(Plot+Characters)*Voice^2=Literature?

[Lindolirian]

Speaking of the definitions of literature, there is something that has been growing on me for some time. My AP English 12 teacher is somewhat of a mathemetician when it comes to literature and it really bugs me. For her, a good story comes from the Five Act Formula (she doesn't really call it this) with an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. Add a protagonist, conflict, and antagonist, a few side characters (better if it includes a pretty woman), throw in a pinch of what my teacher likes to call "narrative voice" which includes tone, diction, syntax, and word choice. Foreshadowing and flashbacks give it some zest, too. And voila! Without even trying, you have plugged and chugged a New York bestseller! Funny, I had always considered writing to be an art rather than a algebra formula.
I of course realize all of those factors are rather necessary to a story and it would be unintelligible without them, but the way that she teaches my peers and me to "plug and chug" (as my pre-calc teacher says when it comes to formulas) really bothers my sense of literature and what it could become if this is really to be believed and followed to the very word.
Now as for classifying books as "epics" or whatnot, (clickey) it's perfectly understandable to analyze the content of them once they are written, but to look for the final product before you begin is not something most (good)writers do. Look at Tolkien. "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit." We all know he had no idea where that was going and one look at the Histories of Middle Earth will dispell any doubt.
My point is really to ask you whether or not you notice this in some writers and whether or not it affects how much you enjoy reading their works. And also to probe for other unfortunate students who have teachers like mine...those who could really use a good lesson from the greats who frequent these misty graves.

[The Saucepan Man]

It sounds to me like your teacher's "Five Act Formula" is more suited to Hollywood blockbusters than literature.

My understanding is that LotR is replete with examples of how, in literary theory, one is supposed not to write a book. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong (Bêthberry? ), but I believe that the separation of TTT and RotK into two distinct halves (Frodo and Sam/Aragron and co) would originally have had literary theorists tearing their hair out. His use of "archaic" language too has, I believe, been criticised as inappropriate in a "modern" novel. I am sure that there are other examples.

Of course there are tried and tested formulae, but it is in challenging and redefining traditional structures that the most groundbreaking works can arise. Tolkien started out writing for his own pleasure, to provide a setting for the languages that he had invented, and therefore had no mind to resort to literary formulae. The fact that LotR has become one of the most popular novels of modern times rather gives the lie to the argument that there is only one way to write a book.

I would add that the need for "blockbuster" films to fit the preconceptions of studios and investors as to what audiences want lies behind many of the changes made in the adaption of LotR to the silver screen. Jackson does rather "buck the trend" in one or two places (such as in insisting on the inclusion of Frodo's departure to the West and, indeed, in carrying out much of the filming for all three films in one sitting), but on the whole, he had to stay within established boundaries in order to get the financial backing that he needed.

[tar-ancalime]

Ooh, this sort of thing really frosts my muffins!

What some teachers don't seem to be able to get across to their classes (I'd say they don't understand it, but I'm feeling a little too charitable for that today) is that while many works of literature exhibit some structural similarities, and while it's always important to study the basic ideas that recur again and again in things like form, character, plot, etc., adherence to some "formula" dreamed up by an analyst is NEVER what makes literature great. Students must have a grounding in the language of the art form, which is why teachers tend to focus on these things, but teachers are sorely remiss when they discuss conventions of form at the expense of probing into what makes each individual work of literature great. That's where a literature class can really soar--a teacher guiding a discussion about the individuality of a work.

EDIT: Hear, hear!

[Boromir88]

"plug and chug"

My Geometry teacher would say the same thing!!!

Anyway...

His use of "archaic" language too has, I believe, been criticised as inappropriate in a "modern" novel. I am sure that there are other examples.

Very true SpM, I remember Tolkien having trouble with them editors. With the whole "Elfin" "Elfish" fiasco.
I say Elfin you say Elven. I say Elfish you say Elvish.

There's two keys to being a "good," author, as I was taught. You either "go with the flow," and continue on with the popular trend at the time. Whatever the literary trend be at that time you continue to write in that fashion, and tweak it just a bit to your own likings.

Or you do something completely opposite from the trend and just go off on your own thing. Sometimes people want to see something knew, and therefor it starts your own trend. For example:
The Reformation thinkers wrote about how we are born being capable of evil and it was society, government, laws that kept us being "good."
The next literary change brought something totally opposite, called "romanticism." They believed we are born good but it is society, government, laws, that corrupt us.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

My understanding is that LotR is replete with examples of how, in literary theory, one is supposed not to write a book. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong (Bêthberry? ),

No need for Bethberry to assure you of your correctness, I can confidently inform you that you have successfully avoided splitting that infinitive.

My Geometry teacher would say the same thing!!!

My Calculus teacher likes "Now you take these numbers, and plug them into that equation, and see what happens." Math class is like a Glade commercial... plug it in, plug it in.

My view of writing instructors is that they tend to instruct you in the "correct" way to write based on their personal preferences for what they like to read. I got 80s on my first few papers this year for English because my teacher doesn't grade the same way as my old teacher did. His taste in literature is far different than hers, and so he prefers different styles than she did.

One "bad habit" that The Lord of the Rings taught me, and that my English teacher pounces on me for, is beginning a sentence with the word 'and'. He hands me back papers covered in red marks for where I use sentence fragments to add a little spice, where I start a sentence with 'and' because I like how it sounds, where I lost him with some random reference... All bad habits (in his opinion) that I picked up from "That stupid hobbit stuff".

