Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written

In article ... robertm@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (MONTGOMERY ROBERT PH) writes:

   I currently have an unpopular view of Tolkien's style.
   If you think it is sacrilege to criticize his works, please stop
   reading now. :-)

Sacrilege? No. Dangerous? Yes.

   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.

Most times when I read LotR I ignore the maps. Visualisation? Who he?

   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.

This is a question of taste, I think; the world is real. (Remember, too,
that LotR was written when fantasy was *not* a specific, wide-spread genre.
Did Tolkien have to write that much detail to keep inexperienced readers
under control?)

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

Applause! Applause!
What's wrong with ``said''? [See below.]

   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.

There were maps? So there were. 

   Characters were very well developed and none were unnecessary.

I'll pass on this one.

   (The writing was much "tighter.")  

Donaldson? Tighter? Than Tolkien?
I think we have different definitions of ``tighter''. Donaldson is amazingly
wordy. Perhaps you can't cut out characters and retain the structure, but
you can certainly cut words.

   "X said" was replaced by, "X gasped," or "X whispered," etc. 

I'm not sure if this is taste, or convention (and if the latter, whether it be
genre-specific or distributed through modern writing), but I find the
multifarious ways of saying ``said'' to be more noticable (and objectionable)
than repeated use of ``said''. That gasped, it should -- sorry, I prefer it to
-- be used sparingly. (Using variants regularly tend to make them less
effective.)

   Donaldson's style brought me emotionally into the story.  I
   enjoyed "escaping" to the Land, the nobelness of certain characters, etc.

So did I, but I know others more critical than myself who belong to the
throw-Donadson-across-the-room school.

   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+.

A for effort, B for product, C for control -- at least, in the Covenant
stories. 

   [ 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. ]

Seems to me just like real life.

   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 *was*. Nowadays that seems unlikely, as there is so much other fantasy on
the shelves. Beginners are more likely to pick up Anthony, or Wolfe, or ...

   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).  

Heavens, why *should* it be ``the best of all time?''. (Just because it's
better than anything else yet written ... he said mischeviously.) [I had to
read your last sentence twice, because it suggests that many people say it's
*not* the best, whereas I think you mean that they said it *was*.]

   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?

Not quickly for the action, but without the maps and geneology details.
[Philistine that I am, I tend to ignore the poetry, as well.]



--

Kers.       | "A foolish hobgoblin has the consistency of little minds".