# Matt Colville, and Most Tolkien Critics, Are Wrong



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 2, 2019)

Colville put up a video about the Lord of The Ring series recently. 

[video=youtube;o2U6RG4HOwM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2U6RG4HOwM[/video]

In it, he complains quite a lot about Tolkien's "over-written" passages, and about the "flowery" language. 

Now, to be fair, I don't like Colville, and perhaps this wasn't the best choice of video for me to try and give him a second chance to win me over. However, while I think he mostly gets the series overall, and understands the importance of the Tom Bombadil sequence, I think he is completely wrong in a few areas. 

He reads a beautiful passage aloud, while constantly stopping to mock  the...descriptions? Because those are a bad thing? And the counting  thing he does, like...oh no! The lanterns are described as swinging, and  the candles are described! At one point he complains that we don't need  to be told what candles do, and it makes me wonder if he has ever been  in a candlelit room. Because they don't always shine brightly, Matt.  They really don't. It tells us what the _room_ looks like to tell  us that we have both lantern and candle light, and that the candles are  burning bright, not low. It also helps inform us of how the room likely  feels and even smells. It puts the reader inside of the room. 

He cringes at the description of Goldberry. Why wouldn't the reader want a clear image of her, Matt? There are a thousand greens, and silver like dew drops is a specific appearance. Her belt is decorated in gold and gem flowers. 

He understands that placing her entirely in terms of nature is important, but can't see the value in beautifully written description to get there? this sort of thing makes me inclined to believe that some people are just bad _readers_, but nothing is that simple. 

Perhaps the prominence of post modern prose has warped the perceptions of the average reader? We get taught at some point that words shouldn't be beautifully constructed, but plain and utilitarian, and that is a lie. It's nonsense. There is nothing wrong with plainly "spoken" prose, but it certainly isn't superior to JRRT or Dickens. 

Anyway, what do y'all think? Do you agree with Matt, or would a less "flowery" LoTR be poorer for it?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 2, 2019)

Oh, also, if you are a fan of his, recommend me a video that isn't about LoTR or Star Wars, since I've mostly just seen those videos, and both annoyed me, but I feel like I'm unfairly judging him based on two videos about subjects I have strong feelings about.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 2, 2019)

Other than painting a picture, Tolkien’s emphasis on pastoral, bucolic scenes build the stakes – the beauty of the world is the very thing being fought for.

As for the economy of words, I hardly see Tolkien as being terribly florid. But then again, I loathe Hemmingway.

I think there are certain people that love taking pot-shots at Tolkien. Even Michael Moorcock (whom I certainly dig, but think some of his criticisms are the pot calling the kettle black), famously has done so. Tolkien’s more or less the Status Quo, the Establishment, the Grandfather of Fantasy. That makes him a target. And yes, there are things he can and should be dinged on. But language, in my opinion, is not one of them.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 2, 2019)

I think that he simultaneously does and does not get it. He explains why he thinks Tolkien did what he did, then bemoans that he did it. It's that descriptive text that made me look at the movies and see pretty much what I had imagined scenes looked like from my repeated readings of the books. (Note: I'm not one of those people who laments that Jackson got the colour of someone's dress wrong, when the feel of a scene was right.)

If it bothers him so much that Tolkien went to such pains to paint the picture of a scene, then I suspect that reading Lovecraft would put him in a seizure. Taking so much time to describe what something DIDN'T look like....?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 2, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Other than painting a picture, Tolkien’s emphasis on pastoral, bucolic scenes build the stakes – the beauty of the world is the very thing being fought for.
> 
> As for the economy of words, I hardly see Tolkien as being terribly florid. But then again, I loathe Hemmingway.
> 
> I think there are certain people that love taking pot-shots at Tolkien. Even Michael Moorcock (whom I certainly dig, but think some of his criticisms are the pot calling the kettle black), famously has done so. Tolkien’s more or less the Status Quo, the Establishment, the Grandfather of Fantasy. That makes him a target. And yes, there are things he can and should be dinged on. But language, in my opinion, is not one of them.




Well said, and I agree on all points. Except Hemmingway, who I think is very overrated, but I have no especial dislike of. 

I do think that Hemmingway is partly to blame for the phenomenon of people rejecting linguistically advanced prose, however, and for that I have some trouble forgiving him. 

I do like matt's thoughts on the importance of Tom's mysterious nature, and of that remaining a mystery, and on the point of JRRT writing from a place of having seen countryside sullies by industry and hating it, though I disagree with the notion that he wrote the story as allegory of that. I also think that he has a great insight about Tolkein and his friends who went to war together. 

But on the language, Matt is just plain wrong.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 2, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Even Michael Moorcock (whom I certainly dig, but think some of his criticisms are the pot calling the kettle black), famously has done so.




Note that Moorcock has outright parodied his own writing style.  Find a copy of his short story, "The Stone Thing - A Tale of Strange Parts" (first seen in "Elric at the End of Time"  I believe, but reprinted elsewhere) and you'll have a good laugh.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 2, 2019)

About the only thing I care for with Hemingway is his taste in drinks (strong, with lots of rum)!



doctorbadwolf said:


> Well said, and I agree on all points. Except Hemmingway, who I think is very overrated, but I have no especial dislike of.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 2, 2019)

Tolkien is one of those authors who is known for scenery porn. His scenery descriptions were sufficiently detailed that geographer Karen Wynn Fonstad was able to reconstruct a _thematic_ atlas of Middle-Earth including geology, climate, and vegetation.

as an aside the line "Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys!" implies that  the Uruk-Hai go to restaurants, and know what a menu is. Not only that but that menu was exclusive enough to have had meat taken off of it at one point.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 2, 2019)

I've not heard of that, and will certainly seek it out, thanks!

Not to divert the thread, but I recently heard someone read aloud the opening paragraph and man, does it paint a picture!

"It is the color of a bleached skull, his flesh; and the long hair which flows below his shoulders is milk-white. From the tapering, beautiful head stare two slanting eyes, crimson and moody, and from the loose sleeves of his yellow gown emerge two slender hands, also the color of bone, resting on each arm of a seat which has been carved from a single, massive ruby.” 

To get back on-track, that paragraph is far more evocative than, say, "Elric's skin and hair were white, his eyes red, his gown yellow, and the throne he sat upon, red." Words matter and are what bring stories to life.



Umbran said:


> Note that Moorcock has outright parodied his own writing style.  Find a copy of his short story, "The Stone Thing - A Tale of Strange Parts" (first seen in "Elric at the End of Time"  I believe, but reprinted elsewhere) and you'll have a good laugh.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 2, 2019)

Just as flowerly or densely descriptive writing isn't inherently wrong or bad, so too is minimalism not "less advanced." In other words, more words aren't inheren't better than fewer words.

Flowery or minimalist - one is not inherently better than the other. One is not "right" and the other "wrong." The classic duality is Faulkner vs. Hemingway, with some preferring Faulkner's more densely intricate prose, others Hemingway's minimalism. They are two sides of a spectrum, two different styles.


----------



## Ed Laprade (Jan 2, 2019)

Tolkien: Words, words, words, and yet more words. Say what you mean and be done with it. (Yeah, I only read the trilogy once, and skipped all the boring parts. And yes, they are BORING!)


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 2, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Tolkien is one of those authors who is known for scenery porn. His scenery descriptions were sufficiently detailed that geographer Karen Wynn Fonstad was able to reconstruct a _thematic_ atlas of Middle-Earth including geology, climate, and vegetation.




yes, and it's great and worthy of emulation, not mockery. 



Ralif Redhammer said:


> Not to divert the thread, but I recently heard someone read aloud the opening paragraph and man, does it paint a picture!
> 
> "It is the color of a bleached skull, his flesh; and the long hair which flows below his shoulders is milk-white. From the tapering, beautiful head stare two slanting eyes, crimson and moody, and from the loose sleeves of his yellow gown emerge two slender hands, also the color of bone, resting on each arm of a seat which has been carved from a single, massive ruby.”
> 
> To get back on-track, that paragraph is far more evocative than, say, "Elric's skin and hair were white, his eyes red, his gown yellow, and the throne he sat upon, red." Words matter and are what bring stories to life.




That is some rather evocative writing, to be sure! 



Mercurius said:


> Just as flowerly or densely descriptive writing isn't inherently wrong or bad, so too is minimalism not "less advanced." In other words, more words aren't inheren't better than fewer words.
> 
> Flowery or minimalist - one is not inherently better than the other. One is not "right" and the other "wrong." The classic duality is Faulkner vs. Hemingway, with some preferring Faulkner's more densely intricate prose, others Hemingway's minimalism. They are two sides of a spectrum, two different styles.




Sure.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 2, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> Just as flowerly or densely descriptive writing isn't inherently wrong or bad, so too is minimalism not "less advanced." In other words, more words aren't inheren't better than fewer words.
> 
> Flowery or minimalist - one is not inherently better than the other. One is not "right" and the other "wrong." The classic duality is Faulkner vs. Hemingway, with some preferring Faulkner's more densely intricate prose, others Hemingway's minimalism. They are two sides of a spectrum, two different styles.




The more removed a scene is from my everyday experience, the more I appreciate a well written description.


----------



## ccs (Jan 2, 2019)

Ed Laprade said:


> Tolkien: Words, words, words, and yet more words. Say what you mean and be done with it. (Yeah, I only read the trilogy once, and skipped all the boring parts. And yes, they are BORING!)




As you skipped them, how do you know those parts are boring?

