Is Tolkien overrated-From Martin's thread

Shadow9d9, you have completely misunderstood my post. It's not supposed to be insulting, and it's not a rant. I tried to clearly list a few reasons why I thought your original question missed the point. It's a real shame that you seem to want a discussion, but then you can't even respond to my post (except for saying that I'm ranting and insulting you). This is exactly my point; you don't seem to know enough about Tolkien to hold a proper discussion about him. You just think he's over-rated, and don't appear to be able to respond to any of the points I made in my post.

Same goes for terminus est, who "burst out laughing" when I mentioned Tolkien as a part of the English cannon. There is a huge body of Tolkien scholarship devoted to criticizing and examining every aspect of Tolkien, including his place in literary history. And then there's random members on sffworld who don't actually know anything about any of this, probably haven't actually read any of it, and yet feel qualified to laugh it off. And then they think that any attempt to point out problems with their arguments is merely a rant or an insult.

I'm willing to discuss why Tolkien is not over-rated, but you have to be willing to defend your claim and to be able to listen to (and understand) arguments against yours. Until then, good luck.

 

The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion are two of the most seminal, important works of literature in Western culture, period.

Writing style has little to do with this. I have read many authors who technically are better than Tolkien. But what Tolkien's stories have in abundance that so many others lack is heart and soul. They are about transcendent, deeper truths of living. Tolkien delves into the marrow of what a human being's life is - or should be - all about.

What do we do with the time that is given us? Do we step out of our cosy "shires" and push into the dark places that so desperately need light? Are we able to summon up strength and courage when all odds are against us?

What is the measure of a man - or a hobbit, elf, dwarf, or wizard? The quest for that ineffable greatness that we strive for or wither and slowly fade.....that is the heart of Tolkien's greatest stories.

I don't care whose list of greatest writers Tolkien gets put on. Those who catch the bright splendor of everyday beings caught up in a quest so much larger than themselves will continue to read and love his work.

 

But I don't think one can dismiss his writing style. He wasn't an full time author, and it shows in his non traditional structure.
But his use of the parallel narratives in The Two Towers serves to create a physically palpable sense of suspense. That's pretty technically proficient to my mind, unless it was an accident, which seems unlikely when one understands the development of his work.

And his use of language was second to none, as one would expect from a master of the English language.

And did I mention he was a master of the English language?
The guy understood language and etymology like no other.

 

I don't consider Tolkien the greatest writer in world history, not even one of the top 100, but I wouldn't call him bad and I certainly wouldn't call him one of the worst.

If you consider him bad "from a technical viewpoint" (whatever that is supposed to mean) I assume you do understand that his typical style and language, that certainly stand out compared to most modern writers, was very intentional. He tried to copy the typically dry and harsh language of old english, kalevala and icelandic sagas. Wheter he did this good or not can be argued, but not by comparing his language to other modern writers and arguing that they have a more lush and lively language.

 

My main problem with Tolkien comes down to the fact that he is terrible at telling a story. His writing style may be excellent, his grasp of the english language may be unsurpassed, he may indeed have invented an entire language (though how can be used to argue he is a good author I will never understand), but whenever I try to read LotR I am bored senseless. He goes into so much detail that is completely irrelevant, inserts poems with little relevance to the events, and does (in my opinion) a very shoddy job at characterization.

I think the real point where I realised what my problem was with Tolkien was relatively early in the Fellowship of the Ring. When the hobbits are passing through the shire at one stage they pass by Buck Hall, at which stage Tolkien goes off on a tangent about the history, residents and customs of Buck Hall, which the hobbits never even enter, and which to my knowledge is never referred to again (I may be mistaken on this last point, as I have never managed to make it to the end of the Two Towers).

It seems to me that a lot of the Tolkien fanatics out there use this kind of lore depth as the argument that this is a great work, whereas a lot of readers want a good story, not a handbook to Middle Earth culture, with particular reference to Hobbit Society.

 

Ok, I understand what you mean. But I can't see how arguments about a writers personality and personal life can be of any interrest in a discussion about that writers value as a writer. It might (or might not) be impressive that a writer manages to produce 10, 100 or even 1000 good books while struggling with high income and popularity, but it doesn't make him a better writer. Each literay work has to be valued from it's own qualities and each writer has to be valued from the qualities of his work, is'n that so?

 

That is, of course, a relevant personal opinion. If you don´t like the way Tolkien tells his story then you are entitled to dismiss him as an author that doesn't suit your particullar taste. I've met people that don't like Gabriel García Márquez because of his writing style and apparently there are people that don't like Citizen Kane for the way it tells a story. There is a difference though between saying that a writer doesn't suit you (like you do) and saying that a writer is "bad from a technical viewpoint".