I honestly wish more writers would break the rules and write something interesting, as opposed to cookie cutter books with the same plot, same character ideas, and same everything. I appreciate that there is pretty much nothing orginal any more, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Fea

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

No need for Bethberry to assure you of your correctness, I can confidently inform you that you have successfully avoided splitting that infinitive.

Actually, that gives rise to a pertinent point. I have become "conditioned" (by one of my previous bosses) not to split the infinitive. But the rule was, I believe, originally established so as to avoid clumsy sentence construction and there are many cases where splitting the infinitive will not give rise to a clumsy sentence (even though it might seem wrong to our "conditioned" grammatical sensibilities). So there will often be no real reason to not split the infinitive.

And I don't really see anything wrong with starting sentences with "and" either. Taking my cue from Tolkien (and disregarding what I learned at school), I do it all the time in my (very limited) creative writing. And in my posts here too. It makes for shorter sentences. Which is, I think, desirable. Or so the Plain English Campaign tells us. But then again, as Tolkien himself once again illustrates on many occasions, it is sometimes appropriate to have incredibly lengthy sentences, sentences which are perhaps heavy with descriptive words, or those where complex and related ideas are best grouped together, or even where that is the manner in which a particular character speaks - and so the length of his sentences enhance the credibility of his dialogue; and in such cases I see no reason not to indulge oneself in a nice lengthy sentence.

The point being that many of these rules (structural, grammatical etc) are there to be challenged. Sometimes there is no real purpose served in following them. And, occasionally, breaking them will even enhance the quality of the work in question.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am most certainly not saying that these rules should not be taught (double negative, anyone ). But it should also be acknowledged in doing so that there is scope for flexibility in their application.

[Elven-Maiden]

If you're still in school, don't do this until your graduation ceremony. If you've finished at that school, do this next time you see her: Ask her how many of her books are on the NY Best Sellers List because you'd like to own one of her masterpieces to pass down for posterity.

I have no respect for teachers like yours.

[Kuruharan]

My AP English 12 teacher is somewhat of a mathemetician when it comes to literature and it really bugs me. For her, a good story comes from the Five Act Formula (she doesn't really call it this) with an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. Add a protagonist, conflict, and antagonist, a few side characters (better if it includes a pretty woman), throw in a pinch of what my teacher likes to call "narrative voice" which includes tone, diction, syntax, and word choice. Foreshadowing and flashbacks give it some zest, too. And voila! Without even trying, you have plugged and chugged a New York bestseller! Funny, I had always considered writing to be an art rather than a algebra formula.

I think the (or a) secret to the art is the setting of the stage for a story and how the author links all these elements together in pursuit of this goal. This is not an easy challenge, as several threads on the Downs on the subject of crappy fantasy attest. Sure, one can plug and chug all they want (and likely as not, sell books too) but that does not make it worthwhile. All of the elements you mentioned I believe are tools in the quest to help “realize” the story, but they are not ends in themselves. Writing the story can follow some accustomed forms in utilizing these tools, but bringing the story to life is the art that does not fit into a formula.

For whatever reason, Tolkien succeeds while many do not.

[the phantom]

and that my English teacher pounces on me for, is beginning a sentence with the word 'and'

That always happened to me, too.

The point being that many of these rules (structural, grammatical etc) are there to be challenged.

It is this attitude (I have it towards everything having to do with school) that cements my status as an A-/B+ student rather than an A+ student.

Another thing that gets me in trouble is spelling. I'm always writing "grey" instead of "gray", "colour"- "color", "armour"- "armor", "theatre"- "theater", "defence"- "defense", etc....

Here's something I thought you might enjoy-

I have noticed that some British tend to be more particular about split infinitives and prepositions at the end of a sentence, but those "rules" came from Latin and have little relevance in English. It was, in fact, Sir Winston Churchill who put to rest the "preposition cannot end a sentence rule" with his famous rejoinder that placing the preposition at the end of a sentence is "something up with which we will not put!"

[Encaitare]

My Geometry teacher would say the same thing!!!

Ah, well, my math teacher last year would always say of large equations, "Okay, so you take this mess and multiply it by this mess..." etc. Amusing. (<--Blatant Sentence Fragment!) I think once his said "this mess" five times in one period.

But on topic, English teachers seem to believe it is their solemn duty to educate us about these literary elements and techniques, and then have us spit information back at them regarding how they affect the story. Oftentimes I am given assignments which consist of the analysis of tone and diction and such-- granted, they are important, but contrary to what my English teacher tells me, I don't believe most writers sit down and say to themselves, "Hmmm... I think I'll use this sort of tone here..." or "Aha! I shall characterize this person through the thoughts of another person about him!" Of course, for example, if one is writing something satirical, the tone will be a little humorous or caustic. But still, I have to wonder how many of the things we must analyze in school were actually done intentionally. I tend to think that things just develop on their own more than anything, as was the case with Tolkien's writing. Personally, I find certain unintentional elements in my own writing -- for example, I put a symbol in something I wrote without even realizing it. It makes me wonder, if ever I should write a great novel, if high schoolers would read it and their teachers would say, "Ooh, just look at that diction! Now why do you think she did that?" And it would be rather silly, because I probably wouldn't have done it for any particular reason at all; I probably would not have even realized what I was doing.

Gee, am I babbling much?

One thing I find a tad ironic (another literary technique!) is that I gripe about this in school and yet I dash to the CbC thread and am engrossed in much of the same thing.

And in Tolkien's case, perhaps we could call it the Six Act Formula: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution, and a great number of multi-lingual super-long brilliantly-rhymed poems thrown in there for good measure.

