# 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:** 6
**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 27, 2015, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/101 "2015-01-27T01:28:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > What terms of art might these be? “Science Fiction”? Yes. If you missed that, you aren’t reading what he has been writing. He’s said _explicitly that_ in at least three posts, starting with this one: > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I use science fiction in the common generic sense used by those in the field so it includes all varieties and genres including fantasy. … “used by those in the field” would indicate he is using terms of art. It does not matter what _you_ would call the field; he’s talking using the terminology of people who analyze the field of literature, which needs to be more precise for their discussions. Look at it this way: he’s categorizing in terms of categories and subcategories. There’s “science-fiction/science-fiction” and “science-fiction/fantasy” and whatever else. If he were a zoologist or biologist talking about zebras, he’d want to make sure he’s talking about _zebra zebra_\*, so an audience of zoologists/biologists don’t mistake which precise subspecies he’s talking about. The problem here is, that if a zoologist or biologist waltzed into a Cafe Society thread about zebras, it wouldn’t really matter to everyone else if he’s talking about a literate _zebra zebra_ or _zebra quagga_\* – all anyone reading in Cafe Society would need to know is whether he’s referring to 'doper **Zebra** or an actual stripey equine. - or, probably more precisely _quagga zebra_, I think \*\* reverse as needed for pedantry edit: well, looks like they _did_ move all the subspecies under _Equus quagga_ except for the Mountain Zebras. huh. ---
**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 27, 2015, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/102 "2015-01-27T01:31:16Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > 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.) Close. I’m trying to explain why so many readers who might be expected to join the cult of Tolkien find his adulation puzzling at best. [This article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3935561.stm) has a good summary of the range of reviews he got when the first part was published. The authors quoted hit topics similar to what we’re still talking about today. Some people - critics, writers, academics - liked LotR from the beginning. But many didn’t. That needs explanation in a way that the difficulties of Ulysses doesn’t. > [@](#): > > 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. This is a very good point. The rise in Rockwell’s reputation would have stunned art critics in the 1950s as much as the thought that Tolkien would be spoken of in the same sentence as, say, Nabokov would have gobsmacked literary critics. (I’ve been to the Rockwell Museum and studied how he built stories into his magazine covers; he’s amazingly impressive technically and his subject range was far larger than his Saturday Evening Post covers suggested.) The major difference I’ve seen in 40 years is that there’s a better balance today. When academics first started championing popular entertainers they often overpraised in order to make them seem worthy of serious attention. Now talk seems better focused on cultural importance rather than intrinsic aesthetic value. If anybody wants some writing I’ve done on sf history, a couple of fun articles are available [here](http://www.flyingcarsandfoodpills.com/#!sf/csh0). I’m just getting that site ramped up, though. ---
**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, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/103 "2015-01-27T01:42:19Z")
> [@astro](#): > > [“100 Years An Orc - Deconstructing Tolkien’s Nordicist Racism”](https://faustusnotes.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/tolkiens-racial-theories/) > > > [@](#): > > > > Noisms at Monsters and Manuals suggested in comments that a “formalist” reading of Tolkien is necessary to properly understand how the races in Middle Earth might reflect real racial differences. Others online have suggested that Tolkien didn’t give any formal characteristics to his races – that he never said elves are white and Haradrim are black – and that subsequent racially-specified images of them reflect the readers’ prejudices. But reading Tolkien doesn’t support the view that his races weren’t racialised. For example, here is the first Haradrim we meet …apparently rides in a howdah affixed to the back of one of the larger species of woolly mammoth. Just like might have happened in some early South Asian cultures, if they’d had woolly mammoths… ---
