Well, hmmm. I'm not too much in favour of analysing books to death; I had to do it at school and I never got anything out of it that was really worth having. All authors have their faults. My yardstick is almost solely: Did I enjoy it? If the answer is "yes", then there's an end to it.
Much of what Jenkyns postulates is probably true. Hobbiton is twee. The story is essentially sexless. Aragorn's love affair with Arwen is about as juicy as it gets, which ain't very. Religion, as such, doesn't even rear its ugly head. Politically, it's naive with only two types of government with some variations: Anarchic democracy (the Shire) and totalitarianism, both benevolent and malevolent (Gondor and Lothlorien are benevolent; Mordor under Sauron and Rohan under Saruman are malevolent. That Tolkien chose to reflect those styles of government is not surprising; he was writing at the time of the rise of nazism in Germany and facism in Italy and Spain, in the face of which even the flawed distributed democracies of Britain and the US probably seemed like a beacon shining in the growing gloom. In Britain, at the time, dark clouds were gathering in the east and Tolkien merely reflected that.
To be frank, I don't think Tolkien gave a damn about his audience when he wrote LOTR. The Hobbit, yes, that was a children's tale, pure and simple. But my understanding was that he had already started LOTR when he stopped and wrote The Hobbit, which started out as a series of bedtime tales for his children.
The big thing for Tolkien was the language and ensuring that the mythology hung together. The Silmarillon, probably one of the most boring books I've ever waded through, is surely proof positive of that. His prose wasn't always even internally consistent. He had a limited range of characterisations - I always felt he struggled with Merry and Pippin as jesters - and he had no interest in including "ordinary" females of any race or species.
For me, it was the scale and scope of the work which were fascinating. I was probably 9 or 10 when I first read LOTR, and I had fun tracking down the words I didn't know in my mother's ancient and extremely dogeared Websters. The plot was exciting stuff. It was kind of "Boy's Own" for grown-ups and that was riveting in itself.
Most of Mr Jenkyns' criticisms are valid, I guess. But do I care? Nope. Is Tolkien the author of the century? Well, I haven't contributed to any of the lists on this Board or anywhere else, because I can't define what the characteristics of an author of the century should be. It's not an objective measure. As the kicker-off of the fantasy genre, he must get at least an honourable mention, I suppose. I see Kim Stanley Robinson as actually having more cultural versatility while encompassing at least as wide a scope in his RBG Mars series. I see Samuel R. Delany as having a much greater vision than Tolkien - anyone who's read Dahlgren or Triton has probably been gobsmacked by that facet of his work. Tolkien expanded on previous work, the hobbits were probably his only invention.
I dunno? Does it matter? Probably not.
Max, I suppose that it would be facetious, nay
facile of me to point out that (a) Tolkien hasn't written anything
this century, and (b) being dead at the moment, he's highly unlikely to change that state of affairs?
(a) Tolkien hasn't written anything this century, and (b) being dead at the moment, he's highly unlikely to change that state of affairs
Not to mention (3) it's a little early to be picking one for this century, PinYin, Hepburn or Feanorian Tengwar.