Talk:Literary hostility to J. R. R. Tolkien

"Attacked" is rather absurd.
I changed a couple instances of verb "attacked" because I thought they were hyperbolic, biased, and a little ridiculous, when the correct word should have been more like "criticized". My changes were reverted, but for the record I still think the use of "attacked" is hyperbolic, biased, and more than a little ridiculous. NimRenouf (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your views. Please be aware that British English word usage differs from that in other varieties of English, as indeed does its spelling. I might add that Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary, defines its sense #2 as "to assail with unfriendly or bitter words", giving as example "a politician verbally attacked by critics". Tolkien was certainly "attacked" in this sense. You might also like to note that the Wikipedia policy "No Personal Attacks" likewise uses the word in exactly this sense, so it should not seem too unfamiliar, nor indeed "hyperbolic, biased, and more than a little ridiculous", a rhetorical triple which itself might be constituted by some as meeting Merriam-Webster's definition. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Questionable article scope
IMO this article should be merged into a general one that covers both criticism, praise, and ambivalent responses to Tolkein's work. We discourage sections and articles dedicated entirely for criticism because it is better for NPOV to cover all responses in the same place. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ok. Let's do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)