# Tolkien criticism **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 23, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676 "2015-01-23T15:09:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/81 "2015-01-26T21:37:47Z")
"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.” ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/82 "2015-01-26T21:40:34Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This is the standard criticism of criticism. Everything is merely personal opinion, and the only thing of importance is whether I personally like or dislike something. > > There isn’t anything new to add to this age-old discussion. The only useful rejoinder is that many people disagree with this stance. They find it interesting to discuss what makes a work good or bad, succeed or fail, literature or entertainment. They take pleasure in looking deeper into a work than surface enjoyment, to study its structure and form and impact and import and value, as well as its place in culture and its similarity to other works and its moment in a creator’s career and the other thousand points that make up criticism as opposed to reviewing. They find it worthwhile to see what other people have to say about a work after studying it deeply. You can, if you like, consider it another type of world-creation, making a work larger than just the work in itself by putting it into the larger world of literature with all the dimensions and facets that it brings. > > Or you can simply dismiss it by saying it’s all opinion. But if it’s all opinion and all opinions are equal, then why do people give their opinions so loudly and take such offense when others disagree and form little cults of like-minded people so that they can pat themselves on the back for having similar opinions? My opinion is that the “just an opinion” crowd is kidding themselves because when I look at the world it doesn’t work that way. The critique of your criticism isn’t that all criticism is just, like, opinion, man. It is that, fundamentally, you are painting with an excessively broad brush, and in doing so, missing what makes these works interesting. For example, claiming that all of science fiction is “literally kid’s stuff”: > [@](#): > > For that reason science fiction has traditionally been called an infantilizing form of fiction, literally kid’s stuff. This is hardly an example of "… looking deeper into a work than surface enjoyment, to study its structure and form and impact and import and value, as well as its place in culture and its similarity to other works and its moment in a creator’s career and the other thousand points that make up criticism … ". In short, you are not doing what you are claiming. You are simply dismissing. The appropriate response to such dismissal is, indeed, _de gustibus non est disputandum_. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/83 "2015-01-26T21:54:32Z")
> [@MrAtoz](#): > > As I’ve said before, if you can work out how many different things are being named there, you’re a better man than I am! 🙂 > [@](#): > > Only once before have I seen them from afar in waking life, but I know them and their names, for under them lies Khazad-dum, the Dwarrowdelf, that is now called the Black Pit, Moria in the Elvish tongue. Yonder stands Barazinbar, the Redhorn, cruel Caradhras; and beyond him are Silvertine and Cloudyhead: Celebdil the White, and Fanuidhol the Grey, that we call Zirakzigil and Bundushathur. How is this in any way difficult? It’s all broken down into separate clauses: 1. Khazad-dum, Dwarrowdelf, Black Pit, Moria 2. Barazinbar, Redhorn, Caradhras 3. & 4. Silvertine & Cloudyhead, Celebdil the White & Fanudihol the Gray, Zirakzigil & Bundushathur The first is in its own sentence. The second is separated out by a semicolon, and the third and fourth are presented paired together several times. **Malthus** , if I recall **Exapno Mapcase** is actually involved in literary criticism of some kind as his job. When he comes in to lecture in these kinds of threads, he’s generally doing so from an academic standpoint, using terms of art that do not translate well into less rarified discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/84 "2015-01-26T21:55:36Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Or you can simply dismiss it by saying it’s all opinion. But if it’s all opinion and all opinions are equal, then why do people give their opinions so loudly and take such offense when others disagree and form little cults of like-minded people so that they can pat themselves on the back for having similar opinions? You’re kinda’ making my point. I’m not saying criticism is invalid. What _is_ invalid is that your criticism is right while mine is wrong. I’m going to guess that you think _Ulysses_ is good (or great) literature. Does that mean my criticism that he is unreadable is wrong? > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > My opinion is that the “just an opinion” crowd is kidding themselves because when I look at the world it doesn’t work that way. I think it would work that way if critics didn’t take themselves so seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/85 "2015-01-26T22:38:37Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > **Malthus** , if I recall **Exapno Mapcase** is actually involved in literary criticism of some kind as his job. When he comes in to lecture in these kinds of threads, he’s generally doing so from an academic standpoint, using terms of art that do not translate well into less rarified discussions. What terms of art might these be? “Science Fiction”? