JRR Tolkien Denied Nobel Due To Low Quality Prose 505
Morty writes "In 1961, C.S. Lewis nominated JRR Tolkien for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Tolkien did not receive the prize. 50 years later, the archives for that year have been made available, so now we know why. Tolkien's prose was viewed as low quality."
Re:Tolkien's prose (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought it was really boring. Then I saw the films. They were boring too. I can't separate them in my mind now - it just seemed like 10 hours of walking through fields..hills...ooh, there's a bad guy - run away/fight...go into the woods..speak to fairies...walk for a few more days...another fights..more woods...more fairies....another fight. Read bullshit good vs evil crap too, a little light star wars.
Not awarding the author one of the most prestigious awards in literature seems pretty justified to me.
Re:Tolkien's prose (Score:4, Interesting)
The films are boring. And nonsensical, because they mangled several sub-plots (they should either have kept them or removed them completely; as it is, several scenes in the films make no sense at all to people who haven't read the books). Also not very well directed or acted, as often happens when the special effects become more important than the storytelling.
I think part of the problem people have with LotR is that they didn't read The Hobbit, which is really the first chapter of the story.
Regarding TFA, Tolkien is indeed not Nobel prize material; he didn't really change the literary or social landscape of his day (which is what the Nobel committee usually looks for), although he somewhat "crystallised" fantasy writing and was able to transmit a sense of scale that few authors manage.
Ivo Andri Beat Tolkien in 1961 (Score:5, Interesting)
The 1961 Nobel literature laureate [wikipedia.org] was Ivo Andri [wikipedia.org] of Yugoslavia, who wrote his works in Serbo-Croatian during WWII, publishing them all in 1945. He was awarded "for the epic force with which he has traced themes and depicted human destinies drawn from the history of his country".
A short essay translated by Lazar Pascanovic is Paths [serbiatravelers.org] :
That seems to me the work of a Nobel literature laureate. Though I like Tolkien's writing better, and his stories better than the subject. I expect the Cold War in 1961 gave the Nobel committee the extra reason to nominate a writer in non-Soviet Communist Yugoslavia, who
Re:Tolkien's prose (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally very much enjoy getting out in nature just to enjoy...well, nature. The stillness, the beauty, the beautiful found in a group of tiny flowers growing in a field. My wife and I get out in our canoe to commune with nature, and have recently taken up hiking. I believe if you go out into nature, you should leave your internal combustion engines behind and soak in the quiet. Once a year I take a "pilgrimmage" to my uncle's land about 5 miles inland of the Oregon Coast, deep in old growth forest at the edge of Tenmile Creek. It's IMO the most beautiful place on earth - I take a lunch and my camera, and spend all day just hanging out with nature.
When I recently re-read The Hobbit followed by the LOTR trilogy, I was aware of how many people complained about the lengthy description of the flowers and the trees they were passing through. In contrast, I loved this kind of detail - it made the whole world more real to me. I think the beauty of Tolkien's world is not necessarily the amount of plot, but the depth of the story, detail, etc.
The thing is, LOTR is not a plot-heavy action story. The events in the books take place VERY slowly over time, which really befits a land where speed is measured in how fast a horseback-rider can ride in a day, but the most common way to get around is to walk. When you're moving 5 miles per hour, what do you see a whole lot of? Scenery, plants, the world around you. LOTR would be very boring (and jumpy) if Tolkien were to leave out all the beautifully detailed descriptions of the land his characters were traveling through.
And I totally agree with what you say about letting yourself get immersed in the prose - if you're reading a novel, and you find yourself really seeing the words and aware that you're reading, you're not really immersed in the story. If you completely forget you're reading, and suddenly you find 2 hours have gone by - that's the mark of a good writer IMO.
Thoughts?
Re:Tolkien's prose (Score:5, Interesting)
“Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.” ~ J.R.R. Tolkien
The matter of "quality of prose" is, I believe, very much a question if preference. It is also important to understand and reflect on the context of said Nobel judgement. A kind of realistic modernism was about only form of literature the then influential literary critics considered "true art". Fantasy, in particular, had no place in the hallowed halls of great literature. It's thus somewhat likely that when members of the Nobel committee wrote "second rate prose", they were not as much making a judgement on the quality of the writing and storytelling, as simply affirming their regard of the genre as "juvenile trash".
Another important point for many vocal net-critics to realize is that as the parent poster implies, Tolkien was intentionally choosing an archaic and at places longwinded style; indeed the astute and careful reader will notice him switching from one prosaic style to another as the situation and intent of his storytelling calls for. He was, also, not intentionally setting out to create a fast and light action-paced thriller in a franchise, as is the formula for so much modern fantasy series, but imitating many classics and epics. Indeed the fantasy genre as we know it was created by Tolkien, but his was more an artistic exploration.
One thing that's never ceased to amaze me is the eagerness at which people will, at any online discussion of Tolkien's works, declare that they were not able to even read them - sounding quite proud of it, as if it makes them eligible for some grand elite club or something. How many here would declare "I tried to read Donald Knuth, but I fell asleep before the end of the first chapter", or perhaps "I picked up the Bible, but had to put it down after the first page" right after a dozen other rewordings of the statement? Well, what were you expecting! It might also be revealing and likely more useful if people who make such blanket declarations provided a list of books they have actually enjoyed.
