Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings [Archive]

View Full Version : Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings

dhriti

01-31-2007, 01:20 PM

As am new here so thought of starting my journey with a new thread

So the topic is Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings ...which book you think is better?

PeterL

01-31-2007, 02:02 PM

Betterin what way. Both are excellent their particular ways, but they are quite different.

Alexei

01-31-2007, 03:02 PM

I am in love with "The Lord of the Rings" and in contrary I don't like the Harry Potter series at all. So I guess the answer is obvious...

Shea

01-31-2007, 04:30 PM

Welcome Dhriti! I go with PeterL. I'm a big fan of both sets, I wouldn't know how to compare them.

crisaor

01-31-2007, 08:40 PM

Shalot

02-01-2007, 12:52 AM

crisaor

02-01-2007, 02:21 AM

Personally, I like LOTR better but I do like Harry Potter better.
:confused:

Tasartir

02-01-2007, 07:40 AM

EAP

02-01-2007, 08:47 AM

Lord of the Rings is one of the best books ever written in English language. The Harry Potter series is an excellent literary achievement which is mad fun to read but not on the level of LOTR.

Tasartir,

You do realize you contradict yourself when you imply fantasy is not literature yet consider LOTR to be literature?

Whifflingpin

02-01-2007, 01:52 PM

areader

02-01-2007, 06:24 PM

The Harry Potter series is definitely more entertaining and engaging than Lord of the Rings. If I want a nice bedtime story, I'll read Lord of the Rings.

Shalot

02-01-2007, 06:53 PM

:confused:

Just a typo -- no need to be alarmed. :D A lot of the time I am posting on Lit Net, working in another program and watching TV and alt tabbing about and not paying attention to what I'm actually typing. I re-read my old posts and find lots of stuff that just makes no sense at all. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Shalot

02-01-2007, 07:01 PM

"I believe the Lord of the Rings ... pretty much the one that paved the way for all the similar books that followed it (ie. .., Narnia, ...)."

True, except for Narnia - that series started to be published in 1950, whereas Lord of the Rings series was not published till 1954.

Tolkien and Lewis were friends and colleagues who owed a lot to each other, but it would not be possible to estimate which of them owed what to whom.

.

I think the Narnia and Harry Potter series are geared more towards young readers and are easier for them to read. I tried reading Tolkien when I was a kid and just couldn't do it. I had friends who had read LOTR but I wasn't patient enough to plow through it. That's not to say that all children are incapable of reading LOTR but I remember reading the Narnia books in one sitting and not being able to get past chapter one of the Hobbit. It wasn't until I was older that I was able to read Tolkien.

Triskele

02-01-2007, 07:30 PM

I think the Narnia and Harry Potter series are geared more towards young readers and are easier for them to read. I tried reading Tolkien when I was a kid and just couldn't do it. I had friends who had read LOTR but I wasn't patient enough to plow through it. That's not to say that all children are incapable of reading LOTR but I remember reading the Narnia books in one sitting and not being able to get past chapter one of the Hobbit. It wasn't until I was older that I was able to read Tolkien.

i disagree, i read lotr when i was young and fell in love with it, there is no comparison, lotr is just better, better crafted, deeper thinking, more complex, and backed by a whole library of imagined history, harry potter, while a good series just does not hold water in comparison to lotr, which pretty much defined fantasy as a genre i think, especially when you realize that much of the source material for harry potter was lord of the rings. also, narnie=fab.!.

crisaor

02-01-2007, 08:44 PM

True, except for Narnia - that series started to be published in 1950, whereas Lord of the Rings series was not published till 1954.
Tolkien and Lewis were friends and colleagues who owed a lot to each other, but it would not be possible to estimate which of them owed what to whom.

Interesting info, Whifflingpin, thanks.
The Hobbit was published in 1937 though, so I think it's possible to assume that Tolkien was the first one. Also, a quick search on wikipedia (not one of the most reliable of sources, I know, but still) indicates that writing for Lord of the Rings began in 1937, just after the printing of the Hobbit, whereas the writing of the chronicles of Narnia started in 1949. Main difference being that LotR took a lot more years to be finished, and thus Narnia was published earlier.

just a typo -- no need to be alarmed. A lot of the time I am posting on Lit Net, working in another program and watching TV and alt tabbing about and not paying attention to what I'm actually typing. I re-read my old posts and find lots of stuff that just makes no sense at all. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I figured as much, just wanted to be sure, that's all. :)

Idril

02-01-2007, 09:21 PM

Also, a quick search on wikipedia (not one of the most reliable of sources, I know, but still) indicates that writing for Lord of the Rings began in 1937, just after the printing of the Hobbit.