**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, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/104 "2015-01-27T02:24:04Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Today Rockwell is considered a great artist because modern audiences don’t have a bias against illustrators. A “great” artist? Please provide a citation that is not from my almost-an-art-historian wife. 😃 Now, Pyle, and to a lesser extent NC Wyeth, is great, by my uninformed lights. But that’s a different thread. This is the one where I can dis Tolkien without it being threadshitting. ---
**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, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/105 "2015-01-27T02:35:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > [This article](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3935561.stm) So was the much-cited CS Lewis “review” a shill piece commissioned by the publisher, or one requested by a friend? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/106 "2015-01-27T03:48:27Z")
> [@Subterraneanus](#): > > Good grief, _no_. _Lolita_ is brilliant. _LOTR_ is _Beowulf_ for children. > > And who cares how many books sold, other than the Tolkiens and Nabokovs? It’s not a matter of “caring” but sales are an indicator of the number of people who like the book. I suspect that isn’t important to you (nor should it be, necessarily) but it’s probably, when ranking the worth of a book, far more important that your opinion, taken on its own. As to _Beowolf_, it’s dreck. It’s important only because its old. If it were introduced into the modern world simply as a story on its own merits, it wouldn’t be worth a passing glance. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > As such, those books are often held in great esteem throughout adulthood, having gained value in a way not replicable by those who read them for the first time after having experience with books that tackled the full complications of life, whether purely literary or in forms of genre. IME very little art tackles the full complications of life. However, if what a work of art tackles is what one is interested in, then one regards it as tackling the full complications of life. IME, many literary people use “the full complications of life” as a euphemism for “human interaction”. Those same literary people would die of starvation if they had to open a tin of beans or fight off a particularly grumpy bunny rabbit. You like to throw around the Tolkien “cult” thing. It’s a nice way to pre-emptively dismiss the validity of the views of those who enjoy Tolkien. It implies they can’t think for themselves, and their view are the product of brainwashing rather than clear independent thought. As I understand it a key element distinguishing a “cult” is that cults tend to cut their members off from those outside the cult by various means. I don’t know that those who like Tolkien do that very much. I don’t see them drawing sharp lines around Tolkien and refusing to believe anything else is any good. But lovers of "fine literature? Whelp, that sort of behaviour is pretty much par for the course, for them. > [@MrAtoz](#): > > It’s funny that **YogSosoth** should mention the multiple names. Here’s a passage that I’ve quoted before, as a particularly infamous example of Tolkien’s challenging prose Have you read Hilary Mantel’s two Booker winning novels? Tolkien’s characters are pictures of eloquence by comparison. Imagine yourself standing in front of a mountain range explaining the landforms to someone, and read the passage you quote out loud, with gestures. It’s a well written passage that is highly evocative of exactly how someone in that situation talks. ---
**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 27, 2015, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/107 "2015-01-27T04:04:29Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > IME very little art tackles the full complications of life. However, if what a work of art tackles is what one is interested in, then one regards it as tackling the full complications of life. > > IME, many literary people use “the full complications of life” as a euphemism for “human interaction”. Those same literary people would die of starvation if they had to open a tin of beans or fight off a particularly grumpy bunny rabbit. > > You like to throw around the Tolkien “cult” thing. It’s a nice way to pre-emptively dismiss the validity of the views of those who enjoy Tolkien. It implies they can’t think for themselves, and their view are the product of brainwashing rather than clear independent thought. > > As I understand it a key element distinguishing a “cult” is that cults tend to cut their members off from those outside the cult by various means. I don’t know that those who like Tolkien do that very much. I don’t see them drawing sharp lines around Tolkien and refusing to believe anything else is any good. But lovers of "fine literature? Whelp, that sort of behaviour is pretty much par for the course, for them. I used “cult” because I was quoting Brian Aldiss. You do a fine job of pre-emptively misunderstanding whatever possible meaning he could have by it. IME, SF writers are fairly proud of their lack of effeteness and love to