As such, I approached this from the standpoint of story, style, presentation, etc.

Having said that, I reiterate my inclusion of Tolkien. The statement that Tolkien is "not good" does not hold up in any way. From a plot/story standpoint, I believe there is almost unanimous agreement that his story is extremely engaging. However, from a prose standpoint, he is phenomenal.

Open up almost any page of Tolkien and count how many words on the page are from Norman French or directly from Latin. It's sparse. He intentionally wrote using Anglo-Saxon roots when possible. His style is epic and his skill is consummate. The fact that he didn't write in the fashion of a Nineteenth Century (or, God forbid, a Twentieth Century) author doesn't make his prose bad. To the contrary, he has his own voice and his own unique style that hearkens back to older antecedents.

It is precisely because his style is so often attacked that I made the decision in late 2022 to re-read the Lord of the Rings. It was even better than I remembered it, now that I wasn't seeking entertainment, but rather literature. I wasn't approaching it as a plot-driven derivative fantasy work, but on its own terms. Tolkien is so far above and beyond all the mental, linguistic, authorial, stylistic and poetic midgets that have followed in his wake, that words escape me.

I will concede that perhaps, for the unwashed masses seeking cheap and quick entertainment, Tolkien doesn't provide as much "bang for the buck" as Georgerr Martin or Robert Jordan or any number of banal fantasy writers. However, unlike them, Tolkien wrote real literature, something that can be considered a work of art, culture and refinement. It's high culture and high art. I do not think I go too far in saying it will be viewed as something of the Divine Comedy of the Twentieth Century, even 1000 years from now (assuming humanity hasn't exterminated itself by then).