I Don't Like Tolkien's Writing?

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I feel so sad and alienated as a lover of fantasy and sci-fi that I can't appreciate the prose of the ultimate OG of fantasy: Tolkien. English is a second language for me but I did start learning it relatively early as a child and I now even think in English very often.

Yet his prose is so difficult for me to read smoothly without backtracking and thinking, "What did I just read?" Take this passage:

>> Soon he had passed, like a shadow into shadow, down the winding road, and behind him still the black ranks crossed the bridge. So great an army had never issued from that vale since the days of Isildur’s might; no host so fell and strong in arms had yet assailed the fords of Anduin; and yet it was but one and not the greatest of the hosts that Mordor now sent forth.

Isn't that very difficult to parse? I want to change it like this:

>> He soon passed, like a shadow into shadow, down the winding road. Behind him, the black ranks crossed the bridge. Such a great army had never been seen from that vale since the days of Isildur’s might; no host so fell and strong in arms had yet assailed the fords of Anduin, and yet it was but one, and not the greatest, that Mordor had sent forth.

That's at least 10 times easier for my brain to comprehend without tripping and feeling the need to re-read what I just read. Did I take the beauty and poetry out of his prose with what I did there? Apologies to Tolkien fans if so. Also for fans of Tolkien, do you have any tips on how I might be able to better appreciate his style of prose?

Is there a journey of literature I should read first that might help me to appreciate his prose without slogging through it?

Updates

14 d

I'm such a huge fan of the Oxford comma as well. I think I really interpret punctuation as pauses in ways that prevents me from tripping when reading or speaking. "He was short, stout, and miserable." If we do, "He was short, stout and miserable," my brain wants that wants to find a sense of simplicity and order wants to combine "stout and miserable" together in ways that trip me up. So I love clauses and sentences separate into teeny bite-sized chunks as much as possible with punctuation.

Updates

14 d

I hope AmandaYVR will forgive me for inviting her here. I usually don't invite people into my posts but I know she really appreciates Tolkien and also a serious writer in her own right. So I figure if anyone has a chance to demystify my problem with Tolkien's prose, it's her. So please forgive me Amanda for sending an invite! I usually never do it.

[AmandaYVR]

There's no need to apologize. I appreciate your consideration, but there's absolutely no need for apologies.

My brain is not firing on all cylinders right now, so excuse for what will likely be a lacklustre reply.

Here are some random thoughts on this:

Tolkien is advanced reading. His writing is long and meaty, and even us English-born readers have to slow down to really understand it all, being that much of it is made up and from another time entirely. Don't beat yourself up for not getting all of what he chose to put down. Not only is his sentence structure more complex, but he's constantly putting out new words that haven't existed, or aren't used in modern English. That slows down the reading and can be taxing. (I did re-read some passages more than once, but some of that was because of beauty, not always lack of clarity.)

Writing and art is highly subjective, and though some try to quantify and qualify it, not all writing is for everyone, to their taste, and that's perfectly okay.

Sometimes I want more objectively in the arts. Sometimes I prefer how less structured and rigid it is. Have you experimented or played with the grammar checkers and writing/readability scorers? I suspect you will say yes, though I don't remember if we've talked about this. I could not be more anti-A. I., and I don't believe in having programs do our writing - and especially thinking - for us, but in terms of Readability tests, they can be quite interesting and useful. I put your example above into the Hemingway Editor, and as I suspected, it did not fair well. Try it for yourself. It's free just web-based. https://hemingwayapp.com/ It ranks the entire section as Hard to Read and Very Hard to Read. But that's Tolkien's style, right? He likes long, winding sentence structure. And his Flesch Kinkaid Reading Grade Level is higher than is considered 'ideal' (the goal is Grade 5, not 16-17 years olds, as his scored), but this is literary fiction, so— https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/ I've never thought all things are for everyone. What a dull world it would be, it they were.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the Oxford comma. I did my own thorough research on this a year or two ago, and came to my own conclusions about it, and I think as you, that it adds so much clarity. Imho, once a person is aware of it, why not utilize it whenever it aids in clarity? Writing can be complex. And stylistically, some people do actually like reading or writing flowery, purple prose, etc. (not me), but I really can't think of any situations when strong clarity is a detriment.

