From: blum@medici.ils.nwu.edu (Dan Blum)
Subject: Re: Tolkien's (and Donaldson's) style (was Re: writing Styles)
Reply-To: blum@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:27:08 GMT

MONTGOMERY ROBERT PH (robertm@alumni.cs.colorado.edu) wrote:
> I currently have an unpopular view of Tolkien's style.
> If you think it is sacrilege to criticize his works, please stop
> reading now. :-)

> I read The Hobbit and thought it was good.  I then read the first
> book of the LotR trilogy, and disliked it.  One problem was that
> I got bogged down trying to follow the maps; a lot of the places
> visited were not on the maps, but it took a lot of searching to
> be sure.

> I also didn't appreciate all of the minor/trivial characters and
> geneology.  I know Tolkien was trying to create a realistic world,
> but I found a lot of that to be chaff, irrelevant to the story.
> He did put a lot of effort into developing the world, and if I were
> into fantasy gaming or maybe studying the books, I'm sure I'd
> appreciate the extra detail.

> I found his style in some ways to be extremely plain.  For example,
> when characters spoke, it was always "X said" or "Y said."

Well, this is considered GOOD style by many people - for example,
James Blish, who decried the use of "said-bookisms" (i.e., "gasped,"
"whispered," etc.).

> I then read Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books.  I loved them.
> Everything that had annoyed me about Tolkien's style, Donaldson did
> "correctly."  Every place visited could be found on the maps.  Characters
> were very well developed and none were unnecessary.  (The writing was
> much "tighter.")  "X said" was replaced by, "X gasped," or "X whispered,"
> etc.  Donaldson's style brought me emotionally into the story.  I
> enjoyed "escaping" to the Land, the nobelness of certain characters, etc.

> For the record, I don't consider the Thomas Covenant books perfect
> either (e.g., the 2nd book of the 2nd trilogy seemed like filler to
> make a trilogy), but I would give Donaldson an A/A+.

> [ I do have a beef with a technique Donaldson used in The Mirror
> of Her Dreams (1st book of Mordant's Need).  In it, the characters try
> to solve various mysteries.  The reader is forced to accept weak, ill-
> based deductions by the characters, only to find out later they were
> wrong, and then on to other quantum-leap deductions, which also turn
> out to be wrong, etc.  Other than that, I *did* enjoy the book. ]

> Anyway, back to Tolkien.  My impression is that his LotR is the first
> major fantasy that a lot of people read, and it is in some ways like
> a "first love."  It is special, and maybe the best of its time, but
> for my tastes anyway it is not the best fantasy of all time (as many
> people say).  I will definitely give LotR another chance, and will
> change my reading style and read it more quickly and ignore the maps,
> genealogy details, etc.  Maybe that's how it should be read the first
> time, quickly for the action?

> -Rob


--
_____________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum           Institute for the Learning Sciences   Room 334
blum@ils.nwu.edu   1890 Maple Ave., Evanston, IL 60201   708-491-7149

"It's nothing, honey - the dog's learning how to juggle."
_____________________________________________________________________