Tolkien's Nobel Prize Nomination rejected due to 'poor prose'

[Isalie]

The poster was pointing out that sales do not equal quality, and then sarcastically wrote an argument where Goodkind must be better than Dostoyevsky because he sells more!

Only, you know. Dotsoyevsky sells more, so it's an example that shoots itself in the foot.

So he picked a name or two too high and low in either pecking order, exchange them for Hemingway and Martin and the fun is gone.

Nvm though really, the joke was on me as I misunderstood your point, good night.

[Sci-2]

But to say that the standard is not objective is not to diminish it as a standard - literature isn't an exact science but the critical consensus is the closest thing we have to it and is not to be scoffed at.

I think the standard is fine, but it should be recognized that most people are reading fiction to entertain themselves. Why I noted AI vs. Graphics in video games.

Now, I think a person should try everything in reading, as well as have enough acumen to recognize that something like the Nobel may have different criteria than one has personally. I used to think Tolkien could arguably deserve the Nobel earlier in this thread, but I don't really think that anymore.

However, I don't think that diminishes what Tolkien achieved even as I think his achievements don't raise him above critical examination. The more lit-fic I read, the more I'm glad people like Larry and Myshkin introduced me to it.

But I maintain my love of fantasy and Tolkien's work, however problematic, is part of that love.

[Kegg]

I think the standard is fine, but it should be recognized that most people are reading fiction to entertain themselves. Why I noted AI vs. Graphics in video games.

Oh absolutely. What matters most to me is reading whatever the hell sounds like it's a fun way to pass the time, and I don't think anyone should feel that they should read a certain kind of book because it's better. Conversely, just because literary criticism isn't an exact science it doesn't mean that reverse snobbishness of saying critics should bow to populism in presenting awards is a good idea. Nobel Prize commitee not fans of Tolkein? Very well then, they don't give the award to Tolkein. It doesn't require you to go buy Ivo Andric's book, and it doesn't take your copy of Lord of the Rings from your bookshelf. All is well with the world.

[Myshkin]

Well, you sure name a lot ofnovels i was absolutely unable to read. I the rest but even if they are light on plot, they do indeed have some.

Simply because you did not enjoy them does not mean they failed as novels. I did not make the argument that those are all objectively great novels, only that those are successful novels without plot. As for the light on plot novels; was anyone reading The Magic Mountain actually on the edge of their seat wondering how Hans Castorp would overcome his tuberculosis? No. There was indeed some plot, it however was not gripping, nor was it the focus or driving force of the novel.

Only on a fantasy forum would an author who's been selling like gangbusters in countless languages for over a hundred years be seriously suggested as the plucky underdog against a modern fantasy novelist.

I think perhaps you took that a little too literally; it was a mockery of the argument being made, not of the argument as truth. Whether or not Goodkind actually does outsell Dostoevsky was immaterial to my mockery.

[cseresz.reborn]

was anyone reading The Magic Mountain actually on the edge of their seat wondering how Hans Castorp would overcome his tuberculosis? No.

I am one of them. To me, Hans = Germany/The Weimar Republic.

[Myshkin]

I am one of them. To me, Hans = Germany/The Weimar Republic.

And you prove my point; Hans as metaphor for Germany/The Weimar Republic is not a plot point, it is a thematic element.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Simply because you did not enjoy them does not mean they failed as novels. I did not make the argument that those are all objectively great novels, only that those are successful novels without plot. As for the light on plot novels; was anyone reading The Magic Mountain actually on the edge of their seat wondering how Hans Castorp would overcome his tuberculosis? No. There was indeed some plot, it however was not gripping, nor was it the focus or driving force of the novel.

My point was there is no such thing as an objectively great novel. It is all relative and there is now way around it. The same books mean different thing to different people and there is no right or wrong in it. As for The Magic Mountain thing is I am a nerd and hundred of pages of guys discussing philosophy seems a great fun for me. I loved this book for the same reasons I enjoy, say, a Greg Egan novel.

[Myshkin]

My point was there is no such thing as an objectively great novel. It is all relative and there is now way around it. The same books mean different thing to different people and there is no right or wrong in it. As for The Magic Mountain thing is I am a nerd and hundred of pages of guys discussing philosophy seems a great fun for me. I loved this book for the same reasons I enjoy, say, a Greg Egan novel.

Again, I wasn't making that argument.

[SpaceChampion]

If you don't love The Similarion, I'll kill you.

This isn't another book by your fan-fiction writer friend Wolfe, is it?

Please be joking.

Tolkien never wrote a book call "The Similarion". Maybe Wolfe has?

Silmarillion.

[Castel]

Tolkien never wrote a book call "The Similarion".

Silmarillion.

Yeah, I called it Similarion for the longest time. I knew the pronunciation somehow my mind decided that it could overrule the author's decision. I've seen it happen to other people too, someone went on-stage and asked Jim Butcher about his "Codex Aleria" series(correct pronunciation Codex Alera). Happens all the time, don't know why.

On the OP: Tolkien's prose was never anything special, but then again, I see all the books from fifty years ago that way; slightly hard to read and just more...dense I guess, in general.

[Sci-2]

Tolkien never wrote a book call "The Similarion".

Silmarillion.

Damn I miss that guy. Makes me think of Belkar from OotS[.]

[Racker]

Yeah, I called it Similarion for the longest time. I knew the pronunciation somehow my mind decided that it could overrule the author's decision. I've seen it happen to other people too, someone went on-stage and asked Jim Butcher about his "Codex Aleria" series(correct pronunciation Codex Alera). Happens all the time, don't know why.

On the OP: Tolkien's prose was never anything special, but then again, I see all the books from fifty years ago that way; slightly hard to read and just more...dense I guess, in general.

I must confess that I was also in the 'mispronouncing Silmarillion' camp for a long time. For me, it was The Simmer-illion.

I'm going to have to disagree with some here about Tolkien's prose, though. I thought that a lot of his writing in LOTR was beautiful, particularly his descriptions of the environments. What lacked were his characters, who were mostly one dimensional. But, if the events in a story are brilliant enough, and the world they inhabit sculpted well enough that you care about these characters without knowing much about them beyond their superficial personalities...is one-dimensional characterization really an unforgivable sin?