And skipping parts on the 1st & only reading means that you have not in-fact read the trilogy.  Merely parts of it.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 2, 2019)

Ed Laprade said:


> Tolkien: Words, words, words, and yet more words. Say what you mean and be done with it. (Yeah, I only read the trilogy once, and skipped all the boring parts. And yes, they are BORING!)


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 2, 2019)

Ryujin said:


> The more removed a scene is from my everyday experience, the more I appreciate a well written description.




And this probably entirely comes down to personal preference and the way your mind works. Some find that more minimalist description allows the reader's imagination to fire and generate its own imagery, whereas dense description fills it up. In other words, some like to have the scene painted in great detail, while others prefer the words to to be more like inspirational starting points to create their own mental imagery.

The artistry in writing comes somewhere between every possible detail being written, and bare minimalism. The art is knowing just what to write to bring the world and story alive.

Ursula K Le Guin said something to the effect that you want to use as many words as you need to tell your story, but not one word more. That tipping point is, of course, subjective, and is why we have all kinds of wordsmiths. Viva la difference!


----------



## cmad1977 (Jan 2, 2019)

If he doesn’t like LoTR he can’t like GOT. I’ve never read more ‘flowery’ passages about food in my life.


----------



## dragoner (Jan 2, 2019)

Reading about CS Lewis criticizing LotR as a rough draft (Not another Elf!), is funny as he and Tolkien were friends and part of the same writing group. Some random youtuber so many years later? Not so much. Tolkien's books are classics, if one doesn't like them, then don't read them, like many literary novels, they are about atmosphere. Tolkien even explains this by allegory in "Leaf by Niggle".


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 2, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> If he doesn’t like LoTR he can’t like GOT. I’ve never read more ‘flowery’ passages about food in my life.




But GoT is grimdark(ish), which makes it more, ah, palatable to postmodern sensibilities.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 2, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> And this probably entirely comes down to personal preference and the way your mind works. Some find that more minimalist description allows the reader's imagination to fire and generate its own imagery, whereas dense description fills it up. In other words, some like to have the scene painted in great detail, while others prefer the words to to be more like inspirational starting points to create their own mental imagery.
> 
> The artistry in writing comes somewhere between every possible detail being written, and bare minimalism. The art is knowing just what to write to bring the world and story alive.
> 
> Ursula K Le Guin said something to the effect that you want to use as many words as you need to tell your story, but not one word more. That tipping point is, of course, subjective, and is why we have all kinds of wordsmiths. Viva la difference!




I like both, as long as the writing is good. There are hacks on both ends of the spectrum.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jan 2, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> But GoT is grimdark(ish), which makes it more, ah, palatable to postmodern sensibilities.




So as long as the over descriptive prose is about food or sexual assault/violence it’s cool. But trees and environment is boring. Got it.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 2, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> So as long as the over descriptive prose is about food or sexual assault/violence it’s cool. But trees and environment is boring. Got it.




Well exactly - that's my point. Tolkien was a quasi-mystical Romantic, which in postmodern parlance is "naive and fluffy religious believer." Of course they're not the same thing, but the postmodern mindset doesn't differentiate.

(Understand that I'm rather indifferent on GRRM and absolutely love Tolkien).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2019)

Ed Laprade said:


> Tolkien: Words, words, words, and yet more words. Say what you mean and be done with it. (Yeah, I only read the trilogy once, and skipped all the boring parts. And yes, they are BORING!)




Yeah...no.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> .
> The artistry in writing comes somewhere between every possible detail being written, and bare minimalism. The art is knowing just what to write to bring the world and story alive.
> 
> Ursula K Le Guin said something to the effect that you want to use as many words as you need to tell your story, but not one word more. That tipping point is, of course, subjective, and is why we have all kinds of wordsmiths. Viva la difference!




IMO, the world could use a new Dickens. 

Le Guin is an amazing author, but like many authors she gives advice from the perspective of what has worked best for her. That is probably impossible to completely avoid, in fact. 

Sometimes “more words” can elevate a work, without being strictly necessary to tell the story. We don’t have to know about the lay of the land in the shire to know that it’s idyllic and rustic, JRRT could just say that it is, but it’s a better work for his loving descriptions of the place. 

Many great authors use eloquent prose to accomplish *more* than telling the story, and readers are richer for it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 3, 2019)

Who is this Colville and why should I care?


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 3, 2019)

Who is Matt Colville?

Anyway, when reading the German translation of 'The Lord of the Rings' I felt it was a really hard read because the descriptive parts were way too long and tedious. Several years later, when reading the original, I didn't mind them at all. I think that's for two reasons:
1) English tends to be more succinct than the German equivalent.
2) I had a much better idea what to expect.

After learning more about Tolkien's background and the history behind 'The Lord of the Rings' I actually no longer consider it a 'mere' fantasy novel. It transcends the genre and isn't typical for it, at all. First and foremost it's a showcase for excellent and highly detailed world-building. As such I consider the elaborate descriptions a crucial part of the novels. I'm quite sure you could create a more streamlined version of the story, but in the process you'd lose its unique aspects.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 3, 2019)

Jhaelen said:


> Who is Matt Colville?




The person in the video in the OP.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 3, 2019)

Kramodlog said:


> Who is this Colville and why should I care?




You don't have to care. Why not find a thread you do care about?


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 3, 2019)

I've heard people often say that Tolkien is a bit too wordy in his descriptions. I haven't read any of the books (shocking I know) to have any opinion on the matter, but it all is of course a matter of preference. I have read the Game of Thrones books, and Martin tends to lean more towards straight to the point descriptions (although he loves describing food in great detail!). And that is more my style of writing. I have tried reading Dune, and that was a slog to get through.


----------



## Janx (Jan 3, 2019)

Haven't watched the video, but caught up to the gist that LotR's writing style wouldn't cut it with today's market.

Yup.

I've been on the path to becoming a published writer for a couple years now.  Seen most of the advice from writers, agents, and editors.

The modern world favors text where every word is load-bearing.  If an editor could cut it out and the the story still stands, it should be removed.

Steven King says adverbs suck and to not overly describe things, let the reader's mind do that.  Again, the load bearing rule comes to play.

Get to the chase in the first chapter.  Avoid info dumps. Only give POV to characters with arcs (aka not one scene to an Orc chef who we never see again).

Hemingway is credited with this shift in writing style.

My pet theory is the source of these rules and modern styles is editors and agents.  Killing off the oxford comma, two spaces after a period.  All of that smacks of somebody who sees 3,000 submissions a month and must choose 3.  They've seen a lot of patterns and think they can trim it down.

You've seen every one of these rules broken, of course.  But I'd bet you money it wasn't from debut authors, especially recent ones.  The gatekeepers see to that.  It's the famous authors who get to drive off the beaten path and break the rules, because they're name brings success.


----------



## Blue (Jan 3, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Le Guin is an amazing author, but like many authors she gives advice from the perspective of what has worked best for her. That is probably impossible to completely avoid, in fact.
> 
> Sometimes “more words” can elevate a work, without being strictly necessary to tell the story. We don’t have to know about the lay of the land in the shire to know that it’s idyllic and rustic, JRRT could just say that it is, but it’s a better work for his loving descriptions of the place.
> 
> Many great authors use eloquent prose to accomplish *more* than telling the story, and readers are richer for it.




I once read that well crafted prose is finding the perfect word, and well crafted poetry is finding the perfect word and putting it in the perfect place.

I don't see Ursula K. LeGuin's advice as one that one should write as briefly as possible - it's that one should trim any extra after one has given everything needed.  Concise and sparse are two different concepts.

To give an example, look at Patrick Rothus.  His well polished chapter openings show you can be evocative without having extra - even his duplication of phrases is not extra but reinforcement of theme.


----------



## Blue (Jan 3, 2019)

My google-fu isn't finding it, but I seem to remember years ago finding out that JRR Tolkien intentionally wrote his travelogue parts long because these were journeys of months and he wanted his reader to feel that they were weighty and a wide separation between the other scenes.

Anyone ever come across that?


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 3, 2019)

Heh, "Oy, did youse check out the new bistro up north, Udun Eats? They got a right good kale mac'n'cheese!"

It's a fun line, but it makes no real sense, and is in there just because someone thought it was a cool line.



trappedslider said:


> as an aside the line "Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys!" implies that  the Uruk-Hai go to restaurants, and know what a menu is. Not only that but that menu was exclusive enough to have had meat taken off of it at one point.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 3, 2019)

The Oxford Comma seems to vary from style manual to style manual (I will fight for the Oxford Comma to my dying day), but the two spaces after a period thing is a remnant from the typewriter days and is generally considered unnecessary in the computer age.



Janx said:


> My pet theory is the source of these rules and modern styles is editors and agents.  Killing off the oxford comma, two spaces after a period.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2019)

Blue said:


> I once read that well crafted prose is finding the perfect word, and well crafted poetry is finding the perfect word and putting it in the perfect place.
> 
> I don't see Ursula K. LeGuin's advice as one that one should write as briefly as possible - it's that one should trim any extra after one has given everything needed.  Concise and sparse are two different concepts.
> 
> To give an example, look at Patrick Rothus.  His well polished chapter openings show you can be evocative without having extra - even his duplication of phrases is not extra but reinforcement of theme.




I agree with all of that, but again would say that someone like Dickens, who absolutely delighted in extra words, is just as good as someone like Le Guin. Different, but the world is richer for having Dickens' work. 



