Would you rate Tolkien as a writer?

[j. d. worthington]

I'm afraid I beg to differ with much of what's been said here. On this one, I have to say that I think Tolkien's prose is one of the strong points of his writing. Like Lovecraft, Eddison, Dunsany, Machen, and several of the writers who had a distinctive style -- and who, note, have been frequently, usually disastrously, copied -- they ignored the conventions and went their own way. The old-fashioned approach Tolkien used is precisely why these books hold together. They are carefully crafted personal visions, intended to convey something deep within the author himself. The fact that a modern editor wouldn't stand for the slow approach -- or the abandoning of Frodo and Sam for several hundred pages to concentrate on other parts of the story -- simply says that they're too limited in their approach. This was a commonplace in much of 18th and 19th century literature, and people certainly had no problem with it for two hundred years. The problem, I feel, is that we've all grown up in a world with motion pictures, television, and disposable reading matter that often goes for the lowest common denominator, where the intent is to sell books, not to say anything meaningful or to share one's insights or to put on paper something which moves you deeply in a way that will also touch others. That's what these writers did, and that's why, whatever their faults, THEY WORK! To try to tell the stories in any other way would mangle the very vision they were trying to convey. Each of these writers worked, reworked, and re-reworked looking for the precise term that would convey the subtlest nuances of feeling and association they were trying to pin down. Whether one likes their style or not is very much a personal choice; but I'd challenge anyone to try writing these stories in a different way, and see just how badly such an attempt fares -- no matter how talented the writer. The message and the medium (or style) are very much the same here; and I'd say we're all the richer for the fact they DIDN'T follow what was expected of them. Look at the huge number of writers who began well, showed great talent and incredible vision, and then tried to please editors and readers more than to say what was in them waiting to be said, in their own way. With very few exceptions, they're completely forgotten today, because they lost that inner light, and began to simply sound generic. (This happened with the Gothic writers, as well.)

Incidentally, I believe Tolkien's complaint was that Lewis' stories were simply too explicitly allegorical, a type of writing he frankly despised. He felt it was like hitting the reader over the head with a large mallet, rather than giving them freedom to ponder.

[Brys]

Tolkien's prose IMO is not spectacular, but competent and it suits the type of novels he's writing. Sometimes he goes overboard with excessive descriptions which not just slow the pace down but do so unnecessarily without significant contributions to atmosphere. Dunsany has better flow in his language, Peake has atmospheric, eccentric, ludicrously good prose and descriptions - but Tolkien's is simply functional, though it may not seem such due to it being archaic in style. Tolkien's prose did need more editing than it recieved, and more editing than those others you mention, because with Tolkien, occasionally the descriptions come at the expense of the pace and the plot, rather than complementing it.

I think Mieville's comment on Tolkien is an excellent perspective on Tolkien's dislike of allegory:

Tolkien’s ‘cordial dislike’ of allegory does not, as some of his followers, most of his detractors, and the man himself seems to think, imply a fiction divorced from reality – a fiction ‘about’ nothing real. What it means is a fantasy that is not reducible to a kind of philistine, simplistic, moralising, fabular representation of soi-disant ‘meaningful’ concerns, as with fiction that despises its own fantastic. Dispensing with allegory cannot mean dispensing with metaphor: fantasy that believes itself is about itself and also about other things.

[j. d. worthington]

Bravo, Brys! (And I'm definitely going to have to make time to check Mieville out!) To clarify something I may not have said very well earlier, which also takes issue to some degree with your contention: No, Tolkien's prose was not particularly colorful or memorable in and of itself; it was nonetheless carefully thought out. And as for slowing the plot down -- perhaps this is simply a difference in preference, but it seems to me that many of the passages people complain about most with that are his dealings with the natural environment around, giving it such a texture that it can be smelt, tasted, and you can almost see the cells on the different plants. While I used to find that rather slow going, I later came to appreciate it for a part of Tolkien's view of the world, and his attention to each of these as living things; therefore his projection of what was to him an intensely real place; it came to help me appreciate a different level with the books, and therefore I can't see that as a fault but rather a strength; I'm not sure it could be done any other way without jarring too much with the main body of his prose.

[CarlottaVonUberwald]

i've always felt that the impression a book leaves you with is a far better judgement of a writer ( as an author) than anything else. However i can see the point from a writing perspective but i also see so many pieces of so called excellent writing thatis strained so that the author does not repeat themselves.

