New Republic Article

[Thingol]

I was never defending the opinion that The Lord of the Rings is the best book of the century, Mirrorball Man. I believe that all such distinctions are meaningless, it is impossible to claim that one person’s opinion of a book, or almost anything else for that matter, is any better or worse than another person’s opinion. My point was that Mr. Jenkyns' criticism was fundamentally incorrect. Mr. Jenkyns main criticism of Tolkien was that his story and characters are not believable nor developed enough. My argument is that Tolkien’s themes are just as complex as any other author out there and the fact that his character’s do not grow in the modern sense of the word, does not mean that they are any less extraordinary. The modern sense of a sexual or spiritual enlightenment has no place in Middle Earth. Frodo rejecting the existence of Illuvitar at the end of the book because so much suffering is allowed to occur is simply inappropriate. As for Mr. Jenkyns other criticisms that Tolkien’s language is not complex and that there is too much superfluous imagery, that is just wrong. Tolkien created two of his own languages for Pete’s sake. I have just finished rereading The Siege of Gondor and I have never read any other book that has such beautiful and powerful imagery in it. I’ve read it 7 times now and I still get chills down my spine when the Witch King rides under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed.