What was the reception of LOTR books in the 1950s?

[herlig9]

We all know they are masterpieces now, interms of fantasy stories.

But i kinda like to know what the public reception of the books were when it was new. I heard on wikipedia that it gained a mixed reaction actually before it became a sensation world wide.
This isnt the first time. In LOTR fellowship of the ring, Roger Ebert praised it but Roeper was criticial "Until Two Towers movie came out"

I guess for the guy who praised the books was W.H Auden, a poet.

W. H. Auden - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Yes, Auden was enthusiastic, but C.S.Lewis was the biggest early promoter; he wrote several anonymous reviews.

It was ignored or treated with contempt by many critics at the time; of the latter category, the most prominent was Edmund Wilson, whose now-infamous "Ooh, Those Awful Orcs!" review appeared in The Nation.Somewhat hilariously, his comment that it was the sort of thing that would appeal only to a "juvenile English reader" was written as a British critic was saying it would appeal only to Americans. 😄

Nevertheless, it appealed to enough readers that the publishers had to scramble to reprint the first runs.

 

[herlig9]

Yes, Auden was enthusiastic, but C.S.Lewis was the biggest early promoter; he wrote several anonymous reviews.

It was ignored or treated with contempt by many critics at the time; of the latter category, the most prominent was Edmund Wilson, whose now-infamous "Ooh, Those Awful Orcs!" review appeared in The Nation.Somewhat hilariously, his comment that it was the sort of thing that would appeal only to a "juvenile English reader" was written as a British critic was saying it would appeal only to Americans. 😄

Nevertheless, it appealed to enough readers that the publishers had to scramble to reprint the first runs.

I gotta admit, thats one scary critic. But thats interesting to see considering how well they are recieved in a sense.

Edmund Wilson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

The review can be read here:

Oo, Those Awful Orcs ! » John C. Wright's Journal

www.scifiwright.com

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

I wouldn't know...

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

T.A.Shippey discusses the critical response in his books, which are worth reading, for more reasons than that.

 

[Olorgando]

Tom Shippey took several of those early critics (and some later ones) to task in his 2000 "Author of the Century". He specifically battered Wilson about the head with a quote from the latter's 1931 book on criticism "Axel's Castle", in the Afterword "The Followers and the Critics" of his 2000 book. Shippey also showed that many of the critics were dumbfoundingly blind in their criticisms. Had me laughing, eye-rolling and shaking my head all at the same time.

 

[herlig9]

The review can be read here:

Oo, Those Awful Orcs ! » John C. Wright's Journal

www.scifiwright.com

What is the "James Branch Cabell’s Poictesme" about?. He basically saying he would rather read that than LOTR.
I guess its weird since it looks like Tolkien got the last laugh. I have never heard of Poictesme before.

Or i guess its from this series. Poictesme is a fictional country

Biography of the Life of Manuel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

edit: But i read his article. And all i can say is. He has very small mind on the world building that Tolkien did indeed revolutionize. So i dont agree with Wilson criticism. I get liking adult literature is a thing, but Tolkien is more great because it opens to a more alive world. Whereas others or assuming his suggestion of Life of Manuel is what i would imagine "Berserk" or something, is restricted more. Whereas Tolkien's world feels more alive and open

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

What is the "James Branch Cabell’s Poictesme" about?. He basically saying he would rather read that than LOTR.
I guess its weird since it looks like Tolkien got the last laugh. I have never heard of Poictesme before.

Haaa?(if it's unclear it means I haven't heard of it either..)

 

[herlig9]

Though when i think of criticism of it being "not dynamic enough character driven fantasy" (Since that never was focus of Tolkien, Tolkien wanted to make an epic and a alive world which is why he is hallmark of great writing). But i always picture fan fics arguing online like this parody movie review of The Hobbit whenever i hear people say that Tolkien didnt know how to write interesting characters

edit: Also i think usually character driven or focused story are often bad fantasy in general. Because think about it?.
When you say you want to visit a country you've never seen before, you have no clue what its like til you have been there, but you hear stories of how awesome it is. Thats Tolkien. I think character driven fantasy just feels like me chatting up a dialogue with a friend. I mean THATS not exciting, cmon

I hear people argue Game of Thrones is good which i dont agree, plus its too much smut for my taste (but the smut part is debatable. though personally it feels like the appeal to the lowest demeanor as compared to creating a place thats believable is maybe why its so distracting but...). But let me know what you think?

 

[Olorgando]

I think character driven fantasy just feels like me chatting up a dialogue with a friend. I mean THATS not exciting, cmon

As I have so little fiction that I've read in our "library", I can only compare JRRT's writing to the 14 (of 15) German translations of two book series by English author and historian Paul C. Doherty, the "Hugh Corbett" series set in the very early 14th century during the reign of King Edward I, and the "Athelstan & John Cranston" series beginning with the death of King Edward III, Edward I's grandson, in 1377. As of 2022, the English originals have totaled 44 books.
The Corbett series has a touch of James Bond to it, as it involves"secret service" actions, while the Athelstan / Cranston series is basically a detective series with touches of Sherlock Holmes.

I suppose these might be what you call character-driven fantasy, with their having consistent lead characters (and an ever-growing "supporting cast" in the Athelstan / Cranston series). But being a professional historian with a doctorate, he can make the surroundings, especially London and Southwark in the Athelstan / Cranston series, come alive. Even more especially the descriptions of the more than rudimentary, basically non-existent sanitary infrastructure and facilities of the time 🤢. Definitely a place and time I would not want to live personally, thought I enjoyed reading about it.

Doherty also apparently thumbs his nose, to a degree, at "literary conventions" about how historical novels should be written. Looks like another sharp crack on the noses of the pompous backsides in literature, here publishers joining the usual suspects, the critics. 😁