Has Tolkien lost his crown?

[Werthead]

Malazan started life as a D&D campaign and many of its characters were D&D player-characters. There's also a clear delineation of power in the books, in the way that characters suddenly gain lots of new abilities at once ('levelling up') such as Paran when he became Master of the Deck or anyone when they reach Level 20/Ascend, or that Kalam, as a result of his experiences between DHG and TBH, is now a higher level and thus can take on a much larger number of higher-level enemies simultaneously. It's actually an extremely common criticism of the series, even from some of its fans.

So, he may have been a pioneer, but really he has long ago lost the great and powerful masses

This is blatantly untrue. If the conditions you are measuring success and influence by is popular success, as you are with Rowling, then Lord of the Rings rules supreme as it has sold more copies than any other novel (and that's any novel, of any genre, ever) in history. In fact, it takes the combined sales of all seven of the Potter books to overtake Rings just by itself.

If you mean that he lost the "SF&F masses", that may be more worthy of debate. The literati side of genre would probably cite Gene Wolfe as the 'king' whilst the populist side might now go for Jordan or Martin, but frankly I still think a poll would put Tolkien on top (especially as Martin and Wolfe themselves rate Tolkien at the head of the genre).

 

[QuickTidal]

Malazan started life as a D&D campaign and many of its characters were D&D player-characters. There's also a clear delineation of power in the books, in the way that characters suddenly gain lots of new abilities at once ('levelling up') such as Paran when he became Master of the Deck or anyone when they reach Level 20/Ascend, or that Kalam, as a result of his experiences between DHG and TBH, is now a higher level and thus can take on a much larger number of higher-level enemies simultaneously. It's actually an extremely common criticism of the series, even from some of its fans.



This is blatantly untrue. If the conditions you are measuring success and influence by is popular success, as you are with Rowling, then Lord of the Rings rules supreme as it has sold more copies than any other novel (and that's any novel, of any genre, ever) in history. In fact, it takes the combined sales of all seven of the Potter books to overtake Rings just by itself.

If you mean that he lost the "SF&F masses", that may be more worthy of debate. The literati side of genre would probably cite Gene Wolfe as the 'king' whilst the populist side might now go for Jordan or Martin, but frankly I still think a poll would put Tolkien on top (especially as Martin and Wolfe themselves rate Tolkien at the head of the genre).

Oh sorry...should have qualified my Tolkien statements.....yeah, I meant us SF & F masses....(hence great and powerful masses! LOL). Just because an author places Tolkien ahead of themselves, doesn't mean we should too. I have asked my friends who are into SF & F....there's about 5 of them...and they all seem to agree with this. Tolkien's story about industrialization is good, but it meanders so much that you lose interest. I feel FOTR works so well as a film because we get to cut out all the singing and walking.....I mean the majority of FOTR (the book) is spent walking and singing and gabbing. It was tedious, at best. I also abhorred his lack of female characters. In a diverse world that he supposedly created, there are a serious lack of female characters. I mean, even Arwen didn't show up till ...what the 3rd book? So we are left with Galadriel, and Eowyn.....

Anyways.....I'm not saying I dislike it. I enjoyed LOTR thoroughly, and it sits on my shelf in nice hardback editions. I just think that the SF & F community at large kind of considers it all old hat.

 

[Mithfânion]

Quicktidal

Can I just say that you come off really poorly with these replies of yours?

Also, who was the person who said the Malazan series was too (and I effing quote....) "D & D-ish"?!?! Sorry...but what series are you reading? I wager anyone who calls the Malazan series D & D-ish.....has either not read it, or simply didn't pay attention. It's about as far as one can get from it.

Should I even be responding in-depth to someone who cannot even bother to look up what the name is of the poster he is supposedly "quoting"?

I think not. Especially since criticizing The Malazan series as being far too much in the D&D realm is a very common complaint. Your outrage over it shows your lack of familiarity with the series and other people's opinions of it. Read some more. Not to mention the fact that there are few major well-known series that carry the D&D influence so clearly on it's sleeve as The MBoTF.

I think it's awesome that she neglected to pick up her award. I love that JK is willing to snuff it to the Hugo's

I don't agree with this either. I'm not a fan of the Hugo's. But I don't see why anyone would applaud Rowling for her dismissive attitude. People are praising her and she sniffs her nose and refuses the award, and also thinks that her 100% young Adult Fantasy series is in fact not Fantasy. Seems pretty pretentious. And plain wrong.

