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.

[MagnusMat]

Just finsihed reading the HARDY BOYS. Excellent series about good and evil.

[MagnusMat]

Just finsihed reading the HARDY BOYS. Excellent series about good and evil.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I would include the fifth ring bearer, Sam, along with Tom and Galadriel. Sam was tempted by the ring, but didn't entertain what the ring promised. In my mind, the ring found him repulsive in his goodness and didn't put up a fight when Sam gave it up to Frodo again.

[MagnusMat]

In the process of reading the NANCY DREW series.

[Alberta's Child]

Someone once said that a great work of art had to be at least 50 years old before it could be seen in the proper context. That was just enough time for it to hit the scene, to be exposed to critical examination, to become popular, to become outdated and cast on the ash heap of history, and to find itself resurrected in a later "age."

I guess we'll have to wait 50 years before passing judgement on the Harry Potter books. LOL!

[Grig]

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...

Well, seeing as it's nearly 3 hrs long as it is, time contraints seem to be a valid reason all by itself.

[BlueHorseShoe]

Thanks for your take on The Silmarillion.

But since I am planning on rereading Hobbit followed by the trilogy in what order would you place it? First or last?

[mamaduck]

Narnia books are the best books ever written.

I was introduced to them in 5th grade, didn't "get" them until 6th, had to have my own set by 7th (my parents bought them for me as a confimation gift).

I have read them 20x myself, read them all to my kids and look forward to reading them again!

[Alberta's Child]

I knew someone would chastise me for leaving Sam off that list!

I deliberately left him off because I believe he was protected from the Ring by his relative ignorance and immaturity (though these may not be the right words to use). In the context of the Ring, I viewed Sam as being similar to a very young child who, due to age and innocence, is not capable of knowingly doing something truly evil.

[ZULU]

Jesus Christ or Satan? (Hint: the answer is in the Bible.)

[Destructor]

Funny how great works of Literature tend to do that to pop culture crap!

[Sloth]

. But Ms. Rowling's story manages to bring to light none of the moral dilemmas -- of mortality, wealth, power -- that the existence of the stone naturally suggests. The reader simply accepts as given that both sides want it, no particular importance is assigned to its powers and Harry never shows any interest in using it. He merely wants to keep it away from the bad guy. Once that's accomplished, the stone drops out of the story, like a token at the end of some video game.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the superiority of Tolkien's work over Rowling, this specific sequence struck me as quite nice (in the movie; haven't read the Potter books yet). Harry is only able to find the stone because he has no desire to use it. He's already very rich, so he'd have no need to create gold, and as for immortality -- there was an earlier sequence in the movie where he reacts with disdain at a description of some undead person 'living' indefinitely by drinking unicorn blood, i.e., the trade-off he observed was unacceptable to him -- living forever was not worth the cost. Basically, it said to me that Harry had his priorities right. He was content enough and humble enough to be satisfied with preventing harm to others, rather than weilding power.

[ZULU]

Neither Rowling nor King can match H. P. Lovecraft - a writer unappreciated in his own time.

[HarryDunne]

We also need to consider that Frodo wasn't the best choice. Here's a couple of guys I think would be ideal ringbearers...

Something tells me they would be immune to the ring's powers. :D

[ZULU]

If you like King, read Lovecraft. Lovecraft inspired King.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

As I said, I think the ring rejected him because of his goodness and purity and so he didn't feel the intense reluctance to give the ring up like the other ring-bearers felt.

[ZULU]

Read the trilogy, you won't be able to put it down.

[Die Zaubertuba]

I simply mean that most children relate to HP's main characters' conflicts more deeply than they do to Lewis' characters.

Agreed...I think some of this may have to do with the time in which the books were written.

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

Here, let me burn that picture for you....

...I'm probably one of the few conservative arts administrators on the planet. I fish, work on my old boxer in the shop, do some woodworking now and then, watch football when I have a chance, and like ALL kinds of movies--including the "guy" kind of movies that I for some reason can't get my wife interested in.

I was showing off my new son to one of the earth-hugging POB's (Pompous Old B^$#@rd) on campus last week and he had the gall last week to infer my Wife and I shouldn't have any more kids because the "planet was already overcrowded."

Please don't put me in the same box with him!!! :)

[Alberta's Child]

I think your point is correct. My reflection on the question was based on St. Augustine's concept of "layers" in Heaven, in which a person who engaged in a life-long struggle against evil would achieve a "higher" status in Heaven than an infant who died immediately after Baptism.

[CubicleGuy]

It's not just a matter of the film makers not understanding [Bombadil's] importance, I doubt the average movie-goer would.

Heck, I'm not even sure that I do.

Bombadil demonstrates the complete lack of power that the One Ring has over him by putting it on, and failing to become invisible. The ring has nothing to offer to Bombadil, therefore there's nothing there to be tempted by. And it would seem that because of this, Bombadil would be the absolute, best possible Ring-bearer, and it's suggested during one of the Councils that Bombadil should be recruited for the task. But he's ruled out by Gandalf (if I remember correctly) because it is felt that Bombadil has other priorities, and that he might not take the task as seriously as it needed to be taken (I'm working from memory here, so forgive me if I'm screwing this up).

So, is Bombadil there in the book to point out that we aren't or can't or shouldn't be entrusted with missions or tasks that we don't have a stake in?

What's your take on Bombadil?