For one thing, I think we see/sense/are at times explicitly told too much about the "insides" of some of the characters for it feel or read as if it's written largely from the personal point of view of other individuals from within the books. In fact, when I first read about the idea of Bilbo and Frodo doing much of the writing, it actually came as a shock, because I just couldn't make that fit into my experience of reading the story. (I read the books at least twice before giving the prologue or the appendices more than a brief glance).

I see and feel things from Treebeard's or Aragorn's or Gandalf's, or even Saruman's perspective; and not just from them personally, but with them operating from and steeped in the particular flavor of the culture or history belonging to that character, which for me at least just doesn't allow it to hold together as if it was from the point of view of an internal character.

Some of it of course does sound like that, but at points where (ahem) it was "meant to," like Sam in Mordor.

The Red Book of Westmarch fiction only holds up because it was cleverly constructed. And also because it's a very pleasant fiction and fans want it to hold up.

The Hobbit was never meant to be a wholly serious tale, nor his young audience to listen without laughing often. In contradistinction, The Lord of the Rings does on occasion evoke smiles, but most of the time its issues go too deep for laughter. In the interval between the two stories the children are sent off to bed and their places taken by grownups, young or young in heart, to hear of a graver sort of quest in which every human life is secretly engaged.

Master of Middle-earth Paul H Kocher 1972 [my italics]

I think fan wishes are an important factor here. If we are thinking about what Tolkien wrote, The Hobbit and LOTR are not straightforwardly book and sequel (or book and prequel). And nor are they straightforwardly related to the collections of postumously-published draft material edited by C Tolkien.

I think that is exactly right. But it is inconvenient to many folks in the fandom who would like to understand (or build upon) Middle-earth as a consistent place. What would suit much of the fandom better, I sometimes think, would be to have the narrator to come back and do an after-the-kids'-bedtime version of The Hobbit.

I wonder whether this is a long-standing thing. Mr Kocher gives a lot of his Hobbit chapter to a patient and excellent case for not taking LOTR as a sequel to The Hobbit (in any straightforward way). That does imply that the 1970s fandom was prone to doing this.

I just have to disagree with all your points.

I'm clear about the difference between empathy for characters and author's point of view, although, of course, the author himsef writes in such a way as to encourage empathy where appropriate to his purposes.

And "empathy" has nothing to do with the sense of and descriptions of deep culture Tolkien gives us so skillfully and naturally, such as with characters like Aragorn and Treebeard, which is very much part of their POV, and what gives the reader a fuller idea of and feel for their respective characters.

And I certainly don't have any empathy for Saruman--and Saruman's own personal point of view is ultimately very, very clear (and icy cold).

I've been reading these threads and thinking about that.

In terms that a modern reader might recognise, Bilbo might well be the 'most richest hobbit' who ever lived (as they woud say in Hobbiton if they knew). That's just from the gold and 'jools' under the The Hill -- nobody (except possibly Bilbo) knows about that curious coat of mail on display at the Mathom House and how he might buy 'the Shire and everything in it'.

But (as already mentioned by others) the Shire seems a prosperous place where it is hard to imagine, say, the Hardscrabble family in hovels in Brassfarthing. And perhaps the idea of buying or selling the Shire would just seem ridiculous to the Hobbits. Very sensible.

Take Lotho for contrast. The Shire is to be 'modernised', and opened up to international trade. One day when I have nothing to do, I might adopt a false name and put out something 'proving' that Lotho is a critique of Thatcherism. It's a reading that works perfectly well but of course can't possibly be right: when LOTR first published Mrs Thatcher was a recently-qualified young barrister with political ambitions that had not yet become her '-ism'.
Oooooh - or possibly she got it all from reading LOTR?

and I know about the difference in the use of these terms. And of course characters aren't bad or poorly written for lacking the POV type you mentioned (I never have thought so. Seems to me that would be a very odd reason).

But that isn't at all what I was talking about, except, of course, in referencing an "internal narrator" (Red Book of W. idea, among others). Other than that, I wasn't speaking in technical terms, or using POV in the formal sense you mention, but simply in terms of the actual character's personal, internal point of view from within the story. And my reason for this was to give one example of why an "internal" narrator, in the sense you mention where the story is told through the eyes of, say "Frodo," doesn't really hold water for every part of the book, although it certainly works for some portions. (Which is not a criticism of Tolkien's writing, but just an observation.) We're talking not about apples and oranges but something almost as different as, say, apples and sidewalks.

And of course empathy and sympathy are different. I'm not sure why you may think I've confused them, or of why you may think I'm unaware of the difference.

But I have neither for Saruman.

I think we feel sort of programmed to find one fault with a person, place, or thing, and then rain fire & brimstone on them and cancel them. So I say that for my own context: I love the Shire and always feel like it's a place I'd like to live (as a Baggins), but one detail does give me pause, which you cited:

That just plain sounds rotten, living in a dirt hole. As a boy in the countryside, my friends and I often dug into dirt banks to make little caves, always in pursuit of some type of fort or secret hideout, so I can say from experience that sitting in a dirt hole is unpleasant and not a place you'd want to live, and I wouldn't want it to be anyone's home.

That's not going to make me condemn the socioeconomic structure or culture of the Shire, nor condemn Tolkien as cold and heartless (did someone mention psychopath? kidding!). But it doesn't sit well with me, I must admit. The gossip, the xenophobia, etc: I can write that off as human nature.

At the same time, the Shire feels free of social suffering. Frodo doesn't pass beggars in the street, and Bilbo's party is a fun-fest, not a soup kitchen. So I've made a whole post about one line, and I don't want to rain on any "Praise the Shire with Great Praise!" parades, so I'll just say that one is best to skip over, at least for me.