Not a fan

[Teresa Edgerton]

I agree, Polymorphikos, Tolkien could have used a good editor. It appears that by the time the Unwins finally had a completed manuscript in their hands (after all those years, after Tolkien getting miffed about their lack of enthusiasm for the Silmarillion and planning to take the whole project elsewhere) there was no way they were going to send it back for extensive rewrites.

But the fact that he was writing to please himself far more than anyone else is both the strength and the weakness of LOTR. He was drawing, in a very general way, on Norse myth, but he wasn't writing to any formula, or to meet the expectations of any particular group, in fact, he was pretty much going against all the expectations of contemporary readers. Even his friends who heard him read chunks of the story in manuscript had little influence on him -- C. S. Lewis basically said that he was pretty much impervious to influence, that it was possible to encourage him or discourage him, but not to make him do things any differently. The result is a bit unwieldy.

But I can't think of anyone writing fantasy today who isn't writing to appeal to the expectations of contemporary fantasy readers (not to be confused with readers of contemporary fantasy), though in some cases they are aiming for a smaller and more specific segment of the fantasy market.

And that sort of thing generally produces a book that becomes dated much faster than a book that was never trying to be part of a trend to begin with.

In the heat of a book's first popularity is when it's most likely to be "over-rated," not when it's survived the mixed reviews of the literary establishment for half a century, is more popular than when it first came out, and is still attracting and enchanting readers.

[Boaz]

Well put Kelpie.

For my own part, I love LOTR and Sil. I love the fact that he wrote to please himself... if others liked it, ok, if not, fine.

I must say that I did read Tolkien at a young age (The Hobbit at age twelve, The Lord of the Rings at age thirteen, and The Silmarillion at age fourteen) and that my analytical and critical skills of discernment nor my limited experience with fantasy allowed me to read with anything but a sense of wonder. And my bias kept me from being objective about the recent films.

[GOLLUM]

HMM.. I've really enjoyed reading the discussions on this thread.

As far as who Toklien was writing for I always understood he was writing for his children first and foremost and then for himself at least as far as The Hobbit goes and other tales/characters like Tom Bombadil. When it came to writing LOTR however it started out as another book/sequel to The Hobbit but soon became a lot more than a children's book and I believe very much took on a life of its own.

I also agree that in parts the editing is a little clunky and could have been a lot better handled but as Kelpie so aptly points out this book continues to entrance generations of new readers and will only remain longer in the public eye with the recent movies. I've always thought one of the strengths of Tolkiens work is it appeal to all age groups across many cultures/countries. He's not the best fantasy author I've ever read but probably still remains the most enchanting or "magcial" series I've come across really, the only author whose work (LOTR) I've read more than once, 4 times in 20 years. Perhaps there's more than a smidgeon of nostalgia in this comment but no doubting his influence on the modern day Genre.

[Mayhs]

yeh...well said Gollum...for me it is the most 'magical' series ive have ever read...its just got that 'special' feel to it.

[Brys]

One of the real problems I have with Tolkien is not actually to do with him at all - it's his influence. He has managed to overshadow all other authors pre 1990 who didn't conform to his fantasy, which clearly wasn't his intention, but it occured none the less. Tolkien was great when I was younger - I didn't care about it being well written, being unpredictable or there being ambiguity when I was 12 or 13, so it was very enjoyable. Yet I wouldn't say that it is even a competitor for being one of the best fantasy novels ever, or for Tolkien being one of the best fantasy authors. He was originally writing a children's book, which developed a bit more, as Gollum says, but to me, it doesn't seem it ever fully evolved beyond that, though the Silmarillion did. I'll always respect Tolkien immensely for showing a previously unmatched feat in worldbuilding, but he didn't have many strengths beyond that. He was enjoyable in the same way a Feist novel is enjoyable, but not more so.

People keep saying that he wrote to please himself - with the Lord of the Rings, and particularly the Silmarillion, this was the case. But with the Hobbit? He wrote that primarily for children, not for himself. And also, writing for themselves is hardly a unique attribute to Tolkien - certainly, as the fantasy genre has grown and become more commercial, there have been many who write to please an audience and make money. But I respect Moorcock far more for being brave enough to admit that he wrote his Elric novels just so he could make money, because he then went on to do more literary works - if he hadn't, I expect we would see that he had written none of his major literary novels, which would have been far worse.