[Kuruharan]

There is some method to the madness of English teachers. They are trying to teach large numbers of people to communicate effectively and following a certain formula is a relatively simple means of doing this.

Now, to make me feel better about myself, here is my critical comment:

Looking at some of the dreadful educational results, perhaps this does not work so well. But there are many other issues involved there.

[Aiwendil]

We ought to distinguish two different kind of literary "rules".

First there are micro-rules - rules primarily regarding grammar or style. Examples are the prohibitions against starting a sentence with a conjunction, splitting an infinitive, and using a double negative. Some of these (like the former two) don't make all that much sense and should not be considered rules; others (like the last) do make sense. The ability to work with these rules (whether following or breaking them) is, I think, the prerequisite for good prose as such.

But the topic started with a discussion of an entirely different kind of literary rule. This is the macro-rule - examples include the exposition - rising action - climax - falling action - resolution scheme. Again, some of these rules make sense and some don't. The ability to work with these rules is a prerequisite for writing a work, a finished piece of prose, whether a short story, a novel, an essay, or anything else.

Now in both cases there are quite a few rules that are usually applicable but not generally applicable. It's usually a good idea not to split an infinitive, simply for reasons of style. Compare, for example, the previous sentence with: "It's usually a good idea to not split an infinitive . . ." But in other cases splitting an infinitive can work quite well: ". . . to boldly go where no one has gone before."

The same, it seems to me, is true of the macro-rules. Do you think it's a good idea to start your novel with a chapter that introduces none of the main plot of the novel and to follow that with a chapter containing almost nothing but exposition and a lot of strange-looking names? It's probably not; nearly anyone who tried to write a book like that would most likely fail. It makes sense, then, to call it a "rule", of sorts, that one not proceed like that. The Lord of the Rings happens to begin in that way; it is an exception.

But it's a mistake to think that the existence of exceptions to the rules means the whole concept of literary rules is invalid, for two reasons.

First, as I pointed out above, even when there are exceptions to a rule, the rule is often still widely applicable. The five act structure is not the only way to write a good piece of fiction, but it is a good way, and its essential points can be of value even when it is not followed to the letter.

Second, the ability to succesfully break the rules is neither magical nor random. The second chapter of The Lord of the Rings only works because Tolkien knew, better than perhaps any other modern author, how to make exposition interesting. If I tried to write a novel like that, I'd be certain to fail miserably (not that I wouldn't fail anyway). The rules fail at times not because rules cannot be applied to art but because art is so complex that all the rules we have formulated are only approximations and not applicable generally - when they are not simply wrong.

[Lush]

Wait... This is a teacher of AP English? As in ADVANCED PLACEMENT?

How the #$5@ does this woman expect you to pass the exam while dispensing pearls of wisdom such as the ones you describe in this thread?

Per whether or not Tolkien knew where he was going: I think all good writers do actually know exactly where they're going, but the knowledge is more metaphysical than anything.

[Rimbaud]

In terms of overarching criticisms, the main one I would level at this site's focus, is the clumsy shifts in tone and pacing. This is due in part to his combination of linear narrative writing and 'cut-n-paste' history addendum. Still, the difference in character speech in particular from book to book is awkward. Oddly enough the forced archaisms do not hinder my enjoyment nearly so much, perhaps as I view them as an integral part of the fabric.

But don't think the sour lemon spoils the excellent tonic.

[Boromir88]

I think all authors must have their plot outline (exposition, initial incident, conflict....etc). That is something all English classes study. Also things like Character development, theme, setting, all things we look at, and all things the author puts there for a purpose to get us wondering. If you didn't have this stuff there would be no story, so it is important to actually HAVE a story, but I wouldn't say it's what makes a NY times best seller. It's all about opinion, what people are interested in at the times, if there's a trend, and people want to continue with that literary trend they are going to read it. If someone wants to break away from the trend, and create something totally different, maybe the people want a literary change, therefor they read that.

A little more about the plot outline, and this is one of the things I happen to like about the story. You have the exposition, initial incident, conflict, climax, resolution (destroying the ring). But then there's this French phrase called Denameaut (sp?) (falling action), where after the climax the story begins to fall. In LOTR, everyone is saying their good byes and going back home. But, the author adds in an extra twist sort of like a "mini climax." In LOTR this is the scouring of the shire. That's a part of Tolkien I like about, that short climax, curve at the end, but I must say that isn't what makes it a "good" book.

[Lalwendë]

But then there's this French phrase called Denameaut (sp?) (falling action), where after the climax the story begins to fall.

I think it's Denoument? I know exactly what it means, but as shown in my lifelong struggle with the word beauracrat, I struggle with French words.

This topic has got the old cogs turning as I'm someone who not only enjoys writing, but has also taught writing, has been taught writing, and who does it professionally. Firstly, looking at this from the point of view as the teacher, it is vital that children are taught grammar, but this needs to be done as early as possible; in my own case, I was taught grammar from the age of five, and hence it became second nature to apply it. I don’t know many of the names of the rules, as it is almost instinct to apply them having learned them at such a young age. But coupled with this, nothing can beat reading as a way of assimilating the rules of spelling and grammar.

I can see why a teacher would want their students to learn to write in a structured manner. Learning rules of story writing helps assist students to think about what they are writing and to structure it; I have taught teenagers how to write, and we experimented with a comparison of free-form writing and using structure and planning, thus demonstrating how well an idea can be conveyed if laid out appropriately. In addition, in the UK at least, one of the ‘roles’ of an English teacher is to guide students in how to set out essays correctly, and in such a manner that they make their point coherently; this is a vital skill in achieving A levels.

