LOTR vs. Scholars, or Academics Can Kiss My As-taldo.

[Aiwendil]

Rimbaud wrote:

My above point had been intended, gently (failed on all points), to point out that many appreciators of this novel shy unnecessarily from criticism of the text.

I agree. I think that criticism of the text is a very good thing.

Lush wrote:

There is a difference between insisting that a work of literature be taken seriously by literature scholars, and insisting that the said work of literature is flawless.

Certainly. But there is also a difference between arguing that the work is flawed and insisting that it is so. My point was that critics who insist that, for example, the prose is poor in places, are just as bad as fans who insist that it is perfect. Also that it is valid to argue that the work is without serious flaw but not to insist upon that.

I would rather have said to Rimbaud, let us examine what you perceive are inconsistencies, and what I call purple prose, to try to understand the legitimacy of our responses. When the response is, 'but it's all great to me', real discussion stops.

Agreed; but you still need to leave room for the argument that that there are no sections of 'purple prose', or that they are not to the detriment of the work. To insist that they are (and that your analysis of them is unquestionably correct) would be as much of a mistake as simply insisting that they are not.