Tho I am very very hardpressed to consider Harry Potter one of the 50 most signifigant.

Very subpar writing in regard to that least. To have Rowling compared to Asimov, Clark, Herbert, Card or Tolkien is rather insulting in my opinion. Sure the HP series got millions back into books, but when you write for the lowest common denominator thats what happens.

i agree with the comment re: Lem, but dissagree with jeff however. While Brooks and Tolkien’s books share many species, and the overt binary ‘good-vs-evil/david-goliath’ plot lines, they share little else. the Sword (and frankly i think the elfstones and wishsong are better books) is much more about the relationship between magic and its wielders. LoTR only touches on that through the corruption of gollum, the aging of Bilbo and the final agonies of Frodo at Mt Doom. But this isnt a relationship between magic and its user, it is the physical expression of the will of Sauron.

also, middle earth does not equal earth. the lands of shanara ARE a post apocolyptic earth.

if you get right down to it, ALL fantasy novels will have something in common with most other fantasy novels because the genre is so damned narrow. But they do fill a rather important niche in the altered-reality fiction genre. perhaps they are a bit over-represented in this list.

get thee to a bookstore, and purchase ‘the futurological congress’, post haste!