: Some posted a message here that suggested that as time has passed the thinking of literary critics about Tolkien may be changing and that there are some who consider LOTR to be not just a "fantasy" classic, but "true literature" of the highest order. To those of us who have been long time fans of the book that comes as no surprise. I've always thought that the book was a masterpiece - not just the story, which is a conglomeration of many stories from many sources packaged in an original way, but the writing and use of language. And there is the indefinable aspect. At least for me there is an aspect that transcends other books that I've read. I don't know that I can adequately describe what that aspect is, but from reading many of the posts here and elsewhere I think that some of you will understand what I'm trying to say.

Well said. Most people who have problems with Tolkien either haven't understood him, or object to him because he dosn't fit into any of their literary categories. In his book *Defending middle-earth", Patrick Curry takes a good look at some of Tolkien's critics, and shows, that they don't like the anti-modernist message he's bringing across. If you want to know more about these critics, you could follow upo some of the refernces in that book. Msot of the critics are absolutely ridiculous. One claimed to have read the book all the way through, yet in his attck uses *Gandalph* throughhout. Another sees Sam's fight with Shelob as erotic imagery and the fight between the sexes. This sort of thing is so ridiculous that it can't even count as serious criticism.