Janx said:


> Haven't watched the video, but caught up to the gist that LotR's writing style wouldn't cut it with today's market.
> 
> Yup.



That actually isn't at all what the video is about. I don't think the modern market is mentioned in the video, nor are modern sensibilities. I did posit that his view of Tolkien linguistically is informed by being educated in a postmodern literary world, but that is my speculation on what informs Matt's view of Tolkien. 



> I've been on the path to becoming a published writer for a couple years  now.  Seen most of the advice from writers, agents, and editors.
> 
> The modern world favors text where every word is load-bearing.  If an  editor could cut it out and the the story still stands, it should be  removed.
> 
> ...



Some interesting thoughts about publishing. The few editors and people working in publishing that I know would definitely disagree, but it may well vary from publisher to publisher. 



Imaculata said:


> I've heard people often say that Tolkien is a bit too wordy in his descriptions. I haven't read any of the books (shocking I know) to have any opinion on the matter, but it all is of course a matter of preference. I have read the Game of Thrones books, and Martin tends to lean more towards straight to the point descriptions (although he loves describing food in great detail!). And that is more my style of writing. I have tried reading Dune, and that was a slog to get through.



If Dune is a slog, I'd avoid Tolkien. 



Blue said:


> My google-fu isn't finding it, but I seem to remember years ago finding out that JRR Tolkien intentionally wrote his travelogue parts long because these were journeys of months and he wanted his reader to feel that they were weighty and a wide separation between the other scenes.
> 
> Anyone ever come across that?




No, but it's an interesting thought!


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I agree with all of that, but again would say that someone like Dickens, who absolutely delighted in extra words...




Dickens did not delight in extra words.  He got paid by the word.  Or, well, he may have delighted in getting paid, I suppose, but the point is that he had a strong economic reason to be wordy, where a modern author doesn't.


----------



## Blue (Jan 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Dickens did not delight in extra words.  He got paid by the word.  Or, well, he may have delighted in getting paid, I suppose, but the point is that he had a strong economic reason to be wordy, where a modern author doesn't.




There's lots of fun writing quirks around the author getting paid.  If I recall correctly, Dumas (of Three Musketeers fame) got paid by the line, not the word, and that's why he has so many bits of back-and-forth dialog.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Dickens did not delight in extra words.  He got paid by the word.  Or, well, he may have delighted in getting paid, I suppose, but the point is that he had a strong economic reason to be wordy, where a modern author doesn't.



I don't take seriously the notion that an author who didn't delight in extraneous verbosity could so beautifully endow his works with the indulgent linguistic characeristics of a work such as A Christmas Carol, nor indeed, the notion that such a writer could delight and engage such a wide range of readers, and enjoy such an entrenched and hallowed legacy, so long after said author's inevitable demise. 

The simpler explanation is that he both got paid more, and delighted in it such that even when he was quite successful and was getting paid quite well for appearances, he continued to write in his signature verbose and indulgent style. 

Of course, all that misses the actual point. That is, that the world is richer for Dickens' work, as it is.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 3, 2019)

Morrus said:


> You don't have to care. Why not find a thread you do care about?




Why not both?


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 3, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Anyway, what do y'all think? Do you agree with Matt, or would a less "flowery" LoTR be poorer for it?




While I do not always agree with Matt, I do have to give him credit for reading the 16 volume supplemental behind the scenes to the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The simpler explanation is that he both got paid more, and delighted in it such that even when he was quite successful and was getting paid quite well for appearances, he continued to write in his signature verbose and indulgent style.




An *even simpler* explanation is that "verbose" is subjective.  What seems overly verbose and tiring when you are reading for two hours straight may seem just if you are reading one serialized section a day.

Shakespeare's plays were written to be performed, not read.  Dickens was written to be read in small installments, not in long segments.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 3, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> IMO, the world could use a new Dickens.
> 
> Le Guin is an amazing author, but like many authors she gives advice from the perspective of what has worked best for her. That is probably impossible to completely avoid, in fact.
> 
> ...




I think you're missing the point I was trying to make, and what Le Guin meant. The quantity of words used has no bearing, in and of itself, on the quality of the prose. It neither inherently adds or subtracts from quality, which has to do with _how you use the words._


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 3, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Heh, "Oy, did youse check out the new bistro up north, Udun Eats? They got a right good kale mac'n'cheese!"
> 
> It's a fun line, but it makes no real sense, and is in there just because someone thought it was a cool line.




way to kill the joke.....


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> I think you're missing the point I was trying to make, and what Le Guin meant. The quantity of words used has no bearing, in and of itself, on the quality of the prose. It neither inherently adds or subtracts from quality, which has to do with _how you use the words._




The quote is still about not using “extra” words. It still implies that brevity is better, unless more words are necessary to tell the story.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 3, 2019)

Umbran said:


> An *even simpler* explanation is that "verbose" is subjective.  What seems overly verbose and tiring when you are reading for two hours straight may seem just if you are reading one serialized section a day.
> 
> Shakespeare's plays were written to be performed, not read.  Dickens was written to be read in small installments, not in long segments.




Or, Dickens is only tiring when you’re accustomed to brevity as a “rule” of good writing. 

I’m fairly sure that serialised fiction is pushed even more toward brevity than novels are, today, as well.


----------



## Janx (Jan 3, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> I think you're missing the point I was trying to make, and what Le Guin meant. The quantity of words used has no bearing, in and of itself, on the quality of the prose. It neither inherently adds or subtracts from quality, which has to do with _how you use the words._




The basic lesson is "Remove Unnecessary Words."  Quite a few writers have said this in variations.

In my experience (aka as mistakes made), the lesson is really a tool used on somebody who's over-written.  Too verbose, repetitive variation of phrasing.  Stuff that an editor can cross out and it will be shorter, simpler, better.

The other use of cutting out excess isn't individual words, its sentences, paragraphs and even chapters of content that really doesn't add to the story and removing it doesn't damage the rest.  It's why cutting Tom Bombadil didn't kill the LotR movie, despite lamentations of Tolkien purists.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 3, 2019)

I don't know Matt Colville from Adam, so I don't care what he has to say.

But I skip all of Tolkien's poetry and the Old Forest chapter -- every time.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 4, 2019)

Janx said:


> The basic lesson is "Remove Unnecessary Words."  Quite a few writers have said this in variations.
> 
> In my experience (aka as mistakes made), the lesson is really a tool used on somebody who's over-written.  Too verbose, repetitive variation of phrasing.  Stuff that an editor can cross out and it will be shorter, simpler, better.
> 
> The other use of cutting out excess isn't individual words, its sentences, paragraphs and even chapters of content that really doesn't add to the story and removing it doesn't damage the rest.  It's why cutting Tom Bombadil didn't kill the LotR movie, despite lamentations of Tolkien purists.




Eh, not just “purists”. I don’t care that Saruman didn’t give his “I’m of all colors now!” Speech, or that it was the Elves of Lothlorian who show up at Helm’s Deep instead of the Dunadain. Bombadil and the Old Forest was more important than dumb gimli jokes, or Pippin knocking things over all the time, or several other little scenes. 

The movies lost something by its absense, as does every adaptation without it. Not just bc of Tom, but the whole sequence of leaving the shire is just less interesting and could be cut down by half as it is, rather than being an adventure itself with symbolic resonance by the end of the trilogy.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 4, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Eh, not just “purists”. I don’t care that Saruman didn’t give his “I’m of all colors now!” Speech, or that it was the Elves of Lothlorian who show up at Helm’s Deep instead of the Dunadain. Bombadil and the Old Forest was more important than dumb gimli jokes, or Pippin knocking things over all the time, or several other little scenes.
> 
> The movies lost something by its absense, as does every adaptation without it. Not just bc of Tom, but the whole sequence of leaving the shire is just less interesting and could be cut down by half as it is, rather than being an adventure itself with symbolic resonance by the end of the trilogy.




I missed Tom Bombadil. I missed "The Scouring of the Shire" more.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 4, 2019)

Ryujin said:


> I missed Tom Bombadil. I missed "The Scouring of the Shire" more.




100% agree. That was the biggest loss, aside from making gimli a joke character and making Pippin and Merry dumb and basically useless until TTT/RoTK.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 4, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The quote is still about not using “extra” words. It still implies that brevity is better, unless more words are necessary to tell the story.




The irony here is that you completely misunderstand Le Guin's words and yet are telling others what good writing is.  Le Guin's advice is more of a truism -- it's good when it's good, and the addition _or subtraction_ of more words defeats that.  As such, it really can't be argued again, because it's merely saying that it's right when it's right and offers no real advice on when that is.  But, here, you're insisting that it "implies" brevity, which is surely does not.  It's like cooking and adding salt; too much or too little will make an otherwise perfect dish into a lesser version of itself.

On topic, Tolkien is a poor novelist.  He doesn't follow the normal structure, and his changes do not enhance his story, so it's not a matter of stepping outside the box and still hitting it out of the novel writing park (to mix metaphors).  He is, though, a good _writer_.  And, for the LotR, his goal really wasn't to write a novel, but to present his world.  So, he bends his talents to building and exploring that world, which makes for a poor novel.  You can love it for his worldcraft -- it's tremendous -- and even the scope of his tale, but the actual execution is poorly done.  It's like reading a picture book, but on every page you have to wait while the illustrator draws a masterpiece.  If you're reading the story for the story, this is tedious.  If you're wanting to enjoy the glorious illustrations and soak in their craftsmanship, then you'll love it.  So, bad books, amazing worldbuilding.  It's all a matter of what you're seeking in them.  

