Lee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> IMy fundamental problem is that the
> prose is turgid, largely undifferentiated (but
> stylistically wildly inconsistent), full of purple
> nonsense and what is sometimes known as “Wardour
> Street English, ” a sort of pseudo-archaic English
> used by historical novelists and bad translators,
> often known as `Tushery'

I have seen it described as "Brewers' Biblical" IIRC ...

In other words, LOTR is
> full of stilted, lifeless prose, littered with
> useless archaisms and deliberate “fancy writing”

From memory, the first part is OK. But Tolkien then starts getting over-excited, and into epic-writing mode, and thinks his prose ought to match up ...

> that has zero at its core; despite its
> philosophical pretensions about dealing with
> “good” and “evil, “ it takes an unconscionable
> amount of time in getting nowhere, and amounts to
> a hill of beans.

Oh, no, no, no, this is simply not fair!

> The whole enterprise is like Johnson’s leg of
> mutton: “It is as bad as bad can be: it is
> ill-fed, ill-killed, ill-kept, and ill-drest.”

Oh, yes? And is Peter Jackson going back to New Zealand to make a nine-hour version of "Rasselas" any time soon?

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me