Many years ago Michael Moorcock wrote an essay called 'Epic Pooh', in which he attacked and blasted J.R.R. Tolkien's works at great length, often using terminology which suggested he hadn't actually read the books or, if he had, fundamentally misunderstood them. His suggestion that The Lord of the Rings ignores death is at odds with the very common reading that the book is about nothing but death, and his notion that Tolkien 'glorifies' war is bemusing, given Tolkien's horror at the thought of mass conflict (a result of serving on the Somme) and his musings on that in the book during the passage of the Dead Marshes, or the discussion on if the human soldiers in Sauron's armies were really evil or just swept along into the war without much choice and would rather have just stayed at home in peace.
The Cimmerian - a fine website dedicated to the works of fantasy in general and Robert E. Howard in particular - has published an article which is an interesting rebuttal of many of Moorcock's points, including his factually dubious ones. It is a very interesting read, although it's a shame one of the most interesting lines of enquiry - that Moorcock's dislike of Tolkien but lauding of Pullman can only be explained by his disagreement with the politics of the former and agreement with the politics of the latter - is curtailed and relegated to the footnotes. It's an interesting read that goes beyond the, "Oh yeah, and so is your mum!" responses I've seen the 'Epic Pooh' essay generate in other quarters over the years to tackle the substance of Moorcock's argument. Interesting fodder for debate there.