This is slightly off topic, but I was reading A Civil Affair by Bujold last night and her protagionst's Miles Vorkosian, a stunted nobl, details his early military nexperience cleaning drains.
That immediately set to mind GRR Martin's Tyrion Lannister mentioning his experiences cleaning the drains of Casterly Rock.
It amazes me how much authors crib off other writers, but I suspose it is inevitable. Originality is rare. Its how you use past references which is key.
The problem with Tolkien is that a lot of hacks used him as a blueprint without understanding what was special about LOTR.
what was special about LOTR.
You mean, other than the fact that JRRT could write 10,000 pages about annoying hobbits doing nothing but whining, and somehow still sell books?
I loved the books when I was 10. Tried to re-read them after the movies came out, and failed, specifically because of the whining. Sure, it's well-disguised, stiff-lipped, narrator-driven (rather than directly-chararacter-quoted) whining, but whining nonetheless!
Kirth, I'd sure like to see some examples of that narrator driven hobbit-whining. I'm sure there is some, heck even Gandalf whined a few times in the thousand-odd pages of the books. But I'm having trouble with specifics so it would help to have a few.
Well, some OTHER example than Frodo whining "why did the ring come to me" which was more of a narrative device for Gandalf to give his little speech on the need to do what we can with the lives we have. SOMEBODY had to whine to get that speech set up, I suppose it could have been Gimli...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what was special about LOTR.You mean, other than the fact that JRRT could write 10,000 pages about annoying hobbits doing nothing but whining, and somehow still sell books?
If that's all you got out of LotR, I feel especially sorry for you.
Beside the point; I was rebutting the assertion that Tolkien was somehow responsible for starting the whole "fantasy characters in a fantasy setting" thing, which is patently false on the face of it: the Norse mythology he himself referenced had fantasy characters in a fantasy setting.
Uh Kirth... for the Norse that was the real world. They didn't set out to consciously create a fantasy world like Tolkien. Theirs was the world (or series of worlds) in which they believed they lived.
Does anyone read "THUS BEGINS THE SEEMINGLY HOPELESS QUEST OF A SIMPLE MAN AGAINST THE GREATEST POWER OF EVIL THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN"
without a groan nowadays?
For the OP... yes. If it's well written. Most of the stuff written is mediocre or worse, no matter the genre of fantasy. Actually all writing for that matter. If it's well written there is a market. Larger or smaller based on current popular trends.
*edit* If by "highly derivative" you mean badly written, then no. Well, come to think of a number of popular works I've read lately... there probably is a market anyway.
Beside the point; I was rebutting the assertion that Tolkien was somehow responsible for starting the whole "fantasy characters in a fantasy setting" thing, which is patently false on the face of it: the Norse mythology he himself referenced had fantasy characters in a fantasy setting.
You seemed to have missed the part where I said "pre Tolkien almost always..." I did not say he was the first or only but perhaps I was not clear. Pre- Tolkien the vast majority of fantasy was as I described. Post Tolkien sees an explosion in the popularity of fantasy writing as well as the fantasy story set in a fantasy world. The very fact at we are discussing this issue is proof enough on who has been the biggest influence on modern fantasy. Ask the vast majority of people who Edison was and they will say that guy who invented the lightbulb. He may have been a great author, but who knows.
|
I loved the books when I was 10. Tried to re-read them after the movies came out, and failed, specifically because of the whining. Sure, it's well-disguised, stiff-lipped, narrator-driven (rather than directly-chararacter-quoted) whining, but whining nonetheless!
What book exactly were you reading? I don't want to get into a Tolkien-based punch-up that these things often devolve into, but I'm having problems wondering how you came to these conclusions (like, to be fair, a lot of your conclusions). Part of the point is that carrying the Ring is a burden and a temptation, so the denoument wouldn't actually work if they didn't mention it, say, once or twice. But this emo-fest you describe isn't the book I've read, I have to be honest.
This is slightly off topic, but I was reading A Civil Affair by Bujold last night and her protagionst's Miles Vorkosian, a stunted nobl, details his early military nexperience cleaning drains.
That immediately set to mind GRR Martin's Tyrion Lannister mentioning his experiences cleaning the drains of Casterly Rock.
It amazes me how much authors crib off other writers, but I suspose it is inevitable. Originality is rare. Its how you use past references which is key.