posture about how different they are from academics or literary writers. Of course, most of those same posers are libertarians, so anything else that might dribble from their mouths is immediately suspect. That first paragraph, however, might have the germ of saying something interesting if you had some encouragement to expand on it. Please do so. ---
**Author:** ![MrAtoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MrAtoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAtoz)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/108 "2015-01-27T04:06:58Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Imagine yourself standing in front of a mountain range explaining the landforms to someone, and read the passage you quote out loud, with gestures. It’s a well written passage that is highly evocative of exactly how someone in that situation talks. Sorry, but with all due respect to Tolkien (whose work, as I said, I do admire), I can’t imagine anyone talking like that. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/109 "2015-01-27T04:18:04Z")
> [@MrAtoz](#): > > Sorry, but with all due respect to Tolkien (whose work, as I said, I do admire), I can’t imagine anyone talking like that. Not precisely, because it’s supposed to be written by someone who speaks in a way we would find archaic. But people aren’t actually very eloquent. They don’t speak in neat sentences, and they are often not very clear. Much (most, actually) communication is non-verbal. Your initial criticism was that from the passage you can’t tell how many things are being described. If I was standing in front of a mountain range pointing out the various peaks to some visitors - particularly if I was (say) an Australian aborigine and they were European - I would sound _exactly_ like that passage. Because I would be _pointing at each_ as I rattled off the European and the Aborginal names. ---
**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 27, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/110 "2015-01-27T04:25:03Z")
> [@MrAtoz](#): > > Sorry, but with all due respect to Tolkien (whose work, as I said, I do admire), I can’t imagine anyone talking like that. “Over there is New York, the Big Apple and the City That Never Sleeps, which was originally called New Amsterdam, and is sometimes known as Gotham.” ---
**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, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/111 "2015-01-27T04:29:19Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > IME, SF writers are fairly proud of their lack of effeteness and love to posture about how different they are from academics or literary writers. Of course, most of those same posers are libertarians, so anything else that might dribble from their mouths is immediately suspect. Now you’re asking for it! ---
**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, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/112 "2015-01-27T06:16:17Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > This is a very good point. The rise in Rockwell’s reputation would have stunned art critics in the 1950s as much as the thought that Tolkien would be spoken of in the same sentence as, say, Nabokov would have gobsmacked literary critics. (I’ve been to the Rockwell Museum and studied how he built stories into his magazine covers; he’s amazingly impressive technically and his subject range was far larger than his Saturday Evening Post covers suggested.) Who is directly comparing Tolkien with Nabokov? They are different art forms that share the same tools. Can’t they both be great literature in their own way? Comparing Tolkien to Nabokov would be like comparing Rockwell to Pollock and concluding one is rubbish and the other a genius. ---
**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, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/113 "2015-01-27T06:21:09Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > A “great” artist? Please provide a citation that is not from my almost-an-art-historian wife. 😃 The best I could find with a short amount of searching [is this one](http://www.academia.edu/164420/Complicating_Simplicity_An_examination_of_Norman_Rockwell_Pictures_for_the_American_People.), which includes a discussion of critics reaction to a traveling Rockwell show. I have a good friend who is a professor of art history and graphic design and we have talked about Rockwell’s revival. You mentioned Wyeth; he, too, was looked down upon by contemporary critics as being a populist. He wasn’t as well-known as Rockwell so he didn’t attract as much critical attention. