[Lith]

First off, modern authors are more recognizing the fact that female characters can exist below the neck-indeed, that female characters can exist AT ALL.

This isn't a characteristic of Tolkien though. Galadriel and Eowyn were hardly there for sex appeal. True, he doesn't talk of women much, but Galadriel led her people for ages, and had much wisdom and power, and Eowyn is mentioned as (paraphrasing rather badly) "having a heart like that of a man, that beat just as strong." So ultimately while we don't get many women, the ones we do get are QUALITY.

On temptation of the good guys- Galadriel and Gandalf also both wanted the ring. So it isn't right to say that Boromir was the only character that was tempted. He's just the only one that gave in. In fact, Galadriel and Gandalf were both very frightened of the ring, and what it would do to them. It was probably fear for their very souls that helped them resist temptation. And even Frodo, ultimately, couldn't give up the ring, and gave in to temptation, so it was only through a stroke of luck (or Providence) that the world was saved. As for the other characters (mostly Hobbits), they are flawed in that they don't understand the world they are travelling through- their worldview is too small from living in the insular Shire all their lives. And they're rather lazy. Possibly these are flaws neglected in modern fiction.

I think Tolkien had a certain turn of mind that, agree with him or disagree, gave him the mindset to produce greater depth than other authors. His characters don't all know the history of the world, but you know there's more buried under the surface. It isn't just the amount of historical detail, either, but something in the types of details and stories told, that differentiate him from other authors. I wish I could explain it better than that. Perhaps it's partly that he didn't jump into his characters' heads too much. Perhaps it's that his ancient languages are self-consistent (thanks to his profession). Perhaps it's that his characters aren't in it for themselves (so much so at least), and perhaps it's because he patterned his characters on old tales he was familiar with. Or perhaps it was some combination of all this, and something more besides. And a certain nobility that's rather out of fashion now but which gives hope to readers. A nobility that perhaps never existed in most people, but nevertheless (if realistically done) gives a number of people something to strive toward.

And JD, I wholly agree about LOTR being infused with a sense of death. Though I would also add despair and disappointment to that.

Tolkien's style was flawed and featured too much BS when if he would've got to the story instead of telling me the history of some family that I never hear about again, I would've enjoyed it much more. I agree with the person who said that Eddings is better than Tolkien, and I will even go so far as to say that Robert Jordan is better as well.

Ironically I think that's part of what makes Tolkien better. It forces one to slow down and ponder, and through it, his world feels larger. And the world did move slower before the Industrial Revolution. A months-long journey would not have you business-minded all waking hours. The whole modern world has gotten caught up in a mindset (not just literary) that says to "not waste time" and to always "be more efficient". It's the machine ethic carried over into every area of life.

And I strongly disagree about Jordan (and haven't read Eddings)- let's just say I find Jordan highly entertaining for all the wrong reasons.

It's funny, but for all the talk of Tolkien-knockoffs, I don't think there have ever been any. His imitators just recycle the very elements of LOTR that weren't his to begin with, leaving out that elusive quality that lifts LOTR above the rest.

As for Tolkien compared to Martin- Martin can be more exciting; certainly there's more going on in the intricacy of the plot; but when I read LOTR, I actually felt I'd been on a months-long, arduous journey through a barren Mordor. No other book has ever given me that experience, and unfortunately it's one I'm not so anxious to repeat (I've read Fellowship three times, but only excerpts of the latter two since the first reading).

Without wandering too far off topic, I do want to add that Tolkien isn't as black-and-white as is commonly supposed; neither is Martin as grey as commonly supposed. If Martin was truly morally grey, I wouldn't like him at all. He's still following the "show, don't tell" rule, and doing it better than a lot of writers these days. Under all that apparent moral relativism is, I suspect, a strong moral underpinning. Still awaiting the rest of the books to confirm that suspicion, though.