What do you mean? My husband tells me I have good breeding hips all the time. Of course, he borders on what we Southerners call "touched." 
The South has its own peculiar charms. 
"cringe-making"? I don't agree.
I'm a science fiction fan with no particular use for fantasy, unless it's written by Tolkein (Tolkien?) or C.S. Lewis. Those two offer magical visions and themes that speak truth and break your heart. That counters my objection to fantasy (which is mostly objection to derivative and poorly written fantasy anyway.)
But I never thought of looking at LotR like Mr. Levinson. He may be missing all the other ways to appreciate Tolkien, but he has a totally new take on it that I will definitely add to my next reading of the books. Not a limitation, but "oh boy, ANOTHER thing to savor in this marvelous story!" Just more to appreciate. And if Mr. Levinson isn't already aware of the true themes of the book, maybe they'll sneak up on him and touch his soul when he thought only his intellect was engaged. Who knows?
Sorry Mark; but my vote for most tone deaf would go to David Brin, followed closely by China Mieville. Paul is at least trying to overcome the blinders of the secular/scientific world-view. Brin's review (here is proof-positive that he just doesn't get it.
I read the first page of Brin's, and that's enough. But for truly asinine commentary, it's hard to beat the Maoists:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/
MI...oftherings2.txt
(link via http://spleenville.com/blog/ )
"sniff..."
You can almost feel his embarassment for having to give any time to thinking about this movie. It's like watching "Titanic" and the critic asking "why didn't they just take the plane?"
Judging from his comments on the Star Wars films as well as what I read of his review of _The Two Towers_, David Brin is the poster child for modernity's obsession with Radical Egalitarianism.
A quote from the review Don cited:
"In contrast,
like the Orcs risen from the dead to choke the present,
"Lord of the Rings" raises up a musty past in a manner
sure to perpetuate backwardness today."
This from a group of Marxist-Maoists. What was that about a "musty past...sure to perpetuate backwardness?" :^)
As for David Brin's review, I couldn't get past the first page either. Mr. Brin should be reminded that there are plenty of people who can separate fantasy from reality; furthermore, being comfortable in our faith, we do not require that every work of fiction take religion's place and provide the moral perfection and authority expected of sacred scripture. Literature ceases to be a demon only when it ceases to be a god. Anyway, I do not expect this terrestrial ball to resemble Middle-Earth, though I should very much like to see people live up to the standards of a Frodo or an Aragorn. What is virtuous in their world remains virtuous in ours. If he and I disagree there, then an unbridgeable chasm divides us.
My vote for most tone-deaf review goes to Garrin Dickinson who wrote of FotR in the October TOUCHSTONE and is still generating hostile responses from readers. Besides the initial essay of simpering obtuseness, Dickinson takes the position that people who REALLY loved the book would not want it filmed by anyone and denounces Jackson's effort as "merely a crass, economic exercise" in the latest (Jan/Feb) issue. People do not go through what the cast and crew suffered on this project for the financial rewards.
In case anyone cares, Brin is also a novelist--and an atrocious one at that. Reading the hack responsible for insufferable fluff like Startide Rising getting high-handed about Tolkien is rich to say the least.
Hey, I really LIKED Startide Rising!
Brin is also the author of The Postman, which make me wonder if his objections to Tolkien are generated by differing moral stands. In The Postman, the main character tries to re-unite a post-nuclear Northwest by pretending to be a US Mail carrier reestablishing the mail routes between surviving communities. In essence, Brin is saying that the ends (rebuilding of civilization) justifies the means (a deliberate falsehood).
Tolkien, on the other hand, repeatedly warns the reader throughout the LoTR that the Ring cannot be controled and would only lead to evil ends (as dramaticly exemplified by Gandalf's and Galadriel's refusal to accept the Ring when offered to them). In essence, Tolkien warns us that the ends cannot justify the means, and that evil means (the Ring) will enevitably lead to evil ends (the coruption of the Ring's user and the eventual rise of another Sauron).
I think that it is that conflict of ideas (materialist vs. Christocentric) that is at the root of Brin's objections.
Commenting by HaloScan
