Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong

Blue · Jan 3, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
Le Guin is an amazing author, but like many authors she gives advice from the perspective of what has worked best for her. That is probably impossible to completely avoid, in fact.

Sometimes “more words” can elevate a work, without being strictly necessary to tell the story. We don’t have to know about the lay of the land in the shire to know that it’s idyllic and rustic, JRRT could just say that it is, but it’s a better work for his loving descriptions of the place.

Many great authors use eloquent prose to accomplish *more* than telling the story, and readers are richer for it.

I once read that well crafted prose is finding the perfect word, and well crafted poetry is finding the perfect word and putting it in the perfect place.

I don't see Ursula K. LeGuin's advice as one that one should write as briefly as possible - it's that one should trim any extra after one has given everything needed. Concise and sparse are two different concepts.

To give an example, look at Patrick Rothus. His well polished chapter openings show you can be evocative without having extra - even his duplication of phrases is not extra but reinforcement of theme.

Blue · Jan 3, 2019

My google-fu isn't finding it, but I seem to remember years ago finding out that JRR Tolkien intentionally wrote his travelogue parts long because these were journeys of months and he wanted his reader to feel that they were weighty and a wide separation between the other scenes.

Anyone ever come across that?

Ralif Redhammer · Jan 3, 2019

Heh, "Oy, did youse check out the new bistro up north, Udun Eats? They got a right good kale mac'n'cheese!"

It's a fun line, but it makes no real sense, and is in there just because someone thought it was a cool line.

trappedslider said:
as an aside the line "Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys!" implies that the Uruk-Hai go to restaurants, and know what a menu is. Not only that but that menu was exclusive enough to have had meat taken off of it at one point.

Ralif Redhammer · Jan 3, 2019

The Oxford Comma seems to vary from style manual to style manual (I will fight for the Oxford Comma to my dying day), but the two spaces after a period thing is a remnant from the typewriter days and is generally considered unnecessary in the computer age.

Janx said:
My pet theory is the source of these rules and modern styles is editors and agents. Killing off the oxford comma, two spaces after a period.

doctorbadwolf · Jan 3, 2019

Blue said:
I once read that well crafted prose is finding the perfect word, and well crafted poetry is finding the perfect word and putting it in the perfect place.

I don't see Ursula K. LeGuin's advice as one that one should write as briefly as possible - it's that one should trim any extra after one has given everything needed. Concise and sparse are two different concepts.

To give an example, look at Patrick Rothus. His well polished chapter openings show you can be evocative without having extra - even his duplication of phrases is not extra but reinforcement of theme.

I agree with all of that, but again would say that someone like Dickens, who absolutely delighted in extra words, is just as good as someone like Le Guin. Different, but the world is richer for having Dickens' work.

Janx said:
Haven't watched the video, but caught up to the gist that LotR's writing style wouldn't cut it with today's market.

Yup.

That actually isn't at all what the video is about. I don't think the modern market is mentioned in the video, nor are modern sensibilities. I did posit that his view of Tolkien linguistically is informed by being educated in a postmodern literary world, but that is my speculation on what informs Matt's view of Tolkien.

I've been on the path to becoming a published writer for a couple years now. Seen most of the advice from writers, agents, and editors.

The modern world favors text where every word is load-bearing. If an editor could cut it out and the the story still stands, it should be removed.

Steven King says adverbs suck and to not overly describe things, let the reader's mind do that. Again, the load bearing rule comes to play.

Get to the chase in the first chapter. Avoid info dumps. Only give POV to characters with arcs (aka not one scene to an Orc chef who we never see again).

Hemingway is credited with this shift in writing style.

My pet theory is the source of these rules and modern styles is editors and agents. Killing off the oxford comma, two spaces after a period. All of that smacks of somebody who sees 3,000 submissions a month and must choose 3. They've seen a lot of patterns and think they can trim it down.

You've seen every one of these rules broken, of course. But I'd bet you money it wasn't from debut authors, especially recent ones. The gatekeepers see to that. It's the famous authors who get to drive off the beaten path and break the rules, because they're name brings success.

Some interesting thoughts about publishing. The few editors and people working in publishing that I know would definitely disagree, but it may well vary from publisher to publisher.

Imaculata said:
I've heard people often say that Tolkien is a bit too wordy in his descriptions. I haven't read any of the books (shocking I know) to have any opinion on the matter, but it all is of course a matter of preference. I have read the Game of Thrones books, and Martin tends to lean more towards straight to the point descriptions (although he loves describing food in great detail!). And that is more my style of writing. I have tried reading Dune, and that was a slog to get through.

If Dune is a slog, I'd avoid Tolkien.

Blue said:
My google-fu isn't finding it, but I seem to remember years ago finding out that JRR Tolkien intentionally wrote his travelogue parts long because these were journeys of months and he wanted his reader to feel that they were weighty and a wide separation between the other scenes.

Anyone ever come across that?

No, but it's an interesting thought!

Umbran · Jan 3, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
I agree with all of that, but again would say that someone like Dickens, who absolutely delighted in extra words...

Dickens did not delight in extra words. He got paid by the word. Or, well, he may have delighted in getting paid, I suppose, but the point is that he had a strong economic reason to be wordy, where a modern author doesn't.

Blue · Jan 3, 2019

Umbran said:
Dickens did not delight in extra words. He got paid by the word. Or, well, he may have delighted in getting paid, I suppose, but the point is that he had a strong economic reason to be wordy, where a modern author doesn't.

There's lots of fun writing quirks around the author getting paid. If I recall correctly, Dumas (of Three Musketeers fame) got paid by the line, not the word, and that's why he has so many bits of back-and-forth dialog.

doctorbadwolf · Jan 3, 2019

Umbran said:
Dickens did not delight in extra words. He got paid by the word. Or, well, he may have delighted in getting paid, I suppose, but the point is that he had a strong economic reason to be wordy, where a modern author doesn't.

I don't take seriously the notion that an author who didn't delight in extraneous verbosity could so beautifully endow his works with the indulgent linguistic characeristics of a work such as A Christmas Carol, nor indeed, the notion that such a writer could delight and engage such a wide range of readers, and enjoy such an entrenched and hallowed legacy, so long after said author's inevitable demise.

The simpler explanation is that he both got paid more, and delighted in it such that even when he was quite successful and was getting paid quite well for appearances, he continued to write in his signature verbose and indulgent style.

Of course, all that misses the actual point. That is, that the world is richer for Dickens' work, as it is.

Kramodlog · Jan 3, 2019

Morrus said:
You don't have to care. Why not find a thread you do care about?

Why not both?

Shasarak · Jan 3, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
Anyway, what do y'all think? Do you agree with Matt, or would a less "flowery" LoTR be poorer for it?

While I do not always agree with Matt, I do have to give him credit for reading the 16 volume supplemental behind the scenes to the Lord of the Rings.