Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong

[cmad1977]

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

So as long as the over descriptive prose is about food or sexual assault/violence it’s cool. But trees and environment is boring. Got it.

 

[Mercurius]

So as long as the over descriptive prose is about food or sexual assault/violence it’s cool. But trees and environment is boring. Got it.

Well exactly - that's my point. Tolkien was a quasi-mystical Romantic, which in postmodern parlance is "naive and fluffy religious believer." Of course they're not the same thing, but the postmodern mindset doesn't differentiate.

(Understand that I'm rather indifferent on GRRM and absolutely love Tolkien).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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!)

Yeah...no.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

.
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!

IMO, the world could use a new Dickens.

Le Guin is an amazing author, but like many authors she gives advice from the perspective of what has worked best for her. That is probably impossible to completely avoid, in fact.

Sometimes “more words” can elevate a work, without being strictly necessary to tell the story. We don’t have to know about the lay of the land in the shire to know that it’s idyllic and rustic, JRRT could just say that it is, but it’s a better work for his loving descriptions of the place.

Many great authors use eloquent prose to accomplish *more* than telling the story, and readers are richer for it.

 

[Kramodlog]

Who is this Colville and why should I care?

 

[Jhaelen]

Who is Matt Colville?

Anyway, when reading the German translation of 'The Lord of the Rings' I felt it was a really hard read because the descriptive parts were way too long and tedious. Several years later, when reading the original, I didn't mind them at all. I think that's for two reasons:
1) English tends to be more succinct than the German equivalent.
2) I had a much better idea what to expect.

After learning more about Tolkien's background and the history behind 'The Lord of the Rings' I actually no longer consider it a 'mere' fantasy novel. It transcends the genre and isn't typical for it, at all. First and foremost it's a showcase for excellent and highly detailed world-building. As such I consider the elaborate descriptions a crucial part of the novels. I'm quite sure you could create a more streamlined version of the story, but in the process you'd lose its unique aspects.

 

[Morrus]

Who is Matt Colville?

The person in the video in the OP.

 

[Morrus]

Who is this Colville and why should I care?

You don't have to care. Why not find a thread you do care about?

 

[Imaculata]

I've heard people often say that Tolkien is a bit too wordy in his descriptions. I haven't read any of the books (shocking I know) to have any opinion on the matter, but it all is of course a matter of preference. I have read the Game of Thrones books, and Martin tends to lean more towards straight to the point descriptions (although he loves describing food in great detail!). And that is more my style of writing. I have tried reading Dune, and that was a slog to get through.

 

[Janx]

Haven't watched the video, but caught up to the gist that LotR's writing style wouldn't cut it with today's market.

Yup.

I've been on the path to becoming a published writer for a couple years now. Seen most of the advice from writers, agents, and editors.

The modern world favors text where every word is load-bearing. If an editor could cut it out and the the story still stands, it should be removed.

Steven King says adverbs suck and to not overly describe things, let the reader's mind do that. Again, the load bearing rule comes to play.

Get to the chase in the first chapter. Avoid info dumps. Only give POV to characters with arcs (aka not one scene to an Orc chef who we never see again).

Hemingway is credited with this shift in writing style.

My pet theory is the source of these rules and modern styles is editors and agents. Killing off the oxford comma, two spaces after a period. All of that smacks of somebody who sees 3,000 submissions a month and must choose 3. They've seen a lot of patterns and think they can trim it down.

You've seen every one of these rules broken, of course. But I'd bet you money it wasn't from debut authors, especially recent ones. The gatekeepers see to that. It's the famous authors who get to drive off the beaten path and break the rules, because they're name brings success.