New Republic Article

[The Mirrorball Man]

Originally posted by Mister Underhill:
Anyway, it shouldn’t be puzzling that fans who visit a board dedicated to the discussion of Tolkien’s works should spring to his defense with strong rebuttals of an analysis that attacks his works with provocative phrases like “emotionally impoverished” and “anemic” and (in a fit of critical rapture, presumably) declares that LotR’s main Hobbit characters and “the rest of Middle-earth, too” have no “balls”.

I wasn't expecting anybody to agree with Jenkyns, but I thought that more people here would be willing to see his analysis as a point of view worthy of respect, and would try to contradict his arguments with other arguments.

Instead, what I've seen is (painted in broad strokes for the sake of demonstration): "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, I've been reading Tolkien's works for years and they're the best books I've ever read." This kind of rebuttal isn't written on the same level as Jenkyns' article, and is completely ineffective in proving him wrong. It's just an emotional reaction. Surely, if Tolkien is so popular, there must be a reason? Why not elaborate on that?

For example, I agree with Jenkyns that Tolkien's works are not very convincing as a mythology. In my opinion, the Professor failed to address some important aspects of human life, probably because he wasn't very interested in them. I think, however, that the mythological aspect of Tolkien's books is not the most pertinent, and certainly not the most important, and that this failure is not relevant in the grand scheme of things. Tolkien didn't manage to create a new mythology, but he created a new world, and this achievement in itself is praiseworthy.