It's been many years since I read LOTR, but, yes, I did enjoy it. I saw the film trilogy first, and inspired by the language, primarily, I bought the paperback trilogy. It's the longest book I've ever read, 900+ pages. I savoured the language. I love the... I'm not sure what to call it, maybe it's a certain romanticism, wrapped in a bit of philosophy. It's not poetry, but it can be poetic. He definitely delighted in language, rhythm, flow, etc. But I guess it was his optimism that really got to me. I don't normally care at all about battle scenes, but the good vs. evil, odds-are-against-us, not-giving-up, perseverance and hopefulness of it all really moved me. Aragorn's/Strider's speech, rallying the small citizen army of soldiers on horseback, as he galloped past them, clinking swords, "The day will come for the end of man... but today is not this day," he shouted. That was a beautiful speech. It actually made me tear up a bit. That is Tolkien's hopefulness shining through. And I think the world needed, and will always need, people like this, who can see, or perhaps it is just having faith in their hearts, that the seemingly unsurmountable obstacles might not be as impossible as we think. We have to try, at least. So, my two favourite things were his use of language, and his unending belief in good over evil.

Maybe you might enjoy the movie based on Tolkien, a biopic. I liked it. I was surprised I became engrossed in it. I don't remember it that well, tbh, but I do remember it dove into his love of language, and how he eventually came up with his own languages for the series. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3361792/reference/

He is a bit similar to the man who wrote "Watership Down", about rabbits. He also created his own lapine language. Though that book I put down, and did not finish. Didn't care for his writing style, though I forget why. The animated film, I was in love with as a child, even as horrific as some of it was. I liked the unvarnished reality of it all.

I'm not a fantasy-lover, generally. I like sci-fi a bit more. I'm sort of an uber-realist, as my husband nicknamed me. I always prefer truth and reality, even if they are not necessarily the most common aspects of life. (I do need some escapism, though.) I remember our chat years ago about both disliking fantasy (especially superhero movies) that didn't seem bound by anything. Like you said, if the character gets thrown into a wall, and doesn't even react with any amount of pain, why do we care about him/it? And what about physics? I more prefer stories set on Earth, but with a bit of supernatural bent to them, so laws of gravity apply, for ex., but there's an unknown element to what will, and could, happen. (I love "The Age of Adaline" for this very reason, and some other reasons. It's a beautiful love story in my opinion. There's an absolutely gorgeous sophistication to these characters. It's an entirely different genre, of course - it's romance - but the writing, especially the dialogue, is perfection, in my opinion. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655441/reference/ )

What you said about yourself seems to be very true - you care about characters, people, and it's each individual's specific perspective that you find interesting. You clearly prefer character-driven stories. And in the fantasy genre, maybe it's a bit more difficult to find that depth of character development you (and I) like, because they have so much other ground to cover, in the world-building/explaining. You might have a challenge finding character-driven fantasy stories, etc., that give enough attention to the individual's perspective. They seem to have the obstacles-to-overcome thing down, but that's not always that deep.

Here are my notes on some different story-plot structures:

Concrete: Concrete events which happen in a concrete-type story, are deepened and explained by, and given purpose, based on the character’s internal world and lens. They are given symbolic meaning based on how they interact on the metaphorical. The protagonist perceives, and then there is an overarching or underlying theme of what does it all mean.

Internally-Driven Structures: It’s an emotional reaction that the protagonist has to an event. It’s causal, but what happens next is based on the emotional reaction to Even 1, and so on. This is what drives the plot forward. Not the concrete events, per se, but the reaction to them.

Metaphorical Structures: If your writing is very cerebral and experimental, there may not even be much internal causality, but what’s connecting your scenes is based on the themes and ideas in the book, and that’s what’s moving you through the story. That’s something you see in the most experimental, sort of heady work. You’re not going to see that in a typical, plot-driven novel, though it could happen, where you see those causal connections on that metaphorical plane.

Plot-Driven Structures: A plot-driven book should have strong causal connections which link chapters and drive plot. Plot structures such as Hero’s Journey or Save the Cat lay out typical, concrete connections between events, and it’s up to the writer to lay create their own, unique internal and metaphorical connections. Sometimes plot structures do consider internal connections and character development as well, but usually they are examples of tight, concrete, plot structure.

Some things I didn't like about Tolkien's writing: He goes into excessive detail at times. I also think he should have made the Treebeard and trees storyline much, much smaller, or eliminated it altogether. I skipped most of Treebeard's dialogue, and there was more detail in the fight scenes than I needed. I also found Gollum to be too repetitive. So, for me, it wasn't a perfect story, but it was overall very beautifully executed. I don't think you should feel badly if you aren't connecting to it, though. It's perfectly fine, it's subjective, and given what I know about you, I wouldn't have been able to predict your reaction, but I can now see how it might not be the right fit for you. And maybe most fantasy isn't, either. LOTR was the fantasy exception for me. I like underdogs, too. Readers/viewers have much more empathy (and sympathy) for characters who don't give up, rather than ones that are just straightforwardly successful in all that they try. Though I'm getting a bit tired of the anti-hero. Some of them kill too many people, and are too selfish for me to stay with them, even if their original motivation was understandable.

