> Tolkein's brand of endless minutiae does not a good novel make. But Tolkien was not trying to write a good novel; he was writing a myth in the form of a seri

> Tolkein's brand of endless minutiae does not a good novel make. But Tolkien was not trying to write a good novel; he was writing a myth in the form of a serial. I don't really see why he should be condemned for having succeeded at the actual goal. > The good and bad guys in Tolkein are good and bad for no particular discernible reason That's ridiculously untrue. Tolkien's effort was to depict a fairly specific set of virtues, both for his children and for Britain at large. Whether or not he succeeded is debatable, but it's not terribly hard to figure out why character X is a good guy and character Y is a bad guy. Self-sacrifice, dauntlessness, generosity, and reliability are characteristics that all the "good guys" either exemplify or seek to exemplify. Selfishness, carelessness, cowardliness, and cruelty are characteristics that all the "bad guys" either exemplify or seek to exemplify.