/lit/ - Literature

>>18915936
The literary establishment were absolutely seething with envy over the sudden appearance and meteoric popularity of LotR, your post is a great example of this. Literary sensibilities had moved a long way away from what Tolkien was doing with his books, and they assumed wrongly that THEY would be the ones to produce the 20th century's most popular and influential novel- one filled with pretentious modern subversive degeneracy, not old-school Christian values steeped in pagan aesthetics and heroic sagas of old. No-one likes to be proven wrong like this, no one likes the rug being pulled out from underneath them. So they cope and seethe, and probably did some rudimentary dilating, over Tolkien's "childish" understanding of good and evil; they maintained either a wilful ignorance or deliberate obtuseness over what Tolkien was actually attempting. That is, a modern mythology where good and evil are reverted back to their essential elemental forms as primordial forces of nature that we partake in and which move through us, as understood by all of the great religions of the world. Ironically it is the attitude of the over socialized "literary critic" types who have the childish understanding of these most important matters, with all of their lazy relativism and petulant social constructivism. Which is also why they never have and never will actually produce anything of worth themselves, resorting to trying to 'deconstruct' actual literary achievements like Tolkien's. Truly a pathetic breed of people.