The last major British novelist?

[Emil Miller]

Now I come to think of it, there is a good chance that Lord of the Rings will last a lot longer than many people realise. You know what they say, old hobbits die hard.

[MarkBastable]

Incidentally - Martin Amis.

[Michael T]

Now I come to think of it, there is a good chance that Lord of the Rings will last a lot longer than many people realise. You know what they say, old hobbits die hard.

[prendrelemick]

Now I come to think of it, there is a good chance that Lord of the Rings will last a lot longer than many people realise. You know what they say, old hobbits die hard.

They're difficult to kick as well.


except in this thread.

[Virgil]

I was never really impressed with his writing. Is his prose outstanding? Nothing to write home about. Are the characters deep? Not really. Is the plot original? No. What it is about Tolkein? I guess he's got an epic scope with a detailed world view that is somewhat original. While he's an enjoyable read, I do not find him anywhere in the great writer's catagory.

I'm responding to my own post just to clarify. I'm not saying LOTR is a bad work, or that it won't last, or that it's not a fun read. In fact I said it was a fun read. But in my opinion it doesn't make the top tier of great literature.

[JCamilo]

I am yet to find proof that the Rings is a fast paced engaging tale.

And it will never be, because that would go against every intention of Tolkien to create some short of epic story for mythical england.
Most epics, with their oral origem, are fast paced, intense, lively because the
author do not used his time with description of every detail and chronology - since that was something the audience was already familiar. Since Tolkien was creating something new, he could not just do it, he had to, with dedication and zealous of a scholar, build, organized and describe the geography, historical background and languages of his word. His greatest merit is his greatest downfal, he did it in a world where guys like Chekhov, Robert Louis Stevenson, Poe, Borges, Flaubert have already takken the prose language to a level of precision and flow, a world of sensations and effects, that Tolkien could not master with his precise (or excesive, you pick) description. Hence he looks outdated (and also, he is outdated, it is his ambition), to have all that life he would need the poetic talent of Yeats, perhaps increased since he had to do with Prose and not poems... His ambition was beyond his capacity. Once he had all this world, everything correctly like a watch he had the good idea to keep and place his characters doing archetypical things and they are all archetypicals. Even if he says a war story is no place for love stories and it was saved for other tales, his characters had too much basic emotion, he could just not grow up with them. It is basic friendship, basic honour, ambition, greed, wisdow, courage. Of course, old stories are also working with the basic, Arthur is Arthur, Lancelot is Lancelot, it is uncessary to have a stream of conciousness to show why they are noble or brave. They act like it, so Tolkien may not be wrong since he was telling a story of archetypes. Yet, it was a world that saw Joyce, Kafka, Dostoievisky, Faulkner, Woolf... So, he was a prisioner of the form as well. But cleaver and you can say, with enough talent, to create the scenario for those characters to revive in the moderm world and use them well enough. Hence he will be remembered, hence he is not as great as some people are trying to argue.

[JBI]

Yes, but the world of Arthur, despite all the writings, ultimately was vague. The world of Homer, in terms of visuals, was formed out of current objects, not anachronistic items and lore - the world was inhabited, though by creatures, with very little in terms of distorted scenery, and very little geographical description. Beowulf's world too is built on familiar soil, as was, to an extent, Virgil's. Perhaps the most exploratory epic writers were Milton and Dante, who came a little late to really be considered "True" epics, but who nonetheless incorporated the visual. Of course, reading Dante, you can't help but notice he often doesn't give the visual, and instead reverts back to the "I don't have words to describe what I saw before me" method, whereby he both invites the reader to imagine it, and bypasses the limitations of language in describing a made-up place. Milton on the other hand, perhaps did this the best, though he balanced it all off, and essentially used simile as his device for conveying the physicality of his world, rather than outright descriptions. The visuals then, of the Garden, of Pandemonium, are left to the reader's imagination, and fancy over the Biblical narrative. God himself is reduced to Light as apposed to an actual form, and the angelic-looking Satan isn't described in full detail, with every corner of his armor discussed.

