Tolkein is a bad writer - discuss

EarthRod

Hi Sonic67

Good post - quite right!

Much of Tolkien's work is based on his own experience and is not fantasy. For example, in his youth he spent many weeks hiking across and climbing mountains in Switzerland.

Tolkien was also at the Battle of the Somme during World War I and suffered from trench fever.

So he hasn’t made it all up like many armchair authors - he's been there and done that. The man has suffered.

Alan

Sonic67

The dead marshes were reckoned by some to be inspired by seeing dead bodies in no mans land.

Here in Birmingham there is the Tolkien Trail. You can see the Two Towers, Sarehole Mill, Moseley Bog and the house he lived in.

Solomon Grundy

I can't remember where it came from, It's been there for so long!

Smurfin

I agree with everything you've said, that still doesn't make him a good writer

Anyway, I'm going to have another bash at them as I've not read them for a few years...there is something strangely comforting about Tolkein (reminds me of the time when I read them as a young teenager), however if the irritation/boredom kicks in I'll finally lay them to rest, and just rejoice in the fact that we have the movies

Sonic67

Being popular for decade after decade goes some way towards it. I bet many 'good' writers would kill for half his success. As I said before you can't judge him the way you do anyway. I could say the Beatles weren't very good. A lot of their songs are fillers. What was going on with Octopuses Garden anyway? Ringo Star? Far better groups are around now. However, I can't critiscise The Beatles as they have had huge success and influenced the music I do like.
The more I watch the films the more they do annoy me.

Elves at Helms Deep, Sam and Frodo at Osgiliath, Faramir being a bad guy, Aragorn going off the edge of a cliff, wargs attacking those going to Helms Deep, no Scouring Of The Shire.

Some stuff is invented or padded out and other stuff dropped entirely, Tom Bombadil and the Barrowdowns. I appreciate Peter Jackson was pushed for time so why add stuff or pad out stuff that is only a brief mention in the book (The crossing of the chasm in Moria).

Arwen riding out rather than Glorfindel. Things are getting desperate if Elronds family is coming to the rescue rather than an Elf-Lord. The oath breakers maybe not coming to the call after all.

Peter Jackson had to have every character have a story arc. So we have Aragorn doubting his inheritance. Arwen doing a last minute change of heart, Frodo trusting Gollum over Sam with the waybread and ditching Sam, Treebeard not going to war, then going etc.

The films are good but some stuff is annoying. The Scouring Of The Shire is meant to represent how people came back from the front only to find the war had touched their homes too. Drop it and a lot of impact is gone.

Still I took the view that at least we still had the book.

EarthRod

What is a "good writer"? Whatever.....I find the books much more enjoyable than the films.

The books have a 3-D quality about them and all the threads (separate storylines) come together for the final battles and the grand finale in the Shire and elsewhere. The writing comes from the heart and not from the wallet.

The films leave out many of the threads so have a sort of Walt Disney veneer about them.

IMO Jackson did a good job with the films but they do have a "designed by committee" feel about them. I suppose he and the shareholders endeavoured to capture a wide an audience as possible and therefore increase the profits.

Who can blame them - I certainly don't!

Solomon Grundy

That bit in the book was so boring though...I am glad they lopped it out of the films, I think I started skim-reading it when it got to that part.

Sonic67

Tom Bombadil was an odd character so might have looked odd with the rest of the film. However the character is book ended by the Willow tree and the barrowwights. Both I can remember as being a bit darker and perilous for the hobbits. The Barrow downs would have looked quite good on screen. Also it's where the Hobbits ge their swords and which are later used to good effect. I think one is stabbed into the Witch King. I seem to remember a note about the sword maker would have been proud to hear of its use.

The early part of the book is a bit aimless as I think Tolkien had the characters doing a bit of a tour of Middle Earth before getting a sense of direction.

The radio plays and films all drop the chapters as it doesn't drive the story much. I think I have to re-read the book. Mrs Sonic has bought me a new set and I wouldn't mind another read.

andrew markwort

I think before you judge Tolkein it would help immeasurably if you looked at his background. Tolkein was an English Lit don at Oxford University and without LOTR he would have been a well-known figure in academic circles for his lifetime's work on Early English (which for the uninitiated, is as good as a foreign language). The speech mannerisms and a lot of the stylistic devices that seem stilted or odd are very effective pastiches of what you find in the early sagas and similar. But they are categorically not clumsy writing.

What Tolkein set out to do was in effect to create a huge multi-faceted story, combining key elements from Norse and Early English folklore, and create something that Early English lacked - namely, a massive saga (a high proportion of the stories we have from this era survive only as fragments). LOTR is just part of a much larger collection of notes and stories, many of which Tolkein primarily created just for his own amusement.

Whether you like LOTR or not depends on whether you can either (a) accept the prose style as it is or (b) tolerate it because you can appreciate it is a good imitation of the style used in early sagas and tales. It also helps to recognise that a lot of the book is a reference to the rise and fall of the Nazis, the simultaneous horrors and camaraderie of trench warfare, and the decline of rural England (the 'Scouring of the Shire' is a thinly disguised attack on modernisation, which Tolkein hated).

Personally, even though I can spot some of the literary references, I find LOTR very ponderous (all the more so the older I've got). I wince when I see it named as 'the best novel of the 20th century' (it isn't) but I wouldn't dismiss it or say it's a waste of time reading it.

A friend of mine claims that Tom Bombadil was meant to be a barbed attack on the Roman Catholic church. Anyone's first reaction to this is that it's complete BS, but my friend was insistent that if you look at Bombadil's actions carefully, there is contained within them a parody of the Catholic mass. Given that Tolkein was a devout Catholic, I find this dubious. But having said that, Bombadil has considerable powers, but takes a detached view of the great battle taking place - not unlike the behaviour of the Pope during WWII, in fact. I don't want to detour this interesting discussion into a religious debate, but it's not a theory I think can be as easily dismissed as it first appears.

EarthRod

Tolkien always denied LOTR loosely followed the rise and fall of WWII Nazi Germany. But the parallel is there for all to see.

I very much enjoy the "time out" section of the book dealing with Tom Bombadil. That bit is a little oasis totally removed from the other threads in the storyline. I think one needs to experience war to understand why Tolkien included that chapter.