I find the premise of the article odd. Characterization of Hobbit in the movies as something that was made "trying to honor every one of J. R. R. Tolkien’s foot

I find the premise of the article odd. Characterization of Hobbit in the movies as something that was made "trying to honor every one of J. R. R. Tolkien’s footnotes, appendices, and letters" and fit into LOTR film trilogy. Since Jackson did not have a licence to anything other than Hobbit, LOTR books and its footnotes, that's what they used. Where they went with it made it impossible for me to watch more than the first film... I don't get what are the values of this "morally bankrupt" middle class according to Moorcock, if Tolkien's work is confirmation of those. Destruction of nature for profit, corruption of power, strong being capable of using evil either blindly or wantonly. That is shown as bad, whereas simple, polite and modest (albeit with great amounts of food, ale and tobacco) life is good. I'd want a any "class" to adhere to those. As for being Anti-Tolkien, I'd have to see some one produce as much content, build a world so intricate and even write a fable of it. Works of Tolkien have so many aspects beyond the stories of Hobbit and LOTR, that saying something is anti- to that feels too simplistic. I have read only a few of Eldrich books, but what I remember from those was not so encompassing or ambitious. If you choose this one aspect from Tolkien's works and decide to attack that, you certainly can, but what you actually accomplish? I'd rather read good fantasy from any writer, be it simple or complex. I'm currently re-reading Garth Nix's Abhorsen trilogy, which might be classified as a children book, but it's still very enjoyable and intelligent for an adult me.