Tolkien on the other hand, got carried away. His quirky obsession with a world created out of his imagination (and the politics it conveyed) ultimately was his downfall. You can't create a world like that, and make it interesting. The proof of later generations of writers has shown that the actual plot of lord of the Rings can be transformed into around 200 pages (Le Guin writes a new world with a plot in 100-odd pages, but her's is a shorter, albeit more potent narrative). But no. We need the boring languages, cultures, histories, lore, folksongs, geographical descriptions, calendars, family trees, and boring content that Tolkien offers us.

Take Calvino's Cosmicomics for instance, his worlds are just as removed as Tolkien's. But his visual description is about 3-5 sentences (usually as an epigraph), and the rest brought in through the action of the story. Of course, his worlds aren't as well thought out or planned, but is it all really necessary?

That being said, the concept of a removed reality isn't a bad one. It is a great deal of fun keep in mind, but I think Tolkien went way over the top in his, at the cost of the real merit of the book, the story and moral at the end (which I don't think are particularly brilliant at all). Lets be honest, do people actually care about what a made-up universe looks like, and its history, languages, and people? Are we trying to read into the history of the diegesis, or do we simply want to read about a story, perhaps in the world. The Back story dominates the story, and therefore the book is more like a reference than a novel.

[JCamilo]

Yes, but the world of Arthur, despite all the writings, ultimately was vague. The world of Homer, in terms of visuals, was formed out of current objects, not anachronistic items and lore - the world was inhabited, though by creatures, with very little in terms of distorted scenery, and very little geographical description. Beowulf's world too is built on familiar soil, as was, to an extent, Virgil's. Perhaps the most exploratory epic writers were Milton and Dante, who came a little late to really be considered "True" epics, but who nonetheless incorporated the visual. Of course, reading Dante, you can't help but notice he often doesn't give the visual, and instead reverts back to the "I don't have words to describe what I saw before me" method, whereby he both invites the reader to imagine it, and bypasses the limitations of language in describing a made-up place. Milton on the other hand, perhaps did this the best, though he balanced it all off, and essentially used simile as his device for conveying the physicality of his world, rather than outright descriptions. The visuals then, of the Garden, of Pandemonium, are left to the reader's imagination, and fancy over the Biblical narrative. God himself is reduced to Light as apposed to an actual form, and the angelic-looking Satan isn't described in full detail, with every corner of his armor discussed.

Yeah, I agree. In oral tradition descriptions are not a rule because the familiarity of the listener. Dante and Milton are not just using the formula, they are really doing something else, their works are different. But since they are more talented, they can mix the narrative part of the poem with the lyrical part or philosophical part. The way of speaking gives away Satan, not his face, to say.

Tolkien on the other hand, got carried away. His quirky obsession with a world created out of his imagination (and the politics it conveyed) ultimately was his downfall. You can't create a world like that, and make it interesting. The proof of later generations of writers has shown that the actual plot of lord of the Rings can be transformed into around 200 pages (Le Guin writes a new world with a plot in 100-odd pages, but her's is a shorter, albeit more potent narrative). But no. We need the boring languages, cultures, histories, lore, folksongs, geographical descriptions, calendars, family trees, and boring content that Tolkien offers us.

Of course, it is now easier to make copycats of Tolkien, with less words, because now everyone is aware of what a elf is. His encyclopedical work is a reference. I would also argue that tolkien had any right to go overboard. It is his gimmicks. That he had at his disposal a format that could not cope with the demand of the work, plus less poetical talent to do so, it is another story. I would suggest a middleterm between you and the elf-lovers...

Take Calvino's Cosmicomics for instance, his worlds are just as removed as Tolkien's. But his visual description is about 3-5 sentences (usually as an epigraph), and the rest brought in through the action of the story. Of course, his worlds aren't as well thought out or planned, but is it all really necessary?

Well, Calvino is working from another direction and belongs to another tradition as well. I am sure one could argue dostoievisky could use less words, since Chekhov can. But of course, the prose of Calvino is much superior to Tolkien because he is not bound to the description of a world, but the development of an idea. He is a better writer, that simple.

That being said, the concept of a removed reality isn't a bad one. It is a great deal of fun keep in mind, but I think Tolkien went way over the top in his, at the cost of the real merit of the book, the story and moral at the end (which I don't think are particularly brilliant at all). Lets be honest, do people actually care about what a made-up universe looks like, and its history, languages, and people? Are we trying to read into the history of the diegesis, or do we simply want to read about a story, perhaps in the world. The Back story dominates the story, and therefore the book is more like a reference than a novel.

