Hmm... Well, you're trying to self-publish, right? In terms of marketing and originality, I think as long as it isn't terribly cliche and with a worn-out plot (which I can't tell from a one-to-two sentence synopsis), it's more about showing the areas where your book is more original and interesting and marketing those differences.

I don't think you necessarily have to ditch the dark lord theme, but it might be helpful to replace it with a different kind of villain in order to try to avoid the LOTR general idea. I think that a lot of books, even when they're cliche, can become successful if they put a new twist into the cliche or if they're just marketed really well.

On depth/description v. excitement/pace, nearly every literary agent and publisher today will say that readers want excitement and pace versus depth and description. However, there are some authors who reject following this advice and manage to do well even with focusing on depth and description (such as N.D. Wilson).

In summary, making it less stereotypical wouldn't be a bad thing, but I don't think it is necessarily mandatory.

No, the old style struggles in today's society, unfortunately.

As I was going to mention in my review-of-'Radialloy'-that-I-have-not-written
-for-Grace-yet (:P), cliche things are not actually bad. I don't think they are bad at all. The only thing I don't like is a flat cliche thing. Do you see what I mean? Yes, there are completely new concepts that people come up with, and yes that is great, and very nice. but they don't have a monopoly on good books, or anything else.

So...yes, I think your plot is cliche overall. But you have a thousand and one (or was that a thousand and two? ) opportunities for making it a good book, and if you do that, then who cares if a lot of people write books with that same general plot line? They didn't write your book.

Your description is good, and I am one of the people who enjoy the old style, so that did not put me off (the definite majority of novels I read, and the vast majority of novels I really like, are old).

But I think your pacing is fine. LotR wasn't the fastest paced book itself.

Therein lies my biggest problem. What percentage of readers in my targeted genre (epic fantasy/speculative fiction, Christian but not overtly) would have the same opinion? My editor's contention is that the style is too old to have a general appeal today, and since I'm writing to make some money at it, that's something I can't lightly pass over.

Her contention was that Tolkien would have had a hard time marketing LOTR in today's reader environment.

AMEN!!!! This is what I tell people all the time. Show me a book that doesn't have a cliché in it. Goodness, Tolkien wrote clichés too. It was how those clichés were presented that made his books great.

Show me a book without clichés in it and I'll show you a blank pamphlet.

Um...all that to say I agree with Juliet and Airi.

I enjoyed your style, but...yeah, I guess I'm not the average person. Still, I don't think you need to write a thriller or necessarily action-packed book to succeed, even though the older style is struggling now. There are other ways to make people want to read the book. Character depth is just one of those.

I don't want everyone to tell me my books are great unless they are. I want honest opinions, even if it would seem discouraging. That's exactly the kind of opinion I need to get an idea of where people stand.

I know the premise is cliche, and referring back to earlier conversations, that isn't my editor's main concern. She's worried that I'm deriving too much from LOTR, which might come across as plagiarism, which is obviously the last thing I want. Cliches to some extent are unavoidable, but when the core plot of the book has been done, there's probably need for change.

Bah, I wish I had the time to read that for you. I will as soon as possible; poke me in a week if I haven't.

I agree.