Would you rate Tolkien as a writer?

[C. Craig R. McNeil]

I'm actually reading Lord of the Rings right now and am really enjoying it. Tolkien's writing style is very different from any other author I've read. I can't quite put my finger on what's different. It may be his descriptions, the mythology or even (IMO) the way that you never seem to get involved in the characters. Whatever it is, it works though possibly because it is such a unique style.

 

[Marky Lazer]

I'm actually reading Lord of the Rings right now and am really enjoying it. Tolkien's writing style is very different from any other author I've read. I can't quite put my finger on what's different. It may be his descriptions, the mythology or even (IMO) the way that you never seem to get involved in the characters. Whatever it is, it works though possibly because it is such a unique style.

Then you better go join in the Trivia quiz, fast!

 

[SmoothasSilk]

I love LotR and I have read The Hobbit about three times and I am on my third re read of the Trilogy, and I've even plowed through the Silmarrillion, I personally LOVE Tolkien and rate him high. Why? Because so few authors actually make me feel like I am in the world I am reading about and Tolkien manages that by the way he describes Middle Earth. I am THERE everytime I read it.

It took me FIVE books before I felt like I was at Hogwarts with Harry Potter. Why? Because the first three were too short, and the fourth was just ACTION, ACTION, ACTION, which tires me out by the way. But the fifth one was the one where I truly felt because she ACTUALLY described Harry's world in detail.

I prefer detail in a book, it can be thousands of pages long, but as long as I feel like I am there then that's fine with me, so I rate Tolkien as HIGH!

 

[Scatterheart]

I agree with all those who state that his strengths lie in story-weaving, rather than the actual telling. What frustrated me about the books (don't get me wrong, I love them dearly) was that he hardly described what was going on in the character's heads. I was left to judge Aragorn, Gandalf and all the others by the deeds that they did -- because that's all that we are given to build some sort of understanding of them.

Do any of you remember the line in FotR, when Frodo was looking out the window of Bombadil's house, and Tolkien described the rain as "turning the yellow dirt path into little milky rivers, running down the slope" or something along that notion. That line (I should learn it off by heart and repeat it at random intervals) affected me psychologically. I'm not entirely sure, but perhaps it's because at the time that I read it I was going through an internal battle with my writing styles. Descriptive and down to earth, or utterly abstract? And that line nudged me into realizing that the cream of a description lies in its obvious simplicity. It allowed me to let out the appropriate rein as to how much insanity one can bear while reading a fleshy text.

So, I say in most respects I will always consider him as a historical story-teller, rather than a paperback writer. And that's the way it should be (he was a historian after all). But certain aspects of the text matured my own writing style.
I wish Tolkien were still alive so I could run up and hug him!
(I bet he smelt funny)

 

[Cozener]

I don't think Tolkien was such a great writer. What he was great at was supporting material. Histories, maps, languages, etc. However, as a writer he was very good at story organization. Other than that I'd say he was average.

 

[jackokent]

I think he'd need to get browny points for originality. Before Tolkein I'd never read anything like this stuff. Other writers may be technically better but he was first of a genre and that's got to mean something.

I also think his writing was incredibly rich. He didn't describe a place he dumped the reader right in the middle of it.

Of course he had faults ie describing women but that fact that he could be so glaringly deficient in some areas and still be described as brilliant by so many (me included) has got to be testimony to his skill.

 

[Alurny]

I will never forget the day I was read "the lord of the rings" for the first time... (sept 97')

It was a typical English autumn morning. Rain pounded on the single glazed classroom windows. The thin lights on the ceiling flickered into life as my teacher hit the switch. I was sat in my usual red, plastic seat with my legs under the chewing gum stalactites attached to the bottom of the table. Until this point I had hated English and everything with it, especially the "crappy" poetry.

My teacher sat on his desk at usual looking round as we all buzzed with chatter like a swarm of insects. Usually he would shout and would be given laughs in response but today he changed his methods. He picked up a piece of chalk and wrote on the fraying blackboard:

"J. R. R. Tolkien: The lord of the rings"

Everyone stopped talking and stared at the board. Silence fell mouths open in anticipation. His lips began to move and out came a description of a battle. I was mesmerised.

