[Mithadan]

Indeed, a fine thread. Kudos to all!

I have come upon this thread rather late, and, as many good threads do, it has evolved beyond the original topic. At the risk of both repeating pieces of what others have said as well as departing from the direction which this thread has taken, I'd like to address some of the earlier issues which were raised.

We're all familiar with the current "genre" of Science Fiction/Fantasy as it presently exists as seen in bookstores and libraries. However, the current genre is not the proper lens with which to examine LoTR; the context is incorrect.

LoTR was begun in the late 1930s and completed in general form just prior to 1950. During this period science fiction barely existed as a genre and fantasy had no existence separate from science fiction at least in the view of the public. Both were lumped together in a general category known widely as "pulps" and existed primarily in the form of short stories published in magazines (I'm ignoring early movie "serials" here). Science fiction novels were rare before the late 1950s and the fantasy novel was almost non-existent before the 1960s. The exceptions were A.C. Doyle's Tarzan and Mars series and Howard's Conan from which the origin of present day garish covers is found.

Prior to this, with the exception of the Oz books which were considered children's stories, anything remotely resembling fantasy can only be found in a resurgence of fairy stories during the late 1800s and very early 1900s. Tolkien discusses these in Tree and Leaf.

While The Hobbit fit relatively comfortably within the category of children's stories, LoTR was unlike any non-classic fiction which had been published before. It was a long, deep, thoughful and ADULT-ORIENTED myth. As I have argued or observed before, Tolkien wrote what he liked to read and he loved mythology, particularly northern mythology, and he wrote it because no similar "modern" works existed. Lost Tales was a mythology for England. The early Silmarillion and LoTR left England behind, save only in the descriptions of the Shire, and presented a wider scope with nearly unprecedented detail.

LoTR was not a "fantasy" novel because no such genre existed when it was written other than the very different category of pulps. Tolkien posits a need in man for mythology or fairy stories in Tree and Leaf and LoTR became immensely popular because it filled that need. Certainly Tolkien did not place LoTR in the same literary category as Conan the Barbarian.

Of course, it generated imitators; the concept of the heroic quest had been reawakened both within the public as well as the publishing companies. Writers who enjoyed LoTR engaged in the highest form of flattery and copied its basic ideas. But by the time Tolkien published LoTR, he had been working on his "Legendarium" for over 35 years. No other fantasy writer could boast of such an effort or provide such detail or sense of "history". Thus the best modern fantasies are those which break from Tolkien and seek their own course. Much of the balance is mere (and generally poor) imitation whether for reasons of flattery or profit.

Thus LoTR was not a fantasy when it was published; it was a modern myth or fairy tale. It did, however, morph the genre or category of (non-science fiction) pulps to adapt to and encompass it. The pulps were not well-regarded as literature and the pulps' progeny, science fiction and fantasy were similarly disdained by critics, often deservedly so. The lack of respect LoTR receives as literature (and now as a motion picture) results not from its own nature and genre but rather from the reputation of the genre which adopted it as its flagbearer.