You received some good responses here. I listened to the 1-hr lecture on 'How to Read Tolkien'. I woke up anxious too early, and I listened to the whole thing, then got a bit more sleep after. He's also a rather long-winded guy. My husband wouldn't like this guy's style which is to speak faster so that he can fit in more words, lol. But it was pretty interesting. I didn't need to know about ruins, though. Still, it's sometimes interesting hearing about people's passions, isn't it.

I learned recently that the stories (novels) that get published, and put on film, aren't necessarily all that unique. (And even when something is unique, the genre can get played out after a while - dystopian, superheros, etc. - and then they really won't buy it because it's already had too much exposure and popularity.) What publishers and film producers are always seeking, though, is 'the same but different', and gives a unique perspective of an author. A new Author Voice is what they are all seeking. And that's not impossible because no two people have ever lived the same life. I'm personally a sucker for dialogue, I've found. (I think I mentioned that to you before. Which might relate to us both being F's in the MBTI.) I find it quite easy to write, and it seems to hit me to my core. I can't seem to eliminate this idea that life is about our relationships to people, and it's both the bane and one of the greatest aspects of it. To me, Tolkien's expository writing is gorgeous, generally (though sometimes too long-winded.) I love Latin, I just can't get enough of how it sounds, and how philosophical, for lack of a better word, its root. (I don't remember if it had much or any influence on Tokien's language.) But it was also the effort of his characters, both individually and when they worked together, that made the story so beautiful to me. So, l those are the two elements that really got me. But his sentence structure is complex, his world-building, unique, and he's certainly not into brevity, therefore, don't sweat it if you don't connect to it.

Sorry this is so long. I'm too tired to edit it further. I don't know if I've covered all the things you mentioned. It was an interesting topic, though.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Speaking as an English major, Tolkienn is so fucking boring. His writing is mind numbing to read at times. The main reason his stuff got published when it did was because it was the first of its kind. Tolkienn did a great job at creating concepts we now use in pretty much every fantasy novel ever, but it is not a pleasant read. Don’t feel bad about it, objectively speaking if someone tried to publish the same thing today in the same writing style, they would never get formally published.

[strateguy632]

1, yes true that is natural for a second language. as i will explain.

2, your corrections are actualy "modernizing" to the way we talk now. in contrast to old style. so don't feel sad.

3, he uses rare words in hobbit and worse in silmirilian. so don't feel far away.

4, i enjoyed it despite the rare words but see below, my story later, and English as a second language, so natural for you to be frustrated by his use of rare words.

5, from his first sentence it was a turn off "in a hole in the ground lived a hobbit" horrible start. tragic that such an amazing world was not presented well.

objective literature rules require: start by introducing the main character. he failed. objectively.

also hole means down like a street hole! but no picture to realize he meant a burrow, horizontal cave, as described later.

he waited to describe hobbit too long and was too vague, too.

he could've put the picture "the hobbit in his round hole" with the first page to help understand but didn't. it would help us see a hobbit and the hole!

the better options are:

a: rely on films. MANY 15? films on this series about hobbit and ring.

and then 2: read free summaries for example.

https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/hobbit/section1/

https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/hobbit/section2/

instead of the book.

c, nothing can prepare you for rare words.

d, my story.

my idiot parents told me hobbit is a kid book, but it isn't.

age 6 they gave me the version without pictures and hundreds of pages. age 6 books are... you know! different.

they made a sensation about how wonderful and skilled author... but praise only refer to his imagination.

i started reading the cover hobbit. "what is a hobbit?"

they said, " look in a dictionary" but dictionary didn't have that word. so we argued and they insisted i skip the word hobbit and read it anyway.

a minute later they interrupted me. "you see how good it is."

i had barely struggled for ten lines and said "he contradicted himself from paragraph 3 to first" then we argued some more. and i gave in and read it.

as an adult i see the writing quality was objectively bad so NOT your weakness.

[Knightwatch27]

You're talking about a man who wrote parts of the Oxford dictionary and you presume yourself qualified to alter his passages for your convinience, which is born from insufficient literary acumen? Tolkien is the father of fantasy and his works the unquestionably greatest works of fiction of all time. His stories aren't just tall tales to be clumsily digested as fast food, they're poetry and meant to reflect the mien of the high medieval age. That you cannot yet smoothly enough comprehend his elite sagaciousness is on you. English isn't my first language either, I understand his writings fully without need of backtracking. Simply practice more.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I realize I'm ill-qualified for it. I may have expressed my tone very poorly. It's coming from a loneliness and a feeling like I am genuinely the one dysfunctional, not Tolkien. My attempt to revise his writing was to highlight my defects, not his, although it's a repeated communication fault of mine that I fail to disambiguate the two.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

That's something I wish to improve as well is to succinctly communicate that something is my fault, since a lot of people tend to assume I'm criticizing someone when I'm actually criticizing myself. I would love to learn tips to clarify this better.