Oh, and about this thread....yeah, Tolkien lost the fantasy crown years ago.....when I finally read the LOTR series, and thought that although it started something, it's WAY underpar with what has come out since

I see. We are back to the "I didn't like Tolkien so he doesn't deserve his crown and/or he has now lost it because it wasn't to my taste" argument.

Not a particularly compelling argument for obvious reasons.

Just because an author places Tolkien ahead of themselves, doesn't mean we should too.

Agreed. But I note that you conveniently ignore the point about JRR Tolkien still topping loads of "best of " lists on the internet messageboards. Not to mention the many popularity contests the book has won even when compared to popular standard literature. I suppose they are meaningless as well, seeing as you didn't like the book and found it tedious.

I have asked my friends who are into SF & F....there's about 5 of them...and they all seem to agree with this

Well that settles it then, if Alvin and the Chipmunks have come to a consensus then we can all bow down

Seriously, you do see the flaw in that argument right?

Anyways.....I'm not saying I dislike it

You just said you find the LoTR Tedious. But you don't dislike it? You just said you hate it's lack of female characters. But you don't dislike it? You say it meanders endlessly and has far too much singing and travelling. But you don't dislike it?

It's all very odd man, the stuff you throw out.

BTW I have no problem with the few female characters in the LoTR. None at all. But if a lack of female characters in any story is a big deal to you, read some supernatural romance.

I just think that the SF & F community at large kind of considers it all old hat.

The "SF and F community at large" thinks no such thing amigo.

 

[theoneisis]

So Tolkien is the higher ground? Seems to me your the one with the narrow view.

Nope. Tolkien isn't the higher ground and I don't have a narrow view. My fault for not explaining myself fully, but this is an old, cyclical argument and I don't always feel like rehashing the same stuff over and over again, especially when Mithfânion and Werthead have already provided all the necessary information to illustrate the influence of Tolkien.

By higher ground I merely mean: get some perspective on the genre overall, and even *gasp* how it fits into literature generally. If anybody seriously thinks that Jordan or Erikson is going to be remembered long after people have forgotten all about Tolkien - to me this suggests a lack of... something. Call it awareness or perspective, call it knowledge or experience, but no matter what you call it there's something missing there.

Joe: Interesting that you're in the 'film-influencing the book' camp. I find that I retain the 'imagery' of the Radio 4 adaptation when I read the books: Ian Holm's Frodo is WAY closer to my own image of Frodo than Elijah Wood's Frodo is ever going to be. And as scrumptious an Aragorn as Viggo makes, he isn't MY Aragorn from the books. (Did I say this on Thursday? My brain was too pickled to remember).

Also, with some distance from the films I'm able to see how they took certain aspects of characters or relationships and distilled them so that they stand out clear and distinct. It's not telling us (fans of the books) anything we don't already know, it just gives us a sharper focus on certain areas. There are people who saw the films first and then read the books, I still think that will happen as time goes by, although perhaps it will happen less... “Ai! Laurie lantar lassi surinen, yeni unotime ve ramar aldaron!” Namarie. *sheds single tear*

Certainly for me the films serve multiple purposes - which makes me NARF - ARF would simply reject the films outright.

And finally, call me old-fashioned but I don't see the value in discussing an author without having first read their work. If you haven't read a particular book then whose opinion of it are you giving? The wise speak only of what they know... Where I come from we call this covering your own arse.

 

[Nemo]

Perhaps my opinion wont count as I haven't read Erikson, Martin or Wolfe (yet!) . However, I happen to think Tolkien will keep his crown. Nothing I have read since LOTR has had such an affect on me. LOTR was what got me reading fantasy when I was young. There is a magic to it that is difficult to pin point. Tolkien has a wide ranging influence outside of the fantasy realm and is highly respected with a huge number of loyal fans across generations - some qualities well fitting to a king! Also I don't think it matters how many amazing works an author creates, one is enough if it has such a major influence on the world.

 

[Astra_]

Tolkien will always be a genius for me and father of modern fantasy.

 

[DailyAlice]

I haven't read many of the post-Tolkien epic fantasy series--so you might say I have a lotta nerve getting into this--but it does seem to me that JRRT could create a challenge to a younger reader used to the instant gratification of movies and games. It was written by an Oxford professor and wears its scholarship with a sort of...gravitas. It is a beautiful, beautiful work and a wonder of world-building--the man invented a *new language*--but it is up to the reader to repay Prof. Tolkien's effort with an effort of his own. Block out some time, get rid of contemporary distractions, hang up your disbelief and be patient.

