Guardian Article

I think this boils down to:

How many people, today, know the name Anders Österling and how many know the name JRR Tolkein?

Mitch

Literary critics have never been fans of the Fantasy or Science Fiction genres. They aren't "proper" literature. The prose in the Lord of the Rings isn't perhaps the best, but it's readable - if in a slightly academic tone. However, in my opinion, it is better than some "high" literature that has been lauded by literary critics in the media and on prize panels. Some Man-Booker prize entries have been pretty unreadable, yet were critically acclaimed as great examples of the art of literature. As the Man-Booker becomes more popular, the entries for this prize are getting more readable. Hence, the critics are now talking about setting up a rival prize so they can get back to "proper" literature rather than just a good book. I remember the fuss over the Waterstones polled "Book of the Century". Not only was The Lord of the Rings in the top 100, but it made number 1. The literati were not happy about that.

Basically, the literary critics on the Nobel prize panel were probably book snobs.

Indeed. And with all that in mind, if my high school english teach would have made us read Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit instead of Great Expectations and Scarlet Letter, I would have kissed her!

*(and if you had seen my high school english teach, you'd realize that's saying a lot cuz she looked like she hadn't been kissed in a very long time....)



Robert

anecdotally - my aunt who is a high school teacher in Montana has her class read The Hobbit as curriculum.

She also assigns each person in the class to "adopt" one of the dwarf characters and essentially they write a journal and a final report from that character's point of view.

IIRC - they are sophomores.

Robert

Smart Teacher

Lucky teacher if she's only got 13 in her class!

I have no idea how many she has in her class; but she does live in a town with less than 400 people.


Robert

Here I go de-railing the thread again....

We got to read The Hobbit in Junior High School as curriculum. This was from the same teacher who directed a school play of the book ... I think it was her own adaptation, too. Ahhh ... the 70's ... when you could get away with that!

We read The Hobbit in school - this would be the 80s.

From the article I get the impression Tolkien could well have been disregarded through his nomination by his great friend. It is after all a bit of a case of "jobs for the boys".

As something of an aside, I fully expect to see more and more critical articles about Tolkien (this one is quite sympathetic to his work and it's popular nature) over the coming months, as The Hobbit movie gets into full hype swing. It's funny as there are echoes of this phenomenon in our own little field of rpgs, whenever a game achieves sufficiently popularity or a run of good reviews: So Tolkien is getting a lot of attention again, is making people happy and excited and thus certain sectors see that as the spur to be critical of his work: Largely in order to show their credentials as a hard thinking intellectual unswayed by popularity or the quality of the things they examine. Or, more equitably looked upon, to provide an outlet for a critical voice of dissent. Which is after all a healthy thing to have around.

I'm very careful in saying this, because it is so easily pulled across the fine line into anti-intellectualism, which I despise almost as much as people looking upon popular works and decrying them simply because they are popular. Any resistance to posturing criticism is always very easily dismissed as anti-intellectual.

I can see valid criticisms of Tolkien's work if we disregard his own aims: It is very long, it is filled with dwarves and elves and hobbitses. Its themes are of the inevitable fall of all things, and has a rich vein of JRRT's Catholicism running through it. The author steadfastly refuses all claims of allegory, and he knows what he's talking about in a literary sense, which makes that worse to swallow if you've decided the Ring is the bomb and Sauron is Hitler/Stalin/McCarthy or whoever. It is highly conservative in theme, it recognises the rightness of "blood", and how that can be diluted. Old things are better than new, machines are bad, the gardener is a lovely supporting character, but it's his boss the monied land owner who will make the big sacrifice. These taken out of context are either too fay to be taken seriously, or worryingly conservative in intent (from the point of view of contemporary literary criticism). It is plodding, and takes it's literary cues from Beowulf et al, which is never going to impress those looking to drive the state of the art forward. It also spawned an army of simply awful imitations, for which is can often be held responsible.

But the important phrase there is "taken out of context".

Whilst JRRT was writing I believe with the intent to some degree vindicate the faerie story, which does give the work some kind of serious literary intent, he was largely writing for his own amusement: hence his glacially slow pace, and the ludicrous depth of the work. For all the pressure to bash out The Hobbit 2 he never did that. For all he suffered financial hardship he never appears to have changed his creative course to alleviate that situation. Equally he seemed largely unconcerned with what anybody else thought - least of all contemporary critics. His response to criticism in the introduction to the second edition verges on an amateurish "nur nur ne nur nur not listening not listening if anything this book is too short". Which I greatly admire: It is not the done thing, so it's great to see it done.

It's quite amazing really when you consider the success of The Hobbit, and the pressure for a direct sequel -which is what he was tasked with providing - that instead of writing a children's book of similar length and tone he takes years and years to produce what could be easily (and unkindly) summarised as a mind-boggling over-length horror story about the divine right of kings and somewhat confusingly given the preponderance to revere "pure blood", how the little people matter.

Luckily it is also brilliant.

This is a thoughtful and insightful response Jon. I'm going to save it and have another read.

Tolkien's prose has always been problematic to the literary 'elite'. He wrote in a manner evoking Beowulf and Homer in an era where you simply weren't supposed to do that. Archaic language isn't, for whatever reason, intellectually acceptable. The style of writing that critics love tends to be sparse and raw. Tolkien offends that style. I don't think his critics even got as far as realizing some of what Jon brings up (the class structure of middle earth, etc).

This is the type of thing that makes them cringe:
"And all the host laughed and wept, and in the midst of their merriment and tears the clear voice of the minstrel rose like silver and gold. . .until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, and their joy was like swords, and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness."

Now, I love this text. It evokes something inside of me that other works simply can't touch. But it's too flowery for critics, too archaic, not 'real'. I've always found it odd that critics of any art have a very defined set of rules for which the art must adhere to. Music critics are especially guilt of this, but literary critics aren't far behind.

I suspect neither are known at all?

Considering the politics now involved with the prize .... I wouldn't give it much thought.