And it has nothing to do with post-moderism, which has been used as a buzzword when it has little to do with the discussion so far.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 4, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> The irony here is that you completely misunderstand Le Guin's words and yet are telling others what good writing is.  Le Guin's advice is more of a truism -- it's good when it's good, and the addition _or subtraction_ of more words defeats that.  As such, it really can't be argued again, because it's merely saying that it's right when it's right and offers no real advice on when that is.  But, here, you're insisting that it "implies" brevity, which is surely does not.  It's like cooking and adding salt; too much or too little will make an otherwise perfect dish into a lesser version of itself.
> 
> On topic, Tolkien is a poor novelist.  He doesn't follow the normal structure, and his changes do not enhance his story, so it's not a matter of stepping outside the box and still hitting it out of the novel writing park (to mix metaphors).  He is, though, a good _writer_.  And, for the LotR, his goal really wasn't to write a novel, but to present his world.  So, he bends his talents to building and exploring that world, which makes for a poor novel.  You can love it for his worldcraft -- it's tremendous -- and even the scope of his tale, but the actual execution is poorly done.  It's like reading a picture book, but on every page you have to wait while the illustrator draws a masterpiece.  If you're reading the story for the story, this is tedious.  If you're wanting to enjoy the glorious illustrations and soak in their craftsmanship, then you'll love it.  So, bad books, amazing worldbuilding.  It's all a matter of what you're seeking in them.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with post-moderism, which has been used as a buzzword when it has little to do with the discussion so far.




IMO, all of that is dead wrong, except the part about great worldbuding. 

Le Guin is saying that being more (or less) verbose than is needed to tell the story is going to make the work less good. I’m saying that isn’t true, you just have to be good at it, like Dickens or JRRT. Too little can make a story incomprehensible to the reader, but “too much” only exists if the language itself isn’t part of your goal, and/or if you aren’t good enough at writing eloquently. It’s harder, not worse. It’s like fighting case instead of with a single sword. Most ppl can’t do it well enough to make it worthwhile, but those who can elevate the artform. 

Tolkien writes an excellent novel, even if you don’t see LOTR as good novels, the Hobbit is certainly an excellent novel. 

But I reject utterly the notion that LOTR is a bad set of novels. The characters are engaging, the story imminently comprehensible, yet epic, resonant, and possessed of both apparent and hidden depth. The characters develop, change, struggle, fail, and ultimately rise above their challenges in ways that are both inspiring and movingly human. 

“The normal structure” is not a requirement of good novel writing. There’s nothing wrong with sticking to form, but equally there is nothing wrong with changing the structure to suit the nature of your story.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 4, 2019)

Morrus said:


> The person in the video in the OP.



While your being so helpful, let me ask you another question: 
Why should I care about his opinion?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 4, 2019)

Jhaelen said:


> While your being so helpful, let me ask you another question:
> Why should I care about his opinion?




Why post in a thread for no purpose other than to rudely question the validity of the thread? 

If you can’t be bothered to watch the video, you are free to just keep scrolling. No one is forcing you to post in any given thread.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 4, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why post in a thread for no purpose other than to rudely question the validity of the thread?



I'm sorry if you didn't like my (initial) post, assuming you actually bothered to read it. I thought the thread's title implied it was intended to also invite opinions on Tolkien critics in general. If I was mistaken I'll happily refrain from posting again.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 4, 2019)

Jhaelen said:


> While your being so helpful, let me ask you another question:
> Why should I care about his opinion?




It’s just a video sparking off a conversation. If you’re not interested, there are plenty of other threads.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 4, 2019)

Janx said:


> The modern world favors text where every word is load-bearing.  If an editor could cut it out and the the story still stands, it should be removed. Steven King says adverbs suck and to not overly describe things, let the reader's mind do that.  Again, the load bearing rule comes to play.




I'd say this is also pretty good advise for DM's, when describing a scene. Get to the point quickly, and only describe what is relevant first and fore most. Do not describe every detail of the room, before mentioning that there's a massive dragon in it. Make sure that when you describe something, it has meaning to the players. Sure, it might be interesting that there's a fountain shaped like a mermaid in the room, but is it important, and is it something the pc's would be paying attention to? For example, when the players enter a tavern, they are probably more interested in knowing if the tavern is empty or full of people, rather than knowing the intricate details of the furniture.

I've seen DM's go nuts with their room descriptions, only to have the players ask them afterwards how many doors there were, and where they are. I pride myself on the fact that I usually don't need to give such clarifications after describing a scene to my players. I only go into details after the players have declared an action, and/or stated what they want to examine something in the room more closely.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 4, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> The irony here is that you completely misunderstand Le Guin's words and yet are telling others what good writing is.




I dunno.  If Le Guin was so amazing, maybe it should be harder to misunderstand her?  

That's a joke.  Actually, I expect Le Guin knows full well there are at least three texts - What the author wants to say, what gets on the page, and what the reader gets out of it, and none of those are exactly the same.  Ever.  And that's okay - expected everywhere, and even desired in many cases.


----------



## Blue (Jan 4, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> I'd say this is also pretty good advise for DM's, when describing a scene. Get to the point quickly, and only describe what is relevant first and fore most. Do not describe every detail of the room, before mentioning that there's a massive dragon in it. Make sure that when you describe something, it has meaning to the players. Sure, it might be interesting that there's a fountain shaped like a mermaid in the room, but is it important, and is it something the pc's would be paying attention to? For example, when the players enter a tavern, they are probably more interested in knowing if the tavern is empty or full of people, rather than knowing the intricate details of the furniture.
> 
> I've seen DM's go nuts with their room descriptions, only to have the players ask them afterwards how many doors there were, and where they are. I pride myself on the fact that I usually don't need to give such clarifications after describing a scene to my players. I only go into details after the players have declared an action, and/or stated what they want to examine something in the room more closely.




I remember one AD&D module (or was it in Dragon?) that had a long description of a room, and sandwiched in the middle of a bunch of details was the fact that there was a Balor in it.  LEAD WITH THAT.

That said, when describing any scene I try and invoke at least one sense outside sight and have gotten a lot of positive feedback from players about it over the years.  The sharp smell of copper from the copious amounts of spilled blood at the murder scene, the ragged panting of the abomination, the stomach churning motion of the rope bridge.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 4, 2019)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm sorry if you didn't like my (initial) post, assuming you actually bothered to read it. I thought the thread's title implied it was intended to also invite opinions on Tolkien critics in general. If I was mistaken I'll happily refrain from posting again.




I’ve no issue with your initial post. If I did, I’d have replied to it in similar fashion as I did the last one. 

Asking why you should care who the guy in the video in the OP is, is a useless post. If you intended to find out who he is beyond being a guy in a video, you could have actually asked that. Otherwise, I can’t imagine any useful motivation for that post.


----------



## Janx (Jan 4, 2019)

Blue said:


> I remember one AD&D module (or was it in Dragon?) that had a long description of a room, and sandwiched in the middle of a bunch of details was the fact that there was a Balor in it.  LEAD WITH THAT.
> 
> That said, when describing any scene I try and invoke at least one sense outside sight and have gotten a lot of positive feedback from players about it over the years.  The sharp smell of copper from the copious amounts of spilled blood at the murder scene, the ragged panting of the abomination, the stomach churning motion of the rope bridge.




yeah the hidden mention of the obvious monster has been used as a RBDM trick for awhile.  I think there's a few writing tricks, like how to describe the scene, pacing, etc that could be applied to GMing.  Might be time to add a few articles to my blog on EN world...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 4, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> IMO, all of that is dead wrong, except the part about great worldbuding.



Quelle surprise.


> Le Guin is saying that being more (or less) verbose than is needed to tell the story is going to make the work less good. I’m saying that isn’t true, you just have to be good at it, like Dickens or JRRT. Too little can make a story incomprehensible to the reader, but “too much” only exists if the language itself isn’t part of your goal, and/or if you aren’t good enough at writing eloquently. It’s harder, not worse. It’s like fighting case instead of with a single sword. Most ppl can’t do it well enough to make it worthwhile, but those who can elevate the artform.



What you're failing to grasp is that what's needed to tell a story varies by story and author, so there's no baseline level of verbosity that Le Guin is refering to except being enough.  Dickens used the verbosity he needed to for his story, and not more.  This is why what Le Guin says is on the order of a truthism and not actual advice because it provides zero guidelines as to what's enough.  The only value it has is to remind that verbosity for the sake of verbosity (or terseness for the sake of terseness) is not valuable.

As for Tolkien in LotR, he uses too much for a novel, but enough for his purpose, which is not really a novel but a exploration of his world on a set of narrative rails.  Tolkien is fantastic as a read on a built world, and solid on the scope of his story, but the pacing and narrative are very, very scattered amidst his exposition.  And, that's fine.  It's good to like LotR for this.  It's not good to insist that because you like it for that that it must be a good novel as well.  It's just.. not.  And lots and lots of people have bounced off it because it's not actually a good novel and that's what they were expecting.



> Tolkien writes an excellent novel, even if you don’t see LOTR as good novels, the Hobbit is certainly an excellent novel.



Well, I was specific about discussing LotR. The Hobbit is an interesting case -- it's actually a decent novel that was intended as a children's story.  So, Tolkien held back his exposition of his world and let the narrative take front and center so as to be appealing to children, and ended up with a good novel for adults.  People still bounce off of it as being difficult, and it's certainly a challenge for young readers to enjoy.  Not all, maybe not you, but it's not high on the kids books sales for a reason.