I actually read the original gorgeous British hardcovers when they first became available in libraries, and I read them while visiting a state park: old-growth forest, a small, unindustrialized river. The perfect setting. Tom Bombadil could have arrived at any moment. It helped.

Though I've never managed to reread Lord of the Rings completely, I'm very happy that I read it then. There's a reason that it gave rise to a rebirth of high fantasy. It touched thousands.

 

[MarkCN]

The important thing is to realise that Tolkien was one of the pioneers of secondary world creation. He was one of the first. Every writer of secondary world fantasy is in his shadow. Tolkien was a scholar of myth, an academic, and poured his life diligently into one creation, not writing for any market. He has sold tens of millions of copies of his books.

Modern writers sell tens of thousands, one or two sell hundreds of thousands if they are lucky. The difference is right there, and it will always be.

Whist I am more of a fan of writers like China Miéville and M John Harrison, I reckon you have to respect Tolkien an industry of his own. People will read Tolkien and no other fantasy. But some will read him and enter the genre. He's the starting point for millions of readers.

 

[Bond]

The important thing is to realise that Tolkien was one of the pioneers of secondary world creation. He was one of the first.

Nothing wrong with this. Viva Tolkien!

Every writer of secondary world fantasy is in his shadow.

This, however, I find objectionable. Tolkien Boo! Hiss!

Tolkien was a scholar of myth, an academic, and poured his life diligently into one creation, not writing for any market. He has sold tens of millions of copies of his books.

Neither here nor there. If he did write for a particular market how exactly would that be of pertinence? I could actually make a claim that he did write for a market that had previously not been addressed very well and that particular point is one of the most important aspects of his legacy.

 

[SiberianSamurai]

A lot of importance in fantasy circles is placed upon the question of why fantasy is not treated more seriously, and why it is on the fringe of literary circles. As some of you have alluded to already, much of epic fantasy written in the 80's and 90's was more in the vein of someone like Brooks, who benefited from Tolkien's popularity and the originality of his work by utilizing some of the more pulpish aspects of Tolkien's genius. In other words, a lot of the academics were taken out of the works published in general after Tolkien (I know there are some very notable exceptions). The point is that Tokien was and is able to transcend the notion that fantasy is a genre belonging outside of the literati. Most are not able to do this, including I would say, authors like Martin (who I have a great deal of respect for). Wolfe is probably an exception, as are others and I do think this is changing, what with the ever burgeoning subgenres that encompass the world of speculative fiction.

In short, Tolkien is really the only significant author who is able to do what many readers of fantasy have been hoping for, which is to create something that can be treated with respect outside the community of readers who largely read within the genre.

And in general I think those that believe that Tolkien's work will outlive the Martins, Jordans, and Eriksons of the world are correct, and I think these authors would probably agree with this statement. After all, the work of Tolkien has largely outlasted the writings of other writers who wrote popular fantasy works in previous decades (Norton, Anderson, Ashton-Smith, Vance). One could have made the same argument that the efficacy of these writers and their contribution to the genre would have outshined that of Tolkin's, but that has certainly not been the case.

 

[Evil Agent]

Wow, four pages in one day! Good thread...

However, the question is so ambiguous. Has Tolkien lost his crown? Well, I don't know... did he ever really have a crown? And what crown is it, exactly?

In my mind, Tolkien will always hold the "crown", because there will never be another author quite like him (in fantasy, at least). He is so different from all the fantasy authors of today, that there is really no way to fairly compare them.

If we are strictly looking at epic scale, enthralling plot, characterization, etc., then Tolkien has clearly been surpassed. In the decades since Tolkien's death, many authors have been able to surpass him in those areas (e.g. Martin = Better Plot and Characterization, Hobb = Better Characterization, Erikson = Better Action and Battles).

But I think that's besides the point...

