: : OTOH, I don't know a lot of people.

: : Maedhros

I'm sure that sort of thing happens all the time a group of (academics)get together and select what they feel is the best of the best. I'm sure that if you asked them to sit back down a year later without the previous years list it would look noticeably different. With that in mind (Amazon.com) has also choosen the 100 best books of the century (The best 10 per decade)and the hobbit appears as one of the entries for the 1930's. I'm sure part of the problem selecting LotR is that it was released piece by piece and didn't achieve it's full ripens until Tolkien had revised it several times. Furthermore LotR is a special kind of literature which can only be fully appreciated if the (sometimes complex) mythology is also thoroughly devoured.
At any rate it ranks in my top ten list for certain.

: You know about a year and a half ago accadamics voted for the top 100 books of the century. Tolkien did not get even honorable mention. When people called in they actually said Tolkien's was a nice little story but not worthy of the list. Ulisses (spell) was number one. Did you ever read that thing? It is horrible. Lord of The Rings is fantasy and not understood by many.