JRR Tolkien's second-rate prose

[Lalwendë]

Yes. Really.

Well, according to the panel for the Nobel prize for literature back in 1961.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...en-nobel-prize

Originally Posted by Alison Flood, writing in The Guardian

The Lord of the Rings might have spawned a thousand pallid imitations, been crowned the UK's best-loved book and sold millions of copies around the world, but according to newly declassified documents, it was damned by the Nobel prize jury on the grounds of JRR Tolkien's second-rate prose.

The mysterious workings of the Nobel committee remain a secret until 50 years after the award is made, when the archive for that year is opened in the Nobel library in Stockholm. Swedish reporter Andreas Ekström delved into 1961's previously classified documents on their release this week, to find the jury passed over names including Lawrence Durrell, Robert Frost, Graham Greene, EM Forster and Tolkien to come up with their eventual winner, Yugoslavian writer Ivo Andrić.

While Andrić was lauded for "the epic force with which he has traced themes and depicted human destinies drawn from the history of his country", other nominated writers received shorter shrift from the Nobel committee, Ekström revealed in Swedish newspaper Sydsvenska.

The prose of Tolkien – who was nominated by his friend and fellow fantasy author CS Lewis – "has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality", wrote jury member Anders Österling. Frost, on the other hand, was dismissed because of his "advanced age" – he was 86 at the time – with the jury deciding the American poet's years were "a fundamental obstacle, which the committee regretfully found it necessary to state". Forster was also ruled out for his age – a consideration that no longer bothers the jury, which awarded the prize to the 87-year-old Doris Lessing in 2007 – with Österling calling the author "a shadow of his former self, with long lost spiritual health".

Durrell, meanwhile, "gives a dubious aftertaste … because of [his] monomaniacal preoccupation with erotic complications", while Italian novelist Alberto Moravia "suffers from … a general monotony".

Greene, who never won the Nobel, was 1961's runner-up, with Danish writer Karen Blixen, author of Out of Africa, coming in third.

"I have been doing this as a bit of a personal and journalistical tradition the past five years or so, and this was the first time I have seen Tolkien's name among the suggested candidates," said Ekström. "Today, there are usually about 300 suggestions each year – back then, it was more often around 50. Not anyone can suggest a winner. The Swedish Academy invites certain academics, former winners and other institutional representatives to nominate, and can itself of course nominate too.

"The academy keeps a strict secrecy around the archives for 50 years, but doesn't reveal everything. The final decision is made without any notes ever becoming public. But the list of suggestions is indeed public, with some commentary to it. Tolkien was nominated by CS Lewis, that was the first thing I saw … Lewis was a professor of literature, and hence qualified to nominate. However, the short commentary from Anders Österling, the dominant literature critic in the academy, was fairly sour. He basically just said about the [Lord of the Rings] trilogy: 'the result has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality'. Wham!"

[Lalaith]

Ah, you beat me to it, t'other Lal...I was going to post that story too.
I've read one theory, that Osterling had only read the first Swedish translation of LotR, which apparently was pretty dire. What does surprise me is that Tolkien is accused of poor "storytelling"; I know his prose style isn't to everyone's taste but it is a brilliant *story*. I am getting a Swede to check the word "diktning" for me (which was the word Osterling used) to see if "storytelling" really is the correct translation.

[Inziladun]

Things like this are the reasons I don't consider awards earned by books as a ringing endorsement that I should read them. Word of mouth from friends is a much more reliable gauge of quality than the opinions of Ivory Tower academics.

[Lalaith]

However, I've never read Ivo Andric so I don't feel in a position to make a final judgement!
Oh and 'diktning' is more about 'poetic creation' than storytelling, my Swedish source has just told me....I'm just asking him if the bit about the bad translation could be true...

[Lalaith]

He says the first Swedish translation was "fun but fairly chaotic and not particularly accurate." So there you go.

[Galadriel55]

Well, not all people appreciate Tolkien.

I do wonder, though, what Tolkien would have done if he got the prize?...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

However, I've never read Ivo Andric so I don't feel in a position to make a final judgement!

He has a statue in Belgrade. Someone there must have read him. And obviously someone in Sweden. One guy. On the jury. Alone.

[Lalwendë]

What struck me is that Tolkien was in excellent company as a Nobel reject - Lawrence Durrell, Greene, Forster and Robert Frost all having written things I've loved.

His storytelling was criticised which was very unfair as I have rarely read any story so well told, plotted and satisfactorily wound up as that of Lord of the Rings. To be fair, I think poor storytelling is particularly a modern problem, but even by the standards of his time*, Tolkien stood amongst the very best in terms of crafting a solid story.

His prose style isn't innovative, I could agree with that, but it's also never less than good. It's never turgid, always readable, and certainly before you get to Return of the King, where the tone changes, it's a lot more 'light' than many would suspect. People often criticise Tolkien for lingering too much on descriptive passages - they have clearly never read any Dickens or Hardy!

*As compared to contemporary fiction which I'm growing ever more jaded about. I keep investing my time in what for 90% of their content are really great novels only to find they fizzle out at the end or the story turns out to have been completely pointless. Gah.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

However, I've never read Ivo Andric so I don't feel in a position to make a final judgement!
Oh and 'diktning' is more about 'poetic creation' than storytelling, my Swedish source has just told me....I'm just asking him if the bit about the bad translation could be true...

Yep, your friend is quite right. "Diktning" is a broad description of the creation of (often written) fiction, whether prose or poem, and not specifically "storytelling".

Here's the quote from the original article:

”resultatet har dock icke i något avseende blivit diktning av högsta klass”.

and my translation:

"the result, however, is not by any measure of the highest quality".

The phrasing actually suggest that Österling started out with some praise for Tolkien but that this was edited out, leaving only a curt dismissal.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Bridge on the Drina by Andric is pretty good (that's coming from someone who probably doesn't appreciate literature properly ). It's set in Bosnia and the style of the storytelling reminds me of the Sagas of Icelanders; I think Tolkien would have found something to enjoy therein.

[Gauteamus]

Originally Posted by skip spence

The phrasing actually suggest that Österling started out with some praise for Tolkien but that this was edited out, leaving only a curt dismissal.

Maybe the harsh depictions or Easterlings in the triology played a part in Österlings rejection of the stories. I do not know what translation of Easterling the swedish edition used.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Things like this are the reasons I don't consider awards earned by books as a ringing endorsement that I should read them. Word of mouth from friends is a much more reliable gauge of quality than the opinions of Ivory Tower academics.

One of the many reasons I'm fond of Pratchett too...with the "Academical" snobs of Unseen University.

[Galadriel]

I suppose it would bear testimony to something called intellectual snobbery, according to which all modern fantasy is childish, inane and just plain irrelevant.