[Mehticulous]

In the introduction to Lord of The Rings Tolkein notes that he intended the work to be pure fantasy. The books not are not to be read as (strictly) allegorical. Also there is never any mention of The Silmarillion in any of these types of articles. Curious.

[am3101]

That’s true though: (1) while Tolkien isn’t trying to write an allegory he is trying to tell a story and build a world that is internally consistent (he famously builds up from language, as a philologist) and so this kind of criticism is appropriate (perhaps more so than say GRRM or CS Lewis who are often much less internally consistent and thus harder to analyze) (2) there is a pretty compelling argument that when Tolkien argues that his world is tabula rasa / de novo (eg claiming it did not have “any influence” on the plot), he’s deceiving himself. Many Tolkien scholars (including his pal Lewis) seem to think WWI heavily influenced LOTR in particular (esp the sacking of the shire).

Agree it is very odd to ignore everything outside of LOTR. Like making claims about the gospels without reading the Old Testament or epistles

[GuinansEyebrows]

People who write these kinds of articles tend to be unfamiliar with the legendarium past The Hobbit and LOTR (and generally speaking, just the movie adaptations of each).