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

[Larry.]

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.

Sorry, but for me, having read The Bridge on the Drina, The Power and the Glory, A Passage to India, Frost's poetry, etc. from the others mentioned in that article, Tolkien's prose is by far the worst. If it weren't for the questionable nomination by Lewis (who was a friend of his), I would have been shocked to have found out that he had been nominated to be considered with that group. Compared to them, it is piss poor. Compared to what is praised here, it is among the best prose. Matters of taste, I suppose.

[dog-days]

Sorry, but for me, having read The Bridge on the Drina, The Power and the Glory, A Passage to India, Frost's poetry, etc. from the others mentioned in that article, Tolkien's prose is by far the worst. If it weren't for the questionable nomination by Lewis (who was a friend of his), I would have been shocked to have found out that he had been nominated to be considered with that group. Compared to them, it is piss poor. Compared to what is praised here, it is among the best prose. Matters of taste, I suppose.

This post would be more convincing if you took the time to give your view of what makes prose good or bad. Calling Tolkien's prose "piss poor" without naming the boxes that he failed to tick first seems rather high-handed.

In general, rejecting a nomination for the Nobel solely on the grounds of prose seems a little strange - I may be wrong, but I've heard a few Russian literature nuts claim that Tolstoy's prose is less than stellar? And if you were drawing up a list of candidates for a posthumous Nobel, Tolstoy's name would surely be near the top.

[Nearly Headless Ned]

Sorry, but for me, having read The Bridge on the Drina, The Power and the Glory, A Passage to India, Frost's poetry, etc. from the others mentioned in that article, Tolkien's prose is by far the worst. If it weren't for the questionable nomination by Lewis (who was a friend of his), I would have been shocked to have found out that he had been nominated to be considered with that group. Compared to them, it is piss poor. Compared to what is praised here, it is among the best prose. Matters of taste, I suppose.

I always found his prose to be what I enjoyed most about Tolkien. In particular his powers of description.

It was his rather leaden, archetypal characters I disliked (Gollum being an obvious exception).

I agree though that the Noble bunch were right to reject him. There are more worthy writers in the genre past and present. I'd like to have seen what they'd of made of Peake or Wolfe actually.

[Larry.]

This post would be more convincing if you took the time to give your view of what makes prose good or bad. Calling Tolkien's prose "piss poor" without naming the boxes that he failed to tick first seems rather high-handed.

In general, rejecting a nomination for the Nobel solely on the grounds of prose seems a little strange - I may be wrong, but I've heard a few Russian literature nuts claim that Tolstoy's prose is less than stellar? And if you were drawing up a list of candidates for a posthumous Nobel, Tolstoy's name would surely be near the top.

I don't make it a habit of saying "read my blog," but in my original post where I provided the link in case any wanted to read more, that blog article links to the 2009 reviews I did of the three LotR books. I was fairly charitable in them talking about the problems I had with the narrative, the characterizations, and the writing, but the implication was that I did not find the writing to be strong or even in quality and that it affected the story negatively. As for the other writers, I may review them in the near future and elaborate more, but I tend to judge the prose based on individual merits and how the writing fits the narrative. In the case of Tolkien, the seams showed.

[dog-days]

I don't make it a habit of saying "read my blog," but in my original post where I provided the link in case any wanted to read more, that blog article links to the 2009 reviews I did of the three LotR books. I was fairly charitable in them talking about the problems I had with the narrative, the characterizations, and the writing, but the implication was that I did not find the writing to be strong or even in quality and that it affected the story negatively. As for the other writers, I may review them in the near future and elaborate more, but I tend to judge the prose based on individual merits and how the writing fits the narrative. In the case of Tolkien, the seams showed.

Okay - I'm sorry, I missed the link. Normally I don't grouch at people on the internet - I've just been having an unpleasant day.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This post would be more convincing if you took the time to give your view of what makes prose good or bad. Calling Tolkien's prose "piss poor" without naming the boxes that he failed to tick first seems rather high-handed.

The problem I have with the critics is that they seem to believe they are applying some kind of objective standard. I would find that more convincing/believable is some of them would be saying "I really enjoyed the book, but I just don't think it measures up as a literary work."

Instead, the folks who criticize it as a literary work also also seem not to have enjoyed it at all. That makes me suspicious as to the objectivity of any standard other than it being simply a matter of taste.

