Why The Lord of the Rings Never Won the Nobel Prize

[Mucha Man]

Newly released records reveal all. Nobel committee thought Tolkien a bit of a hack, style-wise.

The Lord of the Rings might have spawned a thousand pallid imitations, been crowned the UK's best-loved book and sold millions of copies around the world, but according to newly declassified documents, it was damned by the Nobel prize jury on the grounds of JRR Tolkien's second-rate prose.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/ja ... dium=email

[trubadour]

As far as I understand it, the critics never liked Lord of the Rings, so I am not surprised to read this. Much revealing more about the inner-workings of the committee and the facile nature of most literary criticism (and consequently - most literature)...

[cfimages]

I thought it was just because it's too boring to win.

[Petrichor]

Out of interest, I googled the list of winners.

Of the ones I know (which isn't most of them I'm ashamed to say; many don't write in English, I think) I'd agree that Tolkien's prose doesn't compare well. To say that Tolkien wrote as well as Steinbeck, Hemingway, Sartre, Pinter, Heaney, Yeats or Shaw is just wrong. Having said that, there are a few others there that I don't think deserve it as well, such as Morrison and Kipling.

Tolkien wrote great stories, not great literature. As I understand it his intention was to create an English mythology because we don't have one, really, except Arthur and that's very parochial. He succeeded in that for sure, but 'great' writer? No. Rowling comes closer. She has far greater subtlety and depth of character.

[Zla'od]

Winston Churchill and Bertrand Russell also won the literature prize. Churchill's was on the basis of a couple of depraved short stories, some historical books, and his famous political speeches (plus the fact that they liked him, but couldn't very well give him the peace prize); Russell's, for some works of analytical philosophy that are unreadable by ordinary people, plus Why I am not a Christian (a fine book as far as it goes, but come on).

[tomthorne]

Kissinger won the peace prize. And Obama.

I wouldn't read too much into Nobel Prizes. Not much rhyme or reason.

[Ed Lakewood]

I read the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings when I was 16 and was spellbound. Then I reread the Lord of the Rings when I was about 33, and though I finished it I thought it was made up of pretty clunky writing. Ever read Issac Asimov? He's a pretty bad writer, too, at least sylistically. It just goes to show that writing well is only one component, or not even necessary - and I'm not talking about the really low level stuff like James Patterson's. Can you tell compelling stories? Can you keep the reader engaged? Can you find a topic readers will be interested in? Can you think of a catchy title? Do you have a good cover? I read Colin Thubron for the first time last summer. He's an incredible writer, but how many people have heard of him? Or Jonathan Raban. He's another amazing writer, but he's not popular. To an extent, they're authors other authors and literary types like. "Average readers" would be stumped.

[Lil' Slugger]

Winston Churchill and Bertrand Russell also won the literature prize. Churchill's was on the basis of a couple of depraved short stories, some historical books, and his famous political speeches (plus the fact that they liked him, but couldn't very well give him the peace prize)

I thought the Nobel prizes for literature and whatnot were a completely different animal than the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe even based in different countries.

[GuyInTaiwan]

Kissinger won the peace prize. And Obama.

I wouldn't read too much into Nobel Prizes. Not much rhyme or reason.

Arafat got one too, which speaks volumes.

The Prize for Literature is also pretty political. Pasternak got it, but Dr Zhivago is pretty bad I think. He's not even remotely in the same league as Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy. The award was definitely a Cold War snub to the Soviets, which is why they prevented him from accepting it.

I also think the small amount of Sartre I read wasn't anything great. Off the top of my head, the only other Laureate I've read is Marquez and I had to put it down about halfway through. I thought it was utter crap.

I'd also agree with others' assessments of LotR. Great story, terrible literature. Really boring in stretches (especially all the bits with Frodo and Sam) and very clunky.

[Zla'od]

I thought the Nobel prizes for literature and whatnot were a completely different animal than the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe even based in different countries

Well I'm applying for both, just to be safe. Then when I finally get to go to Helsinki, I'll ask them to sit me next to the Dalai Lama so I can say things like, "Hey Dalai Lama, you're a vegetarian, right? Are you gonna eat that?"