<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">Lee wrote:<br>>Great observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone in having assumed that LotR was<br><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;">>more of a prototype or archetype of S & S while Conan is more of a cheap comic book derivative.<br>>A cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character created by an American, while LotR seems<br>>somehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters created by an Englishman.<br> <br>To me, the generic markers of "s&s" vs. "Tolkienesque" usually break down like this:<br><br>s&s - adventure tales where action and "marvels" are what drives the story. (The magazine _The Black Gate_ is trying to revive this
right now.)<br>Tolkienesque - fantasy that tries to inspire a sense of scope and "history" and is infused with moralisms ("good vs. evil," maturation and "coming of age" stories, religious/mythic allegory, etc.)<br><br>Some people certainly try to imply markers of quality in the definitions, but I've heard both terms used as praise and derision. I don't think it's integral to the terms.<br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>