>>/45176/
I disagree with your "nitpicks", I say go read the books first then maybe argue
>>/45159/
Lol, you are literally repeating that pathetic feminist whining about muh wimmin characters. This idiocy has been levied at great writers (Borges is another) since inception, Tolkien's "Letters" also mentions it
Yes, the story mentions fewer women. So what? Maybe you did not pick up what I was saying, so I'll repeat: his intention was to write an heroic epic tale in the nordic style. And not a parody or humorous one, but one which readers were meant to take seriously: he was a university professor at the time and wrote "scholarly" essays on these topics. I also said that he wrote according to his sensibilities: he was a devout catholic (in England, mind you). And I also said that the wrote for his children: most importantly one of his sons, Christopher. It is perfectly well that the role of women in the story is confined to the relations of the heroes and little more. Who says there should be more feminine, intimate, or humorous stuff?
Those who do not enjoy such stories are perfectly within their right to go read something else, perhaps wand-waiving brats or softcore vampire porn might be more their taste. But it's not within their right to criticize the writer on such subjective grounds while pretending that such criticism has a non-zero value in what regards writer's competency
Also he had like 4 children or more, he knew about women well enough
Again Tolkien did nothing wrong (apart from choosing a crappy publisher)