Tolkien remains, as Mithfanion put it, "a class act". No one in fantasy is more authentic than him. There is a very simple explanation for this: fantasy authors today purposefully set out to write an exciting and well-written fantasy series, and they usually lay out this plot beforehand, complete with maps and races and systems of magic. Tolkien did not do this! What Tolkien did was spend most of his adult life creating a body of mythology, which included actual languages. This was his life's work, and it was never finished (except in the posthumous Silmarillion, which remains one of the most impressive work of imaginative fiction ever created... even if its final form is nearly unreadable for some people). The fact that he spent his life devising this body of mythology gives it an astounding level of depth and authenticity. That is why, when he was asked to write a sequel to the Hobbit, he came up with The Lord of the Rings, which already had this massive backstory in place. The world was already created, and not at all for the purpose of writing LOTR. In this way, I would say that Tolkien is something of an anomaly. Not your usual author by any stretch of the imagination.

And that's why I think his works remain untouchable.

 

[ben1xy]

I agree with many of the comments made earlier that the literary aspects of Tolkien is what makes LOTR a seminal piece of literature in the genre. I agree with the many comments postulating that Tolkien has helped define fantasy. With that being said, has Tolkien lost his crown? It depends on the premise and target audience. With the younger readers, many would find the book to be inaccessible and boring.

This incident happened to me a couple of months back: One of my students (a 14 yr old female) was having a conversaion to me about books. She told me that she was interested in reading fantasy books. Sifting through my little library, i thought that Harry Potter might interest her. However, she vehemently insisted that she would rather read LOTR. Seeing her insistence, i passed her the book with a warning that it might be a tad tough. 3 days later, she returned the book and went for Eddings instead. Even my younger brother couldn't finish LOTR when he was 16. So yes, the crown of Tolkien has been lost to perhaps, the younger audience.

But Tolkien is more than that. Like many have pointed out, LOTR helps correct some of the negative stereotype associated with Fantasy books. In High School, we had to do up 10 books reviews per year. Being a fantasy fan, i drove my literature teacher mad with my fantasy selections. She thought fantasy books to have amatuerish prose and little value. However, after asking her to read LOTR, her perception of the genre changed.

Before i digress again, i agree with one comment that Tolkien's shadow still looms today. With the many 'Tolkien-clones' in the market, whenever an author breaks free from this stereotype, we hype him up and praise him/her for their groundbreaking contribution. But it's precisely because Tolkien's shadow still exist that we these efforts gets lauded.

Would LOTR be replaced by Martin? I doubt so. LOTR is a classic and it will be mentioned in the same breath as the Dickens, and books like 1984, etc

 

[Dawnstorm]

The important thing is to realise that Tolkien was one of the pioneers of secondary world creation. He was one of the first.

Not really, no.

"World building" has always been part of the literary activity - from the early utopias through Swift's Gulliver to Doyle's Lost World or Edgar Burrows' Mars, and beyond.

Secondary World/Alternate History have deleted the travellers from the known world as a literary technique; but people have done that independent of Tolkien, too.

What Tolkien's done is to put detail into the world beyond what's in the text, and he's used academic methodologies (mostly linguistic and historic) to do so. That is his major contribution. He invented Star Trek geekery: the fiddling with worlds beyond immediate story or philosophy relevance.

I suppose the academics of his time would have viewed that as a hobby, not unlike playing with model trains. Tolkien's methodological contribution is his appendix, and - in consequence - the Silmarillion; the story has icon status, but that takes you only so far.

In the eighties, I remember, the fantasy genre was attributed both to Tolkien and Howard. Howard appears to have retreated to cult status, whereas Tolkien has advanced to pop status. Somewhere in the sidelines we get Peake, the patron saint of genre elitism. What does this all have in common? Personality cult. The need for a genius to look up to.

Seriously, modern epic fantasy has a lot of ignored connections with the chivalric romances of, say, Sir Walter Scott, too. If Tolkien had never been published, that would have been a loss. But it wouldn't have been the loss of the entire genre. Not by a long shot.

 

[Power to the J]

We can't tell because all of the Tolkien knock-offs have periods of extreme suckiness in them (Why couldn't have Jordan ended WoT in 6 books? Why?). Tolkien drags at time, but nothing as bad as four chapters of a character taking a bath. It's strange saying this since the author commented on this thread, but I honestly think that Abercrombie's First Law trilogy is the closest and most similar thing that a comparison can be made between LotR, but stylistically Tolkien and Abercrombie are so vastly different that it's a tough comparison to make.

Then we come to the A Song of Ice and Fire and/or Malazan Book of the Fallen argument. The only similarity I see between either of these three series is that a) they're told on an epic scale, b) they have battles and c) they're in the same genre, but it's like fantasy apples and oranges. Other than that, they're all pretty much completely opposite each other, which is great.

