I discount it because it's not the author's best piece of writing. I consider The Children of Húrin, his Lay of Leithin (sp.?), and The Fall of Arthur to be more impressive writing accomplishments because the first is a moving tragedy and the other two because they are well-crafted (although incomplete/unfinished) poems written in a style that is very difficult to achieve in modern English. LotR pales in comparison because Tolkien does not always achieve a good balance between "elevated" and "common" speech and at times the story suffers from this.

When did I ever say that LotR was the "first modern fantasy novel" or that it "start[ed] a genre?" I believe the opposite of those claims.

What the fuck are you smoking here?

You've gone off the rails here.

I think you need to reorder your thoughts here, as this was nonsensical in part to me. Yes, Arthur is Christian and yes the Saxons are presented as heathens. The basics are similar to what Malory and those prior to him wrote about.

I'm only referencing the popularity of the legends; Geoffrey of Monmouth's history of England introduced not just Arthur but other quasi-historical personages to the educated and popular cultures. I have no strong opinion either way on the historicity of Arthur.