[Bêthberry]

I had happened upon that Globe review before seeing davem's link. It seems to take Tolkien's own view of his tales, that they are not translatable into celuloid dreams. Clearly, this is someone who relishes the unique aspects of Tolkien's craft--how very apt to acknowledge this power with the phrase Tolkien old-speak. He knows something about Old English kennings methinks and makes me all the more interested in reading the book.

I suppose another reason why I like the review is that it doesn't try to mince words and excuse Tolkien from the failure of other critics to appreciate his work. For instance, I think Tolkien's "throwing out of names, places and events with little or no explanation" is quite different from most authors' styles--nothing at all like the Tolstoy, Cervantes and Homer that davem mentions--and is a challenge to readers, a deliberate challenge. First of all, said names and places derive from Tolkien's invented languages and don't look or necessarily sound like languages readers are readily familiar with. They are a deliberate way the secondary world is differentiated from the Primary World. If readers don't have the delight in word play, they won't have patience to suss this out. Second, Tolkien's names suggest the nature of historical change of language, something which the novel was not prepared to do in its early forms. (I can't say how this would relate to Homer as I don't know much at all about the intimate use of language he--or the poets--used.) How many other writers took for their subject the effects of linguistic change?

So I don't think it's a double standard as such. I think it's a failure to recognise Tolkien's very rare and unique habits as a writer. Books, they say, create their own readers. How very true in Tolkien's case.

Of course, you must realise I write this not yet having read CoH.