Was Tolkien really a great author?

[Lady Luthien]

I think he was. The subject of this thread arose in another thread, and some people claimed the appeal of his books came from not the way he wrote as an author, but the way he researched as a historian and gave culture to the locations and races of his story. While this is true, i believe the job of a historian falls under the job of a fantasy author. And while his tale is unique, that credit goes to the author. Writing style is not all that is involved with being an author. Giving good background in unique ways as an appeal doesn't take away, imho opinion his talent as a writer...it simply adds to it. Anything that was appealing about his story should be attributed to Tolkien's talent as an author. He did, after all, not only write his story, but created it and researched it. ;) What does everyone else think of this?

[Miruvor]

I never compared him throughout my life with what I considered 'Great Authors' No, Thomas Hardy, George Eliot and Jane Austen have those top spots for me. But Tolkien was something set aside, not to be considered with literature, because, his creation, though literarily quite fine, was something bigger - an experience, you might say. He lived in it himself, by writing it over so many years and focusing on that alone. He was probably as mesmerised and immersed with it as we. But I'm glad he never wrote other novels, about totally different plots and stories, because that would kind of break the image of Middle-earth as real and whole, and, I don't think he could have competed with those novelists who can knock off a different high quality novel every year or two, totally putting aside what they just did before.

[Frodo's Love]

Great thread! :grin: :thumbs:

Tolkien's historical and linguistical research really seem to be unique in this genre. Historians who deal with "real" happenings all of their life are reseaching, but Tolkien did more than that. He researched, and then he created something. A whole new world that was so complex and so vivid that the term "fantasy" doesn't quite seem to fit, because there's more to it. ;)

Miruvor, great point! :) Yes, it's not usual at all that an author remains in one "world" for decades and that most that is published deals with the particular invented world and themes.

And then there is that very unique writing style Tolkien had. Somehow he managed to let one's own fantasies come alive with his work. Though his creation of ME is very complex, it's not complete. At least that is what I discovered. No other book than LOTR made me think more, and gave more meaning to me. Just because there were so many things left untold after all.
It was as if I had discovered something that I had missed for too many years...

:)

[Lady Luthien]

I feel that way too, FL ;) And thats a good point, Miruvor. I think it's a good thing that Tolkien stuck to one story, or really one world. He put more energy into it and developed it more than the authors that wrote books every year. And those authors you mentioned: Jane Austin(one of my favorites), George Eliot, etc. had one difference. They were not fantasy authors. They simply wrote of people normal to their own times, so it was much easier for them to shell out new ideas when they didn't have the task of creating an entire language and culture to go with it. I say Tolkien is an example that quality of work is what makes a good author, not the quantity of.

[Eledhwen]

Wonderful thread!!:thumbs:

For me, Tolkien is up there as a great author. I wish now that I had majored in English so that I could study stuff like this... But it seems to me that (if we just consider his work in ME) he set certain goals for himself in terms of how he wanted the story to sound and to feel. And I would say he met his goals. He was doing more than just writing an interesting story about person x or y in some situation - he was writing to a certain (personal) aesthetic. I think this is more difficult - to combine telling a good story with telling it in a very particular way. He did things that professional writers would not do, but he wrote it his way and gave us that great story too!

He wasn't consciously world-building either, like so many fantasy/sci-fi authors today. (Not that this is bad, he just wasn't premeditating his world.) He started with language and the world really built itself in his mind from there. And of course, as you guys have said, it led to the development of culture (as language often does) and histories, races, etc. You only have to go through ONE of the HoME books to see the complexity of his thought process. This is a huge achievement in writing, which really hasn't been duplicated to the same standard since.

There have also been arguments about how psychologically shallow his characters are. (I don't really feel that way. Gollum, for example, is a deeply psychological character, as is Sam. The whole of Frodo's journey, for me, is about psychological breakdown.) What he gives us (over psychology) is a mythology with archetypal characters that touch us, and a setting that wasn't complete, that we could insert ourselves into, and draw from to fuel our creativity and inspiration. The next generation of authors had a very firm foundation upon which to build their characters and worlds psychologically or otherwise. Giving credibility (at least to the reading audience) to the genre of "Fantasy" is a huge achievement as well.

