JRR Tolkien's second-rate prose - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Morthoron · 01-07-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lalaith

However, I've never read Ivo Andric so I don't feel in a position to make a final judgement!

He has a statue in Belgrade. Someone there must have read him. And obviously someone in Sweden. One guy. On the jury. Alone.

Lalwendë · 01-08-2012, 08:08 AM

What struck me is that Tolkien was in excellent company as a Nobel reject - Lawrence Durrell, Greene, Forster and Robert Frost all having written things I've loved.

His storytelling was criticised which was very unfair as I have rarely read any story so well told, plotted and satisfactorily wound up as that of Lord of the Rings. To be fair, I think poor storytelling is particularly a modern problem, but even by the standards of his time*, Tolkien stood amongst the very best in terms of crafting a solid story.

His prose style isn't innovative, I could agree with that, but it's also never less than good. It's never turgid, always readable, and certainly before you get to Return of the King, where the tone changes, it's a lot more 'light' than many would suspect. People often criticise Tolkien for lingering too much on descriptive passages - they have clearly never read any Dickens or Hardy!

*As compared to contemporary fiction which I'm growing ever more jaded about. I keep investing my time in what for 90% of their content are really great novels only to find they fizzle out at the end or the story turns out to have been completely pointless. Gah.

Morthoron · 01-08-2012, 08:37 AM

What I can't understand is the jury's appalling treatment of Robert Frost. Not give him a Nobel...because he's too old? Ummm...do the winners have to go on a world tour for a year while wearing a tiara?

Lalaith · 01-09-2012, 01:38 AM

Quote:

His storytelling was criticised which was very unfair as I have rarely read any story so well told, plotted and satisfactorily wound up as that of Lord of the Rings.

Well quite, which is why I checked the translation for "diktning" and found that it wasn't right.

Quote:

imagine all the high-brow nonsense they would then proceed to utter about it discussing it in their literati talk-shows

Heren, have you *seen* the canonicity thread?

HerenIstarion · 01-09-2012, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Heren, have you *seen* the canonicity thread?

Well, surely I have had my share of high-brow nonsense put into it, but then I won't say 'touché', as there is a whole world of difference between elaborate high-brow 'nonsensing' done for the love of the thing as opposed to the same carried out in the name of being considered as clever as the next man by the fellow 'art connoisseurs' :J

narfforc · 01-09-2012, 04:14 PM

I couldn't care less what the snobbish Lit-Crit's of today think, let alone their dinosaur brethren of yore did. I wouldn't be at all surprised that now Tolkien has removed all the boundaries he faced in 1961, that they won't at some stage get gooey-eyed with Rowling.

Galadriel · 01-18-2012, 11:51 AM

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What struck me is that Tolkien was in excellent company as a Nobel reject - Lawrence Durrell, Greene, Forster and Robert Frost all having written things I've loved.

Don't forget Jorge Luis Borges

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh · 01-21-2012, 03:05 PM

Apart from spending the money on fancy waistcoats and a barrel of Theakston's, I can't see what use JRRT would have had for a Nobel prize. He was always a little suspicious of the waft of incense from fans and sympathetic critics, as we can see from his disapproval on hearing W.H. Auden's comment that he never again trusted the literary judgement of someone who didn't like LR. I doubt he'd have appreciated being dismissed on the basis of a translation, particularly one that he disliked himself, but Tolkien was always opposed to the use of translations and synopses in literary criticism. Since the Beowulf poet had been the victim of the same sort of unconsidered dismissal (not to mention also being too old to win a Nobel prize), JRRT might even have felt that he was in good company. When it came to his own work he was more often amused by the battle between his supporters and detractors than particularly concerned with the opinions of either.

Perhaps a more enduring comment on Tolkien's importance is that even as we approach the fortieth anniversary of his death and the fiftieth of Lewis', their two names are sufficient to make a lot of dusty old committee minutes into newsworthy material.

Personally I've found that the difference between 'good' and 'bad' literature seems to reside more in the opinion of the critic than any objective point of reference. Most criticism is merely an attempt to disguise this behind a smokescreen of academic braggadocio, and awards simply reflect the state of play: they indicate who's currently ahead in an endless and meaningless argument, occasionally managing at the same time to reward literary talent. The only things less relevant than this year's awards are those of years past.

01-08-2012, 08:08 AM	#2
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	What struck me is that Tolkien was in excellent company as a Nobel reject - Lawrence Durrell, Greene, Forster and Robert Frost all having written things I've loved. His storytelling was criticised which was very unfair as I have rarely read any story so well told, plotted and satisfactorily wound up as that of Lord of the Rings. To be fair, I think poor storytelling is particularly a modern problem, but even by the standards of his time, Tolkien stood amongst the very best in terms of crafting a solid story. His prose style isn't innovative, I could agree with that, but it's also never less than good. It's never turgid, always readable, and certainly before you get to Return of the King, where the tone changes, it's a lot more 'light' than many would suspect. People often criticise Tolkien for lingering too much on descriptive passages - they have clearly never read any Dickens or Hardy! As compared to contemporary fiction which I'm growing ever more jaded about. I keep investing my time in what for 90% of their content are really great novels only to find they fizzle out at the end or the story turns out to have been completely pointless. Gah. __________________ Gordon's alive!

01-08-2012, 08:37 AM	#3
Morthoron Curmudgeonly Wordwraith Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits Posts: 2,515	What I can't understand is the jury's appalling treatment of Robert Frost. Not give him a Nobel...because he's too old? Ummm...do the winners have to go on a world tour for a year while wearing a tiara? __________________ And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision.

01-09-2012, 04:14 PM	#6
narfforc Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Muddy-earth Posts: 1,297	I couldn't care less what the snobbish Lit-Crit's of today think, let alone their dinosaur brethren of yore did. I wouldn't be at all surprised that now Tolkien has removed all the boundaries he faced in 1961, that they won't at some stage get gooey-eyed with Rowling. __________________ [B]THE LORD OF THE GRINS:THE ONE PARODY....A PARODY BETTER THAN THE RINGS OF POWER.

01-21-2012, 03:05 PM	#8
The Squatter of Amon Rûdh Spectre of Decay Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bar-en-Danwedh Posts: 2,178	Can't they find something else to write about? Apart from spending the money on fancy waistcoats and a barrel of Theakston's, I can't see what use JRRT would have had for a Nobel prize. He was always a little suspicious of the waft of incense from fans and sympathetic critics, as we can see from his disapproval on hearing W.H. Auden's comment that he never again trusted the literary judgement of someone who didn't like LR. I doubt he'd have appreciated being dismissed on the basis of a translation, particularly one that he disliked himself, but Tolkien was always opposed to the use of translations and synopses in literary criticism. Since the Beowulf poet had been the victim of the same sort of unconsidered dismissal (not to mention also being too old to win a Nobel prize), JRRT might even have felt that he was in good company. When it came to his own work he was more often amused by the battle between his supporters and detractors than particularly concerned with the opinions of either. Perhaps a more enduring comment on Tolkien's importance is that even as we approach the fortieth anniversary of his death and the fiftieth of Lewis', their two names are sufficient to make a lot of dusty old committee minutes into newsworthy material. Personally I've found that the difference between 'good' and 'bad' literature seems to reside more in the opinion of the critic than any objective point of reference. Most criticism is merely an attempt to disguise this behind a smokescreen of academic braggadocio, and awards simply reflect the state of play: they indicate who's currently ahead in an endless and meaningless argument, occasionally managing at the same time to reward literary talent. The only things less relevant than this year's awards are those of years past. __________________ Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh; 01-21-2012 at 03:08 PM.