You may have found the information on wikipedia but it's accurate. :p In fact, in the preface to FOTR, it says that it was actually started before The Hobbit was published. He worked on it in fits and starts, he began it only to quickly abandon it to work on The Simarillion and returned to it whenever someone would prod him to. He was much more interested in The Silmarillion which he started writing in 1917 or something crazy early like that so if you include that book, he started way before Lewis. ;)

Gallantry

02-02-2007, 02:22 AM

This is no contest, Tolkien was a mastermind and created one of the greatest pieces of literature ever written. Earning the reviews of masses of scholars who wrote all sorts of books about him and his works with titles like "Author of the Century", "Following Gandalf", and "Philosophy According to Tolkien" to name a few. Tolkien's work incorporates an entire world view into an entire world. Harry Potter is entertaining; however, it is a passing fancy that may or may not be worth picking up to keep up with cultural trends.

Reccura

02-02-2007, 03:14 AM

Ooooohhh, I'm so sorry. I haven't read 'Lord of the Rings'. But I want to. Harry Potter is quite addicting, lord of the rings movie is very... uh... tingling to the stomach. hihi

Lioness_Heart

02-02-2007, 05:04 PM

I love both lotr and Harry Potter, but they are so different that it is hard to compare them. HP is easier to read, but lotr is better once you get into it.

In a way, HP is better because it appeals to a wider range of people, and all ages. Having said that, I read the Hobbit when I was 6 and (it took me a while) lotr when I was between 7 and 10. But then again, reading it more recently, I understood it better.

I think that both are really good, although lotr is a more convincing world.

crisaor

02-02-2007, 06:30 PM

in the preface to FOTR, it says that it was actually started before The Hobbit was published.
Spoken like a true goddess. Thank you Idril.
Sadly, my edition has no introduction, other than the one about the life in the shire and the prior events.

Shalot

02-02-2007, 06:36 PM

i disagree, i read lotr when i was young and fell in love with it, there is no comparison, lotr is just better, better crafted, deeper thinking, more complex, and backed by a whole library of imagined history, harry potter, while a good series just does not hold water in comparison to lotr, which pretty much defined fantasy as a genre i think, especially when you realize that much of the source material for harry potter was lord of the rings. also, narnie=fab.!.

I wasn't trying to imply that the Narnia and Harry Books were better than LOTR because they aren't. But LOTR could be more intimidating to a younger reader than say The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe just because of the length of it (for one). I agree with you when you say that LOTR is better because it is --- I was just saying that when I was younger I read CS Lewis but not Tolkien.

And I do like the Harry Potter series and I can't wait till the final book is released in July.

Idril

02-03-2007, 07:37 PM

Spoken like a true goddess. Thank you Idril.

Finally! Someone recognizes me for the goddess that I am. ;) :p :lol:

valis

02-03-2007, 09:07 PM

If they ever remake the movie "Murder By Death", Harry Potter will be added along with Miss Marple, Nick and Nora Charles, Charlie Chan, and all the other detectives. The HP series consists of nothing more than murder mysteries with the same hackneyed tricks and ploys that date back to Poe.

LOTR has some weak aspects when being appraised as literature, but there's no real basis to compare it to HP. When LOTR was written, there weren't endless shelves of stories with dragons, wizards, elves, etc. It was as original as Poe's "Purloined Letter" or "Murder in the Rue Morgue". I'm hard pressed to think of a single original component of the HP stories.

LPRox015

02-05-2007, 10:42 AM

LORD OF THE RINGS! All the way!!

Orionsbelt

02-05-2007, 12:48 PM

I have been a Tolkien fan for a long time. Having said that, I loved HP. I would not count HP out as literature. O'Henry wrote some pretty simple stories that are classic as did Kippling. Tolkien is certainly more intricately developed. We won't make the choice anyway.

BroadwayBaby

06-25-2007, 02:30 AM

I only read The Hobbit, and it was really good, but I've read all the Harry Potters and loved them all so I can't really judge, but they are both awesome from what I read

Mortis Anarchy

06-25-2007, 02:40 AM

Both are good...they are very different though...I can't decide.

Aiculík

06-25-2007, 04:38 AM

Lord of the Rings=Literature
Harry Potter=Fantasy
Although I do think the HP books are well written I don't think they're literature, I just think they're fantasy books.
I prefer The Lord of the Rings, I'm a big fan of all Lord of the Rings related!

But fantasy is also literature. It's one of the genres.

The difference between HP and LotR is that HP is fantasy originally meant for young people (though adults like it as well), while LotR was written as a myth. Which is why it is more difficult to read than HP.

