272 replies to this topic

[Kid Charlemagne]

According to this article in The Guardian, C.S. Lewis nominated Tolkien for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1961. However, the committee passed him over, citing that his prose "has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality".

Thoughts?

[Larry.]

I just finished blogging about this issue, but I agree with the Nobel committee.  Compared to the other finalists and especially to the winner, Tolkien's writing was piss poor in quality.

[Lummel]

I agree with the committee.  Being loved doesn't make a book good.

[Drowned Crow]

Yeah, sounds about right to me.

[Prince Aegon VI]

You know nothing, Nobel Committee.

[TrueMetis]

It took me nearly a year to finish the last book. So yeah.

[lupis42]

It's really popular, but so is Twilight.

It was a seminal work of fantasy, that would influence the genre for decades, but nobody knew that at the time.

His storytelling is much more of the ancient epic style, where all the major characters are larger than life, the villains are supposed to be huge and powerful but rarely accomplish much or seem to threaten the heroes.  Fun to read (YMMV), but not particularly sophisticated or impressive.

His prose is fine, but nothing special, and his verse feels like a weak translation - which may be consistent, but again, isn't impressive.

His greatest achievements were in the creation of the fictional language, worldbuilding, and mythology.  Which are irrelevant to the Nobel question.

So it's not surprising that he wouldn't get the Nobel, it would have been devalued if he had.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

lupis42, on 05 January 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

So it's not surprising that he wouldn't get the Nobel, it would have been devalued if he had.

Devalued? Considering that many (perhaps most) writers who ever won Nobel prize are now remembered only by the few, and most of last years wnners also aren't likely to do any better in the future, this statement seems rather ridiculous.  Like it or not Tolkien was one of the most influential writers of 20th century (unless you cofine yourself to the narrow limits of literary fiction ghetto, that is ) and is likely to be read for centuries to come. Other nominees for this year, not so much.

Edited by Bastard of Godsgrace, 05 January 2012 - 10:15 AM.

[Humble Asskicker]

Bastard of Godsgrace, on 05 January 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Devalued? Considering that many (perhaps most) writers who ever won Nobel prize are now remembered only by the few, and most of last years wnners also aren't likely to do any better in the future, this statement seems rather ridiculous.

They're not remembered for a good reason - the works they produce generally serve only for the onanistic pleasure of a few. Tolkien's work is more accessible, more culturally important than any of his fellow nominees, or the winner. It's not even a contest. I love the nattering about prose here too - it's as if people here are trying to put an objective measure on something completely subjective. Should the prose be clear and succinct at describing a scene, or deliberately abstruse and "beautiful"?  Usually the latter, if you want to win one of the literati awards, but then it's a question of what form of inelegantly abstruse will convince your audience of a dozen that you're smarter than the rest of the competition.

I find the Pulitzers are a far, far better measure of quality, generally.

[dog-days]

It's been a long time since I read LotR. However, I suspect that the Nobel Committee and Tolkien simply have incompatible views about what good prose is. The deliberate and, in my opinion, by and large effective archaism of Tolkien's writing would be unlikely to find favour with a twentieth century committee, who were probably of the opinion that all that kind of stuff should have ended with Tennyson. But if your tastes run towards epic poetry and ballads, the gravity/ leaden quality (delete according to taste) of the prose in LotR is more likely to strike you as appropriately atmospheric.

On a side note, I think it was sweet that C.S. Lewis nominated him. I thought they'd rather fallen out over Joy.

Edited by dog-days, 05 January 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[lupis42]

Bastard of Godsgrace, on 05 January 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Devalued? Considering that many (perhaps most) writers who ever won Nobel prize are now remembered only by the few, and most of last years wnners also aren't likely to do any better in the future, this statement seems rather ridiculous.  Like it or not Tolkien was one of the most influential writers of 20th century (unless you cofine yourself to the narrow limits of literary fiction ghetto, that is ) and is likely to be read for centuries to come. Other nominees for this year, not so much.

Devalued in the sense that they would have essentially had to change their existing standards to fit him in.  I don't think it's that relevant of an award, but it's got (or appears to have had at the time, IDGAF enough to look at recent nominees/wins).  Whether you consider what it recognizes to be important or not (I agree with you that it isn't), it still recognizes something and it would have had to change that standard substantially for his work to fit.

[Tears of Lys]

Dickens, I dare say, wouldn't have been acceptable to the committee either - low humor.

A Nobel prize for literature is nice for the recipient, but it has little relevance to the public at large.


Edited because of fumbling fingers.

Edited by Tears of Lys, 05 January 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Galactus]

Interestingly the old swedish translation (which is notoriously untrue and occasionally just flat-out wrong, most famously a mistranslation of "roam") apparently has a higher level of credit from the literati crowd. I've heard several times people calling Tolkien's prose "plain" or "sparse" an noting that the old swedish translation is better.

[Sci-2]

Quote

On a side note, I think it was sweet that C.S. Lewis nominated him. I thought they'd rather fallen out over Joy.

What's this then?

[Tears of Lys]

As far as I recall, C.S. Lewis was romantically involved with Joy, who was a divorced woman (?)  Tolkien, being a staunch, devout Catholic, looked upon the liaison with disfavor.  (Maybe additionally because he didn't care for the woman and Lewis was spending all his time with her.)  

Reading between the lines, also, I get the strong impression that Tolkien didn't care much for Lewis' writing as time went on, and maybe the feeling was reciprocated.  Anyway, the friendship suffered for a variety of reasons.

It is heartwarming to know he nominated him, though.

ETA:  As I'm thinking back on it, I also seem to recall that Joy's illness caused Lewis to question his faith and that Tolkien took steps to assist his friend in his grief.

Edited by Tears of Lys, 05 January 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[Zach H]

I could go either way on a Tolkien nom, but if Peake or Borges didn't win the award I don't think any fantasist deserves to.

I wouldn't call Tolkien's prose piss poor, however.  Like John Clute once suggested, even the better (or maybe least offensive) Tolkien imatators lacked the "mesmerising melancholia or mythic glamour of Tolkien."  I agree, and would take it a step further and say that these same qualities also set Tolkien apart from the quiet-horror-of-daily-life brand of literary fiction, and therefore still mark the author as laudable despite that ulimately his prose may be closer to a popular style than the line by line biting poetics of a Faulkner, for example.

[Tears of Lys]

I see a representative of the sentient tree commission has joined us.  I look forward to hearing their opinion in this matter.

[Nearly Headless Ned]

I'm not a particularly big Tolkien fan by any means. I like him but he's far from my favourite author. To suggest that his prose is piss poor in comparison to any writer however is completely ridiculous and more than a little disrespectful to him.

[Happy Ent]

I love Tolkien, but would find it strange to give him the Nobel prize for literature, certainly for Rings. There are passages in the Silmarillion that I find both breathtaking and beautiful. However, even these are more of a deliberate pastiche of a lost prosaic style. That’s not what the Nobel prize is for.

[Ormond]

Kid Charlemagne, on 05 January 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

According to this article in The Guardian, C.S. Lewis nominated Tolkien for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1961. However, the committee passed him over, citing that his prose "has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality".

Thoughts?

After reading that little article my questions are:

How many people were on the Nobel Literature committee in 1961?

Did they all endorse these comments, or are these just the opinions of one person? It seems to me in this article that only one person is quoted. The rest of the committee didn't necessarily have to agree with his evaluations, even if they all did agree that Andric was the best person to give the award to that particular year.