There seem to be two main dimensions to the 'boy's own' criticism. One is an objection, or down-grading, of literature focussed (superficially) on action and adventure as opposed to character. The 'novel of sentiment' is, of course, highyl abberant in the histoy of literature, and some modern scholars feel that it is now too much neglected, and that(for example) it makes it harder for boys to become engaged in literature. LOTR is a great adventure story, albeit one imbued with ethical and modern purpose, and written with great literary skill. The other dimension is, of course, sex (to put it bluntly). Even for someone of his generation,Tolkien was wary in the extreme of the role of passion (as opposed to love) and it, essentially, has no place in his created world. He creates races like dwarfs, ents and even elves where the sex-drive is attentuated or absent altogether. Other races (orcs and trolls, for example) appear to have no means ot reproduction, since there's not even a suggestion of females among them. There is no goddess of love in his pantheon. All of this may encourage the homosocial elements in his story to topple over into homoeroticism, to some readers - greatly encouraged by the films! (this seems unproblematic to me). It is possible to made a positive point of this: that the Ring and it's influence is having a deadening affect on Middle-earth - hence the explosion of fecundity once it has gone - but still, this is a missing element in Tolkien's world that has to be accepted. And this is fair enough, given that most of 19th and 20th century literature is fixated on passion, however sublimated.
|