Funny. I thought the Anthony Horowitz guy had a point.
Let me state my opinion: Tolkien's works is in the Art for Art's Sake side of the tug-of-war, Horowitz's more in the Social Art. And Tolkien wrote
fantasy (there are fantasies and magic stories with Social context too, take Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but I don't think Tolkien). Makes a lot of difference for me.
In literature, especially in lit with intended social context, racism, sexism, and all those -isms must never be overlooked. Unless you want to be captured, especially in a country ruled by some ultra-sensitive ruler (take the Philippines during Marcos's era, where everything with Socialist agenda was banned), you have to be pretty careful. Horowitz's work is trying to play safe.
Not that I'm saying the latter is the better writer. I do think he's incompetent (sorry for the harsh word, we lit majors use this at times) because if he can't think of a way to create his villain, he's lost. But Tolkien had a relatively easier time, as you lot say, because it's fantasy, it's the tra-la-la stuff in his mind.
Oh God. Writer's block again for me. So let me go down to my point: it's not easy writing lit. Be not too harsh on him, and don't compare him to Tolkien, they're not on the same genre or ground.
