Tolkien: Style or Substance?

[Beren3000]

This is a topic that has been bothering me for some time: what makes Tolkien so popular? Is it because his writing style is exceptional or because of the stories themselves? Or is it both?
I personally don't find Tolkien's style all that (that sounds almost like blasphemy on the Moot :D ) but, seriously, I only find some passages to be extremely well written (and of course the poetry) but for the rest of his work...the style seems ordinary. What do you guys think?

[Minielin]

His work just has such grandeur and a sense of epic history about it. The plotlines are interesting and highly entertaining, and the themes have a sense of importance and are easy to take to heart (though I'm sure I'm not doing a particularly good job of explaining my point on that).

[Wayfarer]

This is a topic that has been bothering me for some time: what makes Tolkien so popular? Is it because his writing style is exceptional or because of the stories themselves? Or is it both?
I personally don't find Tolkien's style all that (that sounds almost like blasphemy on the Moot :D ) but, seriously, I only find some passages to be extremely well written (and of course the poetry) but for the rest of his work...the style seems ordinary. What do you guys think?

Yes.

[Beren3000]

Yes.
:confused: You mean "yes the style is ordinary" ?
Does that mean you prefer the story itself over the style?

[Lizra]

I vote for substance. The style is good, but it's the content that got me hooked. :)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think in LotR it's more substance thatn style (even thought the style is good to), but in The Sil I'd say it was both. His style is more poetic in the SIl than it is in LotR.

[Lizra]

:eek: The Sil! The style was ick! If it wasn't for the content...I would have NEVER bothered to read the whole thing! IMO the writing style of the Silmarillion made reading it torture....like a dry textbook...

[Earniel]

The style of the Silmarillion wasn't exactly one of its strong points, sadly enough. I still maintain that if Tolkien had lived long enough to devote the time and attention he gave LoTR to the Silmarillion, it would have been a stunning book, and much more accesible.

I don't think Tolkien's style was the reason for the succes of the Hobbit and LoTR since they're both quite different in style. I'm going for substance all the way. :)

[Lizra]

The style of the Silmarillion wasn't exactly one of its strong points, sadly enough. I still maintain that if Tolkien had lived long enough to devote the time and attention he gave LoTR to the Silmarillion, it would have been a stunning book, and much more accesible.


Ahhh! :) Wouldn't that have been nice! Yes, the Sil is 2 dimensional...it had no depth. It would have been wonderful with more time and detail, and "storytelling".

[Radagast The Brown]

The Sil is the best. Must better than LotR in my opinion - although, I'm not sure if it's only the content or the style too. I didn't mind the style at all, I think it's part of what the Silmarillion is supposed to be - some kind of history book of the elves.

(It's not dry! :p)

[Nurvingiel]

It's not his fault the style in the Sil is... how it is. He didn't finish the manuscript, and as you all know, his son had to edit it. Of course Christopher couldn't know what to edit. An editor working with the original author and/or the author would have tidied it up nicely.

I think style and substance are deeply intertwined in any book. As for LOTR, it's ultimately about the substance for me. However, I love the style, and it's partly due to style that I re-read the series. And re-re read.....

[Wayfarer]

:confused: You mean "yes the style is ordinary" ?
Does that mean you prefer the story itself over the style? No. What that means is that, to the question of 'Style or Substance', I answer 'Yes'. :p

The Silmarillion isn't even JRR. It's CJR. So you can't base anything on that.

[Nurvingiel]

Sure the Sil is JRR! He wrote the content. CJR put it together and did some editing. Admirable work, but that doesn't make him the author. Either way, I prefer the style of LOTR to the Sil. But that's another thread maybe. ;)

[Beren3000]

I don't find a difference between the Sil. and Lotr in terms of style. The ordinari-ness is the same. But when we get to the good parts, I find the Sil. has much more (and much better) good parts than Lotr.
Wayfarer, the Sil. is definitely JRRT's work!

[Beren3000]

Ok, another way to look at it:
Do you think that the same Tolkien stories would attract a wider audience if they were written by a different author? Would you have reacted differently to such stories and probably not have become fans?