I also studied writing at university, where we eventually learned quite the opposite, and that was how to break the rules. After a grilling in the basics, e.g. how to write a Petrarchan sonnet, we were then ‘set free’ to do our own work. One of my experiments included an autobiography without any description; I used line drawings instead. And now, in my work, I must not only write according to strict standards, but (when I get the chance) write creative speeches. This is yet another area of writing which I had to learn. I have been taught never to begin a sentence with a number, always to write Government with a capital (it is blasphemy not to do so as Government equals God), and to make liberal use of beginning sentences with ‘And’ and ‘But’ when speechwriting.

So, what I’m saying is that yes, there are rules, and it helps enormously to learn them, but out there, in the heady world of words, the rules don’t necessarily count. On the one hand we have the official documents which must be written to specified standards, and on the other we have Finnegan's Wake (which are perhaps not so far apart actually). And throw into all of this the fact that grammatical and spelling rules are constantly altering, which is a marvellous thing as it keeps the English language alive, and keeps me from being a pedant as I have to accept that this language would just die if we were all too pedantic.

[Rimbaud]

The point being, as Lalwende explains, that in order to break a rule justifiably, you have to know it (and preferably understand it). Ignorance being no defence in matters of the pen!

[HerenIstarion]

it is vital that children are taught grammar

What, than, should be done to this coarse and uneducated person (that is, me), who never ever learned any English grammar whatsoever? For truly, my native is Georgian, my mother (and books I've read) tought me Russian, and French was foreign language of my choice when I've been visiting school (visiting occassionally, mind you, as I've been preparing myself for a career of a professional swimmer and spent most of my time afloat in a pool )

Not that I denounce what've been said. What I would you to see (and repeat after Aiwendil), is that exeptions only underline, or stress the vital importance of rules. But moderate mastery of English can be achieved by means of 'parroting' - per instance, I suppose I do not break that many rules now as I write current post, but not because I know them, but as I 'feel' them - as I've read many books and I've seen many posts where rules were applied in a proper fashion, and learned to discern them without knowing them.

Do not believe me? See my posts of some years back and compare the language and style (besides, since than I've invested my money into a software under the name of Lingvo 9.0. Good returns on investment I've got too - ctrl->insert->insert - and doubts as to meaning and spelling are magically resolved)

I constantly progress, and one day I hope to understand what Rimbaud writes on first reading. [Now his posts, especially short ones, require second reading on yours truly's part to get the meaning across ]

But that'd be personal information, probably of no interest. What I've got to say on topic, is that pursuit of originality, or pursuit of compliance to the rules, are equally ruinous to the work in itself.

Try to be original, and break the rules on purpose (making those two goals an end in itself) - reward will be contempt of critics and probably no readers. Try to follow the rules, and make that an end - the result, I suppose, would be the same.

But love the subject you write about with passion, believe it to be 'the Truth', write to communicate the subject, not for writing's sake, but for the sake of the subject and for the sake of 'the Truth', and - lo and behold! - if you are even moderately good with language, the piece of work produced will be praised and loved

That'd be general rule which bears no exeptions, which may make mere work about stamp-collecting a fascinating and absorbing read, - else is technicalities of no great consequence.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

There are all kinds of ways in which LotR is a "bad" novel -- in fact, there are ways in which it is not a novel at all, but a long story (which is how I try to refer to it at all times).

The beginning is overly long, with whole episodes of action and character entirely dissociated from the plot (Tom Bombadil et al.); there are huge chunks of expository prose in which the writer is "telling" not "showing"; there's the awkward shifts in tone and voice that Rimbaud has lemonly pointed out, the climax is drawn out with a long and uneven denoument. . .and on and on.

For many people these variations from the established 'norm' of novelistic technique prove too great a challenge. I'm sure we've all run across people who have said that they started FotR but "could not get into it" -- to these people I now say "skip the chapters bewteen Crickhollow and Bree, and give the story a chance to grab you at Weathertop", and this usually works.

And yet it all, obviously, holds together and I think that Lush hitnts at why: the organisational logic of the work is not narrative but thematic. The action is not organised around the linear plodding of events, but around the ideas that it develops and explores in and through its characters.

[tar-ancalime]

Encaitare said:

But still, I have to wonder how many of the things we must analyze in school were actually done intentionally.

Well, I think that quite a lot of them probably were. One of the wonderful things about fiction (as opposed to journalism) is that in a work of fiction, absolutely everything is there because the author put it there. The author has total control over his/her world--if the main character has red hair, it's because the author wanted it that way. S/he's not bound by some external reality of blond or brown hair, and doesn't in fact have to tell the reader anything about hair color at all. So I think that we must approach literature with the assumption that anything the author chose to include is in the story on purpose, because that author always had the option of working any element in an infinite number of different ways, or of leaving it out altogether.

Which brings me to...

Fordim, I agree with you that LotR is not a novel at all, and I don't think it was ever intended as such--it's supposed, after all, to be a transcription of the Red Book, which would not have been written by the hobbits in the form of a novel. This would be because the hobbits, unlike my imaginary author above, were bound by the objective reality of what happened. They couldn't tighten up the plot by leaving out Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs, because those things happened to them. Galadriel has golden hair not for any kind of literary effect, but because Frodo saw here and that's the color her hair was. Even the inconsistencies Rimbaud rightly points out can be attributed to this device--think of Le Morte d'Arthur, another very long story with changes in style throughout, for much the same reason--Malory wasn't thinking in terms of a modern novel, but was rather sitting down to transcribe a story that already existed. I realize that I'm giving Tolkien rather a free pass here, but I've always thought that the meandering of the exposition and the long, long denouement, as well as the inconsistencies of tone and the unusual structure of The Two Towers, in fact powerfully supported Tolkien's premise that the work was not an original novel but a scholarly translation.

