From Dragon 95 (1985, p 12):
Yeah, I remember reading that article many, many moons ago. I think I read it in the early 90s at some point, although can't remember. To me it sounds a bit like a boy trying to differentiate from his father. I do think that Tolkien wasn't the main, or even primary, source for Gygax's ideas, but his shadow has loomed large over everyone in the fantasy field, especially secondary world fantasy. Gary clearly didn't want to be subsumed by that shadow.
For me, at least, what distinguishes Tolkien from a lot of D&D fantasy is that the presentation of the world - however imaginative - isn't an end in itself.
I don't entirely agree with this and know that Tolkien clearly stated that he wasn't trying to write allegorically, but just tell a good story. What meaning and symbolism arose out of his tale was up to the reader. This isn't to say that there weren't intentional themes and, of course, the influence of the historical-cultural milieu, but Tolkien wasn't interested in using his creation as a vehicle for his philosophical or political ideas, but as meaningful in itself. If anything, a major part of the reason he created Middle-earth was as a context for his created languages and European ur-myths, but I think Middle-earth took on a life of its own and wasn't meant as a soapbox, but a living, breathing creation in and of itself.
So in a way, I think the opposite to what you say is true - that Middle-earth was, and is, the end in itself. I think this is one of the ways in which Tolkien established and re-arranged the secondary world sub-genre of fantasy: the setting itself was the main character, the story of the books just microcosms of the World Tale.
Furthermore, the presentation of the world is disciplined by acknowledged external constraints, against which the accomplishment can therefore be measured.
I wouldn't put it this way, but I think I see what you mean. I would shift it slightly and call it "internal consistency," which Middle-earth is still unsurpassed for. I think this speaks of the decades of loving work he put into it, and also how the languages tie the whole thing together.
Two examples, from Tolkien, to illustrate what I have in mind. First, Lothlorien: in terms of "external constraint", this is an attempt to make the "fairy wood" trope believable within the context of the (largely naturalistic, though not particularly modernist) contemporary novel; but it serves a larger purpose, of creating the narrative space in which the tale of Galadriel's redemption can be played out.
Second, the Undying Lands: in terms of "external constraint", this is an attempt to present a coherent, novelistic treatment of the "land to the west" that is part of British/Celtic mythology; but it serves a larger purpose, too, of enabling a distinctive (and non-Christian, though recognisably informed by elements of Christian ideals and literature) retelling of the fall, and of the possibility of salvation.
The only treatment of classic north-western European fantasy material that tries something comparable to this, that I can think of, is Wagner - also on redemptive themes, although of a much more modernist and 19th-century-revolutionary character than Tolkien.
Again, I don't think that when Tolkien was dreaming up Lothlorien he was thinking, "I want to make the fairy wood trope believable." That is more of an analytic approach to sub-creation which Tolkien, again and again, stated he did not employ, at least not as the leading force.
I'm not sure if you're read it, but I'd direct you to his short work
On Fairy Stories where he discusses what he calls "sub-creation" and "secondary worlds" at length. I haven't read it maybe 20 years, but I think what I am saying is consistent with it.
Tolkien was, in many ways, a Romantic in the tradition of Coleridge. Coleridge believed that have the capacity to go deeper that surface imagination, what he called fancy--which is what is behind most of fantasy today, and is largely a matter of re-arranging pre-fabricated parts--to a deeper, truer imagination (or, to be accurate, two forms - secondary and primary, but the differentiation isn't entirely relevant to go into). But when engaging true imagination, one is not analytically making allegorical choices and literary strategies, nor is one assembling parts from other sources. All of that is part of the process, but much of it comes later, in drafts and revision. True imagination is diving into an Other World, learning its language, and expressing it in form.
So I think, in many ways, Tolkien allowed Middle-earth to almost "create itself." He dabbled with endlessly, but allowed it to speak in its own voice and, for the most part, eschewed direct allegory.
Anyhow, I think what you are doing is taking a rather well-wrought literary criticism approach to an artist's process. Literary critics might agree with you, but the artist--and perhaps other artists--wouldn't agree with you, I think.
A D&D world like Dark Sun seems to me to suffer in comparison to these sorts of works. The tropes are novel, but they don't seem to be achievements in either of the dimensions that I've described above for Tolkien's work. Though REH has obvious weaknesses as a writer (but doesn't Tolkien too?), I think his Conan stories are more interesting for the general sand-and-sandals genre than Dark Sun. I personally wouldn't put him on the same level as Tolkien (no doubt others would disagree, including probably Gygax), but he does discipline existing tropes drawn from historical and pseudo-historical fiction, and at his best put them to work for a larger thematic purpose (ultra-modernist and somewhat nihilistic, in my view, but that's not, or needn't be, a criticism).
I agree that Dark Sun suffers in comparison. It is a well-wrought RPG setting, but doesn't have the dense patina of "deep myth" that Middle-earth does. In truth, few other worlds do. I can think of a few - Earthsea or McKillip's world for the Riddlemaster books. Maybe Malazan to some degree, and I think Howard's Hyborian Age had a strong quality of the "deep mythic." I'd even say that most, if not all, fantasies have some degree of the deep mythic, even it is only just a sprinkling. But most have more of a derivative, fanciful quality (in the Coleridgian sense). Nothing wrong with it, but it is what separates great fantasy art from good entertainment.