And we're not even touching some of his other work ... ;)

[Mirkgirl]

I just can't say that Tolkien was a great author... because in my book an author is a person who writes books... creates some story around them, but the book is the reason and result of it all... and in Tolkien's case it is not... it is the languages... the world that spoke them... the childrens (well I'm not getting into it, it's more than that I know, but it started as such if nothing) story "The Hobbit"... and just then the two ideas become one... and the masterpiece LotR came to being... he's more than an author in my eyes... but I can't say better as it's just not the same thing to compare.

More... the three short stories... Leaf, Farmer Maggot and Smith... they're really deep and captivating... but not the best in writting department...

[Lady Luthien]

yea...I guess it all comes down to how you define "great author". To me, being a good author is more than just writing a book well, its the effect their work has on the readers, and whether or not it remains relevant after passed years(which LoTR certainly did), compatibility(does it apply to other things and relate to the audience?)and of course, writing style. I enjoy Tolkien's writing style, and yes, sometimes he does break conventional rules(using too many adjectives, being too wordy), but that is why I like him. He is different, and his style is old-fashioned, as it should have been for writing a story that took place in the Middle Ages.

[Gwaihir]

I think that Tolkien is a great author in every ways... He writes many kinds of stories: children's books like "The Hobbit" and "Roverandom", fantastic classics like LotR, and beautiful history like The Sil.

The way in which he writes is so good, I can imagine the settings and characters vividly, though he doesn't describe characters as much as some other authors do. :)

It's no small thing that he has written the second best-selling books of the 20th century.

[Mithrandir]

Yes, great thread indeed,
Like Tom Shippey calls Tolkien "traumatized authors" they want to write about their life experiences, and somehow they cant express it by writing a Non Fiction, so they express it by writing fantasy tales etc, he also wrote and made the all the tales of ME (in my opinion and based on some of the stuff in the letter to Milton Wadman in the Sil) that he wrote it to give England, the soil of England, a tale, because it had none, there were many tales Scananivian, Celtic, Greek etc but the soil of England had none.

Im not saying he was a bad author, but he didnt have much experience as an author; but you also have to admit that the first edition he made of LOTR was badly structrured, characters woudln't develop, it had many gaps, the most important things of the story had happened in the begiining not the end, some chapters were meaning less and were not really important were really long (Council of Elrond) and many other things(all of this is said by Tom Shippey and many other experts)

[Mithrandir]

But also we have to admit that you have to be a great person and have much much patience to create the world of ME; with all the names, places, plots and things is not easy to keep up with.

[Lady Luthien]

he's not even close to a bad author, and if you tried to say he was I'd trout you! No I'm only kidding...of course I must respect other opinions...no matter how far off they may be lol ... and to me his greatness as an author is illustrated by the fact that millions of people all over the world are obsessed with his story ;) It's really not always about character development and structure...sometimes its about interest. And obviously many people are interested in it...and the fact that his first edition wansn't structured properly doesn't make him a bad author...as long as the final edition is good...which it was. All writers change, edit, and even transform their story...and the final version is what counts. ;)

[Eledhwen]

This is one of the reasons that I think Tolkien is a great author. He really didn't write as a professional author would have. Like you point out Mithrandir, the Council of Elrond scene that rambles on and on. A professional author would never write something like that - and leave it in. And although it IS a slow place for many when they read, it gives so much background and insight, you have to have it. Also all the detail and romantic language would be out with most authors. And a love story where you only hear about the girl a couple of times?

But Tolkien makes it all work. What should be cumbersome and unwieldy in a novel, becomes delicate and engaging. He wrote from the heart, not really following conventions and his story is one of the most loved. I find that more inspiring than the hundreds of writers' workshops I've ever been to. If you are a good storyteller, the literary types can sneer all they want, but your story will still work. A lot of these writing things tell you to do it this way or that way - and throw away the heart of the story. They are willing to sacrifice the wonder of the story for the intricacy (or simplicity) of its structure. If Tolkien was ever given that piece of advise, he wisely ignored it.