....................................................................................................

Tolkien made me care about English. He made me care about books. He probably was the major factor in me doing so well at school in the subject. I learnt so much from his style and his descriptions where you could feel you were there. Sure I read other books but nothing yet has hit home like tolkien.

 

[YoYo]

He surely isn't the best writer ever, nor the best fantasy writer, but he invented a whole world that somehow appears to be the base for present fantasy writers.

 

[devilsgrin]

i'd certainly agree he was a revolutionary author. He did basically invent the modern fantasy genre. His world was incedibly well formed, and even believable - as he was afterall trying to create 'english mythology' a subject he felt was lacking in depth.
That said, i do find parts of Lord of the Rings extremely slow going and at times - having read them so often - i skip the boring chapters...indeed i skip book 4 completely every time and most of book six as well.
The Silmarillion would have to be his greatest work - condensed as it is, it is still the greatest of the Tolkein books i've read. Though the Hobbit is much more fun than Rings, but it is supposed to be less dreary and dark.
So i would have to say, tho Tolkein was an exceptional 'historian', he was not a truly gifted author. Talented yes, but often far too long winded, which lets down many parts of Rings especially.

 

[Clank]

There's a Tolkien expert on a documentary that comes with one of the extended Lord Of The Rings DVDs and he says that LOTR would never get published in its existing form nowadays because of the length of certain 'slower' sections without being edited down!..

However I still think Tolkiens books are some of the best things I've ever read and he explains things in a really detailed and believable way. The Hobbit was the first book I actually read all the way through when I was about 12 and that was it, I got hooked! In fact I'm reading the Silmarillion at the moment.

So IMHO I would say he was a good writer.

 

[devilsgrin]

lol. the Hobbit was also the first book i read cover to cover myself, that was not a specified childrens book, And i was also 12.

 

[SpaceShip]

I also read The Hobbit and couldn't put it down. However, after that bought LOTR (the whole thing) and struggled. I suppose I'm still only about a third of the way through and keep telling myself to pick it up (but become miserable - it must be the thought of picking it up again) but haven't done so so far. However, enjoyed the films - so might try struggling through again (one day). Hence, my response would have to be "not one of the best" otherwise I would have finished it by now. Haven't read any other of his works though.

 

[Commonmind]

A lot of folks that read the series late after having read other fantasy works seem to forget that Tolkien was writing in a different convention to what we are most familiar with these days. And in that same ilk, he was also writing to a much different and much broader audience. Fantasy writers today know their readership, and understand well that they can be subjective, snobby and somewhat stubborn when it comes to their genre; most of them simply write to this audience, and abide their readers by presenting them with the normal fantasy archetypes, unlike Tolkien who was writing a piece of literature for the world to read. In that respect Tolkien's style can come off as simple or minimalist by today's standards, but in itself there lays the genius. He never said to himself, “I’m going to write a fantasy novel” He said to himself he was going to write a story for people to read. There is a definable difference in that mentality.

My personal opinion is that it is rather unjust to weigh his work by our current standards, that and considering our tastes differ greatly from one another and as a whole from society as it was during the time of the Lord of the Rings' initial publication, it seems a rather unfair comparison.

I for one could care less whether he stacks up in literary prowess against anyone around today (or not, R.I.P. Gemmell), his stories are what matter and they are magical and worthy of praise. Any good story should be about the story, the prose should be adequate to deliver that story, but the story is what counts.

 

[Lith]

I don't know that editors wouldn't like Tolkien's writing- but being concerned with the bottom line, they might not publish it. But that was a concern back in the day, when (forget the name of the publisher) thought he would lose a thousand pounds, and still published it. His writing style is plodding, but still better than most of what does make it past the editor's desk.

The only fantasy writer I've read that I think outshines Tolkien (in writing ability) is Peter Beagle. He had a wonderful command of imagery and metaphor. Tolkien I admire for being able to write in an older style without sounding affected.