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/114 "2015-01-27T07:58:36Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I used “cult” because I was quoting Brian Aldiss. You do a fine job of pre-emptively misunderstanding whatever possible meaning he could have by it. > > IME, SF writers are fairly proud of their lack of effeteness and love to posture about how different they are from academics or literary writers. Of course, most of those same posers are libertarians, so anything else that might dribble from their mouths is immediately suspect. > > That first paragraph, however, might have the germ of saying something interesting if you had some encouragement to expand on it. Please do so. **Exapno** you need to start talking straight, frankly. I’m seeing a distinct pattern in this thread of you stating things like they represent your view, but then resorting to the “hey, I’m just relaying others’ opinions” when called out. In two of your posts you have referred to the “cult” of Tolkien like you thought it was a useful characterisation, but _now_ you’re just quoting Aldiss. I’m not pre-emptively misunderstanding, what I’m doing is arriving at a view that you/Aldiss are I think quite deliberately using a perjorative term, well aware that it has highly negative connotations beyond whatever supposedly restricted meaning you/Aldiss are using, and I’m throwing such snideness back at you. I probably over-did the macho references in the second paragraph of my post under reply, but that wasn’t my intention: most writers concentrate on something and if they are concentrating (as an example) primarily on human interaction, they are probably not dealing much if at all with one or more other topics such as (for example) survival or war or technology. The point being that a claim that adult fiction (as opposed to alleged kid’s stuff") tackles “the full complications of life” is a hellava claim, and my experience is that little if any fiction could successfully make it. You ask me to expand my first paragraph but really, if something needs expanding its the view that adult fiction tackles the full complications of life. You should provide the examples of adult fiction that does that. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/115 "2015-01-27T08:02:26Z")
And in fact you should do more than provide isolated examples; if it’s a key characteristic of “kid’s stuff” that it fails to tackle “the full complications of life” then you should be able to demonstrate that _as a general rule_ adult fiction _does_ tackle the full complications of life. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/116 "2015-01-27T14:02:00Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > 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. Tolkien wrote many things - but he is best known for the LOTR. Or os it your contention that any author who ever wrote a children’s book is automatically a “children’s author”? As you know, Peake also wrote children’s lit - before he wrote Gormengast. > [@](#): > > 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. Actually, when it was first published, Titus Groan was a critical sensation. It is referenced here: > **[Mervyn Peake Biography - Fantasy Book Review](https://www.fantasybookreview.co.uk/Mervyn-Peake/biography.html)** > > Mervyn Peake was born in 1911 in Kuling, Central Southern China, where his father was a medical missionary. Within a year, th \[...\] > [@](#): > > Titus Groan, the first novel in a trilogy, appeared in 1946. Its author, Mervyn Peake, was then thirty-five. Critical response to the book was very favourable, in some instances ecstatic. Now, everyone who has studied mid-century British fantasy knows that there are three really big names that stand out from that time: Tolkien, CS Lewis, and Peake. All three wrote “kiddy lit” as well as serious, adult works. Lewis is far better known for his Narnia books, Peake is far better known for his adult works (Gormengast trilogy), and Tolkien is far better known for LoTR - although his kids book is of course set in the same universe and shares plot elements. > [@](#): > > 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. 😃 Well, I can’t argue with that. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/117 "2015-01-27T14:42:10Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > Yes. If you missed that, you aren’t reading what he has been writing. He’s said _explicitly that_ in at least three posts, starting with this one: > “used by those in the field” would indicate he is using terms of art. It does not matter what _you_ would call the field; he’s talking using the terminology of people who analyze the field of literature, which needs to be more precise for their discussions. > > Look at it this way: he’s categorizing in terms of categories and subcategories. There’s “science-fiction/science-fiction” and “science-fiction/fantasy” and whatever else. > > If he were a zoologist or biologist talking about zebras, he’d want to make sure he’s talking about _zebra zebra_\*, so an audience of zoologists/biologists don’t mistake which precise subspecies he’s talking about. > > The problem here is, that if a zoologist or biologist waltzed into a Cafe Society thread about zebras, it wouldn’t really matter to everyone else if he’s talking about a literate _zebra zebra_ or _zebra quagga_\* – all anyone reading in Cafe Society would need to know is whether