Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong

[Ed Laprade]

Tolkien: Words, words, words, and yet more words. Say what you mean and be done with it. (Yeah, I only read the trilogy once, and skipped all the boring parts. And yes, they are BORING!)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

yes, and it's great and worthy of emulation, not mockery.

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.

That is some rather evocative writing, to be sure!

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.

Sure.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

The more removed a scene is from my everyday experience, the more I appreciate a well written description.

 

[ccs]

Tolkien: Words, words, words, and yet more words. Say what you mean and be done with it. (Yeah, I only read the trilogy once, and skipped all the boring parts. And yes, they are BORING!)

As you skipped them, how do you know those parts are boring?

And skipping parts on the 1st & only reading means that you have not in-fact read the trilogy. Merely parts of it.

 

[Mercurius]

Tolkien: Words, words, words, and yet more words. Say what you mean and be done with it. (Yeah, I only read the trilogy once, and skipped all the boring parts. And yes, they are BORING!)

 

[Mercurius]

The more removed a scene is from my everyday experience, the more I appreciate a well written description.

And this probably entirely comes down to personal preference and the way your mind works. Some find that more minimalist description allows the reader's imagination to fire and generate its own imagery, whereas dense description fills it up. In other words, some like to have the scene painted in great detail, while others prefer the words to to be more like inspirational starting points to create their own mental imagery.

The artistry in writing comes somewhere between every possible detail being written, and bare minimalism. The art is knowing just what to write to bring the world and story alive.

Ursula K Le Guin said something to the effect that you want to use as many words as you need to tell your story, but not one word more. That tipping point is, of course, subjective, and is why we have all kinds of wordsmiths. Viva la difference!

 

[cmad1977]

If he doesn’t like LoTR he can’t like GOT. I’ve never read more ‘flowery’ passages about food in my life.

 

[dragoner]

Reading about CS Lewis criticizing LotR as a rough draft (Not another Elf!), is funny as he and Tolkien were friends and part of the same writing group. Some random youtuber so many years later? Not so much. Tolkien's books are classics, if one doesn't like them, then don't read them, like many literary novels, they are about atmosphere. Tolkien even explains this by allegory in "Leaf by Niggle".

 

[Mercurius]

If he doesn’t like LoTR he can’t like GOT. I’ve never read more ‘flowery’ passages about food in my life.

But GoT is grimdark(ish), which makes it more, ah, palatable to postmodern sensibilities.

 

[Ryujin]

And this probably entirely comes down to personal preference and the way your mind works. Some find that more minimalist description allows the reader's imagination to fire and generate its own imagery, whereas dense description fills it up. In other words, some like to have the scene painted in great detail, while others prefer the words to to be more like inspirational starting points to create their own mental imagery.

The artistry in writing comes somewhere between every possible detail being written, and bare minimalism. The art is knowing just what to write to bring the world and story alive.

Ursula K Le Guin said something to the effect that you want to use as many words as you need to tell your story, but not one word more. That tipping point is, of course, subjective, and is why we have all kinds of wordsmiths. Viva la difference!

I like both, as long as the writing is good. There are hacks on both ends of the spectrum.