Originally posted by: return_to_hades
Tolkien's imagination was something else indeed. He didn't just create maps and places, he created an entire world "Middle Earth" with its own creation, evolution and history. He did not just create characters, he created species, races with their own culture, language etc. So in depth was he in his world that he constructed over twenty languages each with its distinct pronunciation and grammar. Fans of Tolkien even learn Black Speech or one of the Elven languages as if it's a formal language to learn.
Tolkien never captivated me as much as Rowling. I was never immersed into LOTR or other Middle Earth books, nor did I find them as much fun as the Harry Potter books. His style is also slow and tedious. I never waited in line for the LOTR movies nor did I go opening night, weekend or week. However, at the risk of having Potter fans pounce on me, I've always felt that Tolkien's literature and creations were much richer and deeper than Rowling. Gollum to me is perhaps one of the best fictional characters ever penned, and sometimes I feel Rowling draws inspiration from Gollum into Kreacher. Faramir and Eowyn are much more fascinating to me than most of the HP characters. Frodo and Sam are annoying though. Voldemort could go Avada Kedarva on them anytime he likes
Well, this is what I wrote in another message board (hopefully no one from that message board is peeking here):
[quote] 1. Writing style: Rowling is witty, funny, amusing, lively and clever. Tolkien is dull, tedious and pretentious. Filling fifty pages describing the green grass of Middle Earth does not make one a "good" writer by any means. It just shows how lost, moralistic, affected and ostentatious his work was. If Tolkien was writing an encyclopedia, I could have at least called his writing decent or slightly above that, but as a story, it's absolute disaster. Rowling, on the other hand, kept her writing readable for her targeted audiences. As the series progressed from a children's to an YA's to an adult's series, her writing followed suit. Those who complain about the 'simple' language of her early books totally missed the purpose and audience for that.
2. a. Character development: This is where LoTR absolutely falls short of not just HP, but so many other classics. Literally almost ALL the characters remain the same as they start. After the overlong and tedious journey they undertake, you'd expect the characters to evolve in some ways ' but no, they remain exactly as we have seen them the first time. Even The Hobbit had better character development than LoTR. I guess, Tolkien was just too busy giving us an account of how breathtakingly beautiful Middle Earth is, to the extent that he even forgot that he had some characters walking upon that untouchable piece of land. Most of his characters are nothing but one-dimensional cardboard-cutouts who do very little other than just drive the plot ahead. Rowling's characters, on the other hand, are all ' at least almost all if not every one of them! ' very well sketched out, with extensive back stories, and most importantly, they go through major changes (what we call, d'uh, character development) throughout the course of the seven books. To give some examples, Harry himself gets so hot-headed in the fifth book that it's almost unbearable, but then he cools down finally and sees things as they are and not as how he sees them; Hermione grows from the gawky, awkward, nerdy, insufferable know-it-all to the confident, matured woman ready to accept her flaws and shortcomings; Ron goes through a lot of changes too, and they are evident for all those who have even touched the books once; and it goes on.
b. Female characters: I'm sorry, but what exactly was Tolkien's problems with women? Did he hate them or what? Why is there such a dearth of female characters in such a long book? Galadriel, Arwen, Eowyn...not many to choose from. Some people have complained about the gender disparity they believe to be present in Harry Potter; but here's the thing: Harry Potter has a number of female characters, most of whom are important to the story.
3. Social commentary: Potter sheds a lot of light about the world we live in despite of having its root in the fantasy genre. If you bother to analyze it deep down, Harry Potter touches on sensitive issues like death, immortality, love, sacrifice, etc, and controversial topics like modern day politics, family and social life. LoTR does, too, but somehow I felt the book was too lost in its main plot to even care about what was going around the actual world.
4. Realistic: I find it difficult to believe that Potter is regarded as the "kiddish" book while LoTR being eulogized as a "dark and appropriate for adults". It's not. An adults' book is not one where I'd expect almost all the characters to live a happy-ever-after ending without being harmed in some ways. At least Jo did not shy away from showing the deaths of her characters: Sirius, Dumbledore (Yeah, he actually dies, y'know, unlike Gandalf who dies and comes back again), Lupin, Fred, etc. Sure Frodo sort-of dies (not exactly, but you could say that), and Boromir actually dies (who wasn't even amongst the most important characters in the book), but other than that? Pretty much everyone came out of the battle almost unscathed. If that is the definition of an "adults' book", I'd rather take a "kid's" series over that.
5. Originality: Neither Harry Potter, nor Lord of the Rings (or any other works of Tolkien's, for that matter) are wholly (or even partly) original. However, it shocks me to see how so many readers consider Harry Potter to be a blatant copy of Tolkien's universe ' as if Tolkien was like some great original. He wasn't. Sorry, but he simply wasn't. His whole universe was nothing but a crude patchwork of pieces culled from various sources, including mythologies. If Dumbledore was lifted directly from Gandalf (though I highly doubt this, given that Dumbledore is so much more multi-layered and developed than Gandalf), then so was Gandalf right from Merlin. Of course I see a fair few Tolkien fans raising their brows, but then many of them do not mind throwing the same accusation at Rowling. [/quote]
I think, I am willing to admit that I can be wrong as far as point number three is concerned, but all my other points stand still. The only places where I am willing to give Tolkien credit over Rowling is in terms of world-building (easily). In terms of storytelling ability and character building and development, I think HP shines over LoTR. Gollum was the only character who was interesting. Hopefully there's no LoTR fans around as I am already exhausted from the debate.
Edited by PhoeniXof_Hades - 14 years ago
Mannat Har Khushi Paane Ki
Hindi TV Shows