he’s referring to 'doper **Zebra** or an actual stripey equine. > > - or, probably more precisely _quagga zebra_, I think > \*\* reverse as needed for pedantry > edit: well, looks like they _did_ move all the subspecies under _Equus quagga_ except for the Mountain Zebras. huh. It is not the case that there is widespread acceptance of a scientific labelling convention for genres of books like that for species. The argument, apparently, is that when Tolkien was writing there was no such thing as “fantasy” as a broad category - as both works of what we now call “fantasy” and works that we now call “scence fiction” were published in the same, “science fiction” pulps. From a quote upthread: > [@](#): > > I use science fiction in the common generic sense used by those in the field so it includes all varieties and genres including fantasy. There once was a separate fantasy tradition that Tolkien was hewing to, but that was the province of a tiny few specialists. Fantasy and science fiction normally appeared in the same venues by the time Tolkien put out The Hobbit and were completely melded by the time of LotR. The early Astounding published Lovecraft and Weird Tales published Edward Hamilton. Robert Heinlein appeared simultaneously in Astounding and Unknown and at that time both were edited by John W. Campbell. Fantasy Press published nothing but science fiction and the Avon Fantasy Reader started its first issue with Murray Leinster. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction was the most successful post-war magazine. However, when you actually examine these claims, they prove the exact opposite of what is claimed: in fact, “fantasy” and “science fiction” were well-seperated back in the 1940s. Take this pulp for example, referenced in the above quote: > **[The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magazine_of_Fantasy_%26_Science_Fiction)** > > The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction (usually referred to as F&SF) is a U.S. fantasy and science-fiction magazine, first published in 1949 by Mystery House, a subsidiary of Lawrence Spivak's Mercury Press. Editors Anthony Boucher and J. Francis McComas had approached Spivak in the mid-1940s about creating a fantasy companion to Spivak's existing mystery title, Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine. The first issue was titled The Magazine of Fantasy, but the decision was quickly made to include... Note the title: “The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction”. How is this proof that the title “science fiction” is (or was) well-known as covering both? The wiki (I know, not the best source, but still) gives the history of the title as follows: > [@](#): > > It began as The Magazine of Fantasy (Fall 1949), with Anthony Boucher and J. Francis McComas as editors. To encompass the full spectrum of speculative fiction, the title expanded into The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction with the second issue. [Emphasis] It evolved into a solidly science-fiction magazine, but such were not its origins - it was originally going to be a magazine entitled “Fantasy and Horror”: > [@](#): > > In actuality, four years passed as Boucher and McComas attempted to launch their magazine of fantasy and supernatural stories. They initially proposed to Fred Dannay the notion of a sister publication for Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine. Dannay recommended them to Spivak. In January 1946, Boucher and McComas went to New York and met with Spivak, who suggested they assemble the contents for a test issue. Returning to California, they submitted their outline on March 11, 1946, resulting in a letter of agreement that August. > > In September 1947, Joseph Ferman, the general manager of Mercury Publications, requested the complete material for the experimental issue to be titled Fantasy and Horror (subtitled A Magazine of Weird and Fantastic Stories). Boucher and McComas delivered this the following month. Studying sales figures of other digest-size magazines, Ferman postponed publication. A full year passed before he reactivated the project in February 1949, suggesting the addition of a science fiction story. Three months later, Ferman came up with the new title, The Magazine of Fantasy. On October 6, 1949, the magazine was introduced with a big splash during an invitational luncheon at the Waldorf-Astoria with Basil Rathbone as the master of ceremonies. So the genres were, clearly, established back in the 1940s. It clearly wasn’t a “literary norm” to refer to both fantasy and science fiction as “science fiction” at the time, and it clearly isn’t a “literary norm” to refer to them both as “science fiction” now. So when, and by whom, was this general use of the language established? The general term _sometimes_ used by academic writers to cover both was “speculative fiction” (invented by Heinlein in 1941), not “science fiction”. > [@](#): > > Well? What is it? You don’t really know do you? Well that’s OK, because