: Who ever said it isn't literature? I mean, something can be literature and fantasy at the same time, right? I once went to a bookstore that listed Journey to the Centre of the Earth and From the Earth to the Moon under SciFi & Fantasy, and if those books aren't literature, what is?

I wasn't saying that LOTR isn't literature, but only retorting to the original statement that the critics may (or may not) consider LOTR a work of literary merit and worthy of entering the canon. I would be very frightened if my own personal recommendations were made into fact, as I do believe that LOTR is a work that everyone should read. But I tend to shy away from such facist thought, as facism itself is not an end that I, or anyone else would enjoy too greatly. My only point was that there is a reason why some things are considered "literature" and other things are not.

: Also, I don't think that literature is based upon content. I mean, A Tale of Two Cities, IMHO is long-winded junk that never gets to the point. So if Dickens is literature, who says Tolkien isn't?

I would argue that point in the extreme. Granted what some have termed as "literature" is not something any of us would enjoy reading. However, it is exactly the content that should be measured. "Tale of Two Cities" has a deep history that should be understood before we pass judgement. Much like "Great Expectations" Dickens wrote it as part of a serial for a newspaper. Thus you will see how every second chapter leads up to kind of cliffhanger, much like the soap operas of today. It's actually kind of brilliant when you look at it from that point of view, and the desire to read the next two chapters kept the audiences coming back for more. However, Dickens did address various social conditions, of England and this also, placed in context makes him a worthwhile read, especially if you want to know what people thought and what life was like during that time in English history.

However, to extend your point, there are many things in the canon which I don't personally consider worthwhile (Melville and Hemmingway leap instantly to mind) but which others would consider terribly good peices of work. I am not certain that much Sci/Fi Fantasy has made it into the realm of the canon. Though Aldous Huxley probably is considered literature (despite his constant shift between protagonists). The fantastic tools which Tolkein uses is probably the crux of the problem entering Tolkein into the canon. It is difficult for many people to get past those images and into the greater depth of Tolkein's world, and the various messages he conveys through his writing. Whereas, novels such as "A Farewell to Arms" slaps you in the face with the message constantly, which I presume critics and readers find easier to pigeon-hole as literature!?

-RobRoy