[inked]

Tolkien's style is that of an older story-telling format: a combination of the Icelandic saga, medieval romance, and history. It is an inherent part of the work and distinguishes it from imitators. It grew out of the love of languages and their context. So it IS uniquely and irreplicably JRRT. Note the confirmation on this forum of 1)the Tolkien rip-off thread and 2)the enormous number of analytical threads dissecting the multiple components.

His imitator have borrowed ideas but NONE have duplicated the effects because style and substance are so intertwined.

As to substance, the complexity of the inherent philosophical and Christian (the Roman Catholic worldview of Tolkien) basis as understood in the unique person of JRRT and as expressed by him will never be duplicated precisely because the are the soul of the man in the work! Ahh, the glory of the individual redeemed and through his person redeeming the work he loves! Those fractured beams of Eternity through the prism that is JRRT just makes one rejoice and say, Gloria patri et filii et spiritus sanctus, eh? :D

[zephyrgirl]

I just find it astonishing that Tolkien can create a whole Mythology, I guess why it appeals to me so much is party because it's an escape from the real world, and Tolkien was just a great story teller!

[Minielin]

I just find it astonishing that Tolkien can create a whole Mythology Exactly! Not to mention the languages, cultures with their own often extremely detailed histories... there's just so much there and it's all so fascinating!

BTW: 100th post. Yay. :)

[brownjenkins]

i'd say substance... as pointed out by others, the "whole world" approach to his story is what made it incredible

stylistically, i wouldn't call jrrt one of the best... but his ability to change his "voice" according to the material is pretty impressive... lost tales is even more in the early-mythological style than the silmarillion, while the hobbit is very much geared towards the younger reader

in some ways i think the lotr suffers a bit in style because he was trying to write a out of his realm of expertise... to make it more of a "popular novel" after his failure to get earlier works published

he may have simplified things more than he needed to... much like what he did to the lost tales when reworking them for the silmarillion

[Pytt]

as many others have said, substance is the thing! the style in Hobbit and LoTR isn't that bad, quite good actualy, but it is the substance that takes it of this earth and onto a wholy new level.
in Sil, the style don't work out very well, but the substance is really amazing! :)
but substance, definitive...

[Durin1]

I think it needs to be understood that The Sil is supposed to be in that "style". It was to be both archaic and fragmentary, seeing that it dealt with a "mystical past". Tolkien himself commented that it would have been unrealistic to suppose that too much stuff survived from his imaginary period of time. Hence, we only get outlines of what actually "happened".

Substance and style go hand in hand with Tolkien.

Substance - the sheer depth of his imaginary world is breathtaking and incomparable, not to mention that it was based from linguistic inspiration, hence most things have "logic" behind them, names, places etc.

Style - for those who find the style "ordinary". Try reading all the hobbit-talk with its sharp wit and then read passages in TTT and RoTR., with its heroic, archaic tone. That takes some doing. Or, how about when you read a passage describing a piece of landscape. Wow! The structure of LoTR is complicated (is this part of Style?) and the attention to detail, right the way across is staggering in terms of the synchronisation.

[The Gaffer]

Mostly substance, though in subsequent readings, the style is appreciated better.

I agree that the interweaving of style and substance is one of JRRT's great gifts.

e.g.

So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-Kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar

a favourite passage from ROTK, which comes in the middle of a battle sequence. It is hard to imagine any other author with such audacity.

That said, I know many people who've found it unreadable because of the style.

[Beren3000]

Or, how about when you read a passage describing a piece of landscape.
I for one happen to find Tolkien's description of landscapes one of his stylistic weaknesses. His descriptions go on and on and get really dull at times. I know that the imagery he creates is wonderful, but the process of getting there isn't always smooth :rolleyes:

That said, I know many people who've found it unreadable because of the style.
I hear you! A friend of mine wanted to borrow LOTR, I advised her to read The Hobbit first and I lent her that. A few days later she told me that she found it boring and that she'd rather just start with LOTR. I simply told her that if The Hobbit bored her, she would DIE of boredom if she read LOTR, wouldn't you say?

