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

[Grack21]

Tolkien wrote the similarion.

[Sci-2]

I know. I just wanted to see you rage into were-totoro form. :-)

[Myshkin]

When you say "shame on Lewis" it makes me think you believe other writers are more "deserving" because their craft was better.

When I say shame on Lewis it's because he obviously nominated his friend rather than a writer. Although I indeed do think other writers were more deserving because their craft was better. Ivo Andric, for instance.

This may be the case, but I don't think Tolkien - for all his flaws - is a terrible writer. There's something to be said for writing that has literary merit but also appeals to people from so many different walks of life.

The Nobel Prize is not the Not-A-Terrible-Writer Prize. You need to do a damn sight better than "not terrible" to win it. I don't see much literary merit in Tolkien's work, and lots of authors appeal to people from all walks of life. I don't think Tolkien was a bad writer, but he was not deserving of a Nobel Prize. LOTR was a great story; it was very entertaining, and dealt with some good themes along the way. But the same can be said of Harry Potter.

[Sci-2]

Oh, I'm not saying Tolkien deserved the Nobel. I am curious what you mean by craft exactly though.

[Myshkin]

What I mean by craft? You're the one who brought up craft! Ok ok, what I mean by craft is prose, the ability to construct a cohesive story, and the ability to coherently and powerfully convey themes. Some other stuff too.

[Sci-2]

Heh, I did bring up craft. This thread comes and goes so I couldn't remember if we ever pinned down some criteria for judgement.

[Isalie]

Reread The Hobbit recently, running across this thread really makes me wonder why anyone would be pissed that he wasn't awarded the Nobel Prize. Really, all the build up towards Smaug, then the dragon dies randomly and there's WAR, with a nice death of a dwarf of course, and then catharsis hour, all the while introducing golf references and terrible songs every now and then. Good stuff.

[SeanF]

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.

It certainly wasn't piss-poor in quality. Tolkien fulfilled very well the first duty of any writer of fiction - to write a gripping plot that entertains the reader.

But, I quite accept that Greene, Forster and the others judged by the Committee were better writers.

[Myshkin]

It certainly wasn't piss-poor in quality. Tolkien fulfilled very well the first duty of any writer of fiction - to write a gripping plot that entertains the reader.

I don't see that as a writer's duty at all. A plot is not necessary to fiction, nor is entertainment. In fact those two things are likely what kept Tolkien from winning major literary awards. Plot-driven entertainment gets you on best seller lists; theme-driven novels win literary prizes.

[Sci-2]

I think Tolkien has become something of a popular target, to an extent perhaps this is inevitable as we see the quality of the work being held up to fresher material as genre labels somewhat dissolve.

In the end, whether a work is Nobel worthy is only one quality in the same way you can love a video game for graphics, story, or AI.

[SeanF]

I don't see that as a writer's duty at all. A plot is not necessary to fiction, nor is entertainment. In fact those two things are likely what kept Tolkien from winning major literary awards. Plot-driven entertainment gets you on best seller lists; theme-driven novels win literary prizes.

I'll admit one exception to that rule. James Joyce was such a master of words that he could get away with writing a plotless novel, Ulysses. No one else can do that, even though some authors think that they can.

I was wrong to use the word "entertain" but the plot must grip, at any rate. And writing a good plot is far harder than writing pages of stylish prose.

If literary prize-givers prefer style to plot that reflects badly on them, by turning literature into something that can only be appreciated by cognoscenti. It doesn't reflect badly on novelists who write good plots.

[Marcus Cicero]

And writing a good plot is far harder than writing pages of stylish prose.

This is going to vary from author to author, but I largely suspect it's not true. Also, your use of the word 'stylish' is clever, as it makes a preference towards good prose seem superficial. Using exceptional prose to expound upon and articulate deep themes is of greater merit than the word 'style' implies.

[SeanF]

I daresay it does vary from author to author, but a lot of authors will say that working out a good plot is by some measure the hardest part of writing a novel.

PG Wodehouse had no difficulty writing a hilarious sentence, but he absolutely agonised over his plots.

If he looks at this thread, it would be great to have Joe Abercrombie's views.

[The Unburnt Hound]

While I agree with the rejection there is no denying Tolkiens contribution to the world of fantasy writing. I don't feel that deserves a Nobel Prize for literature though.

[Myshkin]

This is getting off topic, but really I have to say you are just plain wrong as regards to plot being necessary. You also seem to think that the choice is between plot and style, and fail to acknowledge theme. Read Banville's The Sea, Vargas Llosa's The Storyteller, or Roy's The God of Small Things; all three are wonderful novels, and none of them contain a plot. Read Dostoevsky's The Idiot or Mann's The Magic Mountain; both novels are very light on plot, and what plot there is only serves to help convey the themes. What is the plot of Garcia Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude? What is the plot of Cortazar's Hopscotch? What is the plot of Delillo's White Noise? These are beautiful novels, powerful novels, no plot needed. This is not to say that plot can't be used to great effect; Rushdie, Saramago, and Farrell all build/built great plots to compliment and intertwine with their themes. But a gripping plot is not the duty of a fiction author, nor are gripping themes; a novel should have one or the other, or both.

[Serious Callers Only]

Roy's The God of Small Things; all three are wonderful novels, and none of them contain a plot.

I knew there was a reason i didn't like that book

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Read Banville's The Sea, Vargas Llosa's The Storyteller, or Roy's The God of Small Things; What is the plot of Cortazar's Hopscotch? What is the plot of Delillo's White Noise? These are beautiful novels, powerful novels, no plot needed. This is not to say that plot can't be used to great effect;.

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.

[Kegg]

Interesting thread. Some thoughts.

I don't know if "objective" is the right word here. I do agree that there are standards that are nigh-universally agreed upon but on what grounds are they judged strictly objective?

Exactly so. We can speak of the existence of a critical consensus as to what constitutes good literature, but 'objective' is not a word you want to throw around - it suggests a permenance, a solidity of what is considered good prose. Anyone even vaguely familiar with literature may be aware that there are authors whose works are re-evaluated (Kate Chopin comes to mind) or who, while once popular, fall out of fashion. What one expected in the days of Heliodorus or Murasaki Shibiku is not what you get today.

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. There's perfectly well elucidated reasons (some in this thread) that some writers are held up for their prose and others aren't and they're usually really excellent reasons (which one shouldn't get too bothered over, either - other people not caring for J.R.R. Tolkein does not magically mean you're required to look down on him, after all).

Oh, come on. This is a self-fulfilled prophecy. Those names are "popular" among those who would vote them at the time as they would vote them today. For the general public they are quite obscure.

This is all a matter of perspective, isn't it. I'm sure on this website more people would know who Mervyn Peake is than know who Graham Greene is, but I can assure you in my real world, day to day interactions it's the other way around.

Of course, such perspectives can lead to unintentionally funny posts like this:

And fuck Doestovesky, he's a hack who wrote unintelligible wankery, but Terry Goodkind has sold millions of copies so he's waaaay better than Dostoevsky obviously.

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.

[Isalie]

I think you are lacking some context concerning that last quote.

[Kegg]

I think you are lacking some context concerning that last quote.

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.