[Brys]

I generally don't have a problem with writing being slow paced or descriptive - I mean, Peake's Gormenghast is my favourite fantasy series, after all. There are some who take it to extremes when they aren't competent enough as writers (as happens in a certain multi-volume popular epic fantasy). I last read Tolkien when I was 13 though, so I might appreciate the prose more. Tolkien's strength is in the worldbuilding more than anything else. What he did was unprecedented in that, and it's still the most complete, most ambitious worldbuilding attempt in fantasy - so his description is important. Yet I think it works much better in the Silmarillion, where the pace is absolutely appropriate, reflecting the mythological style and where the clear focus is worldbuilding, while in a more traditional novel structure, such as the Lord of the Rings, the worldbuilding and story should complement each other, so that there is no need for an excessive slowing of pace as happens on occassion with Tolkien. That said, I didn't think that either The Two Towers or The Return of the King were particularly slow-paced at all - they were just competently written traditional epic fantasy. That's what marks Tolkien's prose - competence rather than brilliance.

Mieville's a great writer. He's a pretty big critic of Tolkien, but he does offer what he describes as a "grudging defence of Tolkien" and acknowledges his skills (much more convincingly IMO than many of Tolkien's fans). In terms of creating an atmosphere through description, Mieville's at least Tolkien's equal, though the atmosphere created is of a different type entirely (Tolkien's rural, idyllic Middle-Earth compared to Mieville's decaying filthy industrialising city of New Crobuzon).

[j. d. worthington]

Fair enough. And as for the Silmarillion, I think you nailed it. I found it (as I've said elsewhere) tough going first time 'round, but then I was quite young. It's become one of my favorite books since. And as for Peake -- I all-too-often have a desire to bang my head against a wall when I hear people talk about the Titus books being too slow, not enough story, etc. Those are lovely, rich books that repay many readings. Some things simply get better the more you experence them; Peake is definitely one.

As for your comments on Tolkien -- I'm not sure I agree, but very well reasoned. (Though you're right; his writing isn't brilliant; but I think it's quite good.) And the more I hear about Mieville, the more I really feel I got a wrong steer when I first heard of him.

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

As for your comments on Tolkien -- I'm not sure I agree, but very well reasoned. (Though you're right; his writing isn't brilliant; but I think it's quite good.) And the more I hear about Mieville, the more I really feel I got a wrong steer when I first heard of him.

You can run but you can't hide...

I'm probably more with Brys on this one (surprise, surprise.. ) There's plenty of authors whose prose I enjoy much more than Tolkien's but I think one of his strenghts lay in his ability as a storyteller and as Brys refers to the obvious depth of worldbuilding which to this day I don't believe has ever been equalled. He's certainly a major influence on post war writers of the Genre no arguments there in spite of what people's personal feeling are on the merit of his writing.

I guess the bottom line really is whether a story and its characterizations are engaging or not independent of the perceived quality of the prose but as I'm something of a 'word junkie' I do enjoy books that both demonstrate for me what is great prose and a compelling storyline to boot.

My 2C...

[j. d. worthington]

Sheesh! Okay, okay. Between this and the Mother's Day fiasco, we "colonials" are likely to have to fight yet another war with you folks. (Wait ... maybe I shouldn't give anybody any ideas.....)

[Void Dragon]

You would lose this time

remember, the Britisch SAS actually teaching your Seals how to fight

don't flame me!

[j. d. worthington]

Ouch! (And you're probably right....)

[speedingslug]

Such a great debate.
I would say he's great, he started a trend that many have followed.
In retrospect it's like looking back at an old car and either thinking, that had class, or it is a banger.

Of course writing has changed but you have to give JRR much respect for what he did.

[The Ace]

Two points;

1) The Cronicles of Narnia have only recently been deposed (By the Harry Potter phenomenon) As the most popular children's books ever. Tolkein's dislike of them was due to his legendary hatred of allegory, he and Lewis remained inseperable friends.

2) Tolkein started and almost finished the modern market for heroic fantasy in one fell swoop. Many American writers have attempted to emulate him only to fail miserably ( Terry brooks, George R.R>Martin et al) in fact the only Yank to write anything like decent fantasy is David Eddings who, after a spirited beginning, is now struggling to put together anything remotely worthwhile. Do I rate TolKein ? Read the Lord of the Rings and then that glorified body-count A Game of Thrones. There is no comparisson Tolkein can write, Martin can get published.