The problem with Tolkien is that a lot of hacks used him as a blueprint without understanding what was special about LOTR.
Never thought of it that way. Miles is quite a different character from Tyrion, of course, but still, it's an interesting catch. GRRM, for shame!
You think that's bad?
In Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere, there's a character called the Marquis de Carabass by everyone - this is not his real name since he took it from a fictitious nobleman in Puss in Boots.
In Ellen Kushner and Delia Sherman's The Fall of the King, gossip has it that the bastard daughter of the now deceased Mad Duke Tremontaine once robbed a certain Marquis de Carabass...
Read R Scott Bakker's Prince of NothingA poor, poor friend of mine did. He called it the Plot of Nothing. It did seem rather derivative and kinda carbon copied from a mix of the Bible and LotR. No, I haven't read it, so I am possibly harsh and unfair.Oh, there's plot- it's just highly uninteresting, and presented in an equally highly uninteresting way.
You aren't missing out. Learn from my mistakes.
Oh yes. That's more the summation my friend gave it. Prolific, but completely and utterly derivative and bland to boot. There was some joke we made based on an anagram of the "not-orcs"/bad guys but I can't remember what it was save that is was puerile, vulgar, related to anatomy or all three.
Prince of Thorns
For a minute I thought we were talking about the Dave Gross Golarion book, and kind of crossed my eyes at "wait what and Paizo is publishing this", but that's QUEEN of Thorns and this is completely different, thanks Google.
Uh Kirth... for the Norse that was the real world. They didn't set out to consciously create a fantasy world like Tolkien. Theirs was the world (or series of worlds) in which they believed they lived.
At first? Maybe so, for many of them. Later, when Snorri Sturlusson was popularizing it? Not so much, at that point. And I think 1223 still predates Tolkien a bit!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What book exactly were you reading?
Let me put it this way: I'm a Susanna Clarke fan-boy. I zipped through Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel in a couple of days, was disappointed it was so short, and wished it would never end. But when I read other reviews, I read inexplicable stuff like, "This book is waaaaaaaay too long! And it lags in the middle! No one can ever finish it because it's so booooooooring!" And, while my immediate reaction was to say, snarkily, "Please show me these boring parts, because they're not in the book I read!", it then occurred to me that other people actually did find them boring. Many of the parts I found intriguing and exciting? Others found them to be where the book "lags." And so on.
Same deal with Tolkien, only he has a lot more rabid fanboys, so it's considered OK to lambast anyone who doesn't really care for him. What you find "epically noble," I find "annoyingly self-righteous." What you find a "mythical story of a common man overcoming overwhelming odds," I found "A lot of pages whining about some hobbits, and how their life is soooooooooooooo haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard." I know you don't agree, Aubrey, but the difference is that I'm fine with that -- whereas you and Sebastrd seem to feel that it requires you to circle the wagons and dial the snark way up.
Actually I run into a lot more anti-Tolkienism than rabid fanboys. It seems to be in vogue to disparage LotR.
I also loved Strange & Norris. Brilliant book.
|
|
What book exactly were you reading?Let me put it this way: I'm a Susanna Clarke fan-boy. I zipped through Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel in a couple of days, was disappointed it was so short, and wished it would never end. But when I read other reviews, I read inexplicable stuff like, "This book is waaaaaaaay too long! And it lags in the middle! No one can ever finish it because it's so booooooooring!" And, while my immediate reaction was to say, snarkily, "Please show me these boring parts, because they're not in the book I read!", it then occurred to me that other people actually did find them boring. Many of the parts I found intruguing and exciting? Others found them to be where the book "lags." And so on.
Same deal with Tolkien, only he has a lot more rabid fanboys, so it's considered OK to lambast anyone who doesn't really care for him. What you find "epically noble," I find "annoyingly self-righteous." What you find a "mythical story of a common man overcoming overwhelming odds," I found "A lot of pages whining about some hobbits, and how their life is soooooooooooooo haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard." I know you don't agree, Aubrey, but the difference is that I'm fine with that -- whereas you and Sebastrd seem to feel that it requires you to circle the wagons and dial the snark way up.