 

Evil Agent said everything that I would have wanted to say and did it better. I don't deify Tolkein as many do, I've read better fantasy writers, but you cannot over estimate the good Professor's contribution to the genre. No, he is not overrated.

 

Strange how I read Poe, Mark Twain, Hemingway, and Faulkner in English Lit class.

 

When I first became interested in Tolkien, the reading I did convinced me that the high fantasy genre as we know it today owes much of its existence and character to Tolkien. His structure and content have many imitators. His work inspired further work and development in the fantasy genre, and that is what a "seminal" work does.

 

It seems to me that a lot of the opinions that are anti-Tolkien in this thread are more about preference and taste then anything else and have nothing to do with whether he is overrated. Were this a debate the game would be over the point has been proven he is not overrated. Better to ask "who likes Tolkien - why or why not?" Then some of the opinions here would come across more clearly and then are also not really in dispute - as far as that individual is concerned. Thats my 2 cents worth.

 

IMO he's overrated as a story teller simply because i've enjoyed most fantasy more than I enjoyed LotR. One can disagree with me but ya can't say i'm wrong due to personal taste or just plain ignorant etc as it's my freaking opinion on a subjective subject.

It's very hard to argue though that he hasn't played a large part in fantasy genre as we now know it. Sure you can say he wasn't as original as most people like to think he was but as the above poster said his work is a "seminal"(containing or contributing the seeds of later development) work. Just as Brooks, Feist, Eddings, Moorcock, Donaldson, Jordan and Martin imo can also be considered to have contributed "seminal" pieces or work to modern fantasy.

 

I will quote wiki, my source:

"Children's books and other short works

In addition to his mythopoetic compositions, Tolkien enjoyed inventing fantasy stories to entertain his children.[121] He wrote annual Christmas letters from Father Christmas for them, building up a series of short stories (later compiled and published as The Father Christmas Letters). Other stories included Mr. Bliss and Roverandom (for children), and Leaf by Niggle (part of Tree and Leaf), The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, On Fairy-Stories, Smith of Wootton Major and Farmer Giles of Ham. Roverandom and Smith of Wootton Major, like The Hobbit, borrowed ideas from his legendarium."


Children's book and short works don't apply to this discussion, which, being the OP, is about adult full sized books. I hate how people keep trying to argue semantics. Did I really need to specify adult books here? If so, consider it specified... I think you are being WAY disingenuous there.

When you take out the "Children's books and other short works" you are left with just LOTR...

You are so right.. I am obviously a troll because I neglected to mention his children's stories and short works when talking about full length books here. Preposterous.

As for criticizing acclaimed authors here.. who ISN'T considered a "popular/critically lauded" author on these forums!? If people had to avoid "popular" author discussions, the forums would be dead or only about recommendations, which, ironically, it pretty much is. No wonder people are scared to post(as noted in the other thread). Even the mods call people trolls here if they don't post popular opinions!

Books published after death are also not works that I consider for an author... Personal opinion there. Unless it was within a few years or so of death...

 

What is it with making extreme, melodramatic statements in this thread?

 

Errrrr what?? I guess you're talking about silmarillion or? If Tolkien didn't write it then who did=)

I for one am a Tolkien fan but I completely understand people who arn't. The prose might not be for everyone and if you compare modern fantasy storyline with 60 different plotlines in series that span 10 books or more I can understand why some people can feel that Lotr is abit bland in comparison.

That being said, I think it's awesome that they made a movie out of the books because when I speak my native language (icelandic) everyone thinks it sounds just like elfish and I feel cool!

 

Shadow - you keep changing the rules. The foundation you are standing on seems to be made of shifting sands. You dont like Tolkien and thats ok - no one is going to tie you down and force you to read the Hobbit. Agree to disagree my good man and move on.

 

Sure, just tell me what rule I changed. I didn't think I needed to specify we were talking about books for adults on an adult forum.

How exactly is posting a list of children's stories and short stories and trying to equate them with books not disingenuous?

 

I didn't get this statement when I read it. Have more people really been influenced by Gene Wolfe over Tolkein?

 

Forgive me but I thought the question was whether Tolkien is overrated. Many have offered you rational arguments for why he is not which you are now saying cant be used to support their arguments. They are contrary to yours thats all. You have to be able to accept what others are saying to engage in an argument.

Maybe I misunderstood your intent. Are you really asking is LOTR over rated?