then there would be little point in writing this article. > > Speculative fiction is a term, attributed to Robert Heinlein in 1941, that has come to be used to collectively describe works in the genres of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror. [emphasis] > **[What is Speculative Fiction? - Articles That Never Die (GreenTentacles)](http://www.greententacles.com/articles/5/26/)** > > As a part of our ongoing mission, with the help of others in the speculative fiction industry, we try to define the genre, in this living article... I haven’t found a single source that claims that “science fiction” covers all these genres, specifically “fantasy” and “science fiction”, but of course, I am happy to stand corrected - with actual sources. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/118 "2015-01-27T15:01:20Z")
Also note that even the term “speculative fiction” was once thought, by its creator, as excluding fantasy (it has since transformed into covering both). > [@](#): > > Speculative fiction is not fantasy fiction, as it rules out the use of anything as material which violates established scientific fact, laws of nature, call it what you will, i.e., it must [be] possible to the universe as we know it. Thus, Wind in the Willows is fantasy, but the much more incredible extravaganzas of Dr. Olaf Stapledon are speculative fiction—science fiction. 1949 R. A. Heinlein Let. 4 Mar. in R. A. Heinlein & V. Heinlein Grumbles from Grave (1990) 49 > **[Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction: speculative fiction](https://sfdictionary.com/view/438)** > > Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Clearly, the genres existed then (as they do now). ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/119 "2015-01-27T15:46:41Z")
There is no work of art, no novel, no painting, no composition, no poem, no opera, no film that is so universally loved and critically acclaimed that some pretentious ninny won’t pillory it and feel proud of him or herself for doing so. “Beowulf sucks!” “Charles Dickens was a hack!” “Shakespeare is SO overrated!” “Citizen Kane is boring and terrible!” “Classical Music sucks!” There should be an Internet law meme for this, something akin to Godwin’s Law. As a riposte to the silliness in this thread, I’ll leave here [W.H. Auden’s NY Times review](http://www.nytimes.com/1956/01/22/books/tolkien-king.html?_r=0) of _The Lord of the Rings_ from 1956.\* Also, an interesting [New Yorker article from 2012](http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/auden-and-elvish) which pertains to Auden’s review and also to some of the accusations brought up in this thread. Suffice it to say, I agree with Auden, and not the hooligans who think its fun to try to trash a literary masterpiece. The _Lord of the Rings_ **is** enjoyed by adults, including those with refined literary tastes. There is no masterpiece that can’t be attacked, even legitimately, from some angle or another. Humans are flawed and so are their creations. I’m not saying Tolkien is above criticism, hardly. But much of the “criticism” in this thread rises no higher than the “this thing I didn’t enjoy sucks!” variety. But worse, it goes further by attacking those who, honestly and from a sophisticated literary point of view, do enjoy it. The _Lord of the Rings_ is **not** “Beowulf for children.” The last point I’ll make is who gives a crap about past critics thought of something? Seriously. There are heaps of examples of work in the past that were trashed by contemporary critics but are much loved now, critics and the people alike! \*Apologies if someone else already posted this, but I didn’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![MrAtoz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MrAtoz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrAtoz)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676/120 "2015-01-27T16:52:26Z")
> [@Lightray](#): > > “Over there is New York, the Big Apple and the City That Never Sleeps, which was originally called New Amsterdam, and is sometimes known as Gotham.” Sounds like a character in a sitcom, the joke being that he’s unbearably long-winded and can’t resist giving every synonym he knows in every situation. 🙂 I’m honestly not trying to be a pain about it, but it really does kind of astound me that people can make heads or tails of the passage I quoted. I really, honestly did read it over three or four times the first time I came across it, and I really, honestly never did manage to figure out exactly how many places were being described. And I’ve read Joyce, so I’m no stranger to confusing prose. So this has been helpful in that regard, if nothing else. But it’s one hiccup in a long novel that I otherwise found pleasant enough, although as I said, it will probably never be the world-changing read for me that it’s been for so many other folks. Don’t get me started on Tom Bombadil, though! 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tolkien-criticism/710676.md?page=7)