[James Nicholls]

Sorry, but for me, having read The Bridge on the Drina, The Power and the Glory, A Passage to India, Frost's poetry, etc. from the others mentioned in that article, Tolkien's prose is by far the worst. If it weren't for the questionable nomination by Lewis (who was a friend of his), I would have been shocked to have found out that he had been nominated to be considered with that group. Compared to them, it is piss poor. Compared to what is praised here, it is among the best prose. Matters of taste, I suppose.

This speaks volumes of an tradition of art critique that is so far removed from the public perception of what makes a good book as to be utterly laughable. People talk of what makes good prose as though there were a rulebook, ignoring the fact that what one person finds highly engaging another finds mindnumbing. Matters of taste is entirely apt, as the Nobel Prize in Literature is nothing more than a load of pretentious arseholes deciding who to pat on the back.

If you yourself find the prose to be lacking by whatever standards you refer to then your opinion is entirely valid. But the idea that any book is objectively good or bad is rubbish, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

[dog-days]

The problem I have with the critics is that they seem to believe they are applying some kind of objective standard. I would find that more convincing/believable is some of them would be saying "I really enjoyed the book, but I just don't think it measures up as a literary work."

Instead, the folks who criticize it as a

literary

work also also seem not to have enjoyed it at all. That makes me suspicious as to the objectivity of any standard other than it being simply a matter of taste.

Yup.

When I was in my late teens, I remember that someone, who was studying science, once asked me to look at a chapter of a story they were writing. I was a literature student, and didn't find the writing very impressive. I remember suggesting certain changes to the sentences in order to make them flow more naturally. Asked for my reasons, I mumbled something about rhythm, avoidance of repetition, avoidance of cliche. I don't think my answer satisfied either my friend or me.

Latin poetry sounds plain weird to me when read aloud with length rather than stress observed; ditto Tang dynasty poetry with the tones. I'm not saying that to cast aspersions on either tradition - on the contrary, the problem is with my untrained ear. I've been taught to respond emotionally to stress patterns rather than pitch or drawn out vowels. Now and again in the intervening years I've gone looking for an convincing answer. I've found lots of interesting possibilities, but nothing that would make me feel comfortable enough to slot works into a descending scale of prose-craftsmanship. (But if I did, then the Harry Potter epilogue would be right at the bottom.)

By pure coincidence, I was snuffling around LJ tonight and found this post, which contains extracts from an essay by Le Guin about Tolkien's prose.

[lupis42]

Latin poetry sounds plain weird to me when read aloud with length rather than stress observed; ditto Tang dynasty poetry with the tones. I'm not saying that to cast aspersions on either tradition - on the contrary, the problem is with my untrained ear. I've been taught to respond emotionally to stress patterns rather than pitch or drawn out vowels. Now and again in the intervening years I've gone looking for an convincing answer. I've found lots of interesting possibilities, but nothing that would make me feel comfortable enough to slot works into a descending scale of prose-craftsmanship. (But if I did, then the Harry Potter epilogue would be right at the bottom.)

Even below this?

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

[lokisnow]

"And all the host laughed and wept, and in the midst of their merriment and tears the clear voice of the minstrel rose like silver and gold, and all men were hushed. And he sang to them, now in the Elven-tongue, now in the speech of the West, until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, and their joy was like swords, and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness."

I disagree. and on an academic level I love how the repetitions of 'and' in this passage invoke an ancient, epic style.

[dog-days]

Even below this?

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

Nothing that makes me laugh so much can be really bad. Even if the humour is purely accidental

It gets extra points for inspiring the glorious Bulwer-Lytton contest.

[Tears of Lys]

Granted, LotR is not an unflawed masterpiece. Tolkien's all over the place WRT tone, tense, style. It's extremely uneven. But it seems to me that to criticize it for those reasons is like criticizing a piece of abstract art - the "THAT doesn't look like a tree!" syndrome.

LotR has charmed, entertained and millions and influenced countless writers. It really stands on its own merits. Unfortunately, that was not enough for the Nobel committee. So be it.

[Humble Asskicker]

This speaks volumes of an tradition of art critique that is so far removed from the public perception of what makes a good book as to be utterly laughable.

