Tolkien and his work are a "sign of contradiction."
The man himself represents a tradition of learning -- namely philology -- that is rejected by, and/or out of the grasp of, mainstream scholarship today. They've dropped Beowulf and Old English from Oxford, unless you specifically want to specialize in them. Who any more grows up on Greek and Latin as Tolkien did? But the previous two sentences are only part of what I'm getting at. The very word "philology" will sound strange. Perhaps you get my drift. If curious, you should dig into the writings of Tom Shippey in order to glimpse more.
Tolkien's fantasy is rooted in the Western tradition, which increasingly is not handed on, not taught, but (mis)represented in terms of cliches about oppression of women, homosexuals, people of color, etc. I think people sometimes misread as simple escapist nostalgia what's really more important: the awareness that, for so much that nourishes heart, imagination, and intellect, the past is the treasure-house. In wholesome social arrangements the door of the treasure-house is open and people take what they need for themselves and their families, their audiences, etc. I'm referring to literature, visual art, religious culture, sound political institutions, and more. All of these are simultaneously to be guarded and to be used. But modern culture and education largely ignore or disparage the treasure-house and its contents.
That's not a very good analogy but maybe it gets at part of what should be said.
In my own field of English studies, the obsession is with raceclassandgender (including subsets such as postcolonialism, queer theory, etc.), the promulgated notions in each being hardwired with modern notions. The analogy I often refer to in my own mind is -- ketchup/catsup. Young people are trained to read always with raceclassandgender in mind. This means that everything they read, whether a novel by DeLillo or one of the Canterbury Tales, will be strongly flavored with this modern mass-produced substance. Ketchup can go well with some types of food, particularly modern mass-produced ones such as fastfood hamburgers and fries. Accustomed to, addicted to, theory, it is applied to everything, as if someone had to have ketchup also on Escargots à la Bourguignonne, Greenlip Mussels Provençale, Cold-Smoked French Herring with Warm Potato Salad and Greens, Pâté, Prosciutto, Fra’Mani Handcrafted Salumi,Mortadella, and Genoa Salami, etc. You are always to taste that modern ketchup!
So my sense is that the more thoroughly immersed a reader is in this characteristic modern obsession, or the more deferential someone is to its pieties, the more likely it is that he or she will disparage Tolkien's imaginative creation. Conversely, reading and assimilating Tolkien early on and then returning to it with increased understanding may tend to inoculate one against the raceclassandgender obsession. Jason Peters: "it seems to me that the truly and fully conscientious teacher will, at some point [perhaps not outright], say to his students: You found the novel dull? Let me tell you something: you do not judge this book; this book judges you. The teacher, in saying so, offers the remark as a gift, and the measure of his skill is in whether the remark is received as a gift."
The Lord of the Rings is not some treacly fantasy that enables well-fed bourgeois oppressors to soothe a few wasted hours. At least, rightly read, it is a challenge to our whole way of life, with its endless fidgeting with the "identity" we are creating for ourselves and liberating others to seek too, and to which sacred project all the resources of a gross and grossly-indebted state are to be offered. It's news from the real world. It's now a wake-up call to today's moderns, whose characteristic vice isn't greed or lust, though you might think so to watch our TV shows, but sloth. No wonder it is disliked by so many.
.
