Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong

[doctorbadwolf]

Colville put up a video about the Lord of The Ring series recently.

[video=youtube;o2U6RG4HOwM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2U6RG4HOwM[/video]

In it, he complains quite a lot about Tolkien's "over-written" passages, and about the "flowery" language.

Now, to be fair, I don't like Colville, and perhaps this wasn't the best choice of video for me to try and give him a second chance to win me over. However, while I think he mostly gets the series overall, and understands the importance of the Tom Bombadil sequence, I think he is completely wrong in a few areas.

He reads a beautiful passage aloud, while constantly stopping to mock the...descriptions? Because those are a bad thing? And the counting thing he does, like...oh no! The lanterns are described as swinging, and the candles are described! At one point he complains that we don't need to be told what candles do, and it makes me wonder if he has ever been in a candlelit room. Because they don't always shine brightly, Matt. They really don't. It tells us what the room looks like to tell us that we have both lantern and candle light, and that the candles are burning bright, not low. It also helps inform us of how the room likely feels and even smells. It puts the reader inside of the room.

He cringes at the description of Goldberry. Why wouldn't the reader want a clear image of her, Matt? There are a thousand greens, and silver like dew drops is a specific appearance. Her belt is decorated in gold and gem flowers.

He understands that placing her entirely in terms of nature is important, but can't see the value in beautifully written description to get there? this sort of thing makes me inclined to believe that some people are just bad readers, but nothing is that simple.

Perhaps the prominence of post modern prose has warped the perceptions of the average reader? We get taught at some point that words shouldn't be beautifully constructed, but plain and utilitarian, and that is a lie. It's nonsense. There is nothing wrong with plainly "spoken" prose, but it certainly isn't superior to JRRT or Dickens.

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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, also, if you are a fan of his, recommend me a video that isn't about LoTR or Star Wars, since I've mostly just seen those videos, and both annoyed me, but I feel like I'm unfairly judging him based on two videos about subjects I have strong feelings about.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Other than painting a picture, Tolkien’s emphasis on pastoral, bucolic scenes build the stakes – the beauty of the world is the very thing being fought for.

As for the economy of words, I hardly see Tolkien as being terribly florid. But then again, I loathe Hemmingway.

I think there are certain people that love taking pot-shots at Tolkien. Even Michael Moorcock (whom I certainly dig, but think some of his criticisms are the pot calling the kettle black), famously has done so. Tolkien’s more or less the Status Quo, the Establishment, the Grandfather of Fantasy. That makes him a target. And yes, there are things he can and should be dinged on. But language, in my opinion, is not one of them.

 

[Ryujin]

I think that he simultaneously does and does not get it. He explains why he thinks Tolkien did what he did, then bemoans that he did it. It's that descriptive text that made me look at the movies and see pretty much what I had imagined scenes looked like from my repeated readings of the books. (Note: I'm not one of those people who laments that Jackson got the colour of someone's dress wrong, when the feel of a scene was right.)

If it bothers him so much that Tolkien went to such pains to paint the picture of a scene, then I suspect that reading Lovecraft would put him in a seizure. Taking so much time to describe what something DIDN'T look like....?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Other than painting a picture, Tolkien’s emphasis on pastoral, bucolic scenes build the stakes – the beauty of the world is the very thing being fought for.

As for the economy of words, I hardly see Tolkien as being terribly florid. But then again, I loathe Hemmingway.

I think there are certain people that love taking pot-shots at Tolkien. Even Michael Moorcock (whom I certainly dig, but think some of his criticisms are the pot calling the kettle black), famously has done so. Tolkien’s more or less the Status Quo, the Establishment, the Grandfather of Fantasy. That makes him a target. And yes, there are things he can and should be dinged on. But language, in my opinion, is not one of them.

Well said, and I agree on all points. Except Hemmingway, who I think is very overrated, but I have no especial dislike of.

I do think that Hemmingway is partly to blame for the phenomenon of people rejecting linguistically advanced prose, however, and for that I have some trouble forgiving him.

I do like matt's thoughts on the importance of Tom's mysterious nature, and of that remaining a mystery, and on the point of JRRT writing from a place of having seen countryside sullies by industry and hating it, though I disagree with the notion that he wrote the story as allegory of that. I also think that he has a great insight about Tolkein and his friends who went to war together.

But on the language, Matt is just plain wrong.

 

[Umbran]

Even Michael Moorcock (whom I certainly dig, but think some of his criticisms are the pot calling the kettle black), famously has done so.

Note that Moorcock has outright parodied his own writing style. Find a copy of his short story, "The Stone Thing - A Tale of Strange Parts" (first seen in "Elric at the End of Time" I believe, but reprinted elsewhere) and you'll have a good laugh.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

About the only thing I care for with Hemingway is his taste in drinks (strong, with lots of rum)!

Well said, and I agree on all points. Except Hemmingway, who I think is very overrated, but I have no especial dislike of.

 

[trappedslider]

Tolkien is one of those authors who is known for scenery porn. His scenery descriptions were sufficiently detailed that geographer Karen Wynn Fonstad was able to reconstruct a thematic atlas of Middle-Earth including geology, climate, and vegetation.

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]

I've not heard of that, and will certainly seek it out, thanks!

Not to divert the thread, but I recently heard someone read aloud the opening paragraph and man, does it paint a picture!

"It is the color of a bleached skull, his flesh; and the long hair which flows below his shoulders is milk-white. From the tapering, beautiful head stare two slanting eyes, crimson and moody, and from the loose sleeves of his yellow gown emerge two slender hands, also the color of bone, resting on each arm of a seat which has been carved from a single, massive ruby.”

To get back on-track, that paragraph is far more evocative than, say, "Elric's skin and hair were white, his eyes red, his gown yellow, and the throne he sat upon, red." Words matter and are what bring stories to life.

Note that Moorcock has outright parodied his own writing style. Find a copy of his short story, "The Stone Thing - A Tale of Strange Parts" (first seen in "Elric at the End of Time" I believe, but reprinted elsewhere) and you'll have a good laugh.

 

[Mercurius]

Just as flowerly or densely descriptive writing isn't inherently wrong or bad, so too is minimalism not "less advanced." In other words, more words aren't inheren't better than fewer words.

Flowery or minimalist - one is not inherently better than the other. One is not "right" and the other "wrong." The classic duality is Faulkner vs. Hemingway, with some preferring Faulkner's more densely intricate prose, others Hemingway's minimalism. They are two sides of a spectrum, two different styles.