In person, I rely heavily on tone of voice and body language and I think most people understand I'm criticizing myself. But in writing, I don't have this ability to express this.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Something I feel the need to tell everyone on this site is that I'm 100 times better at speaking than writing. 🙏😅 I rely so heavily on things I can't communicate in writing to speak that makes me feel so crippled in reading and writing.

[Knightwatch27]

I don't mean to reprimand harshly, but as a life-long Elendili I am easily annoyed when people suggest that Tolkien's lifelong work needs any kind of revisitation. But the only way to truly appreciate Tolkien is to understand his semantics in conveying his legendarium. To revise it would be to ruin part of its soul. Tolkien grew up in a context of complete linguistic enmeshment, from his youth in being told the old classic tales of nordic and saxon folklore from his mother, to his university professors' euridite teachings on literary prowess. He's a man who fashioned entire languages, the elven Sindarin and Quenya tongues, from an amalgamation of merely two real world languages (Welsh and Finnish). The way he writes isn't modern, nor ancient, but simply extremely traditionally English in accordance with his patriotism. Therefore it might be simpler for those closer to that cultural sphere to embrace. And so my advise to anyone in that position would be to altogether spend more time with English prose.

[Knightwatch27]

You carry yourself more than well in writing so don't worry about that. We all send out the wrong signals now and again.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Cheers! It's something I really do wish to improve upon. Lately I'm starting to just get a craving to understand English literature better in general, especially literary fiction.

I was a bit traumatized by reading the likes of Moby Dick when I don't think I was anywhere close to level of being able to understand it. I ended up relying on CliffsNotes a lot, admittedly and embarrassingly, in my English lit courses in university when I went to the US.

[NamerOfStars]

I'll be sure to tell Baum, Carrol, Barrie, Dunsany, MacDonald, both Grimms, Burroughs, Eddison, Howard, Lovecraft, Morris, and Mallory that Tolkien somehow predates them, despite some of them dying before he was even born. CL Moore out-Catholiced Tolkien, Leiber out-adventured him, and of course, he wouldn't even EXIST as an author without Chesterton.

He was a very skilled writer and storyteller, due primarily to his grasp of linguistics, but keep a sense of perspective, here.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@NamerOfStars That's a lot for my todo list! Would you recommend one that might be suitable for my current pedestrian level of reading?

[Knightwatch27]

@NamerOfStars Nice try but no. Every trope of fantasy as we know it today are born from Tolkien's framework, the way we handle orcs, elves, mannish races, the original Hobbits, worldbuilding, scope of lore etc. not from Lovecraft, Baum, Carroll or the Grimms nor any other. Predating Tolkien doesn't make them originators of how we commonly view fantasy today. And while you can in all earnesty say that Tolkien built upon previous works, he made his entirely own thing. He wasn't "out-Catholiced" which isn't a word, nor out-adventured by anyone. Both those claims are wholly subjective at best but still incredibly weak when actually looking at the facts of respective stories. To reduce Tolkien to "a skilled writer and storyteller" and nothing else is simply factually ludicrous.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Don't hero worship.

There is a difference between being a fan of someone's work, and putting them on an undeserved pedestal. There are many creative minds in the past, before or after Tolkien, and even today, that are on par with, or are even more creative than he was.
People only gravitate to his work because The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings is popular today, but he didn't really invent much, the races and creatures in his works are iterations of creations that were thought up before he was even born or are found in nature. He was very good at using old ideas or nature to world build, but to suggest he is "the father of fantasy" or any sort of singular inspiration source for modern fantasy, is absurd. Nearly everything in his books are rooted in ancient mythologies or regular animals, I've even done better world building than him, and I'm a novice.

People always tend to give reverence in excess to dead artists, craftsmen, and writers, while belittling those still alive today, as if they are somehow inferior in mind, and it's obnoxious.

There are many unsung creative minds alive today that get ignored because too many people are focused on "the masters of old".

[NamerOfStars]

It's not ludicrous at all; it's true. He stole the core idea from Wagner, the narrative framework from Eddison, the mythical framework from the Nordic Eddas, the moral framework from Chesterton, and the social framework from his own English Catholic upbringing (and since said Catholicism is the the moral core of the story, it's absolutely accurate to point out he couldn't even beat Moore at that). Compare Blake's Orc to Tolkien's.

He didn't "make his entirely own thing"; he polished what had already done by better creatives before him. The only unambiguous improvement he made was in dialogue- which, again, has its roots in his skills as a linguist.

