which is arguably the same kind of single cathartic
tour de force, unmatched by his other works before or since.
These "one-hit wonders" of the 20th century (I'm not being crass, just trying to put a framework on this kind of analysis), might include LotR, Ulysses,
Catch 22, Catcher In The Rye, Lolita, Invisible Man, On The Road, Brave New World, Native Son, Under The Volcano, The Little Prince etc. etc. .
My view would be that Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is certainly one of the great books of the 20th century. That's not exactly the same as saying Tolkien is one of the best writers of the century, because of the reasons I gave above. The Silmarillion, unfinished as it is, is 'a different animal' altogether - and if it had originally been published
instead of LotR, most of us might never have heard of Tolkien 50 years later [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
I don't want to go into reasons, because in the end oppositional arguments will inevitably deconstruct each other and themselves (and result in : Kalessin vs Aiwendil III [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) because of the subjectivity of language and interpretation. Simply saying "Tolkien is the best because of his wonderful use of
tergivisation", or "Chapter One of the Silmarillion is the best thing ever because I like it more than everything else I've ever read", or "well, to me, Tolkien writes non-fiction ... every word is true" ( [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ), may not actually lead us to any satisfactory conclusions. I suppose it also depends upon whether people are willing to change their views!
But, I guess, I'm always interested in what people think. And "high-falutin' literary chat" is good for my snobbish self-esteem [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Over to you ...
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]