Uh, I don’t remember the criticisms so much now. I started back at work and my brain refilled with work.
Oh! I remember thinking: I understand the point she was trying to make with Ged, to make him wilting and pathetic having lost his magery which was his identity, but I thought it went a little too far and didn’t really encompass all the growing he had done as a character.
Also, I had a fundamental distaste for the inherent reactionary nature of the world. This isn’t specific to Tehanu, actually it’s more of a problem in the third book, but the idea that “with the True King on the throne we’ll have a centralized moral and political power which will make everything good again” chafes me. I understand that she was working within a folktale framework and partially subverted/enriched this narrative (how partially depends on how you read some subtleties I think), but still.
Oh, and lastly I was kind of bored of the whole chosen one thing by Tehanu. First Ged is a chosen one, then the King kid, and then finally the girl. Three Great World-Historical Inborn Talents is probably three too many. Again she was working within genre and did a lot of work to partially subvert. But still.
I want to emphasize how minor these complaints are against the absolutely beautiful wonders contained in these books, they are so good.