[Mouse]

I personally think Tolkien is an excellent storyteller but not such a good 'writer' if that makes any sense at all! His VPs are all over the place which I found a bit confusing in places (but then maybe I'm just a dumb ass!)
The actual story of The Lord of the Rings is brilliant, one of the best ever, but the way in which it's written is a bit . . . off? Maybe?

[j. d. worthington]

I think part of the problem is that there are actually different authorial voices in Tolkien's work, especially (because it's all in one work) in LotR. There's the light, even comic style of the earlier chapters (with some dark patches, such "The Return of the Shadow" or "The Old Forest"), there's the blending of old and new in the chapters in Breek, the journey to Weathertop and then to the Fords of Bruinen; a contrast between the almost pedestrian, nineteenth travelogue style used for description from the hobbits' point of view contrasted with glimmerings of the "high style" in Rivendell; the growing use of that "high" or antique style as we get further into the older kingdoms, the history of the realms and the war and its causes, etc.; and then a shift back toward a more colloquial style as we go back toward Hobbiton. All of this embedded in a very dry, professorial tone dealing with the histories, languages, etc. (which really are an important part of this book and shouldn't be left aside unless you're just in it for the story proper; if you're wanting to know what the writer was doing, read the preface and the appendices; they put the book in the perspective of history, which is what Tolkien intended). This is why I think Tolkien was actually a very good writer -- he used a wide variety of "voices", but all modulated through the eyes of his main characters, the hobbits; and even there one can see shifts, as if part is written by Bilbo but altered or updated slightly by Frodo, and then others as written by Frodo but having gone through various redactions, and finished by Sam -- and all brought down by writers who copied and in the process made slight, subtle changes as with any such history; and finally rendered from the languages of the time into modern English by Tolkien himself; so we have a vast number of removes: Tolkien>old historians>older (official) mss>Peregrin (as Thain)>Sam>Frodo>Bilbo, and probably a few steps I left out. Now, that takes enormous skill and a great deal of effort and thought and careful choice of words and phrases (hence, since Tolkien is "translating" for modern audiences, we have the bizarre image of an express train in "A Long-Expected Party"). One is free to like or dislike (I personally used to find the earlier parts of the book rather annoying, until I began to realize how the voices changed to suit the "originals", etc., and then began to be really surprised at how well it was done), but if one looks at what he was attempting, it's difficult to deny that he did an exceptionally fine job with an almost impossible task. Most writers today esches this sort of "chinese-box" structure and simply use either a first-person narrator or omniscient pov; this sort of thing takes immensely more effort and is slippery as the very devil! (Remember, too, that Tolkien's profession was dealing with philology, the study of literary texts -- especially ancient -- and establishing their traditions and transmission, by use of historical and comparative linguistics; Tolkien was extremely sensitive to nuances in prose rhythm and style and what they tell of the culture and person(s) who created them; and he brought that to bear when writing his story. This is something he shared with Lovecraft who, though coming to such a study on his own rather than academically, was very aware of such things, and tended to choose his words carefully for very subtle coloring and to convey nuances in the narrator's -- or occasionally, in his third-person or omniscient narratives, his main characters' -- emotions and psychology. It's a much older and more carefully structured way of writing, and completely at odds with most of twentieth-century literature's immediacy of effect; but it allows for more depth and texture and considerably more interpretability.)

The same is true, to a lesser degree, with some of his other writings. The Silmarillion, of course, he never completed nor polished; the book of that name was put together by his son Christopher from writings spanning 1914-15 to just before Tolkien's death in the 1970s; and so the style is by no means as homogenous as Tolkien would have liked; even so, it tends to be more of the "high style" than LotR (and certainly more so than The Hobbit, which was written with a much different view in mind); but even within it, there are various literary and "historical" "traditions" within the "transmission" of the work(s).

In one sense, Tolkien did finish the sort of thing he did -- he didn't actually start it, it had been done by older writers from the 1740s on, if not before -- but it's unlikely we'll ever see anyone else put that kind of thought into that large a variety of factors before putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard, as the case may be).

In other words, Tolkien simply wasn't modern at all; he was, perhaps, the last remnant of a much older tradition (as Hawthorne was of his); and that difference may be what throws people off at times.

[Eareniel]

Tolkien's "The Hobbit" and "LOTR" are quality examples of good storytelling. They both read aloud well, offer character development and scenic descriptions that draw the landscape for you. People want to read these books, or hear these books read, even non-readers. Because of this, and my own enjoyment when I read and re-read these books, I say that Tolkien rates very high on the scale of talented authors.