He also gave us heroes in a high romantic style, without the cynical, self-effacing qualities that are usually favoured. Heroes we may never actually meet, but we might strive to emulate. I know I'm an idealist, but I think that is really cool. :cool:

[Lessa]

As an author he broke all the established rules and wrote things in the wrong order (according to those rules). I think that the books benefit from this lack of ''expertise.'' He writes them as he sees them and not in the narrow constriants that seem too happen in the Fantasy field today. He wove and meandered along revelling in small details which to my mind bring the whoe world alive and have kept my interest these past 24 yrs. Over the many readings different details jump out at me and ''new'' interpretations occur to me. So that it's a living breathing world more compelling than any other work of fiction.

Lessa

[Lady Luthien]

Those are some great points, Eledhwen and Lessa! :thumbs: I totally agree...I think his unconventional style is what makes him so appealing as an author...to me a good author doesn't always have to avoid split infinitives or lengthy scenes/descriptions ...as long as it works all together(which it did, for Tolkien) and you find readers that love your work, I'd say you're a great author ;)

[Catz]

i have to disagree on your definiton of a great author..........to me a great author is one who could make your shopping list compelling reading........there are authors like that , but JRR aint one of them
but the beauty of his work is that detail.............the love that was lavished on it.........that cant help but draw you in..........while there are any number of authors that i would place above Tolkien as authors, that doesnt mean that i love his work any the less
i think one of the great beauties of his work is that you ignore his shortcomings as a writer and just get lost in the story
thats pretty amazing stuff
:catz:

[Lady Luthien]

Yea that's a hard thing to accomplish...but for me, believe it or not Tolkien actually did get me into reading...and even writing. No other author as effected my life so greatly and I owe much of my development as a writer to him. Before reading his book I didn't care for reading for pleasure b/c I hadn't found anything that interested me...but after I read his book...I was hooked, so I became interested in other authors, and now I love to read. But for most people I guess Tolkien wasn't their first precursor to reading/writing pleasure, he just happened to be mine. But that is a good point...a good author should be someone who can make people interested in reading...in not just his books but books by other authors as well.

[Miriel Baggins]

:elfeek: Do mine ears decieve me???? Of COURSE Tolkien was a great author!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *ahem* Okay, I guess I should define my terms first.
Great Author-- n. someone who can create a real, believable world and real, believable characters.
Period. If a person can transport me to someplace I've never been before (i.e. their story) and make me relate to their characters, believe in their characters, and love or hate their characters (whichever I'm supposed to do), then that person has succeeded in becoming, in my book, a "great author." And so, yeah, Tolkien's a seriously great author. Catz, by your definition, some really crummy authors would be defined as great. I mean, a lot of people who write those modern mushy-gushy, shallow, nothing-to-them-at-all-but-fluff books can make a shopping list interesting --- at least on the surface. (I sorta like the concept, though. A shopping list. lol ) Imo, it takes a leetle more genius to achieve the title of Great.

[Mirkgirl]

Originally posted by Miriel Baggins
Great Author-- n. someone who can create a real, believable world and real, believable characters.
Period. If a person can transport me to someplace I've never been before (i.e. their story) and make me relate to their characters, believe in their characters, and love or hate their characters (whichever I'm supposed to do), then that person has succeeded in becoming, in my book, a "great author." So a book, whose thematic isn't interesting for you, or whose characters are boring for you makes its author a bad author? It's a definition of favourite author, not of great.


I still think that Tolkien wasn't a good author. He couldn't think of a story and put it interesting on paper. Just look at the short stories. Full of moral? Yes. Something you can think over? Yes. Intriguing? Mostly yes. Confussing? A lot. Something which you'd classify as a great story? No.
However he was good at other things. He was good at creating a mythology. And then from it will spread a world which will write itself, in a way. If someone tries to write a less "live" story, a story without thick roots in a selfmade mythology, less enchanting story with these sentences, with these constructions, these descriptions, all the poetry, etc etc which Tolkien uses, you're going to throw it in the fire. However for what he did it fits in just great. It's more than just a book. Tolkien was Great. He created a world. But he wasn't a Great Author

[Lessa]

Right I have to say I agree with Mirky, before you all start throwing rotten veg at me I will explain.

