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?...

[HerenIstarion]

As I've already mentioned commenting on this piece of news over Facebook, I'm actually (at least partially) glad he did not make it - for one, he's in a good company here, with all those great folks who never got one...

... and for two, imagine all the folks who would (I happen to be acquainted with some of the type) who would read Tolkien not because they enjoyed it but because he was the Nobel Prize holder, and imagine all the high-brow nonsense they would then proceed to utter about it discussing it in their literati talk-shows on specifically 'cultural' TV channels, to be followed by some horrid David Lynch movie to illustrate the point about Eowyn/Aragorn situation...

The sound of "urgh" would kind of sum the whole matter up for yours truly

I may be mightily mistaken over the matter of course

[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.

[Morthoron]

What I can't understand is the jury's appalling treatment of Robert Frost. Not give him a Nobel...because he's too old? Ummm...do the winners have to go on a world tour for a year while wearing a tiara?

[Lalaith]

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.

Well quite, which is why I checked the translation for "diktning" and found that it wasn't right.

imagine all the high-brow nonsense they would then proceed to utter about it discussing it in their literati talk-shows

Heren, have you *seen* the canonicity thread?

[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.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Heren, have you *seen* the canonicity thread?

Well, surely I have had my share of high-brow nonsense put into it, but then I won't say 'touché', as there is a whole world of difference between elaborate high-brow 'nonsensing' done for the love of the thing as opposed to the same carried out in the name of being considered as clever as the next man by the fellow 'art connoisseurs' :J

[narfforc]

I couldn't care less what the snobbish Lit-Crit's of today think, let alone their dinosaur brethren of yore did. I wouldn't be at all surprised that now Tolkien has removed all the boundaries he faced in 1961, that they won't at some stage get gooey-eyed with Rowling.

[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.

[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.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Gauteamus

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.

The similarity of Österling's name to the Easterlings in the books as a factor? That's pretty unlikely. If it were true though, it would seem a rather petty concern for one on a Nobel committee.

And welcome to the Downs!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The similarity of Österling's name to the Easterlings in the books as a factor? That's pretty unlikely. If it were true though, it would seem a rather petty concern for one on a Nobel committee.

And welcome to the Downs!

Inzi, my good man, don't tell me you've just been whooshed by a first-time poster?

Good spot, Gauteamus!

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The similarity of Österling's name to the Easterlings in the books as a factor? That's pretty unlikely. If it were true though, it would seem a rather petty concern for one on a Nobel committee.

I'm hardly a linguist, but I've got an odd bit of knowledge from genealogy. The above touches on a bit of family history. When my Österling predecessors immigrated from northern Europe to the New World, they anglicized their family name to Easterling. It seems Öste translates to east. (Is this why Hobbits study genealogy? )

I would agree this ought not to be a significant factor in Nobel discussions. Still, Tolkien's depiction of humans from the east and south (Southrons) of Middle Earth are not the most politically correct of all possible depictions. If one is not from the northwest of Tolkien's world, one is apt to be portrayed as a crude evil barbarian in league with the Dark Lord.

I am reminded of Norman Spinrad's The Iron Dream, an alternate reality story where Adolph Hitler moved to the United States after World War I, and became a fantasy writer whose major work was Lord of the Swastika. Spinrad was illustrating how close fantasy novels where some races are pure and nobel while all the opposition is portrayed as vile and subhuman might be to fascist racism. If The Lord of the Rings was not intended as a thinly veiled retelling of World War II, The Lord of the Swasticka was precisely that, and at the same time a highly barbed parody of a broad class of good against evil fantasy novels, not just Tolkien's. (Wiki suggests that the intended primary target of the satire wasn't specifically Lord of the Rings, but Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. Still...)

I don't know if Österling was thinking along this line at all, but the perspective on Tolkien's work might not be lightly dismissed.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I would agree this ought not to be a significant factor in Nobel discussions. Still, Tolkien's depiction of humans from the east and south (Southrons) of Middle Earth are not the most politically correct of all possible depictions. If one is not from the northwest of Tolkien's world, one is apt to be portrayed as a crude evil barbarian in league with the Dark Lord.

I think the question would hinge upon whether Österling himself was of the race or culture resembling Tolkien's Eaterlings.
If that was the case though, for a man in such a lofty, dignified position to judge a work of art with such a thin-skinned, easily slighted cant merely confirms his opinion is worthless.

[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.

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't forget Jorge Luis Borges

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Apart from spending the money on fancy waistcoats and a barrel of Theakston's, I can't see what use JRRT would have had for a Nobel prize. He was always a little suspicious of the waft of incense from fans and sympathetic critics, as we can see from his disapproval on hearing W.H. Auden's comment that he never again trusted the literary judgement of someone who didn't like LR. I doubt he'd have appreciated being dismissed on the basis of a translation, particularly one that he disliked himself, but Tolkien was always opposed to the use of translations and synopses in literary criticism. Since the Beowulf poet had been the victim of the same sort of unconsidered dismissal (not to mention also being too old to win a Nobel prize), JRRT might even have felt that he was in good company. When it came to his own work he was more often amused by the battle between his supporters and detractors than particularly concerned with the opinions of either.

Perhaps a more enduring comment on Tolkien's importance is that even as we approach the fortieth anniversary of his death and the fiftieth of Lewis', their two names are sufficient to make a lot of dusty old committee minutes into newsworthy material.

Personally I've found that the difference between 'good' and 'bad' literature seems to reside more in the opinion of the critic than any objective point of reference. Most criticism is merely an attempt to disguise this behind a smokescreen of academic braggadocio, and awards simply reflect the state of play: they indicate who's currently ahead in an endless and meaningless argument, occasionally managing at the same time to reward literary talent. The only things less relevant than this year's awards are those of years past.