Tophat665

I didn't see the hate. I saw some people had confused reality with what's real. That there is a large contingent of people who automatically dismiss Fantasy and Science Fiction (and horror) as juvenile or sub-par by nature is unfortunate, and that they form the entire literary establishment is truely lamentable, but it seems transparently obvious to me that Tolkien had Hemmingway and Faulkner - at least - beat by any meaningful measure, and at some point, if one reads a fair amount of literary criticism, it would become pretty obvious that most critics have entirely missed the points of reading: 1) does it make an effective point, 2) is the point made worth making, 3) does the experience of reading involve the reader (Is it entertaining, or at least interesting) 4) is it technically well written 5) does it have scope and imagination worth noting.

I think that it's that last bit (which is probably a subset of "interesting") that gets short shrift from people who, if they had imagination, would be authors instead of critics.

The only thing one can justly criticize Tolkien for is getting bogged down in detail and imagery, yet a large part of the worth of his books is that the imagery and the detail contribute a sense of verisimilitude that would, particularly in the 70's when heroic fantasy hadn't really come into it's own, otherwise be lacking (and can be ignored by writers of regular fiction - common knowledge being, well, common).

That said, if people want to disdain Tolkien, well, everyone is entitled to hold the wrong opinion.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.