[Essex]

Lindolirian,

I have the same view point of your English teacher's theory as Robin William's character in Dead Poets Society would have had.........

[Lalwendë]

What, than, should be done to this coarse and uneducated person (that is, me), who never ever learned any English grammar whatsoever? For truly, my native is Georgian, my mother (and books I've read) tought me Russian, and French was foreign language of my choice when I've been visiting school

Words, darn words! I hope I did not come across as rude when I made my point about Grammar! I did intend my comments to cover any language - basically I mean children should learn the grammar of their mother tongue as early as possible; this then makes it easier not only to use that mother tongue but also to learn other languages. It helped me when I cam to learn German - though I'm idle (and being English, I suffer from the same thing a lot of other people suffer, and that's assuming everyone else knows English - shameful ) and haven't practised it in a long time so I've forgotten much of it.

Think of writing as being like Art. Any artist needs to know how to draw at the least - this why art schools insist on drawing classes. If you then go on to dissecting cows and displaying them in perspex tanks filled with formaldehyde, then that is where you put your theory into practice. Though why you should not be allowed some time to simply enjoy writing at school, I don't know - isn't learning supposed to be fun?

[Encaitare]

tar-ancalime said:

Well, I think that quite a lot of them probably were. One of the wonderful things about fiction (as opposed to journalism) is that in a work of fiction, absolutely everything is there because the author put it there. The author has total control over his/her world--if the main character has red hair, it's because the author wanted it that way. S/he's not bound by some external reality of blond or brown hair, and doesn't in fact have to tell the reader anything about hair color at all. So I think that we must approach literature with the assumption that anything the author chose to include is in the story on purpose, because that author always had the option of working any element in an infinite number of different ways, or of leaving it out altogether.

I agree that the author's total control over the story does mean that virtually nothing is accidental. The point I was trying to make was that an author does not exactly sit there with a checklist of all the literary element he or she ought to include (I could, of course, be wrong). If something doesn't seem right or match up with the ideas or images the author had in his/her mind, then s/he will change it, almost instinctively, you could say. S/he might just think, "I'd better change this bit of dialogue here, since this character would never say that," or something to that effect, and then fix the problem. To sum it up, I meant that the insertion of the literary elements/techniques are done more subconsciously, just by the author's judgement, than as a rigid set of rules to be followed.

Am I making any sense?

[Lindolirian]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Just to be clear, I am most certainly not saying that these rules should not be taught (double negative, anyone). But it should also be acknowledged in doing so that there is scope for flexibility in their application.

Yes, I probably should have said something to this effect at the close of my post because I heartily agree.

Lush, I don't know... even our potential valedictorian is asking that.

But love the subject you write about with passion, believe it to be 'the Truth', write to communicate the subject, not for writing's sake, but for the sake of the subject and for the sake of 'the Truth', and - lo and behold! - if you are even moderately good with language, the piece of work produced will be praised and loved.

Heren, I think I'll show that to my teacher, that's awesome!
Lalwendë, thank-you, it's nice to have another teacher's input!

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Another thing that gets me in trouble is spelling. I'm always writing "grey" instead of "gray", "colour"- "color", "armour"- "armor", "theatre"- "theater", "defence"- "defense", etc....

My goodness! And here I thought it was just me doing that. My teacher handed me back a paper a few weeks back coated with red pen-marks, with comments such as "These archaic spellings give the impression that you are a haughty snob. Fix your spell-checker to change those automatically before I start taking points off." Grouchy old man... I say that in the most affectionate sense of the words.

I must say though, I heartily agree with Rimbaud about rule-breaking. It applies to every aspect of life. Learn the rules before you break them.

Fea

[tar-ancalime]

Encaitare,

Ah, I see what you're after now, and I think we've been in agreement all along. As it so often is, it was a matter of defining our terms. Sorry if I offended with my swashbuckling contradiction.

[Encaitare]

Oh, fear not, I took no offense. It seems that we have been in agreement after all.

[Boromir88]

My goodness! And here I thought it was just me doing that. My teacher handed me back a paper a few weeks back coated with red pen-marks, with comments such as "These archaic spellings give the impression that you are a haughty snob.

I sit here, rub my chin, and think interesting....reminds me of my math teachers "there's always one way of doing this! No shortcuts! Let me see your work! You didn't do every step!....etc" But somehow I would get the right answers, and I think that is the key also in writing.

Also...what's that famous saying in Pirates of the Carribean:

What about the code?
Geoffrey Rush (one of my favorite actors): They are more like Guidelines.

[Lachwen]

Ah, I see someone else has brought up one of my favorite high school rants!

I, too, have found it most annoying to be told "This is how you write a story," then have points taken off if I diverge from the pet formula. I even had a story handed back once with a large "C-" in red ink on the top, below which was written, "I want you to know that I really enjoyed this story - some of your descriptions were absolutely magical, and you tied all the events together beautifully! But I'm afraid I had to mark you down for leaving out most of the rising action and dumping the reader in at the climax. It was effective, but not what I wanted." That was the very first time I ever blew up at a teacher. She had said herself that the way I wrote the story was effective. I kept asking why she had marked me down if she had liked the story so much, and she kept saying "Because you left out the rising action." I finally asked her if she would rather I had made the story boring by leaving the rising action in, and she said no. "Then why the bloody hell did you mark it down?" "Because you left out the rising action." That's when I stormed out and demanded a new writing teacher.

