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

[Sci-2]

That and then when you consider the contents of Nobel's will...

Leaving aside the issue of if the story is viewed as derivative or weak, would Tolkien's writing ever fit those parameters?

Actually, seeing that, I do think Tolkien was robbed. He created new mythology, something that can be taken as secondary scripture by people of all religions. The story emphasizes friendship and compassion, as well as courage and loyalty in the face of evil.

[James Nicholls]

No, because you are ignoring the order of logic here.

I am not saying Shakespeare is better then TEOA because more people say it is, I'm saying because it's better then TEOA, everyone thinks it is.

Pretty much everyone believes that things that are dropped fall, but this does not mean the laws of gravity are based on popular opinion.

Well I can presume that regardless of popular opinion on the subject, you'd think that Shakespeare was better than TEOA? On what basis?

Sure, they are called Italians.

But, to be serious, you've chosen a decent example here. Wine, and taste in general, is based on certain expectations. Shit tastes bad, no matter how much some illusive person might claim it doesn't. I mean, they can say "It's my opinion", and it certainly would be, but that doesn't mean it's not a bad opinion.

Lol'd at the Italians comment. But seriously, some people might like the taste of shit, although our senses are configured to be repulsed by it. Given the medical dangers of playing with your own faeces this is entirely logical, and there are reasons why certain forms in art appeal to the masses. This doesn't change the fact that the experience and response to it is subjective.

Yes, and? You act like this is unwarranted or bad or something.

When a 5 year old tells me Go Dog Go is the best book in the world and that War and Peace sucks because it's too big, is this a valid opinion? Or does that child lack the experience and skills to properly make this evaluation? (fyi - the answer is the second one)

I'm certainly being "intellectually elitist" when I tell that child "No, you are wrong. You'll know better later.". I am using my superior experience and skills and knowledge to make a better assessment of the relative merits of the books in question.

The 5 year old wants something different from a book than you do. Your opinion is superior because....you're older? You've read more? You're smarter? I don't view any of those things as significant. I think the concept of a "best book ever" is even more ridiculous than the idea of books being considered "better" or worse objectively. And for the record I've read some kids books recently that I'd say were better written than many of the classics academics hold up as the best thing since sliced bread. Even if there is objective quality to literature, comparing two works that were made with entirely different intentions is ridiculous.

So in short I think the 5 year old's opinion is just as valid as yours.

[Galactus]

Actually, seeing that, I do think Tolkien was robbed. He created new mythology, something that can be taken as secondary scripture by people of all religions. The story emphasizes friendship and compassion, as well as courage and loyalty in the face of evil.

It's unclear if Nobel meant "ideal" in the sense of "high quality" or "promoting high ideals". The term can mean either of these two things.

[Gormenghast]

Eh?

Nobel means "Alfred Nobel". It doesn't mean "noble".

[Galactus]

Eh?

Nobel means "Alfred Nobel". It doesn't mean "noble".

"If he meant in his testament".

It actually means Noble, but that's a coincidence, and not the actual etymology of his name.

[Sci-2]

It's unclear if Nobel meant "ideal" in the sense of "high quality" or "promoting high ideals". The term can mean either of these two things.

Oh, i meant the former. It reads like mythology. It feels like a genuine prehistory, equal to ancient stories. Its moral component is secondary.

I mean it does have discernible flaws.

[Grack21]

As much as I agree with most of what James has been saying, I have to agree with Shryke. At some point, shit is just shit. Shakespeare is probably a bad example actually, cause I know of people who think SHakespeare is some of the worst shit ever, but I mean,

well shit.

I can paint a giant dildo with my shit, and say its art, but really, it's just shit.

THAT MADE NO SENSE.

[jagilki]

Thanks for that mental image.

[Grack21]

No problem. That's why I'm here.

[Horselover Fat]

I can paint a giant dildo with my shit, and say its art, but really, it's just shit.

Well with all due respect, it's not just shit, I mean there is apparently a giant dildo involved and that is significant.

[Grack21]

But it's made of shit! Like a chocolate dildo, at the end of the day, is still just chocolate!

Wow these cold meds are strong!

[Tears of Lys]

Neither Nobel nor Tolkien would approve of the direction this thread is taking. :angry:

[Verboten]

Neither Nobel nor Tolkien would approve of the direction this thread is taking. :angry:

Come now what do you have against Penny Arcade?

[Grack21]

I bet Shakespeare would approve though!

[James Nicholls]

I can paint a giant dildo with my shit, and say its art, but really, it's just shit.

Poetry to my ears. By from a practical point of view you'd probably have to liquidise that shit in a blender (perhaps adding some milk to pad it out) and take a paint brush to the mixture. Good luck sir.

[Mme Erzulie]

Dogdays, James and FLOW: Thanks for your replies. I will address them in more detail later if I have time.

I would like to say, though, that mine wasn't a very well thought out or formulated post, and as such is likely to contain logical fallacies, contradictions and unclear arguments.

I am also not convinced of my own position, and I see now (and even realised at the time of writing it) that the science analogy is flawed. I guess what I was trying to get across is that there might be qualities to art that are as objective as scientific ones, even though we cannot access them. Another flawed analogy might be Kant's Ding an Sich argument.

Grack21: It's already been done.

As you were

ETA: Clarity

[Sci-2]

I have a friend who makes penis sculptures, including giant ones. There are also pictures of penises all over the walls. He is also a white dude into Hindu swastikas. Works fine while he's visiting India, not so much in the States.

[genegirl]

Mohandas Gandhi was never nominated for a Noble Peace prize. The Noble committee did think about a nomination after Gandhi's death in the 60s but no one dead receives the prize. I still have not figure out why our current President was awarded the prize?

I have read Rings several times and read it out loud to my young daughter now a grown woman. I am proud to say she is a fan of LotR and ASoIaF and in college.

[jagilki]

I still have not figure out why our current President was awarded the prize?

Because he's not our previous President.

[TerraPrime]

Actually, seeing that, I do think Tolkien was robbed. He created new mythology, something that can be taken as secondary scripture by people of all religions. The story emphasizes friendship and compassion, as well as courage and loyalty in the face of evil.

No offense, but one doesn't simply walk into Mordor, and one doesn't simply create mythology. One might try to estimate what a set of myths might look like, and I think that's what Tolkien did. In order for his creation to be real mythology, it would have required at least some people to believe that it's real, at least in a metaphorical sense.

But seriously, consider this line of reasoning. Followed through, we'd have to hoist H. P. Lovecraft and, wait for it.... L. Ron Hubbard, onto the same pedestal as Tolkien. Scary in a Lovecraftian scale, no?