You really have lost your sense of humour over the last few years.
|
|
Uh Kirth... for the Norse that was the real world. They didn't set out to consciously create a fantasy world like Tolkien. Theirs was the world (or series of worlds) in which they believed they lived.At first? Maybe so, for many of them. Later, when Snorri Sturlusson was popularizing it? Not so much, at that point. And I think 1223 still predates Tolkien a bit!
Because in 1223 no one believed in silly things like ghosts and fairies and elves and so on...
Because in 1223 no one believed in silly things like ghosts and fairies and elves and so on...
Because in 1223 Sturlusson explicitly stated, "These are not stories about real gods and so on, but they're still good stories." (Paraphrased for brevity.)
You really have lost your sense of humour over the last few years.
I read your prior post two or three times and I cannot for the life of me find what's funny or in jest about it. Explain please?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree wholeheartedly. Great worldbuilder, amazing linguist, very imaginative, just don't care for his storytelling style.
But when I mention that people tend to tell me I "don't get it" or "missed the point".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, how is it possible that you can't read your own post and recognize the hyperventilating, self-important, rabid overreaction that radiates like a blue supergiant star? I hope you used a tissue after that last post.
If anything, in today's culture, Tolkien fans are ridiculed and Tolkien himself is snickered at by the self-annointed intelligentsia. So you're in good company with your dismissal of Tokien's morality tale as "self-righteous."
But I'm pretty sure 100 years from now when the current faddish anti-Tolkien sentiment has run its course, Tolkien will still be the topping the lists of "best books ever written" and will still be the bar by which all other fantasy is measured. It is an interesting historical fact that Shakespeare and Mozart were considered by the "intelligentsia" of their time as slack-jawed hacks pandering to the unsophisticated tastes of the lower classes.
So you're in good company.
Regarding the Norse mythos, you need to understand that the region was under religious conversion from a pretty early time. Ninth century or so, depending on area. Christianity was making inroads, and doing well. So much of what was later recorded as Norse sagas were actually christian PR. Most famously, Trymskvida, where Thor dresses up as a woman. Politics weren't less cutthroat back then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree wholeheartedly. Great worldbuilder, amazing linguist, very imaginative, just don't care for his storytelling style.
But when I mention that people tend to tell me I "don't get it" or "missed the point".
Some of it is taste and comfort. Tolkien does not write with a typical fantasy or sci-fi writer's pace, rhythm or style. He writes more like a Melville or a Hawthorne. I know a lot of very smart, very discerning people who find Tolkien's style to be slow, long-winded, overly descriptive or even boring.
I think that's a shame, but I can understand it. I always wonder if those people read Steinbeck, Faulkner, Joyce or have read the classics like the Iliad and the Odyssey. And if so what they think about, for example, "Finnegan's Wake" or "A Tale of Two Cities."
Regarding the Norse mythos, you need to understand that the region was under religious conversion from a pretty early time. Ninth century or so, depending on area. Christianity was making inroads, and doing well. So much of what was later recorded as Norse sagas were actually christian PR. Most famously, Trymskvida, where Thor dresses up as a woman. Politics weren't less cutthroat back then.
Huh. Did not know that. I would like to learn more about this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a shame, but I can understand it. I always wonder if those people read Steinbeck, Faulkner, Joyce or have read the classics like the Iliad and the Odyssey. And if so what they think about, for example, "Finnegan's Wake" or "A Tale of Two Cities."
Finnegan's Wake is probably my least favorite book to ever exist that I have attempted to read. I got two pages in and the style had hit my tolerance point.
It is an interesting historical fact that Shakespeare and Mozart were considered by the "intelligentsia" of their time as slack-jawed hacks pandering to the unsophisticated tastes of the lower classes.
So you're in good company.
Every time I try to think of Kirth as an intellectual, I run into his favorite novel being The Bourne Ultimatum (or whatever.)
Anyway, it may be interesting, but I wonder if it's actually true that Shakespeare and Mozart were looked down upon by the intellectual snobs of their day.
First results of a quick google search:
"Soon after it [Hamlet] took the town by storm the Cambridge scholar and controversialist Gabriel Harvey (1552/3-1631)--an intellectual snob if ever there was one--scribbled in his copy of Chaucer's poems a note to the effect that 'The younger sort take much delight in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, but his Lucrece, and his tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, have it in them to please the wiser sort.'"
From Stanley Wells, Shakespeare and Co.
