Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamaman
I had a glimpse at the start of the The Iron Tower. I like Tolkien. I've read the main works and some of the other stuff cobbled together by his son.
This is why I like Tolkien, and perhaps even more so, The Night Land: These two works have voice. Both authors have a unique voice when they write. Something about their prose is unique. It is recognizable to them. It is the same way that we immediately recognize Jagger's voice. And this voice elevates the story in same way Jagger's voice elevates what are often quite run-of-the-mill songs.
This is also explains why it is impossible to write a dumbed-down version of Hodgson. For the same reason "modern" versions of Shakespeare are like cigarettes with the nicotine removed.
In contrast, from my brief glimpse of the Iron Tower, the voice does not stand out. I find this the case in many modern works, and am turned off by them. To further argue the point--look at Arthur C Clarke, Asimov, etc. They had voice, especially Clarke. All his great prose dripped with eons and tragedy and striving. It was gigantic in tone, like Hodgson's greatest work. And King to the illustration. He has remarkable voice. Read the Long Walk. And Chandler. And Fitzgerald. The list goes on.
So yeah, that's why I like Tolkien and not the Iron Tower. The latter comes across as a generic rip off not only because it is a weak imitation in terms of story, but because it has no distinct voice.
|
I think you have that exactly right. You can like a book for the story or for the voice. If you like both, it is a bonus. If you hate the voice, doesn't matter how good the story is, the story will be ruined (in that particular book). On the other hand a really good voice can make even a bad story or topic interesting and enjoyable to read.