[Brys]

One of the real problems I have with Tolkien is not actually to do with him at all - it's his influence. He has managed to overshadow all other authors pre 1990 who didn't conform to his fantasy, which clearly wasn't his intention, but it occured none the less. Tolkien was great when I was younger - I didn't care about it being well written, being unpredictable or there being ambiguity when I was 12 or 13, so it was very enjoyable. Yet I wouldn't say that it is even a competitor for being one of the best fantasy novels ever, or for Tolkien being one of the best fantasy authors. He was originally writing a children's book, which developed a bit more, as Gollum says, but to me, it doesn't seem it ever fully evolved beyond that, though the Silmarillion did. I'll always respect Tolkien immensely for showing a previously unmatched feat in worldbuilding, but he didn't have many strengths beyond that. He was enjoyable in the same way a Feist novel is enjoyable, but not more so.

People keep saying that he wrote to please himself - with the Lord of the Rings, and particularly the Silmarillion, this was the case. But with the Hobbit? He wrote that primarily for children, not for himself. And also, writing for themselves is hardly a unique attribute to Tolkien - certainly, as the fantasy genre has grown and become more commercial, there have been many who write to please an audience and make money. But I respect Moorcock far more for being brave enough to admit that he wrote his Elric novels just so he could make money, because he then went on to do more literary works - if he hadn't, I expect we would see that he had written none of his major literary novels, which would have been far worse.