As for me, I like to think of myself as an intellectual snob. My favorite book is Voyage au bout de la nuit by Louis-Ferdinand Celine and I like Tolkien just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, in today's culture, Tolkien fans are ridiculed and Tolkien himself is snickered at by the self-annointed intelligentsia. So you're in good company with your dismissal of Tokien's morality tale as "self-righteous."
But I'm pretty sure 100 years from now when the current faddish anti-Tolkien sentiment has run its course,
My problem with this is the assumption that anyone who dislikes Tolkien dislikes it because it's the popular thing to hate right now. Frankly I couldn't care less what's popular or not. I dislike it because I don't care for the story, simple as that. 100 years from now, if I were to be alive then, I doubt my opinion would change, regardless of the cultural perspective.
Every time I try to think of Kirth as an intellectual, I run into his favorite novel being The Bourne Ultimatum (or whatever.)
The Glass Key, but close enough!
|
|
Because in 1223 no one believed in silly things like ghosts and fairies and elves and so on...Because in 1223 Sturlusson explicitly stated, "These are not stories about real gods and so on, but they're still good stories." (Paraphrased for brevity.)
Snorri Sturlsson was, I believe, a priest - certainly a Christian. So he would certainly have considered the Norse gods, which were being worshipped in many of the stories (they being written in the period when the Scandinavian countries were converting to Christianity) to be false. So he would definitiely have pointed out that they were false gods, as any good Christian of the period would, particularly as it would be in fairly recent memory (a few generations ago) that conversion would have taken place. But it is a leap to then say he was a pure rationalist who did not believe in anything like goblins, aftergangers and all of that stuff and only in matter in motion - he would much more likely have instead put it down to the influence of God and demons and devils. Given they were burning witches hundreds of years later I think your view is far too black and white and fairly ahistorical.
EDIT: And what Sissyl says.
But it is a leap to then say he was a pure rationalist who did not believe in anything like goblins, aftergangers and all of that stuff and only in matter in motion
Good thing I never said that!
...he would much more likely have instead put it down to the influence of God and demons and devils.
Which is an entirely different cosmology and set of supernatural beings -- i.e., Sturlusson was, in his mind, writing about fictional beings in a fictional cosmology. QED.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doodle, I think the quote you mentioned demonstrates an "intellectual" of the period giving Shakespeare faint praise, while satisfying his crowd with the leading diss about the "younger sort" liking one of his plays.
Shakespeare had a rather difficult time attaining the status that people associate with him these days. That's one reason he built his own theater.
Anyway, I could use a number of examples of artists whose work was sneered at by the "right people" in their time, but are now regarded as geniuses. And many of those had reputations which ebbed and flowed with the cultural tides.
It is difficult to discuss Tolkien's LotR without it getting emotional because the discussion almost by necessity veers into some sensitive areas of taste, appreciation of technique, recognition of goals, etc. Tolkien's work is deliberately multi-layered and complex. He uses a vast literary toolbox to reach very specific goals. It is a rare paragraph in his book that is not advancing the story in at least two layers. But that is a style that some people find off-putting. I brought up "Finnegan's Wake" deliberately because it is a similarly constructed book. I could have used even "The Grapes of Wrath" or perhaps "Moby Dick."
There are reasons those books are revered by literary experts. It's because they are recognized to be works of art that operate on multiple levels to achieve very specific goals all at the same time. You have to really READ every sentence and figure out how what you read is advancing the story on those levels.
That's more than most people are willing to do. And in today's society it is all to common to dismiss morality lessons as "self-righteousness" or worse.
But I am confident that people will still be debating Tolkien's magnum opus 200 years from now. And I think that alone demonstrates the true genius of the work.
Interestingly, Moby-Dick is one of my all-time faves.
Likewise.
Grapes of Wrath was... okay. Had to read it for a summer reading in high school; don't recall being bored or hating it. However we were also assigned My Side of the Mountain in that same summer, and I fell in utter love with that book, so I read it multiple times, while Grapes I read once, then reread during the school year as necessary for homework.
Doodle, I think the quote you mentioned demonstrates an "intellectual" of the period giving Shakespeare faint praise, while satisfying his crowd with the leading diss about the "younger sort" liking one of his plays.
Shakespeare had a rather difficult time attaining the status that people associate with him these days. That's one reason he built his own theater.