Sucking his artistic dick doesn't change reality; neither does lying about his accomplishments.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@NamerOfStars Oh dear! I feel as though I started something bad. Let's talk about movies! You guys like zombie movies? 😅

But if either of you could recommend a way like in your childhood to transitioning to being able to very easily read Tolkien's prose, and paint a map for me, I'd appreciate it so much.

[Knightwatch27]

@TheSpaceGnome I'm not hero worshiping. Tolkien is not a hero to me, but he is a role model and one of the greatest writers of all time, only a fool would deny that. And the only remotely relevant inference you offered here is "People only gravitate to his work because The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings is popular today, but he didn't really invent much," which of course is wholly incorrect and you probably know it. Lotr has the biggest fanbase of all time, and this was true way before the movies made a comeback in entertainment. And didn't invent much? No, only orcs as a species, Hobbits, two complete languages which you can actually learn and also set the foundation for how so many other fantasies depict elves and dwarves as a race.

"I've even done better world building than him, and I'm a novice." Sure you have. Sure you have. That really is a pathetic claim man. I'd like to see your volumes of lore and history of an entire planet covering what is equivalent to real world history of 6000+ years.

"There are many unsung creative minds alive today that get ignored because too many people are focused on "the masters of old". Buhu then. I am well aware of what creative minds exist today, but to pay homage to the true greats is not to ignore that talented writers exist today, and it's ridiculous to say so. Your arguments are nonsensical your premise is boloney. Enough said.

[Knightwatch27]

@TheSpaceGnome And further: I'm not surprised that you ignorantly enough think this, but it's hardly my own claim that Tolkien be regarded as a father of fantasy. I never said he was the originator of all of fantasy obviously, but the title of father of modern or high fantasy is an epithet he has held for a long, long time by popular consensus. So read it and weep. "This has caused Tolkien to be popularly identified as the "father" of modern fantasy literature—or more precisely, high fantasy. Tolkien's writings have inspired many other works of fantasy and have had a lasting effect on the entire field."
https://westportlibrary.libguides.com/JRRTolkien
"Although fantasy had long existed in various forms around the world before his time, J. R. R. Tolkien has been called the "father of fantasy"
en.wikipedia.org/.../Tolkien%27s_impact_on_fantasy

[Knightwatch27]

@GuyAnswersGirls123 I'd say medieval fantasy video games like Fable, or poetry by Byron, Edgar allan Poe and Walter Raleigh would be good places to begin to better comprehend the context of Tolkien's writing style. That's my source at least.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Cheers! I especially think I have to check out Poe more. I just have a knee-jerk negative reaction to him which I think I need to overcome.

[NamerOfStars]

@GuyAnswersGirls123 I think the tricky part is the specific angle you're coming from. Even in the movies, the reason the dialogue (which I've never denied is excellently written; my criticism isn't of Tolkien himself, but the cult he inspires (worse than the Tesla people, sometimes)) flows so well is that he deliberately used words derived from German (which English is essentially a modified form of). It's the primary reason why, to a native speaker, it sounds both so archaic and yet so natural. I don't know much of Japanese (which is what I'm guessing your native tongue is), but it's far enough from anything German that certain things aren't going to click the same way.

You might find it easier if you heard it, rather than reading it. Have you tried audiobook versions?

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@NamerOfStars This is getting to a really messed up part of me but since I learned how to read English long before I knew how to do it out loud, audiobooks are so jarring and slooowwwwwwww to me.

I hope you'll forgive a boast but I was tested for speed-reading and reading comprehension one time when I was a foreign student in high school and I tested at around 4x the speed of the average student. I can get through several hundred pages in a couple of hours where the average person requires 8+.

But accompanied by this boast is that I was only tested on very academic, formalized prose. When I find myself reading more ornate prose like Robert Frost let alone Tolkien, my reading speed slows down to a crawl re-reading and re-reading and trying to comprehend what I read.

So I seem to be skewed in that I can digest very technical literature so fast but very poetic and literary fiction slows me down to a crawl. And audiobooks are insufferable to me. I can't believe how slow they are. I even have this problem with films but at least I can see something to preoccupy me given how slowwwwly the characters speak compared to my reading speed.

[Knightwatch27]

@NamerOfStars Not even close and yes it's ludicrous. He stole nothing. His core idea is his own, the planet of Arda, the continent of Middle Earth, Aman, Valinor, the concept of the gods and how the world was made and its history is not plagarized in the slightest. All you do is waffle empty words.
What you mention, the Nordic Eddas, the Catholic upbringing, are called inspirations buddy. Not items of "theft". All writers have them, without real world parallels fantasy doesn't exist for anyone, but Tolkien took his inspirations to craft *the* most inspired medieval fantasy world ever.