> But I reject utterly the notion that LOTR is a bad set of novels. The characters are engaging, the story imminently comprehensible, yet epic, resonant, and possessed of both apparent and hidden depth. The characters develop, change, struggle, fail, and ultimately rise above their challenges in ways that are both inspiring and movingly human.



This is pretty hopeful, but the story is not imminently comprehensible and it's certainly not approachable for most readers.  That you love it (and I did) is good, but that's mostly in spite of the presentation rather than because of it -- we read it through and gleaned something of worth.  But, as I say above, most people, even people who find love in works like Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton find LotR to be impenetrable.  And, honestly, I also used to think they were great books and it required a keen appreciation of literature to grasp what so many were failing to get:  the greatness of the books!  But, after being punished by the Simarillion, and reading more widely books by other greats that actually weave a good novel, I came to realize that Tolkien had an amazing story and an amazing world setting, but just wasn't a good novelist at all.  And that's okay.  What LotR did for the genre is not definable.  It is still a seminal work, with huge impacts still felt in ever widening circles of mediums.  But, that's because the story is good and because the world of Middle-Earth are so easy to recreate from the elaborate descriptions Tolkien used, not because the books are well written novels.



> “The normal structure” is not a requirement of good novel writing. There’s nothing wrong with sticking to form, but equally there is nothing wrong with changing the structure to suit the nature of your story.



Of course it isn't, and I never said as much.  However, as I said, deviating requires a good touch to still produce a good novel.  Many accomplish this.  Tolkien is not among them.  He wrote a travelogue more than a novel.  And, again, that's awesome, and good, and has my eternal respect.  I can appreciate Tolkien, deeply even, and still admit LotR are poorly written novels.  They're still awesome.  I don't need them to be good novels to love them for what they are and what they mean to me.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 4, 2019)

I'd probably agree with Matt (though I'm not interested in watching his video, I'm getting the gist of it from the opening post), Tolkein is one of the most boring authors I've ever had the misfortune to try and read. If you can't sleep, read one of his books and you'll be asleep in no time. 

As for Matt's videos. He has some good material in the running the game playlist, some of which includes bringing in 4e concepts to 5e.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 5, 2019)

The funny thing is that I don't even think I provided the actual Le Guin quote; all of this on my paraphrasing.

That said, I think Ovinomancer has it right: she is saying that "verbosity for the sake of verbosity (or terseness for the sake of terseness) is not valuable." doctorbadwolf seems to be saying that (in paraphrase) verbosity for the sake of verbosity, if done well, is valuable.

I would counter that verbosity done well is never for the sake of verbosity. Verbosity done well fits with Le Guin's truism: it is using the number of words that fit the story you are trying to tell; story not only being plot, or "getting to the point," but telling a tale in all its depth and glory - and this includes atmopshere. If all authors used, or tried to emulate, Dickensian language, literature would be poorer for it.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Of course it isn't, and I never said as much.  However, as I said, deviating requires a good touch to still produce a good novel.  Many accomplish this.  Tolkien is not among them.  He wrote a travelogue more than a novel.  And, again, that's awesome, and good, and has my eternal respect.  I can appreciate Tolkien, deeply even, and still admit LotR are poorly written novels.  They're still awesome.  I don't need them to be good novels to love them for what they are and what they mean to me.




This is where I diverge with you, if only in semantics. You seem to be operating under a rather narrow definition of what a "novel" is and should be, as if all authors must follow the guidelines of novel-writing as laid out in courses and books as to what a novel should and should not be. 

I like to think of _Dune_ as the SF equivalent of LotR. In a similar sense, it has some of the same problems as LotR that you are implying, but like LotR it is an incredible book. 

So my point is, does it matter? I don't think that Tolkien (or Herbert) failed to write great novels; I think they wrote great books, so it doesn't really matter to what degree they fulfilled the criteria of what a good novel is or isn't. They transcended the guidelines, so to speak.

That said, it _does_ matter to the aspiring novelist who tries to emulate Tolkien by, essentially, writing the world as the main character (LotR is not the story of Frodo & Friends as much as it is the story of Middle-earth). The problem is that no aspiring novelist is Tolkien, and 99.999% of them create worlds that are but pale shadows of Middle-earth to the degree that they are "alive" in and of themselves. LotR works--and is a great book--because of Middle-earth, because of how alive it was. You can write a book like LotR _if_ you have created a living, breathing world. If not, if your fantasy world is mostly a derivative pastiche of Tolkien and D&D and whatever bad 80s fantasy films you grew up on, then your book will probably suck. But if you are able to do what Tolkien did--dive deeply into your own imagination and discover a mythopoeic realm and bring it into word and image--then you have a chance to transcend the guidelines for what a good novel is and can be.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 5, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> This is where I diverge with you, if only in semantics. You seem to be operating under a rather narrow definition of what a "novel" is and should be, as if all authors must follow the guidelines of novel-writing as laid out in courses and books as to what a novel should and should not be.



No.  A "novel" should have as it's main purpose to present a story to the reader.  A good novel does this in an entertaining way.  A poor novel does not.  Tolkien presents his story poorly, as it's less a story and more a travelogue (as we seem to agree), therefore the LotR novels are poor novels. 

LotR is poorly organized, poorly paced, and not accessible.  That isn't to say there isn't glorious art within the covers, or it's not worth reading, it's just not worth reading as a novel.  Ask around for how many people have tried to read LotR and maybe made it through the first book only.  The LotR is a difficult slog for non-Tolkienphiles.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 5, 2019)

And there we have the basic problem. The beauty of art is in the eye of the viewer. I'm not fond of "modern art." that doesn't mean it's good or bad; I just don't like it. Just as some don't particularly like flowery prose. That doesn't mean it's a good or bad novel. It just means you don't particularly like it. If something is roundly trounced by the vast majority of the population? Well, then it might actually be bad.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> No.  A "novel" should have as it's main purpose to present a story to the reader.  A good novel does this in an entertaining way.  A poor novel does not.  Tolkien presents his story poorly, as it's less a story and more a travelogue (as we seem to agree), therefore the LotR novels are poor novels.
> 
> LotR is poorly organized, poorly paced, and not accessible.  That isn't to say there isn't glorious art within the covers, or it's not worth reading, it's just not worth reading as a novel.  Ask around for how many people have tried to read LotR and maybe made it through the first book only.  The LotR is a difficult slog for non-Tolkienphiles.




Well again, you are operating under a perspective that a novel must follow fulfill certain criteria. If we go simply by your definition that a good novel must present the story in an entertaining way, I would say that LotR is a good novel - because millions have been "entertained" by it. But it does so in a way different from most novels; the "entertainment" is the in the evocation of Middle-earth, the immersion in its atmosphere, history, and landscape. 

But as far as you are using the word "novel," I can somewhat agree with you.

Let's compare LotR with the books of one my other favorite novelists, Guy Gavriel Kay. Kay is a much better "novelist" (in the way that you are using the word). His novels are tightly plotted and well-paced; the characters are human and quite accessible. But I don't consider any of his books as great as LotR. None of them stand out as "great works of art" like LotR, but many are better novels in the way that you are using the term.

So again, it depends upon what you mean by "novel." I'm OK saying that LotR is a great book but problematic as a novel. I'm not quite ready to say it is a "poor novel."


----------



## dragoner (Jan 5, 2019)

It's the execution of the novel that people seem to have an issue with, which is the philosophy behind the novel. The philosophy behind the execution of the novel is similar to many literary pieces, such as Wuthering Heights, just that JRRT picked a more interesting subject matter (imo). Back in the First Age (I'm old) we had to read the Hobbit, and the lesson was about the style and philosophy behind the book, and JRRT as a writer.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 6, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> I'd probably agree with Matt (though I'm not interested in watching his video, I'm getting the gist of it from the opening post), Tolkein is one of the most boring authors I've ever had the misfortune to try and read. If you can't sleep, read one of his books and you'll be asleep in no time.
> 
> As for Matt's videos. He has some good material in the running the game playlist, some of which includes bringing in 4e concepts to 5e.




I've found my mirror universe doppelganger! 



Mercurius said:


> I would counter that verbosity done well is never for the sake of verbosity. Verbosity done well fits with Le Guin's truism: it is using the number of words that fit the story you are trying to tell; story not only being plot, or "getting to the point," but telling a tale in all its depth and glory - and this includes atmopshere. If all authors used, or tried to emulate, Dickensian language, literature would be poorer for it.



I agree with the last sentence, for sure. I also do believe that eloquent use of language to evoke more than what is strictly necessary to understand the work, to elevate the language of the work into a good in itself, while still telling a good tale, is valuable. So, verbosity can be good in itself. Terseness, on the other hand, can't. It is only good when it serves the goals of the author. 



Ovinomancer said:


> No.  A "novel" should have as it's main purpose to present a story to the reader.  A good novel does this in an entertaining way.  A poor novel does not.  Tolkien presents his story poorly, as it's less a story and more a travelogue (as we seem to agree), therefore the LotR novels are poor novels.
> 
> LotR is poorly organized, poorly paced, and not accessible.  That isn't to say there isn't glorious art within the covers, or it's not worth reading, it's just not worth reading as a novel.  Ask around for how many people have tried to read LotR and maybe made it through the first book only.  The LotR is a difficult slog for non-Tolkienphiles.




