JRR Tolkien savaged by 1961 Nobel committee for being a bad writer

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Yep, one of the world most popular writers, whose works spawned an entire popular sub-genre, inspired countless other works, and was adapted into an extremely popular movie series, was considered a bad writer by the Nobel committee. Meanwhile I've never even heard of the guy who won.

[Reepicheep]

Spotted this earlier today. To be quite honest, Tolkien really doesn't need to have won a nobel prize for the world to see what a valuable asset to media and literature he was, and his name is beyond immortalised. Still, a funny thing to uncover.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/05/jrr-tolkien-nobel-prize?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I actually posted that as the intro to the actual link, but completely forgot to post it.  Oops.  Thanks Reep

[captainspud]

He was a linguist who invented a handful of languages and then needed to find something to do with them. The books were an afterthought. We idolize them because of the impact they've had over time, but they aren't actually that well-written. He was a great linguist and a really methodical world-builder, but the books-- taken strictly as books-- are only "pretty good" because they weren't his actual passion.

[lugaru]

I honestly cant read Tolkien, but simply because I consider his style of writing one that is not compatible with me, moreso than him being good or bad (I think he is somewhere in between personally).

The short version would be that he is a bit dry for me, a little too concerned with (made up) language and facts and events and less with storytelling or wit. Vonnegut is probably my alltime favorite author and he tends to be the opposite, it is so much more malleable, unpredictable and human.

That said I'll play 1,000 games based on Orcs and Elves before I'll play a game on time traveling elderly war veterans so I owe Tolkien that.

[Tawodi Osdi]

Strangely, in spite of my fascination with fantasy novels when I was younger, I have only read the The Hobbit.  The only access I have had with The Lord of the Rings were the old cartoon, an old AD&D GM who fashioned his story style after Tolkien, and the movies.  The books are on my reading list, but I have a long reading list.  Maybe, I should bump them up a space or two.

[BWPS]

That said I'll play 1,000 games based on Orcs and Elves before I'll play a game on time traveling elderly war veterans so I owe Tolkien that.

Man, gaming is really limited in that second department.

[The Phantom Eyebrow]

It's easy to become engrossed in his works though... aha, you might say he's... Hobbit Forming!  Aho... aha... aah...

[Talavar]

He was a linguist who invented a handful of languages and then needed to find something to do with them. The books were an afterthought. We idolize them because of the impact they've had over time, but they aren't actually that well-written. He was a great linguist and a really methodical world-builder, but the books-- taken strictly as books-- are only "pretty good" because they weren't his actual passion.

I've got to disagree.  First, it's only true in that the languages came first, then sparked the rest of the ideas.  The stories and invented language are intertwined, both are things Tolkien worked on for decades - hardly afterthoughts.  The books are very well written, but in a style meant to evoke medieval English and old Norse writing.  Most modernist (and post-modern) critics hate them, basically for that reason (and for being fantasy in general).  After all, Tolkien was someone who looked at Shakespeare's writing and thought it was too newfangled, where most literature critics, like any art critics are looking for the next "big thing," not someone who was looking nearly a thousand years backwards for his inspiration.  That C.S. Lewis nominated him is enough for me; my problems with the Narnia books aside, the man knew writing.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

  That C.S. Lewis nominated him is enough for me; my problems with the Narnia books aside, the man knew writing.

In all fairness, I should point out that the two were best friends, so the nomination is hardly objective in nature.

[Talavar]

  That C.S. Lewis nominated him is enough for me; my problems with the Narnia books aside, the man knew writing.

In all fairness, I should point out that the two were best friends, so the nomination is hardly objective in nature.

True, but I can't imagine a scenario where a British literature professor thinks: "my friend's book isn't really that well written, but I'm going to nominate him for the Nobel prize anyway." 

[detourne_me]

That said I'll play 1,000 games based on Orcs and Elves before I'll play a game on time traveling elderly war veterans so I owe Tolkien that.

Although Captain America is a man unstuck from time - I believe Bru even used those phrases when dealing with Steve's return to life!

[BentonGrey]

For a while they stood there, like men on the edge of a sleep where nightmare lurks, holding it off, though they know that they can only come to morning through the shadows

I think some of y'all, and certainly the 196a Nobel committee, don't give Tolkien his due.  His books aren't flawless, but then none are.  Yet, the man who wrote the sentence above, one of my favorite passages from story of the Ring, was a great writer.  He had a mastery of the language, and of language in general, that is rare.  What's more, he understood the archetypal myths that define humanity.  He created the English mythology that he set out to imagine, but it has become even larger than he intended.  I'd defend Tolkien's skill with the pen against just about any other author of the 20th century, especially this last half of it.