"Sucking his artistic *** doesn't change reality; neither does lying about his accomplishments." Just the kind of predictably crude statement I'd expect from someone stupid enough to try and decry Tolkien. Sources of his acclaim are in abundance and I have already provided two of them. Your tedious motivations for being anti-Tolkien do not interest me, but nothing you say will change what Tolkien has indeed accomplished, how his works has had profound impact of fantasy, literature and western culture after him.

[TheSpaceGnome]

@Knightwatch27 You missed my point entirely.

There are many that have done more than that with more inventive ideas. I'm one of them (though it's not finished yet).

You're likely not going to see any of my works when its done though, and if you ever do, you'll never know I made them.

I HATE fame, and @GuyAnswersGirls123 I'm sure you'll probably scoff at this too, but I dont want to be noticed or remembered, I hate most people because I disagree with them about most things, and want to live a quiet life.

I tried to show people things I've made, or rather I made things, and people saw them by accident, and they liked them, and they just wouldn't shut the hell up about "Can you make this?" or "Can I use this?" or "Can I share this?" or "How much for this"?, "Thats really cool?", "Can I have this?", "I'm gonna steal this and tell people I made it", "Can you do this?" "How did you make this"? "Can you teach me?" etc. And I just, cracked..

I understand that most people want to be acknowledged, that they want to feel special and have their art noticed and be appreciated, so it bothers me when minds better than "the old masters" are ignored. But for me personally, its just too much, its too many people.. I could never stand in front a crowd, I hate parties and clubs and concerts and meetings and awards, I don't like that much attention, it feels like an attack even when its praise.

Its like when professor x couldn't handle all the voices in his head from reading everyone's mind.
Its overwhelming, monumentally so. So I haven't shared anything in a long time because I just don't want to be annoyed to the point snapping at people.

[TheSpaceGnome]

point of*

[NamerOfStars]

Hmm. That's probably not a good idea, then.

[NamerOfStars]

@Knightwatch27 What on Earth are you talking about? Arda is a slightly more English version of Welsh creation myths, Eru is just Yahweh and Valinor is just the Christian Heaven. Sources of Edison's acclaim for Edison's genius are also abundant; they're no less wrong.

I'm calling you out: you give me one thing- just one- that Tolkien actually invented- not "borrowed", or improved or modified, but actually created on his own, and I'll concede the point. Prove that your god is worthy of your praise. I'm not in the least anti-Tolkien, just anti-dishonesty. Building on top of other and better creators isn't creating out of whole cloth, and Arneson's veneration of the man put him far and above where his talents alone would take him. You disagree? Put up or shut up.

[Knightwatch27]

@NamerOfStars To say that all fantasy mythos must be 100% without any source of inspiration from outside the world of fantasy to be valid is to not understand how creative writing works. So clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. You'd have to likewise prove, by your own logic, that Lovecraft's characters or myths have absolutely no real world parallels whatsoever if they are to be worth anything. But you can't. Because that's never the case. No writer just pulls lore from the ether. They take inspiration from somewhere. That's a huge difference to copying another writer's existing world which isn't what Tolkien has done at all. Yes Tolkien drew from the real world to make Arda. All writers do including your precious "unsung modern heroes".

You're blatantly anti-Tolkien. It's fine to not prefer him. It's fine to dislike his works. But bs'ing about what he accomplished and trying to decry the man is just silly.

Tolkien has all the receipts of his status and you can childishly hyperbole as much as you wish about me "worshiping him as a god" but when it comes to it you lack any serious argument. Just loose and subjective claims.

Ooh "calling me out" huh lol. I've already given you examples of his own innovations. So if you fail to read them that's on you. I'll reiterate them once more and that'll be it.

[Knightwatch27]

@NamerOfStars Tolkien with the use of Welsh and Finnish crafted two complete languages, Sindarin and Quenya which are fully viable to learn and speak. This belongs wholly to Tolkien.

The burden of proof is on you. You claim that none of Tolkien's acclaim is deserved. But you haven't given one sensible argument as to why not.

[TheSpaceGnome]

"To say that all fantasy mythos must be 100% without any source of inspiration from outside the world of fantasy to be valid is to not understand how creative writing works."

Now this I agree with. Literally all creative works are just reorganizations of other things. There are no inspiration-less works.

[NamerOfStars]

Let's review what you've "given me":
-rhetoric
-sanctimony
-claims of his popularity, which you seem to think makes your claims valid
-accusations of being anti-Tolkien

None of those help your case. But more recently, you've added some actual offerings:
-His core idea (which wasn't his, since he ripped off Ring of the Nibelungs to get it).
-the planet of Arda, [and] the continent of Middle Earth (which wasn't his, since it's just a renamed map of pre-Roman mythic Europe).
-Aman [and] Valinor (which aren't his, since they're just the Christian Heaven).
-the concept of the gods and how the world was made and its history (which aren't his, since they're just Christianized versions of British pagan myths).

