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]

. . . 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 . . .

I guess if there was one point I'd wanted to make in posting this piece, then this quote is it. Another example of this is in the letters home from the front written by soldiers of the Civil War and those written by soldiers of later eras. The contrast is jarring.

[Phantom Lord]

Potter is meant as eccentric entertainment.

You area damn liar and you know it! Everybody knows that Potter was written for the sole purpose of luring children into the occult and making them tools of Satan!

[Grig]

I marvel at the timing for the release of LOTR. A story telling us that evil cannot be appeased, but must be opposed and destroyed, even at great personal cost, is so right for our times.

[SamAdams76]

Are the C.S. Lewis books worth reading by kids? If so, what order should they be read in? I'm thinking of getting them for my son at Christmas. He's read the Harry Potter books but he's still a bit young for Lord Of The Rings.

[newberger]

Are the C.S. Lewis books worth reading by kids?

Yes, YES, YES!

Read them in the order of publication.
Start with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

[spoosman]

Rowling will draw children into the occult, yes, that is true. As to who, and how many, who knows. Tolkien and Lewis would not, could not and do not.

[Sir Gawain]

I'm not impressed with a Ring of Invisibility. I would rather have a Deck of Many Things or a Vorpal Sword +5 with some Silenced Elven Chain Mail (only 5 known suits in existence). Wish spells are a lot of fun also.

[Arkinsaw]

You area damn liar and you know it! Everybody knows that Potter was written for the sole purpose of luring children into the occult and making them tools of Satan!

Well, you are right. At least Potter and Tolkien have SOMETHING in common.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

D'ja see his self portrait on his profile page?

Thanks for the review that I wouldn't have otherwise seen. Many will accuse, I'm sure, "much ado about nothing." For those of us that grew up with The Rings as moral lampposts, that's a bit silly.

[Cicero]

The Narnia Chronicles, beginning with "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe," are excellent children's fantasies. You can get them in a boxed set of paperbacks, or you might want to try that one first, to see how they like them.

The SF trilogy beginning with "Out of the Silent Planet" is also excellent for teenagers (or adults).

Lewis's best fantasy is "Till We Have Faces," but it may be a bit too subtle for some readers. It's based on the Greek myth of Psyche and Eros.

I'm also a fan of Lewis's literary criticism and his popular religion books, but that's another story.

[proxy_user]

The reason Tolkien is better is that he had a much deeper intellectual background. He was a full professor at Oxford, and was steeped in Germanic philology. He could read Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, Old High German and Gothic as easily as Rowling can read the newspaper. His Latin and Greek wasn't too shabby either.

I love his scholarly work, even though he wrote relatively little. Check out "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" and his edition of The Fight at Finnsburgh (caution: in order to read this intelligently, YOU need to be able to understand written Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, and Latin).

[Arkinsaw]

Well, yes. But The Hobbit is a much better book than Harry Potter too.

Thats a good point. But then again, we don't stop reading new poetry just because the masters have created masterpieces before them.

For me, sometimes I like Filet Mignon, and sometimes I like a Quarter Pounder.

[Caipirabob]

NEWBORN LURTZ BUMP!

[js1138]

I would imagine that in any era, about one in a thousand 10 year olds would read LOTR. I have never gotten through it (certainly no shame on the book). I did read a parody, "Bored of the rings", but straight fantasy without satire is not my cup of tea. Give me something like "Time Bandits".

Potter is closer to Roald Dahl than anything else -- more parody than straight fantasy. If you never attended a boarding school you can't fully appreciate the humor. You might understand it intellectually, but not feel it.

[Texican72]

I believe that these movies will do the books justice

I'm hoping your right. I remember Ralph Bakshi doing an animated version about 20 years ago, and my wife kept dozing off during it. The Bakshi version definately didn't do the books justice.

[No Left Turn]

Who would win in a fight:

Ernest Borgnine or Bea Arthur?

Bea Arthur in a walk. On a further note, I wouldn't nail HK Rowlings with Bea Arthur's d**k.

[Alberta's Child]

I need to find the source of a great quote:

"Making a movie out of The Lord of the Rings is like putting Disneyland in the Grand Canyon."

Any help here?

BTW, Tolkien's masterpiece was recently named the best work of fiction of the 20th Century by some literary group. It will be a cold day in hell before any Harry Potter book can tie the proverbial sandals of this book.

[Dominic Harr]

The Potter books are just written for a much younger crowd. I've got a 4 year old and a 10 year old. Both loved the Potter books. I read all 4 to them.

About 3 months ago, I started reading Hobbit/'LOTR' to them because of the movie coming out. My 4 year old got bored quick. My 10 year old daughter is interested, altho she drifts from time to time during some of the longer prose. We're just up to the part where Gandalf explains to Frodo that his is the one ring. That was many pages of dialog, and my daughter dozed off during it.

But I personally like the LOTR far more, altho I enjoyed Potter too. It's just that Tolkien adult lit, and Potter is kiddie lit. And believe me, for kiddie books, Potter is *hands and shoulders* above all the competition.

Kids by far prefer Potter.

[Billthedrill]

Welllll....not fair. Kittens and tigers.

[Dominic Harr]

It will be a cold day in hell before any Harry Potter book can tie the proverbial sandals of this book.

And yet, Potter is far better than LOTR for kids.

Which is the target audience.

I think it's amusing to see so many people criticize the writer who has sold more Children's books than anyone in history . . . doesn't her success prove something?