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

[The Marquis de Leech]

I only read the first chapter, but actually I was expecting far worse from this.

Oh, it gets worse. The Eye of Argon is classic so-bad-it's-good (Grignr's battle with the rat, and the epileptic priest are priceless, and while 'scarlet emeralds' do exist, I suspect the author didn't know that).

Basically, The Eye of Argon is what happens when you overdose a 16 year old on Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, then let him loose with a thesaurus and no dictionary.

[Happy Ent]

I never believed Eye was for real. It’s some kind of Sokal hoax.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In the particular case of the 1961 Nobel Literature finalists, the judges first had to consider what Nobel meant in his will. Generally, his comments on the literature prize indicate that the winner should involve some further of an "ideal," which most have interpreted to mean that the writer should have produced high quality works that meet some standard of social value (such values are mutabile, yes, but on the whole the work in question will be attuned to contemporary issues and concerns). Tolkien's writings can be connected with such concerns only by stretching the themes of his work more than is the norm.

I think if the particular rejection we had read had pointed out that Tolkien failed to address "contemporary issues and concerns", the reaction to the critique would have been far different. There are anti-industrialism themes, and emphasis on the value of those who may not have great wealth or power, but I don't think those themes are presented with sufficient quality to earn a prize.

If the Nobel judges applied the standards of social commentary, high quality prose (as determined by the narrative structure and how that structure envelops theme, plot, prose, and characterization), and contribution to belles-lettres to judging the finalists,

Again, I think what caused the reaction here is that the rejection/critique did not -- at least on its face -- address Tolkien's work in that manner. It read much closer to "this is stupid fantasy stuff with old-sounding language", which appeared more of a personal bias than an evaluation based on discernable standards.

[Happy Ent]

[…] and emphasis on the value of those who may not have great wealth or power, […]

You really think so? Is this because of something Sam says? (Serious question. To me, LotR focusses very much on those with wealth and power.)

[Fryie]

One could argue that your final sentence is precisely the kind of reason why it never will happen. i.e. People are taught not to expect great art from a pop singer marketed at the young and female. Ergo no one examines her work in detail, and no one discovers - or imagines - the pattern and hidden meaning that allows Spears to be kicked upstairs to the immortals.

Yeah, well, we all have to deal with expectations. Even physicists have expectations as to how things behave. Sometimes it's completely wrong and somebody else has to come along to prove that it's all quite different (Planck, Einstein, whoever).

This doesn't mean that it it's not sensible to have expectations. In fact, would we treat everything as equally likely, we wouldn't be really able to lead our lives, let alone to do science.

I still wager that if there was so much hidden detail in Britney's works somebody would have discovered it by now, given the attention her work gets in general.

[Stevonicus]

Wow, this debate is still continuing? It looked like one of those non-conclusive, total divergence of opinion things that should rightfully have been pronounced a stalemate days ago.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You really think so? Is this because of something Sam says? (Serious question. To me, LotR focusses very much on those with wealth and power.)

The real heroes of the story are those with the least "power" -- the hobbits. I think it was made pretty apparant that to Tolkien, the lust for power is pretty much at the root of most evil. In fact, the mightiest in terms of power, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Aragorn, all knew that they couldn't be trusted to carry the Ring to destruction. Only those who did not desire power over others, for good or for ill, could be trusted. Hence, Frodo was the best Ringbearer available, despite all the First Age and other heroes present.

[Tears of Lys]

Wow, this debate is still continuing? It looked like one of those non-conclusive, total divergence of opinion things that should rightfully have been pronounced a stalemate days ago.

One of the great joys of visiting this board is the practice of the disinternment of the dead horse and serving it yet another sound thrashing.

[Sci-2]

Actually, I think these debates find ways to evolve into something interesting and educational. As Solodgin points out, if we aren't discussing aspects of literature we are largely engaged in varied shades of marketing.

[Lummel]

What's the point of having a dead horse unless you're going to thrash it until it drinks water? :whip:

[PetrusOctavianus]

The real heroes of the story are those with the least "power" -- the hobbits. I think it was made pretty apparant that to Tolkien, the lust for power is pretty much at the root of most evil. In fact, the mightiest in terms of power, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Aragorn, all knew that they couldn't be trusted to carry the Ring to destruction. Only those who did not desire power over others, for good or for ill, could be trusted. Hence, Frodo was the best Ringbearer available, despite all the First Age and other heroes present.

Ties in well with Tolkien's political views. In his mind someone who not sought power, but inherited it by birthright was more suited to rule.

From his Letters:

"In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of Earth."