Well, JBI, considering the fanbase of Tolkien, his copycats (take the whole Dungeo and Dragons universe), Star Trek/Wars, some people do care about it. Of course, they must understand, as hard it is to create, it is not a greater achivement than writing about a plain day in a desert island like Robson Crusoe is. Anyways, I agree, LoTR is not a typical novel. Which is a clue that he can be placed in the same bag as the other modern best-seller writers. He did several no-no-no that Dan Browns, Sydney Sheldons, etc would not. And because the same ambition that lead to his failure. It is not a simple reading or easy. The books are split in two different storylines, so, the sequence of chapters is a little broken. His language is not clear, economic, do not flow like Calvino for example. Yet, he manages to make people who are too lazy to consider reading anything hard, to read.... possible because the simple and well-placed use of the main steriotypes, those the other writers manage to copy.
The middleterm is placing him alongside with likes of Dumas, Stoker or Jules Verne. Even if Verne is not as great, he gave a basis that most sci-fic writers after him would use, sparing them or all the work of explaining it again (It may work for Asimov too)... He is a good writer, with perhaps a flawed, yet, with merits, work. But of course, not in the league of great writers, best british novelist, etc.

[curlyqlink]

Do people arrive home from working in the real world, and want to read The Waste Land?

I do; I read The Waste Land just recently and for the first time, and mostly on the bus commute to and from work. I read it for enjoyment, and I found it beautiful, the language superb and incisive and stark.

I also enjoyed reading Tolkein. Just as I enjoy reading Terry Pratchett.

I can enjoy a writer without kidding myself that he is a great writer. There's a difference between great writing and merely enjoyable writing; the truly great writers, I would insist, are both. Flaubert, Balzac, Austen, Tolstoy, Proust, Woolf, Conrad... I read them first and foremost for pleasure.

I have a book on my shelf, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy. It reminds me a lot of Tolkein criticism-- a kind of end run at justification. That this story we love so much isn't "mere" entertainment; it's deep! There are Themes and Philosophical Implications at work here! And of course there are these things-- if one looks hard enough-- in just about anything.

[Emil Miller]

I do; I read The Waste Land just recently and for the first time, and mostly on the bus commute to and from work. I read it for enjoyment, and I found it beautiful, the language superb and incisive and stark.
There are Themes and Philosophical Implications at work here! And of course there are these things-- if one looks hard enough-- in just about anything.

When Lil's husband got demobbed, I said -
I didn't mince my words, I said to her myself,
HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME
Now Albert's coming back, make yourself a bit smart.
He'll want to know what you done with that money he gave you
To get herself some teeth. He did, I was there.
You have them all out, Lil, and get a nice set,


You probably missed it first time round, but this extract from The Waste Land give credence to your last sentence.

[mortalterror]

Of course, reading Dante, you can't help but notice he often doesn't give the visual, and instead reverts back to the "I don't have words to describe what I saw before me" method, whereby he both invites the reader to imagine it, and bypasses the limitations of language in describing a made-up place.

Although I agree that in several passages Dante does cop out with that explanation, it was only in cases of necessity. If he'd claimed to actually describe the likeness of God, for instance, the church would have skewered him. Otherwise, he's probably the greatest master of turning words into vivid pictures. I can still see the angels flying down into the rose like bees sucking honey, the cross of the crusaders burning bright, the three steps, the angel who wrote Dante's sins on his forehead with a sword, the burning sands, the river of boiling blood with the damned swimming and the centaurs firing arrows into them, Dante walking hunched over the mural on the floor, the serpents, the men throwing rocks, the tree people and their bleeding roots, the wind blowing Paulo and Francesca, the gnats swarming, the wall of fire, bodies frozen up to their necks and gnawing on the back of each others heads, light falling down like golden snowflakes, the demons falling off the bridge, Homer waving, Aristotle sitting, the nuns floating like shimmering ghosts on the moon. The one part I can't ever picture is the Earthly Paradise, the Garden of Eden, that little parade, or dumb show or whatever it was, like a mobile medieval drama. Other than that, Dante turned words into pictures like no other. Not even great naturalists like Tolstoy can match him.