Fortunately, my creative writing teacher senior year actually encouraged experimenting with our writing styles, though he did question me as to why I insisted on spelling it "grey." (I've spelled it "grey" my whole life...what's wrong with everyone else? ) My reason is that I pronounce it "grey." "Gray," to me, implies a harsher vowel sound than I prefer...but then I'm a dork.

His use of "archaic" language too has, I believe, been criticised as inappropriate in a "modern" novel.

This particular argument has always bothered me. What, exactly, is wrong with writing in an archaic or anachronistic form? I find archaic prose to be much more pleasing to read than "modern" writing - it has a different flow, with a hint of rhythm passed down from epic poetry that grabs the pleasure center of my brain and won't let go. In fact, on late nights when I know I don't have to get up early the next day, I can sometimes be found hiding under my down comforter with a Tolkien book or Norse saga and a flashlight, reading aloud to myself for the pure joy of listening to the flow of the writing.

One "bad habit" that The Lord of the Rings taught me, and that my English teacher pounces on me for, is beginning a sentence with the word 'and'.

You, too? I've been taught my whole life that you never begin a sentence with "and." Sometimes, however, I find that a sentence flows better if it begins with "and." I'll probably get a lovely red mark on my paper for it, but I found myself in that situation with the research paper I should be working on right now. The "and" stands, and I'll not remove it.

Another "bad habit" (according to my teachers) that I picked up from Tolkien is a love of the semi-colon. I don't feel that I over-use the friendly hybrid of the period and the comma - I always try to avoid using it two sentences in a row - but it certainly can be found more often in my papers than in those of my classmates. I don't know why, but they seem to feel that the semi-colon is like cayenne pepper, to be used very sparingly; I think of it more like tarragon, to be used liberally to bring out the flavor of the piece.

Now, before I forget, I'd like to compliment The Saucepan Man for his incredibly clever post on sentence length. Well done, sir, well done indeed! *applauds*

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lachwen

I, too, have found it most annoying to be told "This is how you write a story," then have points taken off if I diverge from the pet formula.

I suppose that, if the exercise was to demonstrate knowledge and application of the formula, then she was probably right to mark you down. Harsh though it may seem. It is fair to say, and I have found this throughout my academic and professional life, that work which may be of the highest quality is nevertheless inappropriate if it does not meet the purpose for which it was created.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

These archaic spellings give the impression that you are a haughty snob. Fix your spell-checker to change those automatically before I start taking points off.

Um, those aren't archaic spellings. They are in current and consistent use this side of the Atlantic. In other words, they are 'proper' English.

[Rimbaud]

Spelling is important. In my trans-Atlantic household, with two breeds of newspaper, the crosswords can get very confusing. My personal bugbear though with differentiation in spelling between English-speaking countries? Microsoft and the default to US English feature.

More to the point, learning a rule of language or grammar at school is admirable - breaking it later will be all the more satisfying when you can explain exactly why you deemed it appropriate. Don't abuse the poetic license, he's a fragile little chap

[Lalwendë]

Let me shake your hand! And also the auto-complete function. This almost provokes me to acts of violence and I seriously consider behaving like one of those machine-breakers from the industrial revolution.

Now for a little tale which might encourage some of the younger ‘Downers struggling through school – long as you don’t say “Oh, it’s that mad old lady again with her tales” . I once had a dreadful English teacher who thought a good lesson consisted of answering comprehension questions on the book we were reading. Obviously we all grew restive and our interest slipped and we stopped doing our homework. I was always what in the US might be called a ‘straight A student’ (or swot in this country) so I was dismayed to find I only had a C in my end of term report. I challenged it and my teacher told me I would fail my O levels because I failed to ‘toe the line’. I tried to toe the line after that, but I hated it. Luckily, my usual teacher came back from maternity leave, and when my O level results came through I had two As in English. I later got an A level and a degree in English, I’m even a qualified English teacher! What this tells you is that sometimes it is hard struggling with a poor teacher, or even with a teacher you simply have a personality clash with, but never give up, as that would be to admit defeat!

About getting work back covered in red pen and sarcastic comments – I get this at work. I think all managers here have teacher fantasies, and they simply cannot resist the temptation to make mincemeat out of your reports and briefings. At first it is a horrible thing to have to take, but eventually, you realise that their manager does it to them, and so on all the way up the hierarchy!

I just love the semi colon though, as anyone who reads my RPGs will know. It’s just, somehow…right to me. It allows a pause between thoughts. I recommend the book Eats Shoots & Leaves to anyone interested in punctuation; it sounds like it might be deadly dull, but its very wittily written!

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Um, those aren't archaic spellings. They are in current and consistent use this side of the Atlantic. In other words, they are 'proper' English.

Me: *muttered* "If we were anywhere else in the world it'd be right."
Him: "We aren't, it's not, and fix your Microsoft Word default."

My teacher has all the patience in the world for creative writing (although he's not much a fantasy fan), but he's got a 10-point list that my classmates love to hate. If you misuse any word on the list, you automatically get 10 points docked from your grade. If he sees anything you did outside of class where you misuse a word, he docks 10 points from your most recent assignment. Examples of the words are 'there' versus 'they're' and 'their', 'to', 'two', and 'too', etcetera. He picks words that students commonly screw up and gets downright mean about it. It's funny though.

