Writers might have regurgitated elements from Tolkien's works over the years, but they certainly didn't copy his verbose and archaic writing style. And I would argue that there was very little new in his book. It was a collection of myths and legends from ancient cultures, mixed together with different tropes from other cultures, and told in an old style. Compare LotR with other books that came out at the same time and it instantly feels aged.
When I re-read it in 2009 for the first time since 1996, I was struck by how quaint the prose was and how derivative it felt, not of the copycats of the past four decades but of the works that influenced his storytelling choices. LotR is far from his best writing (since the edited edition came out in 2007, I think The Children of Húrin is a far better-written story, even if it is "incomplete") and why some feel the need to be defensive about that is odd, as a lot of enjoyable works can be poorly written.
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
There's a lot more to it than that.
- 23/01/2012 07:20:30 PM
675 Views
True
- 23/01/2012 07:57:42 PM
663 Views
You can't dismiss his impact, even if you do not like his storytelling.
- 23/01/2012 07:40:19 PM
730 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