I'll start by giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're basing your comments on the movie.
No need, because that would be an incorrect assumption. I was basing my opinions on the books. I have few problems with the movies, which I feel were technically competent. The overwhelming numbers of my complaints are with what I find lacking in the narrative of the books.
Now I'm going to counter your points.
Oh, please do.
Elves are not all-good; they tunred against their gods and killed their kin out of greed, they betray one another, and even when they're forgiven they spend the next few thousand years (Galadriel) paralysed by guilt.
All right, fair enough. I did make an unfair generalization when I suggested that all elves were good. Yes, I know the Sons of Feanor did nasty things to their fellow elves in their quest for the Silmarils. I made the over-simplification in order to mock what I see as the more simplistic thematic elements of Tolkien's work. But I will concede, not all elves are good. But ultimately, so what? So some elves are good, and some are bad? Some people are good and some people are bad as well. Knowing that doesn't really tell us much about our own nature. It's the why that is important.
Of course Orks are bad, they're corruptions!
Well, dwarfism is technically a corruption of the "normal" human form, and certainly not all dwarves (real dwarves, not Tolkien dwarves) are evil. So, I feel that for Tolkien to make all Orcs bad simply because they are of a corrupted form, is to cop-out. It's lazy writing. It's explaining the actions of an entire people based solely on their physical nature, instead of delving into what their actual motivations would have been.
Count the Elves that come to the aid of men in the War of the Ring; that's right, 3 (Legolas, Elladan and Elrohir
Right, again, perhaps "virtuous superhero" was too much of a generalization. What I mean is that the story rests on the shoulders a few, near-infallible, super-human characters. (I'm counting Aragorn, Galdalf, Gimli et al. in this group.)
Granted, the citizen-at-large of Tolkien's world still has his part to play, (mostly as mindless cannon fodder) but with out the saving grace provided by the heroes, even with their collected abilities their cause would be lost.
Besides, Frodo and Sam go alone into Mordor; no magic, no magic weapons, no strong men to save them.
Well, except for a nearly laughable deus ex machina that quite literally swoops down from the sky and saves Sam and Frodo from Fiery Doom. Talk about lazy writing...
At the expense of people and nature was Tolkien's point; take at look at industrial slums, and then at the rural dwellings where their first-generation inhabitants come from, and tell me which is more pleasant.
Yes, yes, we all realize that industry has its negative side effects. But the issue of industrial progress versus natural preservation is a very complex issue, and Tolkien didn't attempt to tackle it on anything more than its most superficial level.
Ah yes, the sterotypes which didn't exist then. Hmm, yes, bt of course.
As I said in another post, the genre may not have been called fantasy, but the archetypical mythic heroes and villains can be traced back through thousands of years of written literature.
Again, I'll forgive you if you're talking about the film. To use the film's main stereotype: Gimli. In the Book, Gimli is a very full character; he is moved by the sight of his race's ancestral home and the Glittering Caves, he grows and accepts Legolas, forming an extremely close bond, despite starting off by mistrusting him. Now other characters: Frodo starts off all care free, is exposed to the dnagers of the real world, gets drawn into a constant struggle between his sense of right and his temptation and the corrupting influence of the Ring...
But what are we supposed to learn from all this? Where's the meaning? What is, despite his best efforts, Frodo being corrupted by the Ring supposed to tell us about ourselves?
Boromir is a prideful man; he wants to do what is right for Gondor, and even accepts, after a qwhile, Aragorn as King, but he wantrs personal glory too much to avoid the IRng's lure and so fall into temptation. However, when he recovers he sacrifices himself o try to attone, but will not at first admi to what he had doen, falling instead into despair when he thinks that he's scared Frodo away fro the whole Company.
Boromir may have been the most interesting character in the book. Sadly, he is quickly done away with. If only the other characters had had as much to say with their actions...
And now Gandalf and Aragorn: these people are good. Are they supposed to just do bad things when they clearly have such high morals? That would be unrealsitic.
I'm not suggesting that if they did bad things they would be deeper characters. That's exactly my point. It's all right for them to be good and have high morals, but we need to know why. Why do they do the things they do. Why do they believe what they believe? What series of events or leaps of logic convince them that they are doing the right thing at every step?
Yes...they are...name a specific example.
WHAT?! Back this up!!! I assure you, you can't.
You're asking me to cite examples of things I think are missing from the book. This doesn't make sense.
I think I've disproved this...or at least you haven't proved this.
I don't think it's a matter of proved or disproved. I think it's a matter of opinion. Everyone's definition of art differs. And I find Tolkien's lacking. But then, as I said again in another post, there's no accounting for taste.
"You have become a witless worm!" Gandalf to Grima on that subject. Not me to you, but damn close.
Easy. Don't get nasty now.
-Phil.