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to `unconstitutional' Monarchy."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ties in well with Tolkien's political views. In his mind someone who not sought power, but inherited it by birthright was more suited to rule....

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to `unconstitutional' Monarchy."

"Anarchy" (I think he likely meant what we'd now refer to as "libertarianism") and Monarchism. That's two odd poles around which to build your alternative preferences. Though I suppose you might see an example of that in Aragorn assuming Kingship over the north. With respect to the Shire, he basically left them alone except for repairing roads and bridges, and speeding the king's messengers. So I suppose that's both Monarchy and libertarianism/anarchism.

[James Nicholls]

Ties in well with Tolkien's political views. In his mind someone who not sought power, but inherited it by birthright was more suited to rule.

From his Letters:

"In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of Earth."

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to `unconstitutional' Monarchy."

I find that kind of baffling that someone who supports inherited power would be a proponent for anarchy. Anyone got some insight into that? The Monarchy part makes sense at least.

[Sci-2]

I find that kind of baffling that someone who supports inherited power would be a proponent for anarchy. Anyone got some insight into that? The Monarchy part makes sense at least.

I think the idea is a king with divine right, and thus committed to justice, can ensure the well being of the people. IIRC the Gita mentions something similar, and also Plato mentions something similar in the Republic?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I find that kind of baffling that someone who supports inherited power would be a proponent for anarchy. Anyone got some insight into that? The Monarchy part makes sense at least.

As I said above, I think what he may have meant could best be seen by what happened to the hobbits/Shire after Aragorn became King. Basically, he left them completely alone except they'd have to keep roads/bridges repaired, and speed messengers. So it was a monarchy, but a minimalist one.

For anyone who has played the Third Age mod for the Total War series, they incorporate this by giving you the option of giving the Shire "autonomy". If you do that, any roads you construct pop up immediately rather than over a number of turns, as hobbits apparently consume six meals a day but work very quickly. Rather humorous.

[IheartTesla]

Many that have a Nobel deserve death. And some that die deserve a Nobel. Can you give it to them?

Hmm....thats a bit tortured. Anyway, while I admire Tolkien for revitalizing/reinventing a genre and giving some of us countless hours of pleasure, there are only so many people who can get a Nobel prize. Plus I'm not sure of his cultural impact outside of some parts of Europe and NA (the films of course changed that). Rowling and Harry Potter can probably claim a better case.

The Nobels are only one award. I get a bit annoyed when we treat them like the Oscars (even for the sciences, which are a little more objective). It doesn't mean an awardee is the best in the world. Tolkien is already beloved by millions, a Nobel is pretty meaningless compared to that.

[Reposado]

I find that kind of baffling that someone who supports inherited power would be a proponent for anarchy. Anyone got some insight into that? The Monarchy part makes sense at least.

Here's one way of looking at it, When you have a monarch that inherits the rule by birthright, you get a random draw.(even though raising someone with that birthright might ruin them) you might get someone just. Or, more likely, you could get someone devoted to their own hobbies and joys and leave the people alone.

When you have some sort of competition (Such as election or war) you are guaranteed to get someone who wants power. The winner of such a competition will almost always be the absolute last person you want to have power.

So if you want someone in power who will not use it, and mostly leave the people to their devices, an inherited monarchy can be the prescription.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Um, without meaning to drag this whole discussion up once more, the idea that it is impossible to define what makes prose within art 'good' or 'bad' is quite simply wrong.

Its a science, with set rules, and a shit-ton of theories. Its not a case of being an elitist (though these people may exist). As it happens there are specific standards by which the literary community will judge prose. Now, some have different standards to others, but they are still cold, hard standards. Not sure why literary criticism is seen as some sort of vague hocus pocus type concept by some posters here.

[Sci-2]

Largely because it is hard to pin down the rules. I believe computional linguistics has managed to create sonnets, IIRC, but not whole novels. A programmer in that field may have been able to create an academic paper IIRC.

[Fryie]

wtf?

Anybody can write a sonnet. That's not what makes art art. It is ridiculous to claim that literary criticism (or literature itself) is a science. Literary studies now, are a humanities subject, but the "shit-load of theories" are concerned with how to interpret texts, what the role of the author is with respect to his work, what the role of society is, etc. You don't write your doctoral thesis about whether Dante is better than Homer, you write it about (say) a certain type of metaphor in a specific work, or about the history of some genre.

Now, even the most elitist criticics I've never seen claim that art is "science". That's a plain misunderstanding of what art is about.

That's not to say that it is all "hocus pocus", but who said that there wasn't anything between hard facts and hocus pocus?