[KayQy]

Well, I pretty much agree with other people's responses, so instead of repeating what's already been said, I'll just slam trolls for a bit. Been needing a place to do that.

My problem with critics is that they're so convinced that they're right. He spends most of his review of one book slamming another, then tries to excuse it at the end by saying that's the only way to refute the ambitious title of the first.

He's entitled to his opinion, of course, everyone is. But I don't agree with his opinion. I don't think I ever will. The very passages and aspects of LotR that he cited as weak are some of my favorite parts of the novel. Doesn't do much for his argument if I'm once again in rapture over the clear vision of the Withywindle and unable to heed its alleged "detractions". And every time he describes the (derogatory) allusions that come to his mind, I can't help but think, "What the heck is he talking about? That has nothing to do with it!"

His most reasonable criticisms are of Shippey, the guy he's supposed to be writing about (mostly against his all-or-nothing stance), but they're hiding amongst trivializing comments about Tolkien. Isn't there a name for the fallacy of saying one thing is bad, so another must be bad as well?

From whatever dull, flat point of view he's taking, J is probably right. Not my point of view. When it comes to critics, people seem to think there's only one point of view, and the critic is either right or wrong. Always. I guess I mainly hate the idea of their supposed superiority.

Dang, I'm out of time and I haven't organized my ranting yet. At least I know never to consult the New Republic to see if I'll like something.