Don’t they all?
And of course, there’s the Tuatha Dé Danann/Shining Ones/Sidhe of Irish/Celtic mythology, who are definitely *not *the cute little creatures with butterfly wings. Even Kipling, when writing of Puck, had Puck show scorn for that particular image.
Clearly the stories are all based on previous residents of Ireland and Britain who were driven into the margins by successive waves of immigration, but the sheer otherness of the Sidhe in stories makes them pretty frightening. Check out the “Changelings” section of this article.
Christianity is the first one that comes to mind. Older or more orthodox Christian services moreso than more modern stuff, I suppose, but still.
One of this board’s greatest moments!
…well, a bit longer than a moment, but you know what I mean. 
I think Tolkien’s contribution was to take the diverse bits of other mythologies (elves, dwarves, etc) and weave them into a complex medieval fantasy setting where the different races live together as (more or less) equals. In a lot of old folklore elves and dwarves were mysterious creatures that only showed themselves to certain people (like UFOs :p). Tolkien showed elves and dwarves as more or less human-like; with cities, complex histories, interacting, fighting, and trading with others, etc.
Then in the 1970’s, the “Medieval Fantasy” genre really took off with the Advanced Dungeon and Dragons pen and paper games and a number of books. I don’t know if any others really wrote Tolkien style fantasy books before the 70’s but I’ve heard Terry Brooks “Sword of Shanara” series given at least partial credit for starting/reviving the medieval fantasy craze, which just exploded around that time.
You could argue that it was Robert Howard’s Conan that kicked off the sword-and-sorcery genre and that Tolkien was a further development on that line.
But, again, Tolkien’s genius isn’t what setting he chose but what he did with it. He approached the story like an ethnographer, and the fact that the story feels like it’s part of a much bigger epic is the key.
But Tolkien really ISN’T “sword-and-sorcery” - at least, not as it’s defined here: Sword and sorcery - Wikipedia 
Tolkien pretty much defines High Fantasy, which is really not the same thing at all.
Really not the same thing at all? :dubious: No, I don’t accept that. I accept there’s a difference, like the difference between ale and lager, but I don’t accept that they’re “really not the same thing at all.” They’re clearly closely related.
I’d tend to disagree.
“Sword and Sorcery” generally does not, for example, involve a bunch of elves and dwarves and otherwise nonhumans in a fairly magical setting with a world shaking conflict (See: LotR).
“Sword and Sorcery” generally does, for example, tend to include personal conflicts, “low magic” settings, and mostly human characters.
I’d actually go so far as to say that they only things they really have in common are the swords. And I suppose the presence of magic in some capacity.
What speaks louder is what you’re not saying – the fact that except for the find distinctions you are stating, that the two genres are essentially variations of the same thing.
LotR is a high magic setting? :dubious: Its most powerful spellcaster never even throws a fireball!
Not high magic, high fantasy.
The part I was quoting did not say it was not high fantasy. It said it was not Swords and Sorcery because, amongst other things, it does not havea low magic setting, which is what I was questioning. Now, I haven’t read a whole lot of what I would consider swords and sorcery, but LotR has about the lowest magic setting of any fantasy I have read, while at the same time being one of the most epic (if you include the Silmarillion.)
No, doofus. Englishmen have hairy feet.
Jokes aside, I agree with md2000 and simster: while the concept and name of elves existed before him, his specific characterization of them was something new - there’s not altogether much relationship between the Celtic sidhe or even the Norse alfar and Tolkien’s elves.
Notably, both of those myths have the elves living in a separate world or dimension for the most part (although some crossed over from time to time) ; didn’t have any specific connection to forests per se (Ljosalfar certainly didn’t build treehouses :p) so much as they were associated with wild untamed lands in general ; weren’t associated with archery ; and perhaps more importantly were the bad guys. Or at least alien and “mischievous” enough as to make no real difference. The Sidhe were not nice people at all (as Pratchett notes in Lords & Ladies).
Tolkien naturally did crib some characteristics for his own elves (the stand-offishness, the fondness for poetry and song, the immortality, the inherent magic in their words, the preternatural beauty) but from where I’m standing, the specific variety of elves he created and so very many others replicated was something new.
There’s lots of magic in the Silmarillion, which is contrasted by there not being so much overt displays of magic in The Lord of the Rings series.
No, but there’s quite a lot of magic items floating around. Rings and swords are obvious, but IIRC in the Hobbit it is mentioned that the dwarves are renowned for making magical toys for example.
And of course you’ve got the magical elven water that glows in the dark (and elven names that *physically hurt *orcs), the pool that shows the future, the palantiri, the silmarils, the intelligent tireless horses, the dragon-slaying black arrows, the armies of undead kept “alive” by an oath and a curse… hell, even the elven bread and capes given to the party in Lorien can be considered magic items. Not world shattering artifacts perhaps, but still - it’s bread that always tastes awesome & fills you up in three bites, and chameleon capes. Oh, and ropes that know when to untie themselves !
Middle-Earth is positively steeped in magic, it’s just subtle magic rather than flashy but pedestrian fireballs. It’s all the more clever that a reader might even start to think it’s a low magic setting 
Look, can you just read the Wiki articles on High Fantasy and Sword and Sorcery genres, which lay out the differences between them pretty much along the lines of what others have argued? Then come back and argue what’s wrong with those definitions?
Tolkien was influenced by many things in his writings:
Sword and sorcery was not one of them.
Sword & sorcery is newer than Tolkien.
Tolkien had numerous influences & shaped many of them originally. Of course, his work has been fantastically influential.
Read Tolkien. Read his letters. Read his biographers. Read the works that influenced him–from ancient times through Lord Dunsany. Read the works he influenced. And the later writers who went back to their sources rather than just aping Tolkien. I’d rather do all this than endlessly natter about categories…
Gene Wolfe wrote about his love for Tolkien the same year he wrote The Wizard Knight–which shares some of the ancient roots but is very different…