Anyway, I could use a number of examples of artists whose work was sneered at by the "right people" in their time, but are now regarded as geniuses. And many of those had reputations which ebbed and flowed with the cultural tides.
It is difficult to discuss Tolkien's LotR without it getting emotional because the discussion almost by necessity veers into some sensitive areas of taste, appreciation of technique, recognition of goals, etc. Tolkien's work is deliberately multi-layered and complex. He uses a vast literary toolbox to reach very specific goals. It is a rare paragraph in his book that is not advancing the story in at least two layers. But that is a style that some people find off-putting. I brought up "Finnegan's Wake" deliberately because it is a similarly constructed book. I could have used even "The Grapes of Wrath" or perhaps "Moby Dick."
There are reasons those books are revered by literary experts. It's because they are recognized to be works of art that operate on multiple levels to achieve very specific goals all at the same time. You have to really READ every sentence and figure out how what you read is advancing the story on those levels.
That's more than most people are willing to do. And in today's society it is all to common to dismiss morality lessons as "self-righteousness" or worse.
But I am confident that people will still be debating Tolkien's magnum opus 200 years from now. And I think that alone demonstrates the true genius of the work.
AD, I'm not saying you've got any of your facts wrong, but doesn't an author being in and out of vogue as you describe just come down to taste varying from person to person?
Kirth, you've read The Ladies of Grace Adieu, right?
|
|
...he would much more likely have instead put it down to the influence of God and demons and devils.Which is an entirely different cosmology and set of supernatural beings -- i.e., Sturlusson was, in his mind, writing about fictional beings in a fictional cosmology. QED.
Again, I think you are being too black and white. To suggest that one is entirely different from the other is probably false. Sturlsson would have been making a religious point about the supremacy of the Christian god, and probably also a political point too about the supemacy of the Church in matters of faith. He might even have been defending himself from charges of heresy or paganism. What he wasn't saying is that these tales are "fiction" - particularly as most of them actually aren't, they involve real people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AD, I'm not saying you've got any of your facts wrong, but doesn't an author being in and out of vogue as you describe just come down to taste varying from person to person?
Hitdice, you have actually stepped into one of the oldest and most contentious philosophical debates in the field of the arts. In fact it is a debate that goes to the core of the objectiveness vs the subjectiveness of art itself.
But that's perhaps another discussion for another time. It is generally accepted in artistic culture that some artists do transcend "taste" and have done something special that has advanced the art itself, or has transformed society's appreciation of it. And those are the "great" artists that get in all the art history books.
This is true of writers as much as it is true of painters or musicians.
In that sense I don't think there is any doubt that LotR transcended the genre, advanced the art of fantasy writing and transformed society's appreciation of it.
One way that art historians try to overcome the "it's all just personal taste" is to look at the reaction to artists and their work over large periods of time, different cultures and different perspectives. The artistic works that rise above others in that approach are generally the ones that are appointed as the "great works" of that genre. LotR certainly meets that measure as well.
Interestingly, Moby-Dick is one of my all-time faves.
Moby Dick is an absolute masterpiece. It is breathtaking in its brilliance, from the first page to the last.
In fact, the only book by an American author that I personally rate higher is "Huckleberry Finn." Although "Of Mice and Men" is up there too.
Just one quick comment about "Tolkien's style."
I find the "style" of "The Hobbit" to be vastly different than the "style" of "Lord of the Rings." In some ways I prefer the style of "The Hobbit." I find it to be an absolutely enchanting book, the story moves along at a good clip, the characters are unique and interesting and the world of The Hobbit is really much more like the fantasy realms of RPGs than the world of "Lord of the Rings."
In reading The Hobbit, it is clear to me that Tolkien used "style" as one of the tools in constructing his story. "Lord of the Rings" simply would not work had it been written in the "style" of "The Hobbit."
Moby Dick is an absolute masterpiece. It is breathtaking in its brilliance, from the first page to the last.
Agreed. But one part of my appreciation of it is the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously.
Kirth, you've read The Ladies of Grace Adieu, right?
Of course. I found it interesting that Clarke turns around and brutally deconstructs JS&MN in the titular story, then goes on to present a series of absolutely enchanting short tales. I especially like the one in which
Moby Dick is an absolute masterpiece. It is breathtaking in its brilliance, from the first page to the last.Agreed. But one part of my appreciation of it is the fact that it doesn't take itself too seriously.
