Scholarly Responsibility: The Platypus Reads Part LXX

As usual, my summer reading plan has taken a bit of a detour.  While waiting for some of the other books to come in, I picked up Verlyn Flieger's "Splintered Light: Logos and Language in Tolkien's World."  I'm not all the way through it yet, but I am frankly bothered by what I've read.  As a seeming result of her commitment to the philosophy of Owen Barfield, Flieger casts Tolkien's work as essentially dualistic and rooted in Barfield's idea of the fragmentation of meaning.  The problem here is twofold: 1.) though Barfield was a fellow inkling, Flieger thus far has failed to make the case that his thought was as influential on Tolkien as Flieger claims (what precisely Flieger is claiming is often hard to ascertain), 2.)Flieger attempts to cast Tolkien's imaginative project as essentially dualist, a claim that Tolkien the Catholic would have flatly denied.  Such claims demand real and painstakingly collected evidence that is carefully argued and respectfully responds to opposing theses.  Flieger spends precious little time doing either.  By chapter 6 of the work, one feels that "Splintered Light" is really two books: 1.) that seeks to argue for that the "Silmaillion" is central, rather that peripheral to understanding Tolkien's literary project, 2.) an attempt to raise the prestige of Barfield's thought by asserting that it is central to Tolkien's legendarium.  The first seems laudable and properly academic to me.  The second seems like special pleading and at points outright hijacking; both of which have no place in academia.

In all scholarly pursuits, authors ought to be engaged on the merit of their works, not co-opted to serve the commentator's particular philosophical agenda.  Has anyone else read this book?  Flieger is a force to be reckoned with it Tolkien studies and I would like to believe that the book gets better, or else that I have misunderstood her project.  If you can, please set me straight.