Lord of the Rings was originally published over half a century ago, and we're still arguing about it being the best ever now, so it must be up there (though I'm a member of the Martin camp).

If we were to have an argument or who holds the epic fantasy quest title, I'd say Homer, in all honesty, because The Oddysey is as good as any other epic I've ever read, and other books have clearly drawn from it (which isn't all bad, necessarily).

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I'm prepared to fight to the death for my opinions.

 

[QuickTidal]

Can I just say that you come off really poorly with these replies of yours?

Sigh.

Yes, you are fully entitled to say that my replies make me come off poorly. Sure, whatever blows your skirt up. No skin off my nose.

Should I even be responding in-depth to someone who cannot even bother to look up what the name is of the poster he is supposedly "quoting"?

I chose not to quote the "poster" of said statement (D&D one) on purpose....it's a tactic. You get that right?...since you are the subject of that tactic I would only expect you to. Which only goes to show it worked.

I think not. Especially since criticizing The Malazan series as being far too much in the D&D realm is a very common complaint. Your outrage over it shows your lack of familiarity with the series and other people's opinions of it. Read some more. Not to mention the fact that there are few major well-known series that carry the D&D influence so clearly on it's sleeve as The MBoTF.

Actually, I've been through the Malazan series 3 times (up to Bonehunters twice and up to Reapers Gale once) and I like to think I know it pretty well. As far as D & D goes, if you could lift D & D en masse (in it's many pieces) and lay it overtop of the Malazan series, then show me how it is so close, then this is heresay on your part, and a bunch of buggery bollocks to me. While I understand that it will have SOME similarities, as nearly everything in the fantasy genre does....I feel that those are sparse at best, and anything else is just reaching. This is actually the first I've heard of someone comparing the two in the few years since I have been reading Erikson. I know it began life as a D & D campaign, but past DH it became something much much more....sorry, but that's how I see it.

I don't agree with this either. I'm not a fan of the Hugo's. But I don't see why anyone would applaud Rowling for her dismissive attitude. People are praising her and she sniffs her nose and refuses the award, and also thinks that her 100% young Adult Fantasy series is in fact not Fantasy. Seems pretty pretentious. And plain wrong.

I just like that she snuffed it to awards that I dislike on the whole. That's MY opinion....feel free to disagree all you like, but I'm still going to have that opinion. If she snuffed her nose at other awards that I feel hold more merit, then we can talk...but not the Hugo's. Not considering HP fantasy is something she was shown was an error, and she changed it. That initial statement was not a great one. Agreed.

I see. We are back to the "I didn't like Tolkien so he doesn't deserve his crown and/or he has now lost it because it wasn't to my taste" argument.

Not a particularly compelling argument for obvious reasons.

I suppose not, but I still feel that the more people I talk to, have the same opinion. The only ones I can find that still unabashedly love it, are older people who grew up with it. My uncles for example, so then maybe it's an age thing?

Well that settles it then, if Alvin and the Chipmunks have come to a consensus then we can all bow down

Yes well, this statement was just meant as a fact that those people I personally know in REAL life that enjoy fantasy....have similar arguments. It's not meant to be anything more. I realize it isn't a consensus of the general population. I felt it was relevant to bring it up as an example that I am not crazy in my thoughts on the matter. I can't put that any simpler for you. Sorry.

You just said you find the LoTR Tedious. But you don't dislike it? You just said you hate it's lack of female characters. But you don't dislike it? You say it meanders endlessly and has far too much singing and travelling. But you don't dislike it?

Correct! Cookie for you! I didn't dislike it. I think it is TOO LONG and meandering, and I dislike the "LACK OF FEMALE CHARACTERS", but still overall I enjoyed the series when all is said and done, it just has elements I don't think are all that great. You DO see the distinction, don't you? I spoke of elements I disliked, but not of the whole story. Or am I not allowed to not like parts of it, and still get enjoyment from it? Is this a totalitarian reading state? Come on. Use your head.

BTW I have no problem with the few female characters in the LoTR. None at all. But if a lack of female characters in any story is a big deal to you, read some supernatural romance.

It was a statement about Tolkiens obvious mindset and era. I was saying that for a guy who was groundbreaking a genre, he certainly didn't put lots of women in his books. Three books that take place in a fantasy world. The cast list of men is HUGE, and females are poorly represented in his world. Sorry, but they are. It's a fact. So much so in fact that Arwen was added to the first two film versions just so it wasn't so blatant. I was saying Tolkien had issues about it is all. Ask yourself this.....who the hell gave birth to all these hero's he speaks of?

