As you explained so well, Tolkein's work was considered not quite up to snuff, and a interesting curiosity by the "experts". HOWEVER, it actually turned out to be one of the most influential collections of prose in the past 100 years. This is so often the case that I have very little regard for the self-proclaimed experts, and what is defined as a classic. Literary experts are actually only an expert on what was. They judge something new, by how its construction compares to something old, with no regard to how it may impact and excite future authors and readers. Often, they even hold a works popularity with the masses against it. Even though it is the popularity of an author's work that can (may/will) direct the future of writing.
Oddly enough, art critics err in the opposite direction, often praising something solely because it is new, even if it has little to nothing unto itself that is praiseworthy.
Movie/play critics probably balance to two extremes the best, but it still all boils down to a person's opinion; and mine is the only opinion that is "right" for me.
Oddly enough, art critics err in the opposite direction, often praising something solely because it is new, even if it has little to nothing unto itself that is praiseworthy.
Movie/play critics probably balance to two extremes the best, but it still all boils down to a person's opinion; and mine is the only opinion that is "right" for me.
Popularity does not correlate strongly with literary qualities. Tastes change, after all (see the late 17th/early 18th centuries, when Shakespeare was not in vogue). For this particular award, the authors' body of work was compared; Tolkien had few works of his own fiction for the committee to consider beyond LotR, which was at that time a work that was more a curiosity than anything popular or influential. Predicting what may be loved 20, 50, 100 years from then is not in the committee's purview or in anyone else's. Add to that the questions on how well Tolkien adapted traditional folklore to the schematics of his invented mythology and it's easy to understand why his work was rejected quickly. It just does not read well for readers who are experienced in a variety of narrative styles.
The other parts I'll ignore for now.
Illusions fall like the husk of a fruit, one after another, and the fruit is experience. - Narrator, Sylvie
Je suis méchant.
Je suis méchant.
1961 Nobel Finalists: J.R.R. Tolkien
- 19/01/2012 09:27:46 AM
1107 Views
It's difficult to assess Tolkien's relative merits then 51 years later.
- 19/01/2012 02:41:52 PM
739 Views
Yes, Edwardian prose does not thrill me
- 19/01/2012 02:58:00 PM
705 Views
Tolkein is an excellent example why I usually dismiss literary critics/critiques
- 23/01/2012 05:57:51 PM
806 Views
Tolkien. Please. You're doing your entire argument a disservice there. *NM*
- 23/01/2012 06:42:12 PM
218 Views
You can't dismiss his impact, even if you do not like his storytelling.
- 23/01/2012 07:40:19 PM
729 Views
That's an odd argument
- 23/01/2012 07:51:49 PM
747 Views
Not really
- 23/01/2012 10:35:39 PM
595 Views
Depends on what you see as the point of literature.
- 24/01/2012 08:14:07 AM
581 Views