Top 5 novelists of all-time

[cajmoyper]

Listen, I'm not entirely sure you understood what either of us said and telling me to reread isn't going to change that. And to tell you the truth, I should know better than this to get into it with you because everyone around here is on to your MO. Instead of engaging in discussion with your peers, you would rather alienate, instigate, and talk down to every one around here.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

Listen, I'm not entirely sure you understood what either of us said and telling me to reread isn't going to change that. And to tell you the truth, I should know better than this to get into it with you because everyone around here is on to your MO. Instead of engaging in discussion with your peers, you would rather alienate, instigate, and talk down to every one around here.

Weird. I never get that feeling from him at all.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by assydingo

[/I]
Weird. I never get that feeling from him at all.

I always get that feeling from him.

In all fairness though, he is more correct than incorrect here. To say that Tolkien "got lucky" is laughable.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I always get that feeling from him.

In all fairness though, he is more correct than incorrect here. To say that Tolkien "got lucky" is laughable.

I always found him to be delightful.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

Listen, I'm not entirely sure you understood what either of us said and telling me to reread isn't going to change that.

It was in English, and I read it, pity I can't say the same for you.

And to tell you the truth, I should know better than this to get into it with you because everyone around here is on to your MO. Instead of engaging in discussion with your peers, you would rather alienate, instigate, and talk down to every one around here.

If they're incorrect, I correct them.

You happen to be incorrect, see above.

Plus, the only thing you 'got into' with me, was challenging my reading comprehension when even jhiggy23 agrees {and he and I don't always see eye to eye on things} that I'm on the right with this one, that saying Tolkien was propped up by D&D and otherwise was a lucky hack is asinine.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I really don't think there is any debate that Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are the two greatest novelists of all time.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I always get that feeling from him.

In all fairness though, he is more correct than incorrect here. To say that Tolkien "got lucky" is laughable.

Not my fault you're wrong most of the time...

Logan

[cajmoyper]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Plus, the only thing you 'got into' with me, was challenging my reading comprehension when even jhiggy23 agrees {and he and I don't always see eye to eye on things} that I'm on the right with this one, that saying Tolkien was propped up by D&D and otherwise was a lucky hack is asinine.

Oh no, someone agreed with you inexplicably proving me wrong. I never agreed with what Kent said, I simply called into question your notion that he said the two instances of Tolkien's rise in popularity and the release of D&D were absolutely linked as you seemed to have deduced from his statement. My argument never had anything to do with what makes Tolkien the author he is, my argument was with you taking words out of context as you so often do.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

Oh no, someone agreed with you inexplicably proving me wrong. I never agreed with what Kent said, I simply called into question your notion that he said the two instances of Tolkien's rise in popularity and the release of D&D were absolutely linked as you seemed to have deduced from his statement. My argument never had anything to do with what makes Tolkien the author he is, my argument was with you taking words out of context as you so often do.

English.

You CAN read it yes?

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

but Tolkien was little more than a hack who got very lucky that Dungeons and Dragons became such a predominant cultural touchstone late in the 20th century. A vastly overrated writer in modern times.

That statement says that Tolkien's saving grace as a writer was because of D&D and otherwise he was a hack.

If you read what is written, you {should, but in your case apparently not} understand what is going on in a conversation.

As anyone can see, I didn't take it out of context, he flat out says that Tolkien is a hack and is lucky D&D came around. D&D which pulls a great deal of influence from Tolkien's work. So that leaves a logical fallacy... wherein how could D&D become popular and thus make Tolkien popular, if it weren't for Tolkien's work being in print for 20 years previous?

Logan

[Clark Kent]

In academic circles Tolkien was considered an awful, awful writer for much of the 20th century. It was only when his basic fantasy ideas became more popular through other forms of media and entertainment that his popularity increased to present levels. Without the rise of videogames and other derivative works that introduced some of his fantasy work to broader audiences, he would not have the name recognition today that he enjoys among the average reader.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

In academic circles Tolkien was considered an awful, awful writer for much of the 20th century. It was only when his basic fantasy ideas became more popular through other forms of media and entertainment that his popularity increased to present levels. Without the rise of videogames and other derivative works that introduced some of his fantasy work to broader audiences, he would not have the name recognition today that he enjoys among the average reader.

You are actually completely wrong here, without meaning any disrespect. Tolkien was never widely considered to be an awful writer in academic circles. In fact, he was widely considered to be one of the finest translators and academic essayists of the mid 20th century, with his translation of Sir Gawain and Beowulf being major highpoints. In literary and academic circles, he was considered to be an utter genius, with other career highpoints being his work on the Oxford dictionary and a translation of one version of the Bible. (all in all, he either spoke or had good familiarity with close to 20 languages, which is one reason why he was able to create brand new ones that hold up today in the LOTR).

Furthermore, new technology and mediums have had very little to do with Tolkien's success as a novelist. Have the movies and its derivative works helped? Sure, there is no disputing that. But his level of popularity now is not significantly greater than it was even five years after the publication of LOTR in 1955. Reason for this statement is that the trilogy was a MAJOR success even in the 1960s. Its popularity was most easily comparable to Harry Potter, except for the fact that its audience was both children and adults (more so than Potter). From 1960 on, LOTR has consistently been among the best selling books each year. Multiple surveys have been taken in which readers have placed the books as their favorite.

When the book was released, it did receive some negative reviews, but the majority were in fact positive. The negative reviews never focused predominately on Tolkien's writing, but rather on much different things, such as the depth of the characters and the complexity of the novels. The most vocal critic, ironically, was Hugo Dyson, who was a part of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis' academic circle called The Inklings. However, you would have to know more about Dyson to know why he did not like the novels.

So, there has NEVER been major criticism of Tolkien for his writing and NEVER has been a widespread belief that he is an "awful, awful" writer. What there has been is a debate as to whether his works should be taken seriously as "literary" works, due to them being in the fantasy genre. This is similar to the debate raging over C.S. Lewis' works, as well as J.K. Rowling. It is a genre thing, not a writing thing. (note: Tolkien's works are the closest of the three to being considered true literary works, due to the complexity derived from Tolkien's incredible academic background. It will be interesting to see how the criticism evolves in the next few decades. Remember, Milton's Paradise Lost took awhile to be viewed as a true literary gem).

By the way, everything I just wrote above I learned from studying medieval literature for four years. There really is no debate to it, so I don't expect a response. I do, however, wonder how other posters view his novels in comparison to the film versions? I have talked with a few people that still greatly prefer the books, but I wonder what the rest of you who have seen and read both think. Thanks!

[Clark Kent]

Tolkien's novels lack serious literary merit. His works are rarely mentioned alongside the heavyweight names mentioned throughout this thread like Tolstoy or John Steinbeck among literature professors. I will grant he was influential because of the fantasy themes that became very popular throughout the culture. But popularity does not equate with literary merit, or Stephen King would be considered the greatest writer of all-time. We will have to agree to disagree on this topic.