Martin's writing is good, but on the whole, there is something about Westeros that makes it feel like a great miniature of a world, rather than a giant, sprawling world. I don't know exactly why this is, but it is perhaps that so much high drama is always happening and everything is shown to tie into itself. It is a bit like a bonsai tree- it's all there, but slightly distorted. I chalk it up to his past as a television writer. As for body count, it really isn't that high, as far as main characters go, but they do get thrown through the angst mill too much. Martin's writing is intricate and mostly believable, but Tolkien captures a sort of elusive depth that no one else seems to have.

 

[j d worthington]

Tolkien I admire for being able to write in an older style without sounding affected....

Martin's writing is intricate and mostly believable, but Tolkien captures a sort of elusive depth that no one else seems to have.

I think that may be one of the reasons why I so prefer the older writers in this (and some other) fields... they were able to capture that, perhaps because of the literary models on which they were raised; whereas in the last century or so, with the revolutions in writing, very, very few can come anywhere close to that complexity of language, or that feeling of depth and historical profundity, that textured writing, if you will. There are a handful of writers around right now who can do it, but they are extremely rare; most who attempt an older style do hit some very flat notes... much more than their predecessors usually did. (This is not across the board. W. H. Hodgson, for all his brilliance of imagination, couldn't write in an archaic style to save his life. One has to see past that and relish the other aspects of the writing -- which can sometimes be quite lovely, but totally unconvincing as of the period it is supposed to be from -- and the story, rather than his capturing of that aspect.)

This is one of the reasons why I enjoy Hawthorne, for instance. The seventeenth century he presents us with is far from accurate, but it does feel genuine, and it has an historical depth to it that is convincing. The same with Lovecraft, who blended so much genuine history and folklore with creations of his own that they're often inextricable; and his work has that feeling of genuine regionalism (albeit a haunted regionalism); and his style is spot-on for capturing the American voice of that period (which was often somewhat different from the British -- whether that be Irish, Scotch, Welsh, or English). It's a more leisurely style, certainly, but to me that allows much more room for weaving the reality of the world as a world, with or without the characters involved ... who are, of course, an outgrowth of the world they live in.

 

[Pyan]

but Tolkien captures a sort of elusive depth that no one else seems to have.

Well, twenty years of work, and enough discarded writing to fill two more volumes of salvaged storyline, and a twelve volume History concerning the writing of the main books: that'll do it, every time.
I really don't think that modern writers, harried by editors and deadlines, plus e-mails from fans wanting to know why the next volme is taking so long, have the time available for the sort of obsessive honing that went into the Lord of the Rings.
That's not a complaint: I'd much rather have many more stories and much less rewriting - I'm greedy. But to compare JRRT with (say) GRRM is, in the end futile - like comparing a 1930 Bentley with a modern Ferrari - both superb cars, but for different reasons.

 

[Raynor]

Well, twenty years of work, and enough discarded writing to fill two more volumes of salvaged storyline, and a twelve volume History concerning the writing of the main books: that'll do it, every time.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Pyan]

You're kidding, right?

Care to elucidate, Raynor

 

[Raynor]

I seriously doubt your idea that repeated trials will necessarily produce a work of great art. It is really the first time I have heard of any such thing, and, frankly, it is kinda funny; it reminds me of the theoretical experiment of getting monkeys to type endlessly. Some hold that they would eventually produce Shakespeare...

 

[Pyan]

I made no mention of "great art" - I was making the point that very few writers have had the length of time that JRRT had developing the back-history of LotR, and it was these re-writes and background that gives the book the solidity and "elusive depth" mentioned by Lith.

I seriously doubt your idea that repeated trials will necessarily produce a work of great art.

What is your point? That re-writing somehow spoils the spontaneity? That "repeated trials" do nothing to improve the story-line, the style or the quality of the book? I agree that they will not necessarily produce better work: you can't make apple pie out of cow-dung: but generally speaking, surely the more time and labour you put into something, and the more you work to improve it, the better the end product will be.