Just skip the boring parts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Like with Les Miserables, the key is to learn when you can skim. If you're after the plot, skim or skip the pages of description of Tom Bombadil's stomping grounds, or the sewers of Paris (in Victor Hugo's case). The next time you read it, you already know the plot, so you're not really looking at "what happens!?" and more at the setting, what's happening, and how things might inter-relate in subtle ways.
If you find you skipped too far, it's easy to turn back and re-read a few pages, or a chapter... but for example you can skip almost the entire chapter of Les Miserables about Waterloo. "Waterloo happened ... ", and then read the last page of the chapter to see how it relates at all to the rest of the story. You miss a very vivid description of the battle, but lose nothing plot-wise by skipping it. I found it helpful at times to suspend my burning thirst for plot development, and instead (sometimes) read as if I were listening to someone tell a series of fireside stories, which always start out disjointed, and then end up weaving into a larger narrative in ways I can't always predict.
Re:Tolkien's prose (Score:4, Interesting)
If "easy to read" is a criteria for the Nobel Prize in Literature, then they've been doing it wrong for a very long time.
The prize in literature is a lot like the peace and economics prizes; not really scientific and dominated by politics and social issues. They really shouldn't have had the "Nobel" name attached to them.
Re:Tolkien's prose (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no illusions about people here reading TFA and TFS. However, since it was my submission, I felt compelled to defend it.
Specifically, no, it's not news that Tolkien was denied the Nobel 50 years ago. We have indeed known that for 50 years. The news is in why Tolkien was denied the Nobel. That information was only just released.
Re:I believe Nobel prize is of low quality.... (Score:5, Interesting)
He doesn't have an argument. First because he never read those authors. Second because the point of the Nobel prizes is not to distinguish the average or popular; it's to distinguish the exceptional (which is even more important when they are not widely known or easily accessible).
J. K. Rowling's and Dan Brown's "award" is their bank account. Just because their books are profitable (much like McDonalds' "food" is profitable) that doesn't mean they've contributed much (if at all) to the progress of human society, or that we should give them literary awards. Books and literature aren't exactly the same thing.
Tolkien a bad writer, if you have tin ears (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm in shock that so may people here agree that Tolkien's prose is a problem. Far from that being the case, Tolkien is so sensitive to prose rhythm that I use it from time to time to teach how to appreciate rhythm in prose or poetry. Take, for example, the ride of the Rohirrim, at the end of chapter 5 of the Return of the King. It starts off at a walk ("Then suddenly Merry felt it at last, beyond doubt: a change. Wind was in his face! Light was glimmering.") picks up a bit to a trot ("But at that same moment there was a flash, as if lightning had sprung from the earth beneath
the City. For a searing second it stood dazzling far off in black and white, its topmost tower like a glittering needle: and then as the darkness closed again there came rolling over the fields a great _boom_.") a canter ("With that he seized a great horn from Guthláf his banner-bearer, and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder. And straightway all the horns in the host were lifted up in music, and the blowing of the horns of Rohan in that hour was like a storm upon the plain and a thunder in the mountains."), and then a full-out gallop ("Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Éomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first _éored_ roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Théoden could not be overtaken.") Then, once the cavalry has bashed through the enemy lines and the fighting's intensity lags, we slow down to a walk again ( And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.") I could also point out the careful word choice for alliteration ("and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder") and assonance ("the host of Rohan"). Reading this page aloud is a joy. If you appreciate the King James Bible, or Old English poetry, you can appreciate this.
But he doesn't always write in this style. There are homely conversations between country folk, and orders in the field, and descriptions of landscapes, and "dropped in" details that suggest thousands of years of history that are simply not explained, but make Middle Earth seem real.
By the way, I would take Ursula Le Guin's opinion on prose quality pretty seriously. She is a fan of Tolkien's writing, too, calling it "a great wind blowing" that could have overwhelmed her own voice if she had read it earlier than she did. (http://greenbooks.theonering.net/tributes/files/ursula_leguin.html)
So, again, I don't get where this opinion that Tolkien writes badly. The man put more care into a sentence than others do in a chapter.
-Gareth
Re:Tolkien appeals to nerds... (Score:5, Interesting)
True technical mastery is the ability to deploy the elements of language in ways that are incisive and surprising and exactly correct for whatever purpose the writer has in mind. This requires knowledge, but it also requires talent.
you have to give examples in his writing. Fortunately, this is trivial to do. He wasn't a constantly great stylist, but he has moments of real greatness. (And yes, I know I should really be writing about Tolkien's prose here, but poetry is so much easier to go into depth about.)
Nice explication, and to help out, I'll supply the prose:
And far away, as Frodo put on the RIng and claimed it for his own, even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-Dûr was shaken, and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown. The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung.
From all his policies and webs of fear and treachery, from all his stratagems and wars his mind shook free; and throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten. The whole mind and purpose of the Power that wielded them was now bent with overwhelming force upon the Mountain. At his summons, wheeling with a rending cry, in a last desperate race there flew, faster than the winds, the Nazgûl, the Ringwraiths, and with a storm of wings they hurtled southwards to Mount Doom.
The Return of the King, second edition, 1955, p. 223
Though many here malign his style, Tolkien's prose here is purposeful and effective. Note that Sauron's recognition and ensuing panic are reflected rhetorically in the cadence of the sentences, aided by polysendeton, parallelism, and a combination of varying sentence lengths--telegraphic, medium, and long. Syntactically purposeful, the prose also includes a smattering of lyricism reminiscent of the epics he attempts to emulate.
Form married to function is a touchstone of quality prose.