No Contest: Tolkien runs rings around Potter

Weekend Journal (WSJ) ^ | 30 Nov 01 | Brian M. Carney

[Petronski]

Just when the menace of terrorism has darkened normal life and the guns of war have sounded, moviegoers on both sides of the Atlantic are turning out in huge numbers to see Harry Potter ride a broom across the silver screen and fight . . . evil.

[Dominic Harr]

I suppose that is why I prefer Dahl's characters and Harry Potter.

Heck yes, Roald Dahl! One of my very favorites.

I suspect these folks wouldn't let their children read them, either. Not 'fancy' enough. But man, did I just devour his stuff.

I liked his 'adult' fiction even better. Ever read 'Lamb to the Slaughter'?

[Dominic Harr]

Don't even compare Rowling with Stephen King.

I'd say it's a very apt comparison, personally.

I think *both* are masters of their genre.

[billbears]

You cannot directly compare two books written in different genres for different audiences

But that's just it. They weren't written for two different audiences. Tolkien wrote his books for children, just as Rowling did. Tolkien's friend C.S. Lewis wrote his series for children as well. The problem is not in the books but in the evolution, or should I say de-evolution, of the audience

[Huck]

Thanks for the advice. I'll check it out.

[RightWhale]

J.K. Rowling

Now a billionaire with the signing of the movie sequel. Amazing for a writer of simple children's stories.

[f.Christian]

I like the Truman Capote quip...

Harrold Robbins is a writer if a woodpecker is a cabinet maker--carpenter!!

When I was boy, I asked my dad the difference---he said screws and nails!

[Texas2step]

I would have to disagree. King could write in many other genres and his books would still be a good read. I don't think I could say the same thing about Rowling (or at least not what I've read so far).

I'll never forget the first time I talked my wife in to reading a Stephen King book. She was highly skeptical because she doesn't read "horror" novels. I talked her into reading Misery, and she absoltely devoured it. And Misery, while good, is not one of his better books. Since then she's read several of his non-horror books and short stories.

I doubt, seriously, that I'd read a Rowling novel that did not have a "story" or plot that I enjoyed and still enjoy reading the novel. With King, he's written some pretty "out there" stuff that I couldn't get into the story at all, but couldn't quit reading the book.

I stand by my no comparison opinion. In my opinion Rowling is closer to Danielle Steel thank Stephen King.

[js1138]

But that's just it. They weren't written for two different audiences. Tolkien wrote his books for children, just as Rowling did...

All children are alike? All children are the same audience? All children have the same interests, the same temperament?

Or is it just the anointed children, the worthy? You can't imagine how much you sound like an arrogant, eastern liberal elbow-patched-sweater, pipe smoking Bostonian.

[Die Zaubertuba]

That is where the HP books surpass any of that classic lit, even Lewis. And I think that is the reason for it's success.

Like anything, I think it depends on what your criteria for "surpass-ment" is. In academe (where I work), there's obviously a tendency to base judgement on depth (literary or otherwise). In my OTHER capacity as an arts program marketer, I see great value in programming acts that will "relate" in some ways to our student and community audiences. All a matter of perspective really.

...In which case, I would agree with you on the "accessability" of the HP characters in comparison with the LOTR characters, but I have to ask--have you read the Chronicles of Narnia? There's actually a lot in common between Lewis' schoolchildren and Rowlings'.

Then again, from a purest marketing standpoint, your best answer will be what do your children prefer (you've already addressed that once). :)

[ican'tbelieveit]

"The Dead Body," one of King's short stories made into "Stand by Me" is one of my favorite stories by him. If anyone doubts his ability to build characters, that is a great one. The Green Mile is also very powerful. When I was in highschool I tried to convince my Humanities teacher to let me do a report on King; needless to say I was laughed at. I am currently rereading The Dark Tower series in between reading LOTR to my kids.

[CubicleGuy]

The argument of Tolkien's tale -- controversial, to be sure -- is that, while intentions matter, the way we act is far more important than why we act.

Hmmm. This makes me wonder: given that Frodo was unable, at the moment of truth to cast the ring into the Cracks of Doom (actually, that's being too kind; he chose not to discard the ring, and was only saved from his own folly by Gollum's overpowering greed), did Frodo actually fail in his mission?

