How do you judge Ulysses, Lolita, or Godel, Escher, Bach as 'reads'?
How do you not? A book is a book. Some books are great. Some books suck bilgewater. All that is in the opinion of the people reading it. A Confederacy of Dunces was published 11 years after John Kennedy Toole had committed suicide because he couldn't find a publisher. Stig Larssen didn't publish a thing while he was alive because he wrote books for fun; we know about The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo because his widow thought we should. We are raised and culturally conditioned to adore the fuck out of Moby Dick, and saying Moby Dick is a boring book is the equivalent of heresy. But you know what? it's a boring book. That's what makes "literature" - shit that people were forced to read, so they insist other people read it. It's like an English department hazing. Half those books we're forced to read because they were crazy popular once. We're required to read Last of the Mohicans not because Natty Bumppo is some paradigm for American life, not because Cooper was a brilliant writer, but because the Leatherstocking tales were the equivalent of the Twilight books in 1826. They're just books. Lord of the Rings is just a bunch of books. I've never read them. I fought tooth-and-claw through The Hobbit in 4th grade and that piece-of-shit book took me three goddamn months. I read Stephen King's It in 5 days three months later. No way in hell was I going to slog through Lord of the Rings. I enjoyed the movies very much... but then, I don't have to read twelve pages of Elvish folksongs to enjoy the movies. Claiming that Tolkien invented "the modern fantasy paradigm" is like saying George Lucas invented "the modern science fiction paradigm." Yeah, he's had a lot of imitators. However, most of the good books are the ones that don't.
But, there is more to a book than the opinion of the people reading it. Books are art, and art can be altered by context. For example, I watched Citizen Kane a couple of months ago. I thought it sucked. It really bored me. However, I wouldn't feel justified judging the movie on that alone. I could write a review based on my viewing experience, but I wouldn't be offering much more than my ignorance of film history. Had I been around to watch Citizen Kane the year it came out, I probably would have found it to be amazing. If I spent enough time learning about film history, I'd probably think it sucked less. I don't like the Beatles very much. I think they are just an ok band. However, I do appreciate that they broke new ground, and were very talented musicians. Given enough background and listening time, I could probably find more appreciation for their music. Of course you can look at the Mona Lisa and judge it soley on its technique, and from that viewpoint you could call it a pretty good painting. However, your opinion is not going to inform someone in a very useful way. I found Ulysses to be unreadable. But, I wouldn't put it in the category of The Celestine Prophesy which I also found to be unreadable. If I spent enough time educating myself, I'd probably find Ulysses amazing. However, the more I educated myself, the less readable I'd find The Celestine Prophesy. I wouldn't say that Tolkein created the modern fantasy paradigm, but he synthesized it in a way that has been much imitated and further derived from. In that sense, when you are reading Tolkein, you are reading more than a story, you are perusing a recognized focal point in literature. It's totally fine to ignore that when you decide whether or not you like the book. However, if you are going to write a review of the book, you better realize that although you are talking about the book's readability, a good portion of your readers are going to be aware of the books cultural context, and are going to expect that to be addressed as well. Often the cultural context of a piece is more interesting than the piece itself. BTW, I liked the LoTR trilogy more than The Hobbit.
How is "the opinion of people reading it" not "context?" If I say "Gormengast" to you, what does it mean? I reckon it means nothing. However, for a generation of intellectuals, "Gormengast" was a touchstone for government bureaucracy and informed a lot of literature. Were the Beatles influential? Yeah, but were they more influential than Hendrix? Depends on what year it is. When Oasis was big, the Beatles were influential. When U2 was big, Hendrix was influential. Was CITIZEN KANE influential? Well, from a technical standpoint hell yes. Does that make MTV's The Real World "art?" After all, it was the first of an entire category of entertainment. They're just books.
I think we are splitting hairs. I agree that opinion is context. I'm just saying that for different works, other factors (timing, originality, political context, etc.) can equal or even exceed the notability of opinion. Mostly I am just saying that it's silly for the New Yorker to talk about the merits of a mundane or face value read of Tolkien. I don't 'get' the Beatles, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean there isn't something to be 'gotten'. Personally, I think there's a peculiar hostility to Tolkien that kind of rubs me wrong.
Books are just books. When you elevate them beyond "book" status you're practicing idolatry. Besides, as a friend once told me, "you're never somebody until you have enemies."
What bothers me is that IMO Tolkien picked up baggage from Dungeons & Dragons, from his fantasy tropes put into the grinder, and from the general stigma around roleplaying games. (Oddly, Gary Gygax consistently played down the influence of Tolkien upon D&D.) As a result, I think a lot of modern consideration of Tolkien's work is marred by after-the-fact events. I grew up playing tabletop RPGs with a very smart group of socially-able people. We didn't fit the stereotype, and yet, it was nearly a dark secret that many of us felt we had to keep. I have the impression that many that consider themselves literati are reticent to embrace or even seriously engage Tolkien's work, either because they were picked on for playing D&D, saw other kids picked on for playing D&D, or they wanted to play, but were too afraid to do it. I know that's a bold and unfounded statement to make. However, in most of what I read, there's usually some off-hand remark about orcs, dwarves, or elves that makes it clear that the author knows that these are not adult things. Oddly, hobbits aren't picked on so much, -probably because their literary function is more easily explained. So, in effect, I'm not defending Tolkien as much as my opinion that RPGs are potentially valuable and legitimate pastimes, and that the stigma around them and Tolkien is unfortunate. exhibit a?: All it takes is to overhear someone saying "They left out the tale of Tom Bombadil!" for me to be delighted I didn't read LOTR. ;)
Ha! The Tom Bombadil character was pretty cool though. They also way over stated the character of Arwan played by Liv Tyler.. but then every movie needs a love story, right? I read the first couple HP books but then realized the movies sufficed just fine. I could see myself reading that series to my daughter some day.
It's certainly an old and influential book and here I agree with you. It doesn't need good reviews anymore, it's beyond that. However, the book is still there, for anyone to take shot at it.