MY REPLY: I first read LOTR thirty years ago and can still recall my excitement; I was simply swept away. In my opinion, there are numerous reasons why the Trilogy should be included in any selection of the top 100 books of the 20th Century.

Setting the sheer genius of the epic itself aside (indeed, if that is possible), The Lord of the Rings merits recognition simply for having initiated entire generations of readers willingly into a world of literature that might otherwise have begun and ended with three days of college Beowulf. Like a "gateway drug," the Trilogy opens the door to a staggering range of literary genres, mythological archetypes and historical periods. Practically anything of relevance in the first volume of the Norton Anthology of English Literature is touched upon, and with significantly greater energy than many college survey courses, by the trip across Middle Earth.

Secondly, one need only look at the explosion of fantasy literature in the years following the publication of LOTR to understand the impact of Tolkien's achievement. Although I am not familiar with the titles on the list of the top 100 books that were selected, it seems that few other single authors in the past 100 years could claim to have served as the catalysts of such wide-reaching change.

For either of these reasons alone, in my opinion, the book has earned inclusion in any Top 100. Taken together, its exclusion is as unfathomable as the Mines of Moria...

Personally, I suspect some academic bias against "popular fiction" is at work.