|
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me for not following the full conversation, but it seems to me that the critics here are focusing on the wrong criteria for "great literature." Literature is remembered for its influence. Great literature survives the "test of time" because it brought something new and innovative to the table that has had a profound influence on other writers or society in general. I don't think anyone here is trying to say what Tolkien did was not impressive and influential to later writers (the effect was especially profound on the fantasy genre). In this sense, LotR is great literature. The same goes for Shakespeare. He influenced how the English language was used and written. Overrating Shakespeare's influence would be pretty hard. For those of you who do not like Shakespeare or Tolkien or any other writers considered to have written great literature, it doesn't mean the works are "overrated." Try to apply some objectivity and look at what's actually being "rated." Why, specifically, is Tolkien considered to be great? I imagine few literary critics are going to cite Tolkien for his greatness because of his "exciting" stories. So it would be unfair to say Tolkien isn't all that great because you personally find him boring. It's possible, and highly probable if you are a fantasy fan, that you have read and enjoyed an author who enjoyed and was influenced by Tolkien. And I would wager that it's impossible for you to have read nothing influenced by Shakespeare. There in lies their greatness.
You can apply the same standard to music. Even those today who don't care for The Beatles or Elvis would find it hard to escape the influence of that music.
|