[JBI]

Although I agree that in several passages Dante does cop out with that explanation, it was only in cases of necessity. If he'd claimed to actually describe the likeness of God, for instance, the church would have skewered him. Otherwise, he's probably the greatest master of turning words into vivid pictures. I can still see the angels flying down into the rose like bees sucking honey, the cross of the crusaders burning bright, the three steps, the angel who wrote Dante's sins on his forehead with a sword, the burning sands, the river of boiling blood with the damned swimming and the centaurs firing arrows into them, Dante walking hunched over the mural on the floor, the serpents, the men throwing rocks, the tree people and their bleeding roots, the wind blowing Paulo and Francesca, the gnats swarming, the wall of fire, bodies frozen up to their necks and gnawing on the back of each others heads, light falling down like golden snowflakes, the demons falling off the bridge, Homer waving, Aristotle sitting, the nuns floating like shimmering ghosts on the moon. The one part I can't ever picture is the Earthly Paradise, the Garden of Eden, that little parade, or dumb show or whatever it was, like a mobile medieval drama. Other than that, Dante turned words into pictures like no other. Not even great naturalists like Tolstoy can match him.

I think it was your imagination that did it, as it is everyone else's that forms the images. I'm of the mind that is why the Infernal images are the most potent, because, ultimately, negative things are easier for most people to imagine. The actual vividness though, is of your own design, Dante merely guides one. Tolkien tries to Ekphrastically capture every tree, whereas Dante encourages the vivid picture to pop in one's head. In that sense, Dante allows for a very well guided Trace, whereas Tolkien does not, he merely "shows" you it, in a way that doesn't give room for the great workings of the imagination to form. That is why, essentially, the movie adaptation works so well with Tolkien, whereas with Dante, I'm sure, even with the greatest CGI, the vision in one's head will be stronger.

Ultimately though, descriptions of things come in three forms; one form conveys the likeness of it, through words and descriptions, which favor mathematics and practicality, and another form uses simile and metaphor to do the same, but since metaphor isn't stable, the actual interpretation is left to the viewer. The third form, is one which attempts to capture the feeling of the place, the location - one thinks of, for instance, Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey, which holds very little concrete description of the place, but focuses completely on the reaction in the observer. Tolkien, ultimately, prefers the first form, and, I would argue, doesn't trust metaphors much in conveying his description. Dante generally mixes the last two, with actual numbers in place to try and keep the form concrete - we have the frame, and the things inside it, but do we really have much solid description, or is it part of our mind that forms it? Do we, for instance, all have the same vision of the men talking from the flames, or of the souls standing on the brinks of hell, or are we all creating our own vision of the scene? Eliot's reworking of it in section one of the Waste Land, I would argue, works, because quite simply, the unchanged visuals allow for a transfer of the sort to happen. Try using Middle Earth, and the whole thing seems silly. In that sense, I would argue, the visual benefits from a sense of vagueness quite often, especially when describing things that are unbelievably good or wonderful, beyond words, or unbelievably bad and vile - or any extremes really. The mind cannot commit itself to one vision of any extreme mode, and therefore, it is in the last two modes of vision, guided perhaps by the first one as a frame of reference, that poets like Dante are able to inspire such vivid visions. The vision isn't contained within the poem, and cannot really be drawn accurately, or to a suitable level, but the power of the words is able to allow a the reader to glimpse "What he is seeing." Dante, I am sure, would have written in all the descriptions, despite the politics, if he was able - he didn't seem to shy away from politics too much as it was, and though he may have elided over God, there are plenty of other spots he could have filled in - but to fill them in would be to lower them, to not do them justice, as clearly anyone with conviction or imagination can come up with a visual representation of a vision better than quantitative, and factual (I use this to mean words that can only lead to limited visual reactions in the reader) words can possibly convey.

[mortalterror]

Do we, for instance, all have the same vision of the men talking from the flames, or of the souls standing on the brinks of hell, or are we all creating our own vision of the scene?

You are right. My imagination rebels when I behold the versions depicted by Doré and Blake, recalling something far more majestic and fanciful in it's place.

[JCamilo]

jesus, mortalterror and JBI, it is Dante, The Master. Are you not going to argue if he wrote or we just imagine what he wrote, will you both? You know, it is pointless, he did both.

[WyattGwyon]

.....