Let’s not forget forget Lobelia Sackville-Baggins!
This is a difficult choice, but the approach I took was more of the series of influence it had rather than how much I like it. Right at it’s core, comparing directly Tolkien to Star Trek, though I am a fan of the former, Star Trek is not only something I enjoy more but has more to work with and has a particularly unique niche in it’s genre. But, that’s exactly why I think Star Trek is ultimately something we can do without moreso than Tolkien. There’s a lot of work like what Tolkien did precisely because his work was so highly influential that his work is essentially the definition of high fantasy, where as great as Star Trek is, it is “only” one of the great Science Fiction franchises. Or to put it another way, as a metal fan, Tolkien is to high fantasy like Black Sabbath is to metal, whereas Star Trek is to SciFi more akin to one of the “big four” like Metallica. And, much like those, even if you like the big four more, you’d be a fool not to realize how indispensible Black Sabbath is.
Literally, the influence of Tolkien is difficult to overstate. Virtually every modern work in the genre borrows significantly from his work, he’s affected so much other work in other genres, including fine arts and music. Hell, I could name a dozen bands off the top of my head that have their names or multiple songs relating directly to Tolkien’s work, but I can’t think of one that ties in to Star Trek. And, it’s influence, it has played a huge part in Western Culture as a whole and countless people working in other fields, like politics and science have been inspired by his work for multiple generations now.
That’s not to say that Star Trek hasn’t had widespread influence, and it does get some credit for things that Tolkien’s work doesn’t do, like inspiring modern technology like cell phones and tablets. I also give Star Trek credit for it’s generally more Utopian approach to the future, it’s very much the sort of future that I think many people would like to bring about, so it does give us hope in a way that many other SciFi or fantasy franchises don’t, but it just hasn’t had the breadth of influence.
As others have observed, the continua buggy was never going to be involved in the operation. Too much risk of running into 2014!Skald and getting into a slapfight.
And Arwen, IIRC, never gets a single line of dialogue.
Gone in either timeline under discussion, thank Og, Eru, and the Great Bird.
This raises the question (for me, at least): If LOTR is gone, does Sword of Shannara still exist?
I guess it all comes down to: Which deletion is more likely to remove Piers Anthony from [del]our literary timeline[/del] the list of books that have ever been published?
I voted the “…obviously bluffing, and obviously NOT a Vulcan” option. Also, he’s obviously not a golfer.
I vote to remove Twilight and True Blood. Terrible writing and manipulation of supernatural classics.
We are still living in the Fourth Age of Middle Earth. Hasn’t anyone studied history?
[QUOTE=Filbert]
In Lord of the Rings, we just have Galadriel, Arwen, and Eowyn.
[/QUOTE]
Rosie Cotton. Goldberry. Ioreth.
How would you explain your handle here? “Whut’s ‘Elendil’?”
No, we’re not. Somewhere in Letters, Tolkien states that it’s the sixth or seventh Age by now.
If I recall aright, the Fourth Age would have ended either with the creation of the nation of Israel, the fifth with the birth of Christ, and the sixth with World War II and the atomic bomb (i.e., with the Second Children of Iluvatur gaining the power to destroy themselves without supernatural assistance). I suspect Tolkien would have said that, while he was uncertain how long the current Age would last, it’d be the last regardless.
I like Star Trek, especially with its vision of a united Earth and moral code of exploration.
But Tolkien’s work has affected my life for over 50 years.
My parents read the Hobbit to me and in turn I’ve read it to children of friends.
It’s a classic book for this - a climax at the end of each chapter; vivid imagination, songs + poetry and honest companionship.
Like many others I reread The Lord of the Rings at regular intervals.
I thought Peter Jackson did a superb job on the films (with the same attention to detail that Tolkien had), especially with music, locations and costumes.
And I’ve played Dungeons and Dragons since 1979 - with a game currently running here. 
Is there really any difference between populism (not at all the same thing as democracy) and despotism?
Also by David Brin: “J.R.R. Tolkien — enemy of progress”
: steals TARDIS, goes back in time, and nukes Skald’s grandpa from orbit(the only way to be sure there’s no choice) :
After seeing this pic of Kirk leaning on a sportscar, the choice is obvious.
I was only listing ‘main’ characters, in response to F.Pu-du-he-pa-as, there are quite a few more minor characters- Mrs Maggot, Mrs Cotton and Elanor to name a few more.
She does- she has a conversation with Frodo, though not until the chapter ‘Many Partings’, after the wedding.
I think there’s a tendency to look at some recent populist movements (Tea Party, European Right etc) and overlook that it’s not a political slant in itself so much as it is a style which can equally attach itself to fascist, socialist or liberal democratic causes. It’s not the same thing as democracy, agreed, but it’s not inherently antagonistic to it, the way despotism necessarily and essentially is.
But yes, it is very different from despotism. The central issue, IMO and Brin’s as well, is where you stand on elites. Despotism is all in favour of rule by elites, it’s central to the ideology, whereas populism, as even Albertazzi and McDonnell acknowledge, is generally specifically framed as anti-elitist.
I prefer Moorcock and Mieville’s takes on things, although there’s considerable overlap.
And I say this as someone who has a soft spot for the bucolic Merrye Englande fantasy Moorcock especially rails against, like Willows and Watership. I just view them as whimsical artefacts of a benighted age.