Not the analysis itself, which is sound (if overly familiar), but the fact that, yet again, someone starts talking about 'Tolkien' as an author but then only mentions THE LORD OF THE RINGS in isolation. If it was an essay about LORD OF THE RINGS by itself, that would be fine, but given the point of the article seems to be an assessment of why people think Tolkien is a 'sacred cow' of a writer and why that is not a good idea when the work is flawed (and indeed it is, as all works are), then his full oeuvre needs to be considered, with particular reference to THE SILMARILLION.

Of course, it is important that critics don't mention THE SILMARILLION, as then their usual standbys (Tolkien has inert female characters! Tolkien isn't dark enough!) go flying out the window. Naturally, that book shouldn't be a sacred cow either, and is certainly not flawless (its biggest flaw being that it is very hard to classify), but it would be nice if someone even tried to mention it in one of these things.