And, evidently realizing how weak this makes your argument look, you fall back on "all authors steal their creations", evidently not realizing that makes literature inherently unworthy of praise.

What else ha- you know what? No. You've made it pretty clear that your grasp of literature has the breadth of Panama. Tolkien is worthy of every ounce of artistic praise you give him if he's the only author you ever read, and since you have no interest in broadening your horizons in this matter, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

But I'll add in one last thing: Tolkien himself was EXTREMELY broadly read, and would be disgusted by someone praising his work by reading him and no one else. For your own sake, read more. You'll learn that Tolkien is not, in fact, the second coming of Elvis, but you won't lose your fondness for his work. You'll see and learn better authors, and be a better person for it.

[Knightwatch27]

@NamerOfStars Congratulations. You've officially won the prize for must absurd comment I've read in at least two years.

I won't entertain your puerile antics further than this comment. You'll get corrected once more and that's it.

1. All arguments are rhetoric. You've given me rhetoric as well. Irrelevant comment. You're really grasping for straws aren't you.
2. Nope. No sanctimony. Just homage.
3. I take it you call the underside of a rock your home if you haven't noticed Tolkien's popularity in fiction. To seriously try and claim that Tolkien *isn't* immensily known and popular is just laughable. Try a very simple google search on "most read books of all time", next to the Bible, Lotr tops the list. And the movie trilogy grossed tremendous money, Return of the King alone landing on 11 billion US dollars. "Claims of his popularity" lol give me a break you jester. You have absolutely no ground to stand on.

You expose your ineptitude further. You really don't keep track of your own words do you. You firmly agreed not one comment past that an author must not have 100% organic ideas unrelated to the real world to be valid. Now you're trying to make a moronic point of Tolkien's work not being his own *again, because he had real world inspirations *as all writers have*. By this nonsensical standard no writer is a writer, all are fakes according to you.

Time for me to call you out. Pinpoint exactly where I wrote that I have read no one but Tolkien. And don't try any "I don't have to see it to tell" crap. In your train of thought, which is on the level of a toddler evidently you think that because I acknowledge Tolkien's literary prowess, his status and because he's a favorite of mine, that I ignore all other writers that have ever been. The laughable nature of this rationale speaks for itself. So, do try better and stop trying to play the hipster intellectual. No one is buying it buddy.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I like the oxford comma as well, though I also like old English in that style.

What I don't like about his writing though, is the way he uses descriptors. He assumes that we know what "the vale", or the "black ranks", or the "fords of anduin" are. He is a very image reliant writer, which is fine for a movie script, but in an image-less novel it just sucks ass.

I feel like his writings need their own dictionary.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I liked the movies though, it was easy to parse previously unknown/made up words because they were used with a visual context in the moment.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

That's one thing that poses a bit of difficulty to me as well in a lot of fantasy. There's often so much description of the setting and I think I can visualize it and even get inspired to draw something being a visually-oriented type, but it's not particularly interesting to me.

What the characters are doing and feeling and saying is the most interesting to me, so I like where the world-building is relatively minimalist and just sort of manifests based on what the characters are experiencing. It's difficult to engage for me emotionally with a description of a hallway unless it's important for something a character I care about will interact with it.

I figure that's a sort of mental defect. For example, I love Star Trek: TNG, but it took me ages to realize that ten-forward refers to the tenth level of the forward saucer section. I have no spatial awareness! And I don't find that interesting even now that I know it except that it's a lounge where the crew can drink synthehol and relax and hang out.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Yeah I'm the opposite, I have really good spacial awareness and an almost "addiction" to world building and creative outlets. But I usually have a hard time caring about story complexity unless its comical or a mystery I have to figure out or epic action. But the mystery part is only entertaining the first time around.

Even with story, I tend to analyze it and try to make a "better" version based on the world building.

[IslaTheWitch]

I simply love his language and style... I remember it took me a while to understand everything when I read LotR the first time in original, but in the end I return to the trilogy quite often :D

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

It's so difficult for me but I might have a generalized difficulty with fantasy beyond prose. There's often so much description of the scene and I think I have an impatience and want to know how it relates to the characters.

I think a lot of true fantasy and sci-fi fans get excited by world-building. For me, even the basic word, "world-building," makes me almost want to groan.

I love being transported to different worlds but I only want to experience it through the eyes of characters and how it's so individually important to them. When the narrator takes over describing the world in ways that don't seem to very quickly become important in the way the setting interacts with the characters and vice versa, my brain wants to tune out.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

GRRM's writing style is way more palatable to me! I've heard his writing style described as so much more pedestrian, but it might suit me better at least until I upgrade my skills.

