Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong

[Janx]

I remember one AD&D module (or was it in Dragon?) that had a long description of a room, and sandwiched in the middle of a bunch of details was the fact that there was a Balor in it. LEAD WITH THAT.

That said, when describing any scene I try and invoke at least one sense outside sight and have gotten a lot of positive feedback from players about it over the years. The sharp smell of copper from the copious amounts of spilled blood at the murder scene, the ragged panting of the abomination, the stomach churning motion of the rope bridge.

yeah the hidden mention of the obvious monster has been used as a RBDM trick for awhile. I think there's a few writing tricks, like how to describe the scene, pacing, etc that could be applied to GMing. Might be time to add a few articles to my blog on EN world...

 

[Ovinomancer]

IMO, all of that is dead wrong, except the part about great worldbuding.

Quelle surprise.

Le Guin is saying that being more (or less) verbose than is needed to tell the story is going to make the work less good. I’m saying that isn’t true, you just have to be good at it, like Dickens or JRRT. Too little can make a story incomprehensible to the reader, but “too much” only exists if the language itself isn’t part of your goal, and/or if you aren’t good enough at writing eloquently. It’s harder, not worse. It’s like fighting case instead of with a single sword. Most ppl can’t do it well enough to make it worthwhile, but those who can elevate the artform.

What you're failing to grasp is that what's needed to tell a story varies by story and author, so there's no baseline level of verbosity that Le Guin is refering to except being enough. Dickens used the verbosity he needed to for his story, and not more. This is why what Le Guin says is on the order of a truthism and not actual advice because it provides zero guidelines as to what's enough. The only value it has is to remind that verbosity for the sake of verbosity (or terseness for the sake of terseness) is not valuable.

As for Tolkien in LotR, he uses too much for a novel, but enough for his purpose, which is not really a novel but a exploration of his world on a set of narrative rails. Tolkien is fantastic as a read on a built world, and solid on the scope of his story, but the pacing and narrative are very, very scattered amidst his exposition. And, that's fine. It's good to like LotR for this. It's not good to insist that because you like it for that that it must be a good novel as well. It's just.. not. And lots and lots of people have bounced off it because it's not actually a good novel and that's what they were expecting.

Tolkien writes an excellent novel, even if you don’t see LOTR as good novels, the Hobbit is certainly an excellent novel.

Well, I was specific about discussing LotR. The Hobbit is an interesting case -- it's actually a decent novel that was intended as a children's story. So, Tolkien held back his exposition of his world and let the narrative take front and center so as to be appealing to children, and ended up with a good novel for adults. People still bounce off of it as being difficult, and it's certainly a challenge for young readers to enjoy. Not all, maybe not you, but it's not high on the kids books sales for a reason.

But I reject utterly the notion that LOTR is a bad set of novels. The characters are engaging, the story imminently comprehensible, yet epic, resonant, and possessed of both apparent and hidden depth. The characters develop, change, struggle, fail, and ultimately rise above their challenges in ways that are both inspiring and movingly human.

This is pretty hopeful, but the story is not imminently comprehensible and it's certainly not approachable for most readers. That you love it (and I did) is good, but that's mostly in spite of the presentation rather than because of it -- we read it through and gleaned something of worth. But, as I say above, most people, even people who find love in works like Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton find LotR to be impenetrable. And, honestly, I also used to think they were great books and it required a keen appreciation of literature to grasp what so many were failing to get: the greatness of the books! But, after being punished by the Simarillion, and reading more widely books by other greats that actually weave a good novel, I came to realize that Tolkien had an amazing story and an amazing world setting, but just wasn't a good novelist at all. And that's okay. What LotR did for the genre is not definable. It is still a seminal work, with huge impacts still felt in ever widening circles of mediums. But, that's because the story is good and because the world of Middle-Earth are so easy to recreate from the elaborate descriptions Tolkien used, not because the books are well written novels.

“The normal structure” is not a requirement of good novel writing. There’s nothing wrong with sticking to form, but equally there is nothing wrong with changing the structure to suit the nature of your story.

Of course it isn't, and I never said as much. However, as I said, deviating requires a good touch to still produce a good novel. Many accomplish this. Tolkien is not among them. He wrote a travelogue more than a novel. And, again, that's awesome, and good, and has my eternal respect. I can appreciate Tolkien, deeply even, and still admit LotR are poorly written novels. They're still awesome. I don't need them to be good novels to love them for what they are and what they mean to me.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

 

[Mercurius]

The funny thing is that I don't even think I provided the actual Le Guin quote; all of this on my paraphrasing.

That said, I think Ovinomancer has it right: she is saying that "verbosity for the sake of verbosity (or terseness for the sake of terseness) is not valuable." doctorbadwolf seems to be saying that (in paraphrase) verbosity for the sake of verbosity, if done well, is valuable.

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.

 

[Mercurius]

Of course it isn't, and I never said as much. However, as I said, deviating requires a good touch to still produce a good novel. Many accomplish this. Tolkien is not among them. He wrote a travelogue more than a novel. And, again, that's awesome, and good, and has my eternal respect. I can appreciate Tolkien, deeply even, and still admit LotR are poorly written novels. They're still awesome. I don't need them to be good novels to love them for what they are and what they mean to me.

This is where I diverge with you, if only in semantics. You seem to be operating under a rather narrow definition of what a "novel" is and should be, as if all authors must follow the guidelines of novel-writing as laid out in courses and books as to what a novel should and should not be.

I like to think of Dune as the SF equivalent of LotR. In a similar sense, it has some of the same problems as LotR that you are implying, but like LotR it is an incredible book.

So my point is, does it matter? I don't think that Tolkien (or Herbert) failed to write great novels; I think they wrote great books, so it doesn't really matter to what degree they fulfilled the criteria of what a good novel is or isn't. They transcended the guidelines, so to speak.

That said, it does matter to the aspiring novelist who tries to emulate Tolkien by, essentially, writing the world as the main character (LotR is not the story of Frodo & Friends as much as it is the story of Middle-earth). The problem is that no aspiring novelist is Tolkien, and 99.999% of them create worlds that are but pale shadows of Middle-earth to the degree that they are "alive" in and of themselves. LotR works--and is a great book--because of Middle-earth, because of how alive it was. You can write a book like LotR if you have created a living, breathing world. If not, if your fantasy world is mostly a derivative pastiche of Tolkien and D&D and whatever bad 80s fantasy films you grew up on, then your book will probably suck. But if you are able to do what Tolkien did--dive deeply into your own imagination and discover a mythopoeic realm and bring it into word and image--then you have a chance to transcend the guidelines for what a good novel is and can be.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is where I diverge with you, if only in semantics. You seem to be operating under a rather narrow definition of what a "novel" is and should be, as if all authors must follow the guidelines of novel-writing as laid out in courses and books as to what a novel should and should not be.

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.

 

[Ryujin]

And there we have the basic problem. The beauty of art is in the eye of the viewer. I'm not fond of "modern art." that doesn't mean it's good or bad; I just don't like it. Just as some don't particularly like flowery prose. That doesn't mean it's a good or bad novel. It just means you don't particularly like it. If something is roundly trounced by the vast majority of the population? Well, then it might actually be bad.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

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."

 

[dragoner]

It's the execution of the novel that people seem to have an issue with, which is the philosophy behind the novel. The philosophy behind the execution of the novel is similar to many literary pieces, such as Wuthering Heights, just that JRRT picked a more interesting subject matter (imo). Back in the First Age (I'm old) we had to read the Hobbit, and the lesson was about the style and philosophy behind the book, and JRRT as a writer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.