Nah. It's a good story, as well as depicting an enormously magnificent world. The language itself isn't easy for many readers. Ok. That has absolutely no impact on whether it's a good novel. A novel can be both difficult and good. If we can't agree on that, there is no common ground from which we can really discuss the topic meaningfully. 

I find the whole "it's more a travelogue than a novel" argument to be completely lacking. I would wager that most people who have read and enjoyed LoTR enjoyed it as a novel. They read it as a book telling a story about characters, and enjoyed it thusly. 



Mercurius said:


> Well again, you are operating under a perspective that a novel must follow fulfill certain criteria. If we go simply by your definition that a good novel must present the story in an entertaining way, I would say that LotR is a good novel - because millions have been "entertained" by it. But it does so in a way different from most novels; the "entertainment" is the in the evocation of Middle-earth, the immersion in its atmosphere, history, and landscape.
> 
> But as far as you are using the word "novel," I can somewhat agree with you.
> 
> ...




I think Tigana is in the same league with Tolkien as a great work of art, and I'm willing to entertain the Fionavar Tapestry, even though it is knowingly derivative of LoTR. They're definitely different, though. As a kid, I sobbed when Boromir died, not only because he died so bravely and deserved so much better, but because the whole sequence is so damn hard, and I so quickly became attached to him. The film made it even worse, somehow. Knowing Gandalf would be back made his death mostly painful for the pain of the other characters, but Boromir of Gondor falls, and I cry. Every time. 

But nothing anyone else has ever written hits me as hard as Tigana. Just, the whole damn thing. Fionavar wrecks me pretty good, too, but not as much. Tigana is equally a great novel, great poetry, and a story that does things that I've never been able to find in any other work in my entire adult life of being a big damn book worm. 

of course, I read LoTR when I was 12, at the oldest, and read the Silmarillion sometime before starting High School, so certainly my idea of what novels are easy or difficult comes mostly from other people. I don't find LoTR even slightly difficult, unless my ADHD is really hitting me, in which case I can barely keep track of a Dresden novel. Still, I think it's pretty absurd to make difficulty a mark against a work as a novel. No part of a reasonable definition of "good novel" should include "easy", or "difficult/challenging" for that matter! Those qualities just sort good novels in terms of what one is in the mood for, and what some readers will be able to enjoy without putting in extra work. Nothing wrong with those readers, but likewise there is nothing wrong with a novel just because it is challenging.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 6, 2019)

I loved Tigana, I'd actually forgotten about it until just now when reading this post. From memory my mum bought, lent it to my nan, and then I read it. We all really enjoyed it. I remember the ending being kinda sad with the brother and sister so close to reuniting.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> So again, it depends upon what you mean by "novel." I'm OK saying that LotR is a great book but problematic as a novel. I'm not quite ready to say it is a "poor novel."




Really.  If nothing else, one man's "tightly plotted and well-paced" is another's "rushed and frantic."  But, let me include some other relevant thoughts....

Back in the 1980s, people wore acid wash jeans, and mullet haircuts.  At the time, they were awesome.  Today, we laugh at them.  There is no absolute high or low artistic quality to a mullet, or a powdered wig, or a hightop fade.  They are all different fashions, and fashions change.  

Art is a part of culture.  And culture changes.  And any given piece of art is made _within its culture_, for a particular audience.  Remove it from its culture and it loses impact.  You can see this trivially in, say, Shakespeare, in that language change has made most of the puns in his plays absolutely opaque to a modern reader, and students need annotations to understand what is going on.  But beyond plain language change, there's a host of tropes and structural conventions that come and go with time.  And LotR was written in the 1930s and 40s.

How many of you who have not taken art courses can honestly say you actually know what Jackson Pollock is trying to get across to you? 

I, myself, am a middle-class white American.  I do not have the cultural referents to understand rap music - most of the meaning in it just goes by me unrecognized. I could not begin to claim I could say what is good or bad about a given piece, because I know diddly about the musical genre.

If you think Tolkien reads like a travelogue, with long slow boring bits that bore you to tears and you see no point to them, you have two possibilities:  1) You know more about writing than Tolkien, and he's just bad, or 2) those passages _actually serve a purpose_ in the book, and are meant to convey meaning to the reader, but that the use of the conventions he's employing is so rare in modern works, that you are missing the point of them?

Consider, for example, that the modern audience is habituated to television programs, paced so that something like a full story is now delivered in 40 minutes, beginning, middle, and end - and not for any reason of that being a better way to do art, but because of the economics of television, and the power of the money of those trying to sell advertising to you.  Have you not considered that this relentless pacing might leech into other art forms, and that doesn't make the pacing "better" so much as, "what you are used to"?

In the final analysis - you do happen to be talking about a work that's sold 150 million copies. In the 2003 "Big Read" survey conducted in Britain by the BBC, The Lord of the Rings was found to be the "Nation's best-loved book". In similar 2004 polls both Germany and Australia also found The Lord of the Rings to be their favourite book. In a 1999 poll of Amazon.com customers, The Lord of the Rings was judged to be their favourite "book of the millennium".  And it rated in the top five in PBS's "Great American Read" polling over this summer.

Not that the masses have some sort of final say, or a lock on The Truth.  But there might be some strength to saying that you don't like it so much, rather than calling it a "poor novel".


----------



## KahlessNestor (Jan 6, 2019)

I haven't watched Matt's video yet (I am behind on watching his channel), but I think a lot of it has to do more with Matt's own style and writing philosophy than anything about the merits of Tolkien. Matt describes his own style (in Priest and Thief) as "hardboiled". He is very terse and to the point.

I agree with Umbran that many people's trouble with Tolkien is likely more a result of modern people's lack of attention span due to television and screens than anything to do with his writing. I saw the same thing when Chris Claremont came back to the X-Men in 2000. Fans have the attention span of squirrels on crack and couldn't handle his deliberate story pacing, so he was out within six months and they brought in some people to hack out some terrible wrap ups.

I had no trouble being engrossed in LOTR in 8th grade. I had a lot of trouble with The Scarlet Letter and The Count of Monte Cristo at the same time. None of that reflects on the talent of Hawthorne or Dumas. These books are and remain classics for a reason well beyond my puny existence and are worth the trouble to read. The same can be said for probably the best novel ever written, "The Brothers Karamazov" by Dostoyevsky. It isn't easy, what with the different cultural milieu and the dense themes. I always tell people to read it twice, the first time for character names (they all have 3, because Russian) and plot. The second to really luxuriate in the themes. Not easy, but well worth the effort. I have the same problem with Victor Hugo, who I think is an objectively bad novelist but good storyteller, and Les Miserables is probably my third favorite book, beaten by Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and a much better novelist,  though they were writing at the same time and in the serialized style.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 6, 2019)

Blue said:


> That said, when describing any scene I try and invoke at least one sense outside sight and have gotten a lot of positive feedback from players about it over the years.  The sharp smell of copper from the copious amounts of spilled blood at the murder scene, the ragged panting of the abomination, the stomach churning motion of the rope bridge.




I've been trying to do this more often lately. I've noticed that it really helps the players fill in the details of the scene for themselves when you describe a smell they are familiar with. For example, I described a dimly lit tavern that smelled of old wood, roasted pig and heavy spices. 

Sometimes describing a strange smell is a perfect way to build up suspense for a scene. Such as the pervasive smell of a wet dog, yet probably not a dog. When you're trying to convey the feeling to your players that there is a scary monster nearby, describing its smell (and also its sounds) are a great way to set the scene. In one occasion, I even played the strange distant cries of a yeti to my players, and the table got really quiet...


----------



## Eltab (Jan 7, 2019)

One of the scenes in _LotR_ that I most remember (not word-for-word) has no action at all: Samwise Gamgee (later honored as The Gardener) spends two pages looking at the flowers in a meadow, and is able to guess the season and his travel distance north-south since leaving the Shire.  He is re-orienting himself after experiencing the timeless quality of the elves.

I know a grade-school student who was told he could not read _LotR_ as part of his school's Advanced Reading Challenge, because that book alone would have given him all the points he would need for the year.  (It was that far above his expected reading level.)  He therefore read _LotR_ - the whole trilogy - during summer vacation.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 7, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Really.  If nothing else, one man's "tightly plotted and well-paced" is another's "rushed and frantic."  But, let me include some other relevant thoughts....
> 
> Back in the 1980s, people wore acid wash jeans, and mullet haircuts.  At the time, they were awesome.  Today, we laugh at them.  There is no absolute high or low artistic quality to a mullet, or a powdered wig, or a hightop fade.  They are all different fashions, and fashions change.
> 
> ...




Wonderfully put! You expressed much better than I the effect of modern media (and postmodernism defines much of modern story telling, which is why I brought it up) on readers' attitudes toward a fictional than I did. Thank you. 

I will say, though, that I don't think it's just TV and short-form programming. People are, more and more, enjoying long form programming, after all, and TV shows are becoming more and more serialized rather than purely episodic. As well, movies become longer and longer, and in fact the LoTR movies were enormous films without any lack of popularity. 

I think that part of it is the effect of writers like Hemingway, and the growing ideal of brevity as a Good in writing. I once had a creative writing teacher tell me that Tennyson was garbage, because he couldn't get to the bloody point! An extreme case, but certainly tastes began to shift toward brevity before the ubiquity of the home television set. 