[IceCreamSandwich]

Absolutely understandable. Tolkien wasn't writing with every reader in mind, and even plenty of people with English as their first language have trouble enjoying his work because it's so dense. They're great books, but they're not a universal perfection. Not being able to read it smoothly is a fine reason to not enjoy his writing. Not everyone wants or needs to be fluent in advanced older English.

[msmissydc]

Honestly thats not my critique on tolkien. I do like his stories and work for the future but I dont like his writing either. Completly different reason though. What he writes is great, its just not in the main stories. To fully comprehend what he writes for middlearth you bassically need to have the simalirion at hand. Yes some stories are easy to get, but the background to the characters timeline etc. Is a thing you really only get if you have a look into the simarilion.

[RebelinSteel]

@msmissydc yep you do need that as a back story but it’s also at times harder reading.

[Agape93]

You also gotta think it was written decades ago. English then sounds different than it does today. But not everyone into fantasy likes the same thing. I love horror, post apocalypse and alt history. I enjoy Tolkien a bit but I prefer modesitt or mckinnon

[RebelinSteel]

You removed Still

also issued provides detail.

try some Chaucer to get an understanding of Medieval English.

[RebelinSteel]

https://youtu.be/lXAvF9p8nmM
It’s long but a decent bit about Tolkien
Also it’s good to start with the Hobbit
The English is more basic and less ‘middle English’

With Tolkien there is a level of learning going on as you read, becoming part of the story, the use of a single word such as still to give an idea of magnitude.

[RebelinSteel]

Also there is the Tolkien Society to go over.

https://www.tolkiensociety.org/

FAQ and blogs are good start points.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I just now realized there's a verb form of "still"! I assumed he was using the adverb form like, "Notwithstanding". Some of my difficulty my boil down to basic vocabulary.

I also had difficulty initially in that passage with the adjective form of "fell". "So fell and strong" confused me a lot but that was easy enough to resolve with a Google search for, "Fell Adjective". Okay, "Fierce, strong, dreadful". Got it.

But with "still" in the context of the sentence structure, I really thought it was used in the adverb form. Some of my difficulties might have to do with these ambiguities and not just the structure.

I might need to sign up for English courses although here in Japan, most are so basic and targeted for ESL students like me. I'm craving a course where I really dive into literature.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

[*] Some of my difficulty [might, sorry] boil down to basic vocabulary.

[RebelinSteel]

For Fell think of dire, even Eldritch

It was a dark sinister army, composed of Fell creatures.

Beowulf is a good one to read through as well.

Tolkien was in to old English and a lot of his tone is from that.

There are also some good audio books out there, Shakespearean actors tend to do the best ones

[LiamJHayden]

Tolkien was a preeminent linguist. In any event, his works have been translated into many languages.

https://www.tolkienguide.com/archive/ElrondsLibrary/

[OddBeMe]

This isn’t uncommon. New gens get used latest writing types. Thus something written in the 1950s will be challenging.

But the key is getting through it and understanding it. That builds intelligence. I just read Charles dickens and shit what drag. But the ideas of the wealth gap was pretty forward thinking.

Try to reread Tolkien and watch out for references to the Industrial Revolution -which he absolutely hated.

[Berethor]

Well you don't need to read, there is the movies, but the rings of power series is too woke.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

The story I really like and I even forced myself to read LOTR cover to cover back in uni decades ago. I just didn't really enjoy the prose as much as the story and characters. Lately I'm really trying to broaden my appreciation of a wider variety of prose but I'm so picky about it and I don't know exactly why.

[DryGermanGuy]

I know exactly what you mean. I like to read in bed, before sleeping. You can’t do that with Tolkien, you have to be fully concentrated or you‘ll have to re-read your last 50 pages repeatedly.

[OfDeath]

All I have to say is this:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TYDctxPJCNE

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I'm actually a massive fan of Ralph Bawski! Some people find his rotoscoped animations so ugly and I do admit they're so janky at times, like with your clip, but I think there's such a richness in the motion and expressiveness that is unmatched.

[Fireguy17]

So, what's the issue in not liking literature from someone.
Does that make you a bad person?
Why is it so important to you that you like him?

[Sevenpointfive]

try reading darwin's origin of species. that is like a page 3 quit

[jshm2]

Then it isn't Tolkien that is the problem, it's you.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Most definitely not.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Apologies, I think I asked multiple questions between the title and body of my post and I wasn't sure to which one you responded.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Pretty much all of them. Tolkien was one of the greatest linguist of his time. The way he worded it was just fine.

[NathanDavis]

you would love my writing...

[Anonymous]

yeah I hate Tolkien