[Durin1]

I for one happen to find Tolkien's description of landscapes one of his stylistic weaknesses. His descriptions go on and on and get really dull at times. I know that the imagery he creates is wonderful, but the process of getting there isn't always smooth :rolleyes:


I hear you! A friend of mine wanted to borrow LOTR, I advised her to read The Hobbit first and I lent her that. A few days later she told me that she found it boring and that she'd rather just start with LOTR. I simply told her that if The Hobbit bored her, she would DIE of boredom if she read LOTR, wouldn't you say?

Stylistic weaknesses :confused: Any critic worth his job, even if they didn't like LoTR, cannot fault the descriptive elements in the book. It is what singles JRRT out from others: he can actually bring to life his World, not just create any old setting and just carry on with a story.

If people find the attention to detail boring, its probably because they just want a fast-food type book to read rather than enjoy and appreciate A la Carte :D

As for dying of boredom - HERESY!!! LoTR is one of the few, truly great books that you want to read on and on, enthralled.

[Beren3000]

As for dying of boredom - HERESY!!! LoTR is one of the few, truly great books that you want to read on and on, enthralled.
EASY! I'm a Tolkien fan just as you are :p
I didn't tell her she'd die of boredom reading Lotr. I told her if she was bored by The Hobbit, she'd die of boredom reading Lotr.
Stylistic weaknesses Any critic worth his job, even if they didn't like LoTR, cannot fault the descriptive elements in the book.
That's what I've said:
I know that the imagery he creates is wonderful, but the process of getting there isn't always smooth

[The Gaffer]

Yes, in some ways The Hobbit is the better book (more accessible) and if you don't like it you'll probably hate LoTR.

Do you (all) think that the movies will affect people's attitudes towards the written work? e.g. will they have the patience to plough through it?

[Rosie Gamgee]

I think one of the reasons at least why Tolkien is so widely read is that his stories have a wide range of subject. If you like action, there's action, if you like romance, there's romance, if you like humor, there's even some of that.
I also think that a big reason people like Tolkien is the fact that his world is so complete, so whole and so encompassing. It is a fairy-tale for grown-ups. It's like Neverland for adults. We can get lost in a whole world. It's a series of amazing stories set in a believeable world: it's not like Cinderella where all the characters are cookie-cuttered- evil step-mother, beautiful girl, prince charming. ME is very real. And there is someone for everyone to identify with- heroic but weak humans; beautiful, sad elves; humble, happy hobbits- even the bad guys are unique characters.
I would say that it's probably the substance that grabs people.

As for Tolkien's style, I think it varies depending on what you're reading. The Hobbit is a lively book, almost written to be read aloud to children. If you can't hear the words in your head while you're reading, however, it does become rather boring. It's a narrative tale, told practically by Bilbo himself. (And, yes, that is what Tolkien was aiming for.)

LotR is a great, epic, almost ensemble piece in its writing. Depending on who we are with, we range from the simple, sometimes overwhelmed feel of the hobbits; the noble, strong but human feel of Aragorn, Faramir, Theoden, Denethor and others; the fragile and proud air of Eowyn; the sadness and wisdom of the elves. All in all it is a very grand book, and either you are swept up by it or you are bored by it. Not for a minute does the writing break down and ask you to believe any of it. It states everything as if it has already happened- it's fact. Believe it or not.

The Sil. Hmm. I read it once, and skipped huge hunks of very boring parts. I think that perhpas Tolkien might have made it a bit better had he published it himself, but as it is it projects antiquity. It's ancient. It's supposed to be boring, I think, like the musty old, forgotten libraries of Minas Tirith; whole lives committed to paper mouldering away to dust while we'd rather read more eventful material. However, parts of it are stirring. It's like reading the 'begets' in the Old Testament (i.e. "Abraham begot Isaac and Isaac begot Jacob and Jacob begot...." and on and on and on and ON. Very boring), and then moving on to the story of Joseph and getting all engrossed in it- and then going back to some more begets. Because it projects such an ancient, sometimes ponderous air, it's that much more believeable.

