I'd probably agree with Matt (though I'm not interested in watching his video, I'm getting the gist of it from the opening post), Tolkein is one of the most boring authors I've ever had the misfortune to try and read. If you can't sleep, read one of his books and you'll be asleep in no time.
As for Matt's videos. He has some good material in the running the game playlist, some of which includes bringing in 4e concepts to 5e.
I've found my mirror universe doppelganger!
I would counter that verbosity done well is never for the sake of verbosity. Verbosity done well fits with Le Guin's truism: it is using the number of words that fit the story you are trying to tell; story not only being plot, or "getting to the point," but telling a tale in all its depth and glory - and this includes atmopshere. If all authors used, or tried to emulate, Dickensian language, literature would be poorer for it.
I agree with the last sentence, for sure. I also do believe that eloquent use of language to evoke more than what is strictly necessary to understand the work, to elevate the language of the work into a good in itself, while still telling a good tale, is valuable. So, verbosity can be good in itself. Terseness, on the other hand, can't. It is only good when it serves the goals of the author.
No. A "novel" should have as it's main purpose to present a story to the reader. A good novel does this in an entertaining way. A poor novel does not. Tolkien presents his story poorly, as it's less a story and more a travelogue (as we seem to agree), therefore the LotR novels are poor novels.
LotR is poorly organized, poorly paced, and not accessible. That isn't to say there isn't glorious art within the covers, or it's not worth reading, it's just not worth reading as a novel. Ask around for how many people have tried to read LotR and maybe made it through the first book only. The LotR is a difficult slog for non-Tolkienphiles.
Nah. It's a good story, as well as depicting an enormously magnificent world. The language itself isn't easy for many readers. Ok. That has absolutely no impact on whether it's a good novel. A novel can be both difficult and good. If we can't agree on that, there is no common ground from which we can really discuss the topic meaningfully.
I find the whole "it's more a travelogue than a novel" argument to be completely lacking. I would wager that most people who have read and enjoyed LoTR enjoyed it as a novel. They read it as a book telling a story about characters, and enjoyed it thusly.
Well again, you are operating under a perspective that a novel must follow fulfill certain criteria. If we go simply by your definition that a good novel must present the story in an entertaining way, I would say that LotR is a good novel - because millions have been "entertained" by it. But it does so in a way different from most novels; the "entertainment" is the in the evocation of Middle-earth, the immersion in its atmosphere, history, and landscape.
But as far as you are using the word "novel," I can somewhat agree with you.
Let's compare LotR with the books of one my other favorite novelists, Guy Gavriel Kay. Kay is a much better "novelist" (in the way that you are using the word). His novels are tightly plotted and well-paced; the characters are human and quite accessible. But I don't consider any of his books as great as LotR. None of them stand out as "great works of art" like LotR, but many are better novels in the way that you are using the term.
So again, it depends upon what you mean by "novel." I'm OK saying that LotR is a great book but problematic as a novel. I'm not quite ready to say it is a "poor novel."
I think Tigana is in the same league with Tolkien as a great work of art, and I'm willing to entertain the Fionavar Tapestry, even though it is knowingly derivative of LoTR. They're definitely different, though. As a kid, I sobbed when Boromir died, not only because he died so bravely and deserved so much better, but because the whole sequence is so damn hard, and I so quickly became attached to him. The film made it even worse, somehow. Knowing Gandalf would be back made his death mostly painful for the pain of the other characters, but Boromir of Gondor falls, and I cry. Every time.
But nothing anyone else has ever written hits me as hard as Tigana. Just, the whole damn thing. Fionavar wrecks me pretty good, too, but not as much. Tigana is equally a great novel, great poetry, and a story that does things that I've never been able to find in any other work in my entire adult life of being a big damn book worm.
of course, I read LoTR when I was 12, at the oldest, and read the Silmarillion sometime before starting High School, so certainly my idea of what novels are easy or difficult comes mostly from other people. I don't find LoTR even slightly difficult, unless my ADHD is really hitting me, in which case I can barely keep track of a Dresden novel. Still, I think it's pretty absurd to make difficulty a mark against a work as a novel. No part of a reasonable definition of "good novel" should include "easy", or "difficult/challenging" for that matter! Those qualities just sort good novels in terms of what one is in the mood for, and what some readers will be able to enjoy without putting in extra work. Nothing wrong with those readers, but likewise there is nothing wrong with a novel just because it is challenging.