New Republic Article

[Mister Underhill]

TMM wrote: I think he failed, yes.

Just as a side note, while paging through Letters yesterday for info on another topic, I came across the letter regarding JRRT’s mythological ambitions. Seems he realized that his goal was pie-in-the-sky:

Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story -- the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country.

Whatever we may think about Jenkyns, I don't think that his ambition in writing this little article was to be remembered as one of the giants of the 21st Century.

Can’t argue with you there. His ambition seems to have been to earn a quick, lazy buck with some tabloid-style author-bashing. You’ll forgive me if I don’t feel inclined to show his opinions much respect.

And once again, Hermann Melville is a victim of automatic censorship.

Poor Hermie. I think he’ll shake it off. It’s interesting that you raise Moby D, though. Shall we criticize Melville for failing to provide us with an insightful meditation on the Nature of True Evil? I don’t think so, anymore than we should criticize JRRT for the same supposed deficiency in his work. It explores questions of evil according to its measure and no more. It’s not meant to be a meditation on the Nature of True Evil any more than Moby D is. The criticism here reveals more about the critic and what he’s interested in than about a deficiency in LotR.