Tolkien A or B?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.