I actually share this opinion of yours regarding ideas more suitable for nonfiction and made the same point previously elsewhere so I will apologize for the textbook analogy and in its place offer the monotonous teacher analogy who drones on and on and on until one's wits have been dulled and one's mind has wandered. Alas the emotions invoked are not of wonder but of ennui. Not exactly the best state of mind to learn much of anything factual or otherwise. I prefer reading less ponderous and more nimble fare that keeps the mind, at least my mind, sharp and agile.
Richard H. Fay said:
My apologies if I have offended but I told you what I read and my feelings on it. It may not be the most informed opinion but I can at least assure you it is entirely my own and not someone else's. Make of it what you will. In your opinion who is the better writer Poe or Dunsany?
It was implied by your comments suggesting people found Tolkien difficult because in your opinion he was writing classic literature. Thank you for the clarification.
Not at all. There are many good examples of contemporary fiction to be found within the English cannon of literature - which makes them both contemporary and classic works of fiction at the same time. If we stick only to fantasy then the "His Dark Materials" trilogy by Pullman immediately springs to mind. Much academic effort has been (and continues to be) devoted to researching and analysing these novels. These novels also feature on many Bachelor Degree level (and above) university reading lists alongside other classic works of childrens fantasy such as Alice in Wonderland and Peter and Wendy.
How many words, terms, and phrases recognisable by modern readers have been mistakenly attributed to the Bard? If Shakespeare is as good as he is purported to be his work can cope with critical examination. Indeed he is a paragon of the English language precisely because of that.
No, that was not what I was trying to say. I was pointing out, however, the hypothetical scenario where if you saw little or no redeeming value there is little point in still regarding something as a classic. Pete Rose was a baseball record setter but he was convicted of tax evasion. Should he be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame? Leni Riefenstahl was a famed filmmaker but she was seen as lending support to Hitler. Should her work be deemed classic? Tony Blair is running for prime minister again. Should people vote for him? Perhaps none of these cases mean anything to you but there might come a situation where it does. If so is your opinion merely one of a number of opinions or should it matter?
.
.
I believe this strongly depends on which professor teaches the class.
I know I'll regret saying anything since it's been 25+ years since I read LOTR, but ...
Yes.
I don't. Although any critical reading of LOTR should consider why he adopted the tone and voice he used.
Not sure that follows. The extremely long, intricate epic fantasy novel stems largely from his example and his popularity. It is possible, just possible, mind you, that the reason so few writers try to emulate his writing style isn't because they don't like it, but because whatever magic he pulled from it is not imitatable. That voice would make it too much like mimicry.
Absolutely. No doubt. Just, please, define what you mean by clear. Offer up an example of some other writer's writing (a quote would be nice, but a name would suffice).
I agree it's an odd idea. That's why I enjoy Faulkner's clarity and vigor.
Ah. Interesting. You think prose is to convey ideas. Very utilitarian.
Agreed again. Lucid writing for non-fiction is paramount.
If you only read "Three Bottles of Relish", you could easily think that. Some of his other more fanciful fantasies are very different from Poe.
What else would such a professor teach?
Affected writing doesn't bother me that much although in Tolkien's case it does because it distracts from the ordinary level of writing skill employed. I get the feeling Tolkien's writing is being presented to young readers and they are associating his affected style and plodding convoluted prose with good writing in the same way they are misled to believe that what makes Shakespeare special is his Elisabethan speak. I do not wonder that more children do not take up reading when the likes of Tolkien are held up as models. In my mind he's a poor example if portrayed as classical literature.
I do not find LotR particularly long or intricate. A glacial reading experience but in terms of plot structure simple. He borrowed heavily from romantic adventures and much of what I see people now ascribing to him I see as properly belong to the body of romantic adventures. His tone and voice can probably be traced to other authors though I would say he developed that aspect into something his own. If, however, that is not what modern fantasists are imitating, what Tolkien's original contribution to fantasy is relies more on what he combined from others and not what he developed himself.
Clear? Lucid? Writing one can readily follow. Writing that engages the reader. I am not a particularly difficult reader to please.
I'm aware of this. The question I pose then is if a writer such as Scott, who is credited with creating the historical novel and whose influence I would argue is much greater than that of Tolkien and many many other authors held in esteem by the literary clique, can undergo such shifts in reputation, why should Tolkien be spared a critical look? I also think it evidence of the biased mindset of our literary gatekeepers and supports my view that one's own opinion if considered is nothing to be sneezed at.
Going by what I've read Ivanhoe was probably his primary seminal work in the historical novel. With his earlier work Scott wrote of fairly recent Scottish history but with Ivanhoe he went back centuries. While I like Ivanhoe I do not think it is his best and think it unfortunate that he is judged mainly by it. I know my own reaction on reading some of his later work was surprise. Why isn't this what he is known for? It's like reading The Three Musketeers and thinking that is the best Dumas has to offer and then discovering The Count of Monte Cristo. Still while I think the writing is a step up it is essentially the same style so maybe it wouldn't make for much different reading experience. In any case I hope it is clear why I do not think old-fashioned writing is at the source of my issue with Tolkien.
True, but where do you draw the line? At what point does one stop making excuses and simply call something bad writing? At that stage both parties will either have to agree to disagree or explain why they hold the opinion they do. Too frequently for my liking I get in response some appeal to what other people believe and not an individual opinion.
As I've said previously I think there are better authors to introduce if inculcating a love of reading is the aim. Maybe I'm wrong but I get the sense from various views expressed including your own that the quality of writing, technically speaking, has been slipping ever since the early 20th or maybe even the late 19th century. A lot of it has to do with present day lifestyle but based on my own experience I think the choice of reading material presented has something to do with it. Many of the great writers of classics were of a younger age than many of us on this forum now when they released their works. I ask: What kind of books were these writers reading when they were younger that prepared them to write their own masterpieces? What books did they hold as a standard to judge themselves against? The revisionist tendency of our literary guardians I think has shifted attention away from many of these popular sources of inspiration from the past and left it to watered down versions from alternate media to fill the gap while they preoccupy themselves and hold in high esteem indulgent curiosities of writing e.g. Joyce.
But what if it isn't only my opinion. How about I have seen it expressed many times? The reality is there is always someone who is going to disagree or hold an alternate opinion. My opinion is one I am intimately familiar with. I know how well reasoned or not it is. I cannot say the same for the opinions of others most of the time. To accept the opinion of another at face value is to not be critical of it.
What does it mean to be a direct influence versus an indirect influence? I find it hard to believe Tolkien could be ignorant of Scott's work. Both drew from folklore and were interested in old stories. Tolkien's recreation of a mythology can be seen as a natural extension of Scott's recreation of a history, with Tolkien going back farther in time. I'm unfamiliar with MacDonald. It's wrong he and others like Eddison get lost in the mix when Tolkien is discussed these days. It's the Tolkien myth I scoff at, more than his writing, but the writing does not live up to the myth so....
