You think you've read drivel? You haven't read drivel until you've read this

[Zigûr]

The article isn't terribly well-supported, as Huinseron has said, and I think it's couched in rather sensationalist terms, but I don't think the point it makes is entirely unreasonable – or rather, to again agree with Huinseron, whatever Morrison is saying in the essay about which this article was written sounds rather more substantial than this article itself.

I do think the implication that "The Monsters and the Critics" still dominates Beowulf isn't right, though; I haven't studied it for a long time, but I consistently get the impression that most contemporary scholars of Beowulf consider Professor Tolkien's reading to be very idiosyncratic and rather outdated. There have been decades and decades of scholarship since "The Monsters and the Critics" came out. In my university studies it was only read as one among many interpretations, and not one which was afforded much attention in particular.