Imaculata said:


> I've been trying to do this more often lately. I've noticed that it really helps the players fill in the details of the scene for themselves when you describe a smell they are familiar with. For example, I described a dimly lit tavern that smelled of old wood, roasted pig and heavy spices.
> 
> Sometimes describing a strange smell is a perfect way to build up suspense for a scene. Such as the pervasive smell of a wet dog, yet probably not a dog. When you're trying to convey the feeling to your players that there is a scary monster nearby, describing its smell (and also its sounds) are a great way to set the scene. In one occasion, I even played the strange distant cries of a yeti to my players, and the table got really quiet...




I have grown very fond of giving some of those queus, and then asking a player who hasn't spoken up in a bit what else they see, smell, hear, or otherwise notice in the space. 

Also, I will often tell them that there are X people in the room, Y of them are of Z categorization, and ask them who they are. 



Eltab said:


> One of the scenes in _LotR_ that I most remember (not word-for-word) has no action at all: Samwise Gamgee (later honored as The Gardener) spends two pages looking at the flowers in a meadow, and is able to guess the season and his travel distance north-south since leaving the Shire.  He is re-orienting himself after experiencing the timeless quality of the elves.
> 
> I know a grade-school student who was told he could not read _LotR_ as part of his school's Advanced Reading Challenge, because that book alone would have given him all the points he would need for the year.  (It was that far above his expected reading level.)  He therefore read _LotR_ - the whole trilogy - during summer vacation.




I love that, had forgotten it, and now am going to have to reread the trilogy. I just reread Kay's Tigana and Fionavar Tapestry, and am reading something new that I am blank on the name of ATM, but I'll have to fit LoTR in after that. 

Moments like that bring us into the novel, alongside the characters, and help us understand them. This is why i scoff at people who claim there is little character development in the work.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 7, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Asking why you should care who the guy in the video in the OP is, is a useless post. If you intended to find out who he is beyond being a guy in a video, you could have actually asked that.



I just tried to reply to Morrus in kind.

I was only interested in learning if there was anything that qualified this Matt guy in any particular way to make a judgement on Tolkien's work. Apparently, that's not the case, so this is simply a case of:


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 7, 2019)

Jhaelen said:


> I just tried to reply to Morrus in kind.
> 
> I was only interested in learning if there was anything that qualified this Matt guy in any particular way to make a judgement on Tolkien's work. Apparently, that's not the case, so this is simply a case of:




Two things: 

A, what useful thing do you think you're contributing with this?

2, no. Matt is an extremely popular voice in nerd circles, who last year broke 1 million dollars with a kickstarter for a 3pp dnd product. You unfamiliarity doesn't indicate anything about the value of his criticism of a thing. He's also a writer with a dedicated following, who wrote the first run of the Critical Role graphic novelisation. There just...isn't really a context in which he's just some random yahoo talking about LOTR. 

3, even if he was just some rando, you're aggressively missing the point of this thread. If you don't care about what the thread is about, go find one that you do care about the topic of.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 7, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I will say, though, that I don't think it's just TV and short-form programming. People are, more and more, enjoying long form programming, after all, and TV shows are becoming more and more serialized rather than purely episodic. As well, movies become longer and longer, and in fact the LoTR movies were enormous films without any lack of popularity.




I wasn't intending that comment to be the end-all, be-all of why genre fiction today doesn't match Tolkien's style.  I was trying to be a bit more demonstrative of how times can change what we prefer in our various media.

What you note about short-form programming is relevant, and the causes of that are fairly new.  The episodic short form is decades old.  The technology to easily time-shift (in the DVR and streaming) and to break away from advertising as the sole basis for revenue (mostly in streaming), have removed barriers that drove the format before.  It may take some time before that change influences our written fiction (as, for example, there are more content providers looking to license, will writers start writing with *intent* to license, and what will that mean?).



> I think that part of it is the effect of writers like Hemingway, and the growing ideal of brevity as a Good in writing.




Well, my point is that ideal is not just a free-floating ideal, unconnected to other developments, nor is it The Truth about writing.  I'd reiterate that all our art and media is created within a context, and that movements in the arts are going to be connected to movements in the context.

For example, we can turn to demographics.  What have been the socio-economic changes in the population of pleasure-readers since the time of Tolkien and Hemingway?  If more people are reading, but those people have less time for reading, that will put a pressure on the written form - books you can choke a horse with won't sell so well.  Similarly, sequels and series are apt to sell better, for as time to read drops, desire for surety that you'll like the resulting work would probably rise.  

Similarly, economics of the book trade probably matter - Tolkien took 12 years to finish the LotR Trilogy.  Today, unless youa re George RR Martin, no publisher is going to wait on you that long.  A writer more like Scalzi, who can crank out a book or more a year on a schedule, are likely more what the publishers want to see, and so the forms that allow for this faster production pace are apt to dominate the market, and become what we are used to.

But, those are today's socio-economics, and today's market.  In another couple of decades, those things may shift again, to favor some other conventions.  This is part of the basis of fashion.


----------



## dragoner (Jan 7, 2019)

No matter what, Tolkien had real class:






http://www.good.is/articles/jrr-rolkien-nazi-letter


----------



## Janx (Jan 7, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I wasn't intending that comment to be the end-all, be-all of why genre fiction today doesn't match Tolkien's style.  I
> For example, we can turn to demographics.  What have been the socio-economic changes in the population of pleasure-readers since the time of Tolkien and Hemingway?  If more people are reading, but those people have less time for reading, that will put a pressure on the written form - books you can choke a horse with won't sell so well.  Similarly, sequels and series are apt to sell better, for as time to read drops, desire for surety that you'll like the resulting work would probably rise.




Not the first time I've seen speculation on TV format influencing story telling (and thus writing).  It's also why I alluded to the influence gatekeepers have on writing and language.  As consumers, content producers are either programming us or fine tuning the formula to fit our wetware tastes.  it's why Cambell came up with the Hero's Journey as something that works.


It's related that you mention on DVR and such might change how stories are told again (no more aligning story beats to commercial breaks).  Netflix and the internet is changing how writers are advised to present their story.  Slow starts are frowned upon because people will flip to another thing (book, video, social media, etc) if it doesn't hook them.  Netflix sees this pattern with how many people sample start a show, and cut to something else.  A writer has 10-50 pages to hook you on the story question and characters, so we see the inciting incident a lot sooner nowadays.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 8, 2019)

That line, “I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people,” in response to their racism, is one of the many reasons I love Tolkien.



dragoner said:


> No matter what, Tolkien had real class:
> 
> http://www.good.is/articles/jrr-rolkien-nazi-letter


----------



## dragoner (Jan 8, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> That line, “I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people,” in response to their racism, is one of the many reasons I love Tolkien.




Exactly, he wasn't about to compromise on his values in order to get his book published in Germany.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 9, 2019)

KahlessNestor said:


> I agree with Umbran that many people's trouble with Tolkien is likely more a result of modern people's lack of attention span due to television and screens than anything to do with his writing. I saw the same thing when Chris Claremont came back to the X-Men in 2000. Fans have the attention span of squirrels on crack and couldn't handle his deliberate story pacing, so he was out within six months and they brought in some people to hack out some terrible wrap ups.




Personally I wonder if it was true that modern people have such bad attention spans then how come modern novels like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time and Harry Potter are so much longer then Lord of the Rings and apparently just as popular.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 9, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Personally I wonder if it was true that modern people have such bad attention spans then how come modern novels like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time and Harry Potter are so much longer then Lord of the Rings and apparently just as popular.



I agree. I don't think it is bad attention spans, instead I think it is more to do with how engaging the book is. A book could be 800 pages long and it would still be read if the reader finds the book engaging whereas one half the size might be dropped due to writing which the reader had trouble engaging with. Even limited time to read won't dissuade people from reading a long book. If you can only get through a chapter a night but those chapters are a great read then it hardly matters if it will take a few weeks to read the book.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 9, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> I agree. I don't think it is bad attention spans, instead I think it is more to do with how engaging the book is. A book could be 800 pages long and it would still be read if the reader finds the book engaging whereas one half the size might be dropped due to writing which the reader had trouble engaging with. Even limited time to read won't dissuade people from reading a long book. If you can only get through a chapter a night but those chapters are a great read then it hardly matters if it will take a few weeks to read the book.




That is what I found when trying to read Shakespeare, the language was almost impenetrable it is so much better to read a translation then the original work.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 9, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Personally I wonder if it was true that modern people have such bad attention spans then how come modern novels like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time and Harry Potter are so much longer then Lord of the Rings and apparently just as popular.




Yeah, I think the short attention span thing is entirely a myth. Older works are hard for many people because they have different vocabulary, diction, and other linguistic elements, than we're used to. 



cbwjm said:


> I agree. I don't think it is bad attention spans, instead I think it is more to do with how engaging the book is. A book could be 800 pages long and it would still be read if the reader finds the book engaging whereas one half the size might be dropped due to writing which the reader had trouble engaging with. Even limited time to read won't dissuade people from reading a long book. If you can only get through a chapter a night but those chapters are a great read then it hardly matters if it will take a few weeks to read the book.




Exactly. I literally have ADHD, and even when I'm not in "hyper-focus" mode, I can usually read just fine if the book engages me. Even when I was young, and my ADHD was worse, and more "lack of attention span" vs my older "hyper-attention and crap executive function" ADHD, I read LoTR no problem, but couldn't get through some of the much simpler books people got for me, because I can't keep reading something that bores me. 



Shasarak said:


> That is what I found when trying to read Shakespeare, the language was almost impenetrable it is so much better to read a translation then the original work.