Wow, I would call that a rather unique view of a book that is generally regarded as one of history's great morality tales that is noted for its generous use of metaphor and symbolism in the exploration of the existence and purpose of God, good and evil.
Are you sure we're talking about the same book?
Wow, I would call that a rather unique view of a book that is generally regarded as one of history's great morality tales that is noted for its generous use of metaphor and symbolism in the exploration of the existence and purpose of God, good and evil. Are you sure we're talking about the same book?
Quite sure. It also has all of the things you mentioned. Those are not mutually-contradictory, and in fact, in my estimation, render the serious themes far more vibrantly. Twain did that as well, to good effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AD, I'm not saying you've got any of your facts wrong, but doesn't an author being in and out of vogue as you describe just come down to taste varying from person to person?Hitdice, you have actually stepped into one of the oldest and most contentious philosophical debates in the field of the arts. In fact it is a debate that goes to the core of the objectiveness vs the subjectiveness of art itself.
But that's perhaps another discussion for another time. It is generally accepted in artistic culture that some artists do transcend "taste" and have done something special that has advanced the art itself, or has transformed society's appreciation of it. And those are the "great" artists that get in all the art history books.
This is true of writers as much as it is true of painters or musicians.
In that sense I don't think there is any doubt that LotR transcended the genre, advanced the art of fantasy writing and transformed society's appreciation of it.
One way that art historians try to overcome the "it's all just personal taste" is to look at the reaction to artists and their work over large periods of time, different cultures and different perspectives. The artistic works that rise above others in that approach are generally the ones that are appointed as the "great works" of that genre. LotR certainly meets that measure as well.
I don't think it is a another discussion for another time, tbh; I think the power of Tolkien's writing is pretty directly related to whether or not there's a market for derivative works.
You'll notice that I mentioned "tastes varying from person to person," rather than "it's all just personal taste." The difference is, someone (me) can appreciate LotR as a great work, and still find it tedious enough to skim in spots.
I agree completely with your post about The Hobbit. I don't know if you've ever read Farmer Giles of Hamm, but it's very similar in tone, and that tone may well be much closer to JRRT's natural writing style.
Your post about Moby Dick makes me think of Michael Swanwick's (I think it was him) description of reading LotR to his son and realizing halfway through that he was reading a tragedy about the end of Middle Earth while his son was listen to an epic adventure. Same book, different stories.
Let me put it this way: I'm a Susanna Clarke fan-boy. I zipped through Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel in a couple of days, was disappointed it was so short, and wished it would never end. But when I read other reviews, I read inexplicable stuff like, "This book is waaaaaaaay too long! And it lags in the middle! No one can ever finish it because it's so booooooooring!" And, while my immediate reaction was to say, snarkily, "Please show me these boring parts, because they're not in the book I read!", it then occurred to me that other people actually did find them boring. Many of the parts I found intriguing and exciting? Others found them to be where the book "lags." And so on.
Same deal with Tolkien, only he has a lot more rabid fanboys, so it's considered OK to lambast anyone who doesn't really care for him. What you find "epically noble," I find "annoyingly self-righteous." What you find a "mythical story of a common man overcoming overwhelming odds," I found "A lot of pages whining about some hobbits, and how their life is soooooooooooooo haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard." I know you don't agree, Aubrey, but the difference is that I'm fine with that -- whereas you and Sebastrd seem to feel that it requires you to circle the wagons and dial the snark way up.
Nice try.
First, I wasn't being snarky at all. I genuinely pity your inability to appreciate LotR. The guy seamlessly wove his experiences during the Great War with Norse mythology and flavored it with his own whimsy and linguistic genius to produce an epic tale illustrating that true strength lies not in the arm or the mind but in the heart. If you find that "annoyingly self-righteous", I feel sorry for you.
Second, you didn't say you "don't really care for" Tolkien. You called LotR "10,000 pages about annoying hobbits doing nothing but whining" and implied that Tolkein owes his commercial success to the ignorant masses who aren't/weren't smart enough to see things as you do.
Don't mistake me for just another Tolkien fanboy. I find LotR just as slow and plodding as everyone else. I also despise intellectual dishonesty - especially here.