So oft times it's the style that makes the substance, but really, if we were not already engrossed in the substance of Middle Earth, would half of us have even bothered to struggle through the Sil, or even the Appedices of LotR?

[Beren3000]

So oft times it's the style that makes the substance, but really, if we were not already engrossed in the substance of Middle Earth, would half of us have even bothered to struggle through the Sil, or even the Appedices of LotR?
Beautiful thoughts, RG! You're speaking my language :)

[Minielin]

ME is very real. And there is someone for everyone to identify with- heroic but weak humans; beautiful, sad elves; humble, happy hobbits- even the bad guys are unique characters. Very true. I agree absolutely. There don't seem to be many characters or races in ME that aren't extremely interesting if you dig into them and think about them a bit.

The Sil. Hmm. I read it once, and skipped huge hunks of very boring parts.The only part I skipped of The Sil was Of Beleriand And Its Realms, which I later read most of anyway. ;)

[Ezora]

I think it is the story and all the history behind the story, i could go and write a poem as good or better then his in threee minutes, but i could not make up my own language and history behind the language in a lifetime.

[Beren3000]

I think it is the story and all the history behind the story, i could go and write a poem as good or better then his in threee minutes, but i could not make up my own language and history behind the language in a lifetime.
Agreed! And welcome to the Moot, Ezora :) (Very nice av.)

I had asked a question earlier that no one seems to have seen (or wanted to answer) but I'll ask it again anyway:
Do you think that you'd have reacted differently to a ME written by someone else?
I think that I would have liked LOTR even better. (Not the Sil. though, it's perfect the way it is)

[Durin1]

I had asked a question earlier that no one seems to have seen (or wanted to answer) but I'll ask it again anyway:
Do you think that you'd have reacted differently to a ME written by someone else?
I think that I would have liked LOTR even better. (Not the Sil. though, it's perfect the way it is)

I think it is difficult to be hypothetical about this kind of question because nobody has ever come close to matching JRRT's depth of imagination to even create a ME. Plus, not many people could match Tolkien's mastery of languages, which is clearly so evident in LoTR .

Anyway, You probably know what my answer would be ;)

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: I would have reacted differently - I would probably never have developed my passion for Tolkien if I didn't find his style immensely readable.

btw, if someone else DID write LoTR, would we still be asking the same question?

[inked]

Beren3000,

See # 16 in this thread!

Durin 1,

Yes! I am surprised that we don't have fields of "scholars" alleging that many persons wrote LotR and dissecting it into tiney bits with editors like J, E, P, D, or even the Shakespearan dissectors (Did Shakespeare write any of his own stuff?)

But, when all is said, NO ONE else could have written LotR.

[Beren3000]

btw, if someone else DID write LoTR, would we still be asking the same question?
THAT is a good question :p

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I hear you! A friend of mine wanted to borrow LOTR, I advised her to read The Hobbit first and I lent her that. A few days later she told me that she found it boring and that she'd rather just start with LOTR. I simply told her that if The Hobbit bored her, she would DIE of boredom if she read LOTR, wouldn't you say?
It depends on what kind of style you're into. The Hobbit is more of a merry book with less dark thing in it.
LotR is more descriptive and a deeper story with more developed charcters, but not as merry as the Hobbit.

[Beren3000]

It depends on what kind of style you're into.
What I meant is that The Hobbit reads much more smoothly than LOTR.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

No. What that means is that, to the question of 'Style or Substance', I answer 'Yes'. :p

The Silmarillion isn't even JRR. It's CJR. So you can't base anything on that.
you really are insufferable :p

[Minielin]

No. What that means is that, to the question of 'Style or Substance', I answer 'Yes'.

The Silmarillion isn't even JRR. It's CJR. So you can't base anything on that. you really are insufferable :p But in a funny way. Heh.

[ethuiliel]

The way that I think of it is that the style is good, but the substance is great! The style portrays the story in a way that feels historic and realish, and yet is completely readable, but we need the story and the world it takes place in to enjoy LotR.

[Embladyne]

I actually really like the style of the Silmarillion. :D
But, in the end, it's the substance that keeps me reading more and more of Tolkien, because the stories matter to me.