[Aiwendil]

I wasn’t misunderstanding your use of the word “you”, I was responding as one of those individuals who does not agree with the premise.

Very well.

I was not questioning the RIGHT to criticize. I was questioning the QUALITY of the criticism.

I see. Still, I don't think the quality of the criticism of a published author is necessarily superior to that of anyone else. In fact, in the case where an author is criticizing his or her own work, it is probably less valid.

Anyone on earth can have an opinion, just some are better formed opinions than others. I felt it was self-righteous “Tolkienism” if you will to be hard on authors for being supposed “parrots” of Tolkien.

I have (I think) a well formed opinion that certain authors are, in many ways, "parrots" of Tolkien. I don't see anything self-righteous about that, despite the fact that I have never published a word. I would not suppose that Robert Jordan's appraisal of his own work is superior to mine; it is actually probably inferior, because it is more subjective. And I am sure that there are other published authors who would agree with me - Tom Shippey, for instance.

If that is what comes across in my statement I apologize.

I apologize for misconstruing your argument.

I simply thought it interesting that someone who has sold thousands of books, and apparently must have some kind of grasp on what it takes to write something other people will like to read, gets castigated by those who, in all likelihood, have far less a clue.

But certainly each individual who appraises his work has a better idea than Jordan does of what that individual finds appealing. Suppose person A reads book X by author Z. We can evaluate the situation from two perspectives: 1. The quality of art is entirely subjective. In this case, it is meaningless to say that person A's judgement of book X is either inferior or superior to anyone else's, including author Z's. A knows better than anyone how good book X is to A. Z may have produced X in such a way that it appeals to a great number of people, but this has no bearing on how good it is to A. 2. There is something objective about art. Nonetheless, there is obviously disagreement concerning exactly what makes good art. Thus, each person has his or her own model of "good art" (whether well formulated or not). A reads X. Now, regardless of popular opinion or of the opinion of Z, A must evaluate X according to his or her own theory of art. This theory may be incorrect, but the fact remains that it is A's best estimation of the truth. Therefore, A's opinion concerning X will, and should, be based on A's theory of good art - that is, A's best understanding of what good art is.

guess I just don’t see how criticisms of art can ever be objective (i.e. one being better than another). 2+2 = 4 is objective. “My painting of the Sistine Chapel is better than yours because I used cubism to emphasize the architecture” is not objective to my mind. Anything someone could say about one work of art over another may not apply for someone else.

It's interesting that you take this subjective view. It seems to me that this view contradicts your assertion that one person's criticism can be objectively better than someone else's.

I think a lot of people would agree with you about art being subjective. Here's an extreme example that would convince some people that it is objective: suppose we compare The Iliad with The Cat in the Hat, or the Sistine Chapel with a stick figure I drew when I was five. If you really think that art is subjective, you are compelled to say that in neither case is the former work superior to the latter. If I claim that the stick figure is better than the Sistine Chapel, you can't argue; in fact, you must agree that the stick figure is better, for me. This seems somewhat absurd, though it is actually a workable position. I don't really care which view you subscribe to; the point is, people who think that art is objective do actually have a decent argument.

I think JRRT would be proud of the genre he helped to bring into the modern time.

I think he would be gratified that his work was so influential. I also think, however, that he would have disliked a good deal of it, if not most of it. Nonetheless, I agree that there is some decent modern fantasy.