End of Return of the King

[Formendacil]

Not sure if what follows speaks exactly to what you're talking about, stryfe but it's what came up in my mind as a result of what you're saying...

Despite the deeply sad nature of this bittersweet quality, this finality is one of my favourite things about The Lord of the Rings: there is no open-ended hook for a sequel. Tolkien even attempted one, "The New Shadow" published in HoME XII, but although it is a fascinating read for a Middle-earth fan, he felt that it was somewhat pointless to explore bad guys and challenges that must pale against the enormity of Sauron and the Ring. One might say that, for Tolkien, there was simply no way to effectively "serialize" The Lord of the Rings--no way to make it the start of a series, that is: it is a self-contained story and when it's over it has ended.

The really fascinating thing about this, though, is the realisation within the book that it is only one story in the march of history. Examples of this include Gandalf and Bilbo's conversation at the end of The Hobbit about Bilbo's smallness in a much wider perspective, Gandalf's comment that the need to defeat Sauron is only one of an endless battle against waves of evil, and Sam's realisation that the light in the Vial of Galadriel ties them right into the story of Beren and Lúthien.

Perhaps that is it, though... while Middle-earth is more than wide enough to tell many, many stories, Tolkien was doing just that: telling many stories, not a single story over a series. When The Lord of the Rings ends, there is no going back for the "Further Adventures of Frodo" or "Sauron Strikes Back" or anything of that nature.

[Bêthberry]

One of the points which intrigued Tolkien about literature was stories that are liminal, or on a cusp, of change between epochs. This was one reason why Beowulf interested him so much. His comments on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight suggest as much as well, although it is a shame he never elaborated on his brief comments there.

So, it's just my personal opinion of course, but it strikes me that one of Tolkien's strongest interests in writing LotR was to consider this change of ages, from the Third Age to the Fourth, from the end of the elves' dominion to that of man. Moving right into the Fourth Age, with a clear sense of the passage of the old ways, would give him less scope for exploring such historic changes.

So the poignancy of the end of LotR belongs not only to the simple passing of the characters West but also to the end of an era or age, once that cannot be returned to.

[Jessy12]

Yes, I also had a similar feeling.I read TROTK more slowly, because I wanted to stay longer than what the novel would allow. The four hobbits of the Fellowship become harden warriors, a trait that was virtually absent from their kind. Even though the novel finally came to a complete finish, it felt like it left room for more. It's to bad that there is no direct sequel, and while it answers most of the questions left from the end of The Hobbit, the reader can come up with plenty more questions upon finishing LOTR. Professor Tolkien did a work that was unexpected in its depth. He invented several REAL languages and writing systems, a complete history to back the novel, and created a wonderful world filled with diverse races and environments. Some fantasy authors may have tried to reach Tolkien's level in fantasy literature, but I am certain the The Lord of the Rings will never be duplicated. The Return of the King stands as the incredible conclusion of the greatest epic ever written. My only regret was that it ended.