My latest English Class Drama was when I got back a 4-page paper with an angry "Stop over-writing. The assignment was ONE PAGE." I got a 95 on the paper anyhow, but I picked up the habit of using a lot of detailed imagery, and that takes up space. So my one-page weekly journal entries usually end up quite a lot longer.

Speaking of English class... perhaps I should turn around and pay attention.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

My teacher has all the patience in the world for creative writing (although he's not much a fantasy fan), but he's got a 10-point list that my classmates love to hate. If you misuse any word on the list, you automatically get 10 points docked from your grade. If he sees anything you did outside of class where you misuse a word, he docks 10 points from your most recent assignment. Examples of the words are 'there' versus 'they're' and 'their', 'to', 'two', and 'too', etcetera. He picks words that students commonly screw up and gets downright mean about it.

Good for him. I hope that improper use of an apostrophe is on the list too. When I see my students getting "its" and "it's" confused I go ballistic.

But to get this off Mars and back on topic. . .while I too find the anachronistic language of LotR (particularly of RotK) distracting and even stilted at points, I think that it has an important function. Tolkien wanted his story to be consistent, perhaps even evocative of his Christian faith, but he avoided all direct allegorical representations or allusions. Neither Aragorn nor Frodo are Christ-figures; Galadriel is not Mary; there is no direct representation of communion etc.

I think what Tolkien did instead was to use a language that is highly reminiscent -- in its "heightened" moments -- of the language that we find in the King James Bible or (more appropriate for Tolk) the Latin Vulgate. By having his characters speak at times in this rather artificed (but not necessarily artificial way) he is able to evoke the tone and 'feel' of Biblical narrative without having to constrain his story or shackle particular events to particular allusions.

For example, when the Witch-King casts down the gates of Minas Tirith and enters, there is that incredible passage:

Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.

And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.

There are a number of things here that are decidely biblical, in terms of the passage's style: the brief sentences, some of which repeat each other; sentences that begin with "and" as the action accrues and grows; alliteration ("wizardry or war, welcoming"; "death. . .dawn"; "dark. . .dimly"); even biblical kinds of imagery (a crowing cock, blowing horns, "shadows of death"). The ultimate effect of this is to make this moment evocative of the Bible without maknig a direct one-to-one reference: there is no story from the Bible that I can think of which mirrors the coming of the Rohirrim; but the passage sure sounds biblical!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Good for him. I hope that improper use of an apostrophe is on the list too. When I see my students getting "its" and "it's" confused I go ballistic.

This kind of makes me glad I left High School at 16 & have never set foot in an educational establishment since - I suspect I'd have left a trail of exploded tutors in my wake

[Lalwendë]

There are a number of things here that are decidely biblical, in terms of the passage's style: the brief sentences, some of which repeat each other; sentences that begin with "and" as the action accrues and grows; alliteration ("wizardry or war, welcoming"; "death. . .dawn"; "dark. . .dimly"); even biblical kinds of imagery (a crowing cock, blowing horns, "shadows of death"). The ultimate effect of this is to make this moment evocative of the Bible without maknig a direct one-to-one reference: there is no story from the Bible that I can think of which mirrors the coming of the Rohirrim; but the passage sure sounds biblical!

This has left me feeling somewhat perturbed. When I write a speech I use brief sentences, sentences beginning with 'and', alliteration, repetition. Have I been taught to write words which are intended to sound 'biblical'? And then there is the mysterious 'rule of three' - Horns, Horns, Horns. It's not so far from Education, Education, Education is it? (Which I hasten to add is nowt to do with me).

I too don't like misused apostrophes and mock loudly when I see one in a Greengrocer's window, but then I remember the errors I make daily due to my non-existent typing skills and I check myself.

[Bêthberry]

To my great regret, I have been able to follow this interesting thread only by reading for much of this week and even now must reply shortly. Please over look any curtness that arises from brevity.

A great deal of old rhetorical style in English derived from Greek theories of good speaking, or oratory: Vir bonus dicendi peritus est. "The good man is skilled in speech", Quintilian.

Many of our habits still reflect some of those values, even without the influence of school teachers. Churchill used the 'rule of three' in many of his stirring wartime speeches. John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address is a model of Greek rhetoric. The first chapter of one of Hemingway's novels can be thoroughly analysed for its structure using the old pattern for organising a speech.--Yes, Hemingway, father of allegedly of pity modern style in American novels.

The Renaissance come about in part with the rediscovery of Greek. And so the men who translated the King James Bible were also men highly schooled in the latest ideas about language. The melifluous style and tone of the King James derives from this common sense among the translators of what was beautiful lanaguage. (And is why some modern translations, which are techically correct as translations, seem to lack "poetry.")

Language, as Rimbaud has said, is all about pattern and structure. It is the very repetition of patterns--and then their variations and deviations--that makes meaning, as Fordim has argued here. I think it is very perceptive of Fordim to make this argument about the archaic language, for usually it is related to the heroic narratives Tolkien harkened to.

But, alas, I must fly. I hope no one calls me a fool for it!

[Lachwen]

Fëanor: while I can kind of understand where your teacher is coming from, docking points for a word misused outside of his class is a bit much. I would complain to the principal or the head of the department at that point.

I think what Tolkien did instead was to use a language that is highly reminiscent -- in its "heightened" moments -- of the language that we find in the King James Bible or (more appropriate for Tolk) the Latin Vulgate.

