'Spun Candy' anyone?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bb

I find absolute adoration of Tolkien--or of any writer--tedious and counterproductive in terms of helping me appreciate the writer.

Amen to that. I thoroughly agree, and I also find it counterproductive in terms of helping me to appreciate the writer's works. The more I hear how perfect and immaculate Tolkien was as a writer, the less inclined I am to delve into his tales again. He remains my favourite author, and I know that I will find myself once more immersed in his works when I do pick them up, but his works are not, in my eyes at least, above criticism. That's why it is refreshing, for once, to read an intelligent and thought-provoking critique of his style (as exemplified, in my view, by Moorcock's essay).

While there are some very well-expressed arguments made here against Pullman’s position, and I have no problem with that, there is also a slight undertone of “how dare he criticise Tolkien?”, an approach which automatically reacts against him simply because he does so. Fact is that there are an awful lot of people who do not respond to Tolkien’s works in the way that we do, and there is nothing wrong with that. To react against Pullman simply on the basis that he dislikes Tolkien, or dares to criticise him, or holds a different philosophical position from him (or you) is to make the same mistake that both Pullman and Moorcock make in assuming that their way is the “best”.