Tolkien isn't technically a great author. Well he isn't if you take it in the traditional sense of construction of the story. It meanders off into a myriad directions before finally coming back too the root story. Yet despite this and other shortcomings we as readers think that that doesn't matter. It's a book that is either passionately loved or passionately hated by it's readers, there are no half measures.
Those who love it have fallen under the spell of one of the most creative writers of the 20th century. His books will stand the test of time in the same way as Chaucer, Homer, Austen, Dickens and many others have.
Millions of readers can't be wrong in thinking of Tolkien as the best thing since sliced bread. After all he was voted the best book of all time by readers in th UK.

Lessa

[Lady Luthien]

Remember guys, there isn't one right or wrong answer to the question of whether he was really a great author or not...everyone has their different perceptions of what that really means, and it's simply a matter of opinion...so no one is right or wrong. I still think he was a great author nonetheless, but that's just my opinion. He wrote an enchanting story that insprired and related to millions, and that in my eyes makes him a great author.

[Miriel Baggins]

Amen, Luthien. notworthy

So a book, whose thematic isn't interesting for you, or whose characters are boring for you makes its author a bad author? It's a definition of favourite author, not of great. Um, no. I mean, it is a definition of a great author of fiction. That's what I'm discussing here, anyways. Discussing authors of every type of book is a little broad, don't you think? But, anyways, a great writer of fiction ought to be able to create a believable world with believable people (I didn't say I had to like it). Or else it's a pretty dry, pointless, dumb story. Oh, and I should have added to my definition, that it should have deeper, underlying themes. Especially in fantasy. Fantasy, imo, should deal with ultimate issues. Tolkien fits into all of these criteria perfectly.

It meanders off into a myriad directions before finally coming back too the root story. Okay, I thinke everyone here would agree with me that Charles Dickens is a great author, right? (Lessa, I'm assuming you do, at least, since you listed him. :grin: ) Well, if you've read Dickens, you also know that he is the absolute king of "meandering off into a myriad of directions before finally coming back to the root of the story." So, because Tolkien does that as well is really no reason to say he wasn't a great author.

[Lessa]

I never said he wasn't a great author. I said he wasn't technically a great author in the traditional and accepted sense; ie by all those so call experts in the field of literature. I personally like his style and seeing as he is my favourite author I do think he is a great author. Sorry if my comments lead you to believe otherwise.

Lessa

[Miriel Baggins]

Oooooh, okay. I get what you mean, now. :grin: Sorry, I can be a bit slow at times. :p I think, though, that he would be qualified as a great author by a lot of experts in the field of literature. I've heard at least a few such "experts" name him as such.

[Cassandria]

Whether Tolkien was considered a great author technically in the 'traditional and accepted sense' or by the 'experts in the field of literature' to me is irrelevant.

His writings touched the heart, sparked immense interest, and carried millions of imaginations into another world; each enticed to develop their own interpretations of many aspects of his stories. Rarely does an author cover so many aspects of interest all in one story; such as love, romance, war, weaponry, animals, nature, mythology, folklore, races, human nature, history, geography, art and music...I could go on and on.

And one of the most wonderful things this author has accomplished is to inspire us; whether it be painting, drawing, story writing, poetry, the makings of armory, archery, sword fighting, gardening, hiking, sewing, sculpting...again, I could go on and on.

Was Tolkien really a great author? You bet!!! ;)

[IronHills Dwarf]

For me the topic is something of a non-issue. To me Tolkien was less an author and more a world-builder. I certainly think there's other authors who have had a better ability to tell a story, to work with the language, to convene great ideas and truths. But with Tolkien that's not really the point. He's still the only author who has every really convinced me of an alternative cosmos. That is in someway a testiment to his authorship certainly, but the authorship (or technique) is not, and should not, be the main the main focus when examining Tolkien. He was Great, whether you want to attach "author" or some other phrase to that beginning. So I basically managed to say the same thing as Cass. lol :p

[Stormcrow]

Of coarse Tolkein was a great author! Who denied such! I am just gonna stop writing now, before I absolutely explode.

*takes deep breaths*

Tolkein was fantastic, there is no denying it.