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.

[Petronski]

I don't really care for the genre, but even I know that Tolkien is literate and Potter is empty.

[Petronski]

An early dust jacket design
by Tolkien himself.

[dead]

Who would win in a fight:

Ernest Borgnine or Bea Arthur?
Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington or Jimmy "Dyno-mite" Walker?
HK Rowlings or JR Tolkien?
Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf or Beetlejuice?
Ally McBeal or George Stephanopoulis?
Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy?

[Petronski]

Is this meant just for laughs, or do you not care for the author's comparison?

[js1138]

I shouldn't have to point out that Potter is written for 8-12 year olds and LOTR appeals to a much older crowd. The fact that people of all ages read both should not overwhelm this fact.

[Arkinsaw]

I don't really care for the genre, but even I know that Tolkien is literate and Potter is empty.

Potter is meant as eccentric entertainment. Tolkien was meant as literature. Comparing is sort of like saying that Monday Night Football is empty while Shakespeare is literate. Of course, but they do not have the same intentions.

[js1138]

Besides, Tolkien stole the entire story from Wagner.

<];^)

[Petronski]

Still, I'm willing to play.

Ernest Borgnine or Bea Arthur? Bea Arthur. Borgnine has slightly more body hair (to be pulled during a scrap).

Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington or Jimmy "Dyno-mite" Walker? Walker: Catchphrases rule!

HK Rowlings or JR Tolkien? Tolkien. Intelligence is power.

Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf or Beetlejuice? Beetlejuice. Magic v. profanity? Get real.

Ally McBeal or George Stephanopoulis? Stephanopolus. Better nutrition.

Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy? Gacy. He did his own dirty work (sometimes dressed as a clown, IIRC).

[jimt]

They're different, and incomparable.

Tolkien didn't write his book for young children. It's an epic tale, using time honored techniques to build suspense and dread over a long time period. I think late teens is about the earliest most would be attracted to it and understand it.

Harry Potter on the other hand, is a much easier read and isn't as heavy in the portrayal of the villains. Interactions are quick and sharp, and over in a few pages. It's well written and a great deal of fun. Much younger kids can read and understand it.

The author of this article might as well have said that submarines aren't anything as grand prix racers. Or that you can make better lemonade from lemons than apples. Both the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Harry Potter series fit my definition of "classic".

[valhallasone]

Easy:

Bea Arthur

Freddie Washington

Tolkien

Hank

Ally

Gacy

Simple reasons why in each circumstance.

Your point?

Fact of the matter is, Tolkien is literature that tells a good story and deals with the nature of evil, large philosophical questions and mythology in a way that deepens and adds to the mythology. Rowling simplifies and diminishes the mythology from which she draws and eliminates any of the truly important questions of the consequences of choice. JK Rowling's books epitomize the post-modern amateurism of late twentieth century writing. While a good read, they are amateurish in the extreme with no point other than the ooh and aah value of the use of mythos. In other words, the book equivalent of a "special effects" action movie.

[Petronski]

Plenty of great literature is written for 8-12-year-olds, Rowling apparently was not smart enough or brave enough to do the same.

[RadicalRik]

I saw a 1/2 hour program on FOX last night at 8:00 p.m. on the making of the trilogy and it is fantastic.
The man making these movies wants Tolkien to be as proud of him as if he himself were overseeing the making of the movies.
I've read the book series several times and every time they are as good or better than before. They're kind of like those movies you watch every Christmas and never get tired of.
I believe that these movies will do the books justice

[SamAdams76]

Gee, we might as well compare Charles Dickens and Dr. Suess while we're at it. Does Oliver Twist measure up against Green Eggs And Ham? Let's discuss.

Comparing Tolkien to Rowling is silliness. J.K. Rowling is the author of children's books. Tolkien writes for an adult audience (though many older children can enjoy his works as well).

[ctdonath2]

"MY wizard can beat YOUR wizard."

[Joe_October]

..... Who would win in a fight:
.....
Ally McBeal or George Stephanopoulis? ....

McBeal, she actually has a chance of being a man.

(Not that woman can't fight, just not that prissy boy.)

[DallasMike]

But J.K. Rowling is writing in a tradition too, a literary one reaching back even further -- of heroic sagas and mythic battles between the forces of light and of darkness.

Gee, from all of the anti-Potter posts on FR the past few weeks I would have thought that Rowlings herself was the personification of evil. Maybe those folks never read the books in the first place, or maybe they read with preconceived notions garnered from some wacko website, or maybe they just weren't capable of recognizing common literary metaphors in Western literature.

The Potter books aren't half bad. If you're looking for entertainment and aren't expecting Shakespeare or even Tolkien, you won't be disappointed.

[Cicero]

Well, yes. But The Hobbit is a much better book than Harry Potter too. And I like Harry Potter, what's more. I think Rowling is a real find. It's just that Tolkien isn't someone I'd want to try to compete with. I'm also a great fan of C. S. Lewis's, and I think I've read all of his books, but he wasn't in the same league with Tolkien either.

You're certainly right to say that it's apples and oranges. Harry Potter is an entertaining children's book. The Lord of the Rings may be one of the greatest books of the twentieth century, and certainly the best fantasy novel.

[Petronski]

Does Oliver Twist measure up against Green Eggs And Ham? Let's discuss.

One certainly could discuss how intelligently each was conceived and executed.

[corkoman]

well...wait just a sec...first, thei could be a win-win situation as I have seen Harry twice now (I have several children) and it is an enjoyable flic. I will no doubt see LOTR several times. So...both winners in my book.

Yes, Rowling borrowed heavily from Tolkien as did Lucas in his Star Wars themes. But she wrote very engaging stories. While LOTR has depth and is rich, almost dense, with descriptive narration, the Harry Potter stories sacrifice depth for ease of reading. My 13 yo gave up Fellowship OTR after 10 pages.

I can't wait for LOTR to open!!

[billbears]

And I shouldn't have to point out that at the time the Hobbit was written in 1937, LOTR to follow in the late 40s-early 50s, that it was written for the 10-13 age group. So that tells me several things. One, morality was much more important at an early age than now, and two, the educational level of this nation has fallen so low that we have to read such basic short sentence novels like Potter to children rather than allow them to explore not only their vocabulary but their inner selves as well with Tolkien