[QuestionBureaucracy]

Good point. It also remains to be seen what Rowling does with Potter in the remaining installments.

[CubicleGuy]

It's a shame they won't have Tom Bombadil's immunity as a contrast.

I'm starting to wonder if they left out Bombadil not so much for reasons of time constraints, but because they really didn't know what to make of him...

[Alberta's Child]

Excellent points. What I was trying to say was that the "commercial" aspect of any work of art, music, or literature has nothing to do with the quality of the work itself. This point was driven home to me in a college-level philosophy course. The professor, in making the point that science is a unique area of study because it requires public scrutiny of a person's ideas, pointed out that Emily Dickinson never published any of her poetry.

This parallel opens a real can of worms, of course, because it means that one work of art or music can be objectively "better" or "worse" than another regardless of popular consent (similar to the idea that 2+2=4 in a true, abstract, sense). A Yugo may do a far better job of meeting the needs of specific people than a Mercedes-Benz, but in any objective, qualitative comparison between the two (i.e., "all things being equal") the Mercedes will always come out on top.

[Dominic Harr]

but I have to ask--have you read the Chronicles of Narnia?

Many moons ago, yes.

And absolutely, the children do have 'real world' issues -- especially sibling-related ones! But again, HP surpasses them in that way. And by 'surpass', I simply mean that most children relate to HP's main characters' conflicts more deeply than they do to Lewis' characters. The thing I like best about Lewis' world is the depth, the history, the richness of the melieu. In 4 Potter books, I learned less about the Potter world than you learn in the first few *chapters* of Lewis or -- especially -- Tolkien.

Please forgive me, but finding out you work in academia does put a bit of a picture in mind.

There's a tendency in the academic world to write off 'popular art' as being inferior to 'classic art'. I often think this is a shame, because both are truly 'great' in their own way.

[HarryDunne]

I think ArGee would probably agree with you on that, I know I do. It's not just a matter of the film makers not understanding his importance, I doubt the average movie-goer would.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a very good question. In my mind there were only two "pure" characters in the book as far as the One RIng was concerned: Tom Bombadil, because he was utterly immune to the ring's powers, and the Lady Galadriel, who fearlessly allowed Frodo to tempt her by offering her the Ring and was able to reject it even though to do so would mean the demise of her race. Even Gandalf himself told Frodo never to tempt him in a similar manner.

[Die Zaubertuba]

Have you read The Sillmarillion and, if so, what is your opinion of it? It is the one I haven't read yet.

It's rather different from LOTR. It expounds the creation mythologhy of Tolkien's world (quite beautiful, actually). The core of it has to do with a legend long before the world of LOTR. The narrative is not quite as vivid because unlike LOTR, the Silmarillian covers a much broader time span.

It makes the trilogy even more epic, IMHO, since it gives you a sense of the sheer ancientness of Tolkiens' world at the time LOTR begins. Like LOTR, it's a really wonderful "lose-yourself" read with a cigar and a cognac. :)

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Good question, but I don't think he failed. When he took the chore at Rivendell, all the wise assembled knew that he would be the best choice for the task, but none of them really knew whether he could complete it or not. At the end the corruption had destroyed him, he was a shell of his former self, having been destroyed by the evil he resisted. He succeeded in taking the ring as far as he could, so he did succeed, but it took the intervention of fate to complete the work. That is a great lesson to us all. In the end, all our work, as successful as it is, will not be enough to destroy evil. It will take the hand of fate and help from an unlooked to source to finish the work. But when we do all we can, we succeed.

[Dominic Harr]

What I was trying to say was that the "commercial" aspect of any work of art, music, or literature has nothing to do with the quality of the work itself.

Agreed. And likewise, yes? Just because something is successful that doesn't automatically make it trash.

I think Michael Jackson -- and J.K. Rowling -- are great artists in their own right. And criticisms of HP seem to hinge on academic-style 'classic literature is better than popular literature' type thinking.

Potter books are popular, and brilliant for what they are. The vast majority of kids prefer HP to the Chronicles of Narnia. When adults go saying that HP isn't "deep" enough, then -- to quote my 10 year old -- "some adults just don't remember what it was like to be a child."

I can remember some comic books that I enjoyed far more than the Hobbit.