Tolkien's 'poor' prose

[Ahnehnois]

Frankly I think reading Tolkien is like reading a history textbook (and I'm not a history buff).

That said, I always thought that style created a unique sense of verisimilitude; it felt less like the author was telling a story and more like you were reading an actual history. In a strange way, it reminds me of all the objections to various naturalistic styles of filmmaking-"shakycam" among other things. Bad camerawork sometimes equals great filmmaking.

There's also the sense of accomplishment you get when you're finished with LotR. It feels like you've gone under the mountain and through the marshes and in and out of Shelob's cave; the read itself is an Odyssey.

One wonders what the awards committee would think if they had seen the lasting impact of Tolkien's somewhat unconventional writing. I suspect they wouldn't think all that much differently, which is why I don't think those awards mean much, even the Nobel.

 

[nai_cha]

I know I will be in the minority here but I kind of agree that a lot of the prose was second rate.

Some of it especially the songs and poems were fantastic but a lot of the dialogue was just so so.

I admire his creation and what it contributed to the genre but I found the books tedious to get through in a lot of places. I read them because I thought I should not because I enjoyed them.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I found LOTR boring, boring, boring, boring. I think I was fooled by The Hobbit because I found that a fun read. Thanks to the films, that was the first time I ever liked a film adaptation better than the original book.

 

[Elf Witch]

Frankly I think reading Tolkien is like reading a history textbook (and I'm not a history buff).

That said, I always thought that style created a unique sense of verisimilitude; it felt less like the author was telling a story and more like you were reading an actual history. In a strange way, it reminds me of all the objections to various naturalistic styles of filmmaking-"shakycam" among other things. Bad camerawork sometimes equals great filmmaking.

There's also the sense of accomplishment you get when you're finished with LotR. It feels like you've gone under the mountain and through the marshes and in and out of Shelob's cave; the read itself is an Odyssey.

One wonders what the awards committee would think if they had seen the lasting impact of Tolkien's somewhat unconventional writing. I suspect they wouldn't think all that much differently, which is why I don't think those awards mean much, even the Nobel.

Bad camera ala shaky cam makes movies unwatchable for me because they make me physically ill so I will never agree that it makes for fantastic film making. I wish it would die in a fire.

I struggled through the books and I didn't feel anything but relief that it was over.

Now the impact those novels have had on the genre has been huge. A lot of fantasy writers wrote LOTR type stories. You can see its influence on DnD.

I don't think it would make a difference to the judges even if they had seen this because back in 1961 SF was considered the ghetto of literature. There was a reason Kurt Vonnegut whose novels are SF didn't want them called that. And there are people today who still look down their noses at it. Though happily SF and fantasy are getting more respect today and not consider something that just geeks and nerds read in their parent basement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Bad camera ala shaky cam makes movies unwatchable for me because they make me physically ill so I will never agree that it makes for fantastic film making. I wish it would die in a fire.

Fair enough. I did find some of the Batman Begins fights simply confusing, for example. I think it's possible to do 'realistic' camerawork without the shakiness. BSG was wonderfully and hideously shot.

I don't think it would make a difference to the judges even if they had seen this because back in 1961 SF was considered the ghetto of literature. There was a reason Kurt Vonnegut whose novels are SF didn't want them called that. And there are people today who still look down their noses at it. Though happily SF and fantasy are getting more respect today and not consider something that just geeks and nerds read in their parent basement.

Just as I don't want to be labeled as a D&D player. It's sad, but true. There's a reason people don't want to be associated with genre fiction, for sure, but if there's a reason for the bias that causes that, I don't know what it is. I do think it's improved but there's still a long way to go.