But it seems to me that Paul Smith makes a bit of a mess of things by mixing two categories of things. The first consists of the flaws in LotR that can be considered flaws in a more or less objective judgement - to wit, the less well-written passages, the not too spectacular plot, the lack of depth in most characters. The second, however, consists of things in LotR that are irritating to Paul Smith and modern readers in general, perhaps also to many readers at the time of writing, but that really can't be called an objective flaw. One may find the sexism and the views on nature vs. industry outdated, silly or even revolting, but that doesn't mean the book is qualitatively worse for containing these things.

And there it becomes a little ironic, since one of the people at Westeros defending Viriconium and Harrison - and then again in fewer words you yourself, Larry - blames his opponents for judging the book for things they want in it that aren't there, and not for the things that are there. For failing to "judging the text based on its own parameters", to quote you. Seems to me that Paul Smith opens himself up - perhaps without intending to - to the charge of being guilty of the same thing. So Tolkien has themes that he doesn't like, and doesn't have things that he *would* have liked (i.e. gender equality). But if Paul Smith is supposed to take the same stance as you and as that Richard guy on Westeros, he really should not mention these things in an essay on why LotR is flawed.