Indeed. People citing prose like it's the Sangrael make me want to tear my hair out. Cormac McCarthy is a modern writer who is often singled out for his prose, but while sometime I find it very effective, just as often I find it very affected and annoying, to the point that it takes me out of the story. This has never happened to me with GRRM, and in fact I almost always find that GRRM's prose enhances the story, so I would say that GRRM beats the ever loving shit out of McCarthy in terms of prose.

Just as I would say that Tolkien's prose was brilliant and effective for his aims and accomplishments.

[Stevonicus]

Well, as pointed out above the sheer fact that Tolkien was even considered for the award is somewhat earth shattering in my mind. Tolkien is neither a clear, to the point writer nor a master stylist. What Tolkien was good at was storytelling. In the Hobbit he wrote an adventure story for his children, in LotR, he wrote an archetypical good-vs-evil tale along epic proportions and in the Silmarillion and elsewhere he continued to flesh out an interesting world of his own creation. All this can rightly be lauded. But at the end of the day he was not a brilliant writer. I read and enjoyed the Hobbit as a kid but the numerous times I have endeavoured to read LotR but have never persevered through the at times clunky writing and irksome characters.

The fact that historically the Nobel prize awarding has been full of cronyism and undeserving winners is an independently true point doesn't mean that Tolkien deserved the award. The number of Scandanavian winners whom derive their international renown almost primarily from winning the prize is disgraceful. I can't remember when exactly but either in the fifties or the sixties two members of the judging panel were jointly awarded the prize while the most recent recipient is a complete unknown but old Swede.

Ultimately there are many writers deserving of the Nobel prize who have never won it but Tolkien does not number amongst them.

[lokisnow]

Well, as pointed out above the sheer fact that Tolkien was even considered for the award is somewhat earth shattering in my mind. Tolkien is neither a clear, to the point writer nor a master stylist. What Tolkien was good at was storytelling. In the Hobbit he wrote an adventure story for his children, in LotR, he wrote an archetypical good-vs-evil tale along epic proportions and in the Silmarillion and elsewhere he continued to flesh out an interesting world of his own creation. All this can rightly be lauded. But at the end of the day he was not a brilliant writer. I read and enjoyed the Hobbit as a kid but the numerous times I have endeavoured to read LotR but have never persevered through the at times clunky writing and irksome characters.

Tolkien tended to contrast heroic, courtly, common and coarse language and style within the a chapter or even a scene. This was deliberate. Just as it was deliberate when Shakespeare added in his Dogberry character to Much Ado about Nothing and contrasted that rough style of dialog to that of the court and the militarymen. The style isn't uneven, it's deliberately diverse and representative of Tolkien's academic grasp of the history of English Literature. He wanted the book to feel old fashioned, as though it had been rediscovered and rescued as he had rescued Beowulf. There's a literary point to Tom Bombadil's Olde English style of poetry it's not weak verse its expressing a particular style of verse to give the reader subtextual information about Tom. There's a ton to be mined from Tolkien's style, but it will take a few decades before people stop sniffing at the idea that his writing was any good.

[Shryke]

Granted, LotR is not an unflawed masterpiece. Tolkien's all over the place WRT tone, tense, style. It's extremely uneven. But it seems to me that to criticize it for those reasons is like criticizing a piece of abstract art - the "THAT doesn't look like a tree!" syndrome.

LotR has charmed, entertained and millions and influenced countless writers. It really stands on its own merits. Unfortunately, that was not enough for the Nobel committee. So be it.

Had it done that back in 1961 though?

You seem to be trying to rate the book on it's influence, something the Nobel committee both couldn't and had no intention of doing.

[Grack21]

This has never happened to me with GRRM, and in fact I almost always find that GRRM's prose enhances the story, so I would say that GRRM beats the ever loving shit out of McCarthy in terms of prose.

Sir, I find your ideas intriging and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. :P

[Myshkin]

LotR has charmed, entertained and millions and influenced countless writers. It really stands on its own merits. Unfortunately, that was not enough for the Nobel committee. So be it.

The same thing can be said of Stephen King's or JK Rowling's work.

[Shryke]

Dan Brown has been read and enjoyed by millions.

[Grack21]

The same thing can be said of Stephen King's or JK Rowling's work.

I like both of those. :P