The "SF and F community at large" thinks no such thing amigo.

Oh. I like this one. There is as little to back up your statement as there is to back up mine! They are both statements of our beliefs, plain and simple....only thing is that I'm not masquerading mine. We both know that there is no way to prove a statement like mine....nor yours. So why bother.

Thanks for the long and sweet response though! It gives me warm fuzzies to think I amused you so!

Have a great day!

 

[Bond]

A lot of importance in fantasy circles is placed upon the question of why fantasy is not treated more seriously, and why it is on the fringe of literary circles. As some of you have alluded to already, much of epic fantasy written in the 80's and 90's was more in the vein of someone like Brooks, who benefited from Tolkien's popularity and the originality of his work by utilizing some of the more pulpish aspects of Tolkien's genius. In other words, a lot of the academics were taken out of the works published in general after Tolkien (I know there are some very notable exceptions). The point is that Tokien was and is able to transcend the notion that fantasy is a genre belonging outside of the literati. Most are not able to do this, including I would say, authors like Martin (who I have a great deal of respect for). Wolfe is probably an exception, as are others and I do think this is changing, what with the ever burgeoning subgenres that encompass the world of speculative fiction.

In short, Tolkien is really the only significant author who is able to do what many readers of fantasy have been hoping for, which is to create something that can be treated with respect outside the community of readers who largely read within the genre.

And in general I think those that believe that Tolkien's work will outlive the Martins, Jordans, and Eriksons of the world are correct, and I think these authors would probably agree with this statement. After all, the work of Tolkien has largely outlasted the writings of other writers who wrote popular fantasy works in previous decades (Norton, Anderson, Ashton-Smith, Vance). One could have made the same argument that the efficacy of these writers and their contribution to the genre would have outshined that of Tolkin's, but that has certainly not been the case.

This is how Tolkien groupies would have everyone else in fantasy think. I suspect the reason those in literary circles don't hold fantasy in much esteem is because popular fantasy (largely epic fantasy) aside from the pulp tendency alluded to already tends towards entertainment and romanticism. The literary establishment seems geared towards appreciation of the exact opposite, work with some ostensibly greater purpose whatever that is and a down-to-earth modernist sensibility. As it is authors like Robert Louis Stevenson, Sir Walter Scott, and Alexandre Dumas don't seem to be particularly appreciated by the literary clique so it's not exactly surprising fantasy authors that largely follow in their footsteps aren't appreciated that much either and epic fantasy authors I would say are the inheritors of their legacy as much as any.

I do not think holding Tolkien in very high esteem helps curry favor with literary types that much even with his degrees and gravitas laden style. What many Tolkien fans don't seem to realize when they criticize an author like Brooks is that Brooks did a very effective job of distilling Tolkien's LotR to its essentials minus the embellishment. Just by comparing Shannara with LotR one can see that the plot structure of LotR is very simple and derivative. But what makes LotR more than Shannara? Mood? Depth? But what kind of depth? If all he did was simply create more detailed histories and mythologies than what came before, then many of today's writers can be said to have done the same.

For all the people saying Tolkien was original I see surprisingly little evidence of it in LotR. LotR strikes me as an amalgam of popular ideas from separate genres combined into one story. The sum of the parts produces something fairly new but if you were to analyze each part in isolation there are only few parts in which he improved much or did an original take over a previous template and those parts are not necessarily the features copied heavily in succeeding fantasy. From what I can tell his sources of inspiration were more sophisticated than LotR itself in the aspects Tolkien copied from them. In fact I think one of the reasons LotR is effectively used as a reference is because it contains many tropes in a simple straightforward basic outline.

 

[Mithfânion]

Quicktidal/Alvin

Whatever. I read the first paragraph of your "response" and knew that reading any further was not necessary.

 

[thrinidir]

Has Tolkien lost his crown?

I didn't know that he had it.

 

[ben1xy]

I didn't know that he had it.

To be fair, neither has he ever sought it

 

[phil_geo]

He may have lost it, but remember,

From the ashes a fire shall be woken
A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be blade that was broken
The crownless again shall be king.


In all seriousness, unless you use sales, awards, or something quantifiable, there's no way to answer the quesiton. Plot, characterization and world-building are too subjective. It's like arguing about whether blue is still the best color.