[Evisse the Blue]

I find it interesting that some of you feel like 'defending' Tolkien by arguing that his characters have as much depth as any. But by agreeing that Tolkien's strong point was not characterization, but creating a certain atmosphere, the milieu from littlemanpoet's quote - you don't undermine his quality of a writer. I agree with Lush that Tolkien's stories simply serve a different purpose than, say -Tolstoy's. At times I may feel like reading about the turmoils and ridiculousness of human emotions - it's then that I turn to another favourite writer of mine: Iris Murdoch; at other times I feel like reading about ideal characters and brave deeds and mythic ages, then I turn to Tolkien and the Norse myths.

But what happens is - after a long period of reading Tolkien I find it very difficult to turn to another type of book and viceversa, because I find the other shallow and unnatural. This - to me, is the ultimate proof that the fantasy genre lacks what you have been calling 'psychological depth'. But, as I said before, I do not consider this a flaw.