I disagree. Tolkien's writing is reminiscent more of the Norse sagas (or a good translation of Beowulf) than the much more formal language of the King James Bible. Tolkien was, after all, writing his own saga, and pulled much of his linguistic inspiration from cultures that passed on most of their history in sagas and epic poems (Anglo-saxon, Finnish, etc.). Latin does not have much of an influence in Lord of the Rings because it is more closely related to Quenya than any of the other languages in Middle-earth; and Quenya does not appear very often in Lord of the Rings. Only four times in real quantity, in fact: Frodo's greeting of Gildor, Galadriel's farewell song in Lórien, Treebeard's musings on the Golden Wood, and Aragorn's little coronation speech. As was stated earlier, The Lord of the Rings was supposed to be a transcription of the Red Book, which was written by Hobbits; they would not have used highly formal language because they were really quite unfamiliar with it (Tolkien addresses this in Appendix F, Section I, Of Hobbits).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

The Renaissance come about in part with the rediscovery of Greek. And so the men who translated the King James Bible were also men highly schooled in the latest ideas about language.

To fly completely off topic here, this interests me in that my favourite translation of the New Testament is Tyndale's, & two statements in David Daniell's introduction to my copy seem relevant:

(Tyndale's translation) was the first of that majestic sequence od eleven new translations of the Bible into English which ended in 1611 with the publication of King James's 'Authorised Version'. That famous 'translation' was in fact almost entirely, in the New Testament, made from Tyndale's words, which would have been recognised as such by readers.

&

Tyndale chose a register of slightly heightened common English speech, with a simple Saxon syntax of subject-verb-object, avoiding grammatical dependencies, & a Saxon vocabulary.

So, while the translators of the King James Bible were, as [b]Bb[/i] says ' highly schooled in the latest ideas about language', they were effectively lifting their 'translation' from Tyndale's, which deliberately used the 'common speech' of the ordinary folk who weren't 'highly schooled'.

So, what were these 'latest ideas' about language & how important were they?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lachwen

I disagree. Tolkien's writing is reminiscent more of the Norse sagas (or a good translation of Beowulf) than the much more formal language of the King James Bible. Tolkien was, after all, writing his own saga, and pulled much of his linguistic inspiration from cultures that passed on most of their history in sagas and epic poems (Anglo-saxon, Finnish, etc.). Latin does not have much of an influence in Lord of the Rings because it is more closely related to Quenya than any of the other languages in Middle-earth; and Quenya does not appear very often in Lord of the Rings. Only four times in real quantity, in fact: Frodo's greeting of Gildor, Galadriel's farewell song in Lórien, Treebeard's musings on the Golden Wood, and Aragorn's little coronation speech. As was stated earlier, The Lord of the Rings was supposed to be a transcription of the Red Book, which was written by Hobbits; they would not have used highly formal language because they were really quite unfamiliar with it (Tolkien addresses this in Appendix F, Section I, Of Hobbits).

I think we need to be very careful here about our terminology and our references. For instance, LotR incorporates a rather wide range of styles. There is common agreement that the hobbits' dialogue is a much more colloquial style than that used by, say, Gimli and Legolas, later in the book. (In fact, the style of their dialogue changes from Book I to Book III.) This can be demonstrated both by lexical means (the register and tone of the words used) and syntactical analysis.

The point which intrigued me about Fordim's observation of the archaic aspects of the style (and not all of it is archaic, and we probably ought to explain more precisely what we mean by archaic) has to do with the comments made above by several people about Tolkien's use of 'and' and coordinated sentences.

This is a style of syntax which is associated with the Old Testament. Gerald Hammond, who wrote The Making of the English Bible, says in an essay on English translations of the Bible the following:

Old Testament narrative is characterised by its almost exclusive use of the conjunction waw to link virtually every clause and sentence. Right from the beginnings English translators of the Bible were happy to rend these links with "and", so that their narratives sometimes consist entirely of coordinate clauses. It is probable that this practice was something natural to early sixteenth-century writers of English prose, inheritors of a tradition going back to Anglo-Saxon's repeated use of ond. But this is distinctive to English, in contrast to the more sophisticated syntax of the Vulgate, and even of Luther's German. And that the English translators appreciated this harmony between Hebrew and English is borne out by the successive versions' increasing use of it through the century--despite the growing felxibility of English prose during this period. ... The Authorised Version's translators, rather than reducing the percentage of coordination, actually intensified it

(He gives a compa5rison of a passage from Tyndale, the King James, the Jerusalem. and the New International, but that leads away from my point, except that the King James is more consistent with the sytax of the original, of the lot.)

One other stylistic example of the Renaissance translators was to use what Harmond calls "a formulaic rendering of common words." This is less deadly than it sounds! He means simply that these translators did not substitute synonums for words but instead reimployed the same words in passages. They relied on keywords economically to link, for example, three meanings of "know" in Genesis (the shame of the truit of the tree of knowledge, God's knowledge, and sexuality). Is this something Tolkien does? We would be well to examine his style to see if he does.

Here's another passage from Tolkien which uses coordination extensively (among other traits of 'old rhetorical styel':

The Captains bowed their heads; and when they looked up again, behold! their enemies were flying and the power of Mordor was scattering like dust in the wind. As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures ofSauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits or fled wailing back to hide in holds and dark lightless places far from hope.
The Field of Cormallen

This is not to deny traits consistent with the nordic epics Tolkien loved or with Anglo Saxon poetry. But simply to suggest that Tolkien incorporates a great many different styles in LotR, from many sources.