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/86 "2015-01-26T22:41:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The critique of your criticism isn’t that all criticism is just, like, opinion, man. > > It is that, fundamentally, you are painting with an excessively broad brush, and in doing so, missing what makes these works interesting. > > For example, claiming that all of science fiction is “literally kid’s stuff”: > > This is hardly an example of "… looking deeper into a work than surface enjoyment, to study its structure and form and impact and import and value, as well as its place in culture and its similarity to other works and its moment in a creator’s career and the other thousand points that make up criticism … ". > > In short, you are not doing what you are claiming. You are simply dismissing. The appropriate response to such dismissal is, indeed, _de gustibus non est disputandum_. If we’re taking criticism seriously, then perhaps understanding what the passive tense is should be a priority. “For that reason science fiction has traditionally been called an infantilizing form of fiction, literally kid’s stuff.” That’s not my opinion. It’s a statement about the way science fiction was considered in 1954 when LofR was published. And for many years after. And in many ways still is today. I was part of the generation that tried to _challenge_ that opinion. The work of writers like Ursula LeGuin and Michael Moorcock and the New Wave writers generally were adult, deep, well-written, and aware of mainstream literary values. Writers like James Gunn and Jack Williamson started teaching college courses in science fiction (the word that was used, and again covering the entire broad field). Academics formed the Science Fiction Research Association. I was a member for a while and gave formal papers at SFRA and Popular Culture Association conferences. SF is my field. That’s a weird thing to say. People understand writing it, but nobody understands studying it as a thing. After all, their opinions are equal to everybody else’s. I don’t do much criticism myself anymore either; I’m mostly a historian looking at SF’s place in popular culture and the larger social and technological cultures of the 20th century. You want my opinion on SF, read my words to see what they really say, and not some twisted reverse position you’re trying unsuccessfully to shove in my mouth. You shouldn’t go any further without trying to figure out how you could possibly get plain words so gigantically, ridiculously wrong. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/87 "2015-01-26T23:13:34Z")
> [@MrAtoz](#): > > It feels less like reading a novel, and more like a particularly dry history textbook. Specifically, a history book written by an Englishman, the driest kind. How they can take something as exciting as history and suck all the life out of it I’ll never know. > [@Blake](#): > > :dubious: Nobody else was writing fantasy in the 1960s? Hah! You will note that I said “_hardly_ nobody.” I usually include a weasel word. Remember that I said this was before the balkanization of genre fiction that came about in the 70s and 80s, when for better or worse fantasy and science fiction were still lumped together and the drawing-room detective fiction of Agatha Christie shared shelf space with the hard-boiled detective fiction of Mickey Spillane. Writers of fantasy and SF were less hindered by convention than mystery authors, so they were able to flit between sub-genres. This is why I think of Leiber as a SF author, not fantasy, because that was what I read. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/88 "2015-01-26T23:14:05Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > If we’re taking criticism seriously, then perhaps understanding what the passive tense is should be a priority. “For that reason science fiction has traditionally been called an infantilizing form of fiction, literally kid’s stuff.” That’s not my opinion. It’s a statement about the way science fiction was considered in 1954 when LofR was published. And for many years after. And in many ways still is today. No, it is not. Plenty of academic critics find adult value in science fiction - and always have. Writers like H.G. Wells, Huxley, Orwell … all have been taken quite seriously as “adult” authors of science fiction (and all were writing lbefore 1954). If they are not, the shame was on the critics, not the writers. Another who was writing fantasy at about that time was Peake. Are you of the opinion that _Gormenghast_ was generally thought to be ‘kid’s stuff’ too? If so, your favorite Moorcock would have some harsh words for you, I fear - Peake was one of his literary heroes. > [@](#): > > I was part of the generation that tried to _challenge_ that opinion. The work of writers like Ursula LeGuin and Michael Moorcock and the New Wave writers generally were adult, deep, well-written, and aware of mainstream literary values. Okay, let’s take Moorcock. He wrote epic fantasy, just like Tolkien. Elric of Melniboné is “… adult, deep, well-written, and aware of mainstream literary values”? Okay … 😕 To me, he just seems very … adolescent. Full of teenaged angst and self-hatred. Is that what is meant to be “adult”? > [@](#): > > Writers like James Gunn and Jack Williamson started teaching college courses in science fiction (the word that was used, and again covering the entire broad field). Academics formed the Science Fiction Research Association. I was a member for a while and gave formal papers at SFRA and Popular Culture Association conferences. > > SF is my field. That’s a weird thing to say. People understand writing it, but nobody understands studying it as a thing. After all, their opinions are equal to everybody else’s. I don’t do much criticism myself anymore either; I’m mostly a historian looking at SF’s place in popular culture and the larger social and technological cultures of the 20th century. Arguments from personal authority now? That is even more worthless than arguments from authority of some claimed (but not demonstrated) ‘critical consensus’. > [@](#): > > You want my opinion on SF, read my words to see what they really say, and not some twisted reverse position you’re trying unsuccessfully to shove in my mouth. You shouldn’t go any further without trying to figure out how you could possibly get plain words so gigantically, ridiculously wrong. I am reading what your words say. So far, your words hardly live up to your description of the worth of criticism. I see no nuanced discussion of Tolkien in your words, or for that matter, of science fiction. Sure, you like Moorcock better than Tolkien - but I hardly think that these days if one was to place the epic fantasy works of Moorcock beside those of Tolkien, the literary worth of the former as opposed to the latter would be obvious to all. Maybe in the 60s and early 70s they looked like hot stuff, but they have not aged very well … ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/89 "2015-01-26T23:21:02Z")
**Malthus** , read and UNDERSTAND what **Exapno Mapcase** is saying. You are talking past each other in part because you aren’t paying attention, maybe because you got your feelings hurt. But arguments from personal authority are worth something when the person is an actual authority. You wouldn’t pull that on Stephen Hawking. **Exapno** , PM me with info about where to find some of what you’ve written. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/90 "2015-01-26T23:22:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Writers like H.G. Wells, Huxley, Orwell … all have been taken quite seriously as “adult” authors of science fiction (and all were writing lbefore 1954). Those may not be the best examples, though, since they were all writers of “mainstream” literature whose works also included at least one science fiction novel. Plus, they were all British, and I’m not sure science fiction was as “ghettoized” in Britain as it was in America. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/91 "2015-01-26T23:23:20Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Those may not be the best examples, though, since they were all writers of “mainstream” literature whose works also included at least one science fiction novel. Plus, they were all British, and I’m not sure science fiction was as “ghettoized” in Britain as it was in America. Tolkien was also British. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/92 "2015-01-26T23:26:22Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > **Malthus** , read and UNDERSTAND what **Exapno Mapcase** is saying. You are talking past each other in part because you aren’t paying attention, maybe because you got your feelings hurt. But arguments from personal authority are worth something when the person is an actual authority. You wouldn’t pull that on Stephen Hawking. No, I would trust Stephen Hawking on quantum physics. I would not, however, trust a critic who claims Moorcock is “adult” and Tolkien is not. Why should I? Unlike quantum physics, this is something I can judge for myself. Matters of personal taste are not subject to arguments from authority. Edit: feelings hurt? Not so. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/93 "2015-01-26T23:29:42Z")
Yes, and that was Thudlow’s point. In the US all genre fiction was ghettoized until fairly recently. The more-genteel crime fiction moved to the suburbs first. Space operas and fantasy are still stuck in the hood. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/94 "2015-01-26T23:38:50Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I would not, however, trust a critic who claims Moorcock is “adult” and Tolkien is not. _The Hobbit_ is a kiddie “chapter book” pure and simple. Great fun for fifth graders but it was not written for adults. Exapno’s point is that AT THAT TIME, in 1954, ALL fantasy and sf were considered by critics and English professors to be crap for kids. Same with comic books. Quit being offended that the pros of the time don’t share your modern sensibilities. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/95 "2015-01-26T23:39:33Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Yes, and that was Thudlow’s point. In the US all genre fiction was ghettoized until fairly recently. The more-genteel crime fiction moved to the suburbs first. Space operas and fantasy are still stuck in the hood. I’m not sure what the relevance is, though, considering that the subject of the thread is a British writer, and not an American. If the issue is “Tolkien criticism”, then surely it makes more sense to locate his position within the literary traditions of the UK, and not America? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/96 "2015-01-26T23:49:31Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > _The Hobbit_ is a kiddie “chapter book” pure and simple. Great fun for fifth graders but it was not written for adults. Exapno’s point is that AT THAT TIME, in 1954, ALL fantasy and sf were considered by critics and English professors to be crap for kids. Same with comic books. Quit being offended that the pros of the time don’t share your modern sensibilities. Yes, the Hobbit was intended as a book for kids - but I thought we were talking about _Lord of the Rings_, which very clearly was not. And once again, it is simply (and provably) untrue that in 1954 “ALL fantasy and sf were considered by critics and English professors to be crap for kids”. I’ve quoted numerous exceptions - to take only one, Peake. An almost exact contemporary of Tolkien, he was a fantasy author immediately “taken seriously” by contemporary critics. I’m not “offended”, I’m simply _disagreeing_. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/97 "2015-01-27T00:06:39Z")
> [@stillownedbysetters](#): > > When I was given the Tolkien books as a pre-teen, it was explained to me that Tolkien was a linguist who had first developed languages, then imagined the type of people who might speak those languages, then developed a mythology for those peoples in which certain roles were necessary. Finally, inspired by the ravages of WWI, he developed a story, weaving his experiences from the war into the mythologies of his peoples. Individual characters were of the least interest to him, he only created them to play the necessary roles in his mythology. And as in all mythologies, the role is 3-dimensional, but the occupier of the role remains rather 2-dimensional. > > Tolkien was not a novelist. If anything, he was closer to a folklorist or a social anthropologist. I would tend to agree with this. JRRT took great joy in discovering what words different people used to describe common themes and archetypes. And his own invented languages reflected this in their structure. Which is why, I think, that his writings resonate with so many people. Especially in view of how bad some of his prose was. Even his worst prose was based on very compelling themes. A reader who recognized those underpinnings and found resonance with them tended to be very forgiving. At least I was, and am. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/98 "2015-01-27T00:20:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Yes, the Hobbit was intended as a book for kids - but I thought we were talking about _Lord of the Rings_, which very clearly was not. I thought we were talking about Tolkien in general. And LOTR, as shown by many of the people in thread, was more YA than adult. > [@](#): > > And once again, it is simply (and provably) untrue that in 1954 “ALL fantasy and sf were considered by critics and English professors to be crap for kids”. That’s what I get for leaving out a weasel word. 😉 Anyway, most of the [critical bibliography for Peake](http://peakestudies.com/partg.htm) that I found is for his kiddie lit, not _Gormenghast._ And until Orson Welles came along, HG Wells was, in his time, known mostly for his history and pinko views. But my most important point, to me, is that I don’t like fantasy or Tolkien in particular and am still pissed off about how fantasy took over the bookstore shelves in the 70s. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/99 "2015-01-27T00:21:24Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Exapno’s point is that AT THAT TIME, in 1954, ALL fantasy and sf were considered by critics and English professors to be crap for kids. Same with comic books. Quit being offended that the pros of the time don’t share your modern sensibilities. I don’t think that’s his whole point, is it? Exapno’s point (I believe) is that LOTR is not good literature for adults. Readers (generally) only like LOTR if they read it while young. He is buttressing his argument by pointing out that contemporary critics didn’t like LOTR. (Exapno, please correct me if I’m wrong.) Personally, what contemporary critics thought isn’t all that important. Contemporary art critics didn’t like Norman Rockwell and similar illustrators for various reasons (but often because it wasn’t “serious” art, created for mass publication). Today Rockwell is considered a great artist because modern audiences don’t have a bias against illustrators. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/100 "2015-01-27T01:14:36Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Did not his Mongols, the Rohirrim, save the day? > > His tall, blonde-haired and blue-eyed Mongols? Interesting thesis you have there. If nothing else the example of these “Nordics”, who lived on the steppes and fought on horseback like the Mongols, should be enough to dissuade any critic from trying to draw very many parallels with reality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676.md?page=6)