[littlemanpoet]

Kalessin:

Could it be that LotR is a re-telling of one or more of these eternal stories - and specificially a narrative of sacrifice and redemption?

I agree with Nar's assessment that Tolkien drew together whole sets of myths into one comprehensive whole - 'hyper-archetype'. Whereas sacrifice and redemption are there, I am not sure they are the central theme of LotR.

Perhaps the old myths that we no longer hear were, in their way, also re-tellings of those eternal stories, and LotR (in a new and inventive way) like them, taps into our deepest empathies and identifications, and fulfils our cathartic need (back to Nar).

Yes. I agree with this.

Mister Underhill:

Are we to believe that somewhere out there, gathering dust in a desk drawer (or several), is a magnum opus of power and skill commensurate with (but not imitative of) LotR whose publishing and discovery has been blocked by mere market forces?

I wonder how familiar you are with the publishing industry. Indeed, I would not be in the least surprised that - somewhere out there - there are perhaps a dozen or more magnum opuses whose publishing have been blocked by market forces. Your own words make my point succinctly:

In this day and age, fantasy faces a double-whammy – a market that wishes to dumb-down the form in order to reach the broadest possible audience and to sanitize the meaning into trite, easily digestible (and above all, inoffensive) aphorisms.

It is not we readers or aspiring authors who are cynical, but the publishing market; after all, it is a market, and markets are by nature cynical: they seek profit at the expense of those things they think will hurt profit, even if it is better art. That is cynical. I'd be interested to learn if you do have first hand knowledge of the publishing industry that leads you to have greater hope than my experience has turned up.

Does the fantasy genre have some inherent flaw which dictates that we’ll only receive one great masterpiece in our time? Or, conversely, is the form so inherently difficult and challenging (compared to other genres) that only a precious, gifted few are capable of mounting to its summit?

I think neither the former or latter posits warrant an affirmative. The fantasy genre bears no flaw, nor is the form so difficult. We have witnessed the Harry Potter phenomenon - like the book or dislike it, Rowling tapped a motherlode in many readers, young and old.
postmodernism: The definition you provided included things that I had not understood to be specifically postmodern. On the other hand, there is much that the definition leaves out; which is inevitable for such a robust category-word still trying to find itself. Therefore I wouldn't put too much faith in the definitions. I was surprised not to find any reference to a counter or corrective to modernism, and think it should be there.

Nar: thank you for the clarifications.

The negotiation I spoke of --between theme and structure-- is made necessary by competing themes and their conflicting archetypes. In some cases the archetypes also enhance and intensify each other's effects. This is what makes the structure, together with the themes of the story, feel composed to me, rather than just borrowed from powerful sources. It renews and refreshs the archetypes.

I see what you are saying, and think you are correct. Excellent insight, Nar.

what should a writer do to induce a fresh act of sub-creation? Read Tolkien's sources but try to forget Tolkien and everything after? Avoid the medieval era? Learn fresh narrative techniques by reading books outside of the fantasy genre that also describe a world as well as tell a story?

This is an interesting problem. I have been working on my own fantasy story for fifteen years, and have had to face the questions you delineate. I have avoided nothing that is part of the fantasy archetype set; I think - hope - that my story is worthy to stand on its own merits for a number of different reasons. However, this diverges from the theme of this thread, so I too will start a new one: "Writing Serious Fantasy". Hope to see you there.

I think we need a new definition of the fantasy novel. How about, the fantasy novel creates a world and tells a story of elemental power. Is that enough?

I think 'reality' would be a better word than 'world' - semantics, perhaps. Perhaps it was Tolkien who spoke of an 'inner consistency of reality', maybe others, but I think that phrase needs to be part of the definition. It also needs to bear Tolkien's ideas of escape, recovery, and consolation, and probably needs to contain eucatastrophe as well. All in all, too large a definition to hold together.
Mister Underhill:

...in fantasy, the pool of archetypes and historical/mythological influences remains a static constant and there is less receptivity to new styles and modes of storytelling.

Nevertheless the constant is so wideranging that the lack of new seminal works is deplorable. I'm amazed by how much there is in Norse myth alone that Tolkien used (and didn't) in his own way that would bear a fresh rendering.
Aiwendil:

It's difficult to create a fantasy world that is not an imitation of Tolkien without it crossing over the boundaries of the genre.

Maybe difficult, but far from impossible.