IMO, Shakespeare is worth learning the language, because a lot of the depth of the work is lost in translation, but I would support a modern abridged version of LoTR, perhaps written by Guy Kay and another linguistically gifted modern fantasy author. I doubt it would ever happen, even if the Tolkien Estate was down for it, though. Even with Kay being the guy who helped Chris Tolkien write the Silmarillion.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 9, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah, I think the short attention span thing is entirely a myth. Older works are hard for many people because they have different vocabulary, diction, and other linguistic elements, than we're used to.



Tolkien isn't old enough for this.  Still using modern English.  You might find a word or two, or a phrase to be odd, but not difficult to understand.  Now, Tolkien's naming and places can certainly cause difficulty in reading.



Exactly. I literally have ADHD, and even when I'm not in "hyper-focus" mode, I can usually read just fine if the book engages me. Even when I was young, and my ADHD was worse, and more "lack of attention span" vs my older "hyper-attention and crap executive function" ADHD, I read LoTR no problem, but couldn't get through some of the much simpler books people got for me, because I can't keep reading something that bores me. 



IMO, Shakespeare is worth learning the language, because a lot of the depth of the work is lost in translation, but I would support a modern abridged version of LoTR, perhaps written by Guy Kay and another linguistically gifted modern fantasy author. I doubt it would ever happen, even if the Tolkien Estate was down for it, though. Even with Kay being the guy who helped Chris Tolkien write the Silmarillion.[/QUOTE]

How odd that you'd support a stripped down, story-focused version of LotR while you defend that the lengthy descriptions are part of it's being a great novel.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 10, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> I agree. I don't think it is bad attention spans, instead I think it is more to do with how engaging the book is. A book could be 800 pages long and it would still be read if the reader finds the book engaging whereas one half the size might be dropped due to writing which the reader had trouble engaging with. Even limited time to read won't dissuade people from reading a long book. If you can only get through a chapter a night but those chapters are a great read then it hardly matters if it will take a few weeks to read the book.




I have been a high school teacher for about a decade and have seen a rather startling decline in, if not "attention spans," than the ability to become engaged in material that is not overtly stimulating. By this I mean books in general, stories that don't shock and wow you, or aren't immediately accessible and easy to read.

Not all students, but as an overall trend. It is rather disheartening. 

And yes, I do think it has to do with access and usage of "smart"phones and various technologies that facilitate constant neuro-stimulation. So when you speak of "how engaging the book is," to me it speaks of a generation of young people who have access to endless forms of easy, passive, and creatively bereft forms of entertainment. Yes, we should find more engaging stories to read, but we also need to teach the capacity to _become engaged, _and this requires bringing back that old bugaboo: boredom.

I'm not exactly decrepit, but I remember having to fill the boredom of those endless summers of childhood with books, with TV only at night or on Saturday morning and no personal entertainment devices. It was this boredom that gave my imagination the opportunity be ignited. Kids have less and less opportunity to be bored, and thus find _their own means _of filling it with creative and imaginative activity. Every kid as their personal "entertainment device," which in my view is doing them a terrible, terrible disservice. We are keeping them from the fertile source of creativity: blessed boredom.

Speaking of which, I decided to read _Lord of the Rings_ with a small class of 11th graders. We're a few chapters in and so far so good. The biggest hurdle is that most of them have seen the movies, some many times, so I'm trying to encourage to try to "dissolve" the pre-fabricated imagery (as good as it generally was), and enter into Tolkien's Secondary World afresh.

So far (a few chapters in) they are taking pretty well to the book, with lots of lively conversations. Maybe I'm biased, though, as I'm having a blast. Just today I gave a 20-minute lecture on the various orders of beings. It isn't every day that I get to talk about how the Istari and Balrogs are of the same general ontological status.

But with teenagers (and kids in general), the teacher's enthusiasm about a subject goes a long way in perking their interest. The fact that A) the students respect and like me, B) I'm clearly passionate about Tolkien, means C) they're more engaged with the book than if I was, say, teaching _A Tale of Two Cities, _which I have no love of (blech...no offense, @_*doctorbadwolf*_ ).

Anyhow, @_*Ovinomancer*_, can you tell me exactly why you think it is a "bad novel?" What specifically? It is the first time I've read it all the way through in maybe two decades, so I can approach it afresh.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 10, 2019)

[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] One thing I will definitely agree with is that when a teacher is interested and engaging with a topic, students tend to pay attention. It's something I noticed myself as a student at uni.

I don't know if I fully agree with attention spans and devices but thinking about it more as I write this, maybe people do need to switch off more. Certainly as a teacher this is a phenomenon that you would be in better position to see. All I can say is that my nieces, and nephews, despite having devices still love to read and draw and play. They aren't teenagers though. I do wonder if it might have more to do with that period of life than easy access to devices and the internet.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 10, 2019)

Shasarak said:


> Personally I wonder if it was true that modern people have such bad attention spans then how come modern novels like Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time and Harry Potter are so much longer then Lord of the Rings and apparently just as popular.




The Song of Ice and Fire books (which Game of Thrones is but one of), are written very differently from Lord of the Rings. Chapters are often short, and end in cliffhangers. I feel George RR Martin's style of writing is very similar in style to watching a movie or tv-show. So I can definitely see how it could cater to people with shorter attention spans.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 10, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> The Song of Ice and Fire books (which Game of Thrones is but one of), are written very differently from Lord of the Rings. Chapters are often short, and end in cliffhangers. I feel George RR Martin's style of writing is very similar in style to watching a movie or tv-show. So I can definitely see how it could cater to people with shorter attention spans.



I liken GRRM to the anti-Tolkien.  Tolkien had a terrific story and an amazing world but is a bad novelist.  GRRM has no idea what his story is, but is a fantastic novelist.

Also, Tolkien was a class act.  GRRM hates you.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 10, 2019)

"George R.R. Martin hates and loves you, as he hates and loves his books. He will never be rid of his need for them." - Gandalf



Ovinomancer said:


> Also, Tolkien was a class act.  GRRM hates you.


----------



## Eltab (Jan 12, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> IMO, Shakespeare is worth learning the language, because a lot of the depth of the work is lost in translation



In my parochial grade school, we students hated having to read and memorize verses from the King James Version of the Bible.
It was not the teachers' intent, but that turned out to be good practice for reading and understanding Shakespeare.


----------



## Janx (Jan 12, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] One thing I will definitely agree with is that when a teacher is interested and engaging with a topic, students tend to pay attention. It's something I noticed myself as a student at uni.
> 
> I don't know if I fully agree with attention spans and devices but thinking about it more as I write this, maybe people do need to switch off more. Certainly as a teacher this is a phenomenon that you would be in better position to see. All I can say is that my nieces, and nephews, despite having devices still love to read and draw and play. They aren't teenagers though. I do wonder if it might have more to do with that period of life than easy access to devices and the internet.




This is the principal I've mentioned and Mercurious hit it on the head.

Us writers are advised to start with a hooking first sentence, to get to the chase.  To grab your interest in the first 10-50 pages or you'll close the book and grab another on your kindle or flip open youtube or start sampling movies on netflix until one grabs you.  That first chapter can't begin with "in a long long ago when the andals did some stuff and I'm gonna tell you about it in slo-mo before we get to the actual protagonist."

Now it's got to be "Bilbo felt the line jerk, halting his movement toward the museum floor, stopping inches away from the Valaarian Diamond."

TLDR happens because the opening text didn't grab and the reader wasn't invested in trying.  It's the same reason we have click-bait titles.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jan 12, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Dickens did not delight in extra words.  He got paid by the word.  Or, well, he may have delighted in getting paid, I suppose, but the point is that he had a strong economic reason to be wordy, where a modern author doesn't.




So did Dumas but I think he had more fun with it.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jan 12, 2019)

Blue said:


> There's lots of fun writing quirks around the author getting paid.  If I recall correctly, Dumas (of Three Musketeers fame) got paid by the line, not the word, and that's why he has so many bits of back-and-forth dialog.




As I recall the story - he got paid for the word, until he got so good at words, they changed him to being paid by the sentence, which led to that.


----------



## KahlessNestor (Jan 16, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> I have been a high school teacher for about a decade and have seen a rather startling decline in, if not "attention spans," than the ability to become engaged in material that is not overtly stimulating. By this I mean books in general, stories that don't shock and wow you, or aren't immediately accessible and easy to read.
> 
> Not all students, but as an overall trend. It is rather disheartening.
> 
> ...




I gave you XP even though you dissed A Tale of Two Cities


----------



## KahlessNestor (Jan 16, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] One thing I will definitely agree with is that when a teacher is interested and engaging with a topic, students tend to pay attention. It's something I noticed myself as a student at uni.
> 
> I don't know if I fully agree with attention spans and devices but thinking about it more as I write this, maybe people do need to switch off more. Certainly as a teacher this is a phenomenon that you would be in better position to see. All I can say is that my nieces, and nephews, despite having devices still love to read and draw and play. They aren't teenagers though. I do wonder if it might have more to do with that period of life than easy access to devices and the internet.




I am fairly certain there have been numerous studies on what screen time does to us. I know several online journals that have discussed it. And I know they recommend ZERO screen time for anyone younger than 2 years old, and carefully supervised and limited after that. So I'm fairly certain it's true. It certainly seems true to me. An anecdote that "It didn't happen to me" doesn't negate the fact that it is a trend.


----------