I like Harry Potter - I have all six books and impatiently wait for the last one - but I love Lord of the Rings. It is somehow... deeper than HP. There is passage in Return of the King, when everything seems to be going very bad, and people in Gondor are expecting the attack and Pipin is talking to Gandalf and he can see that in spite of it all, Gandalf is not really depressed, that if he started to laugh nothing could stop him. It's my favourite passage from all books I ever read. Nothing in HP can be compared with that.

JBI

06-25-2007, 03:22 PM

I dislike them both for different reasons. Lord of the Rings I found was terribly boring.

Harry Potter I found was stupid.

JBI

manolia

06-25-2007, 03:44 PM

As am new here so thought of starting my journey with a new thread

So the topic is Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings ...which book you think is better?

Come one. No need to ask a question like this one..LORD OF THE RINGS

Bakiryu

06-25-2007, 03:51 PM

Harry Potter is a bit more readable, the lord of the rings can be described as a bit droll.

But both books are good in their own way.

Orpheus

06-25-2007, 04:06 PM

I believe the Lord of the Rings is better in every possible way you can think of. It is a literature classic that has withstanded the test of time and it's pretty much the one that paved the way for all the similar books that followed it (ie. Harry Potter, Narnia, Eragon, etc.).

I would have to disagree with the fact that it paved the way for Narnia. Tolkien and C.S Lewis both rose at the same time. In fact I believe they were even collegues at one time.

As to the question, I have would have a very difficult time in saying which is better. The writing styles are totally different. However, the world that Tolkien created, far surpasses that of the Wizarding World in the Harry Potter books. I grew up reading the Harry Potter books long before that of Tolkien's work so I have become rather attached to the story. Actually, the HP books are what got me into reading in the first place. Before that I don't think I had read more than a handful of books outside of school. But then again, I was only ten years old. Alright, I'm drifting and i really don't have an answer for this anyway....

Hyacinth42

06-25-2007, 07:31 PM

I think that as much as I love Harry Potter, I would have to say LoTR... Harry Potter is nice for when you feel like reading a story and finishing in the near future, whereas if you want to read a good long book, Lord of the Rings is better. I read so much Harry Potter Fanfiction that I actually don't like the books anymore, but I love the fandom... So yeah, Lord of the Rings is better.

hastalavictoria

06-25-2007, 08:11 PM

This isn't even a question. Lord of the Rings is better. Much more mature, and elegantly written. It cannot even be compared to Harry Potter

JBI

06-25-2007, 09:21 PM

This isn't even a question. Lord of the Rings is better. Much more mature, and elegantly written. It cannot even be compared to Harry Potter

Elegant is hardly the word. Had I enjoyed reading 3 books telling a story meant for one volume I would agree with you, but as you can see, everything is relative. Don't get me wrong, the bibliophile inside me doesn't care for Rowling's style either, but at least it doesn't drag on and on. Tolkien is a snorefest to some, and brilliant to others.

As it can be seen, v/s is the wrong term for this sort of discussion, since we are just saying which we like better, and not comparing the two works. The books are very different in scale, style, and message, not to mention target audience, so it is unfair to try and compare them by saying "I like that better" or something of the sort.

Brigitte

06-26-2007, 12:32 AM

"I believe the Lord of the Rings ... pretty much the one that paved the way for all the similar books that followed it (ie. .., Narnia, ...)."

True, except for Narnia - that series started to be published in 1950, whereas Lord of the Rings series was not published till 1954.

Tolkien and Lewis were friends and colleagues who owed a lot to each other, but it would not be possible to estimate which of them owed what to whom.

.

(: The Chronicles of Narnia are near and dear to my heart. I reread the series every single year. I never grow tired of Aslan and with the years I've come to understand the underlying symbolism much more. As for LotR... that's a tougher read, and I consider it to be more fantasy than Harry Potter. Harry Potter takes place in London and is more "real" than LotR. So I wouldn't say I'm too big a fan of "fantasy."

So... Harry Potter. Although I must admit I haven't yet finished reading the LotR books... :blush:

Behemoth

06-26-2007, 03:12 AM

My personal preference is for Lord of the Rings, but I think you have to admire the Harry Potter series for getting children back into reading again in a big way. :)

Dark Star

06-27-2007, 11:28 PM

There's no real comparison here.

Harry Potter (while well written) is as it's core a simple children's series, while LotR for all it's flaws is much, much more.

While Tolkien's characters were irritatingly cardboard-cut-out-esque and with one or two exceptions there were virtually no shades of gray, the world-building he did is incomparable to anything else I've read.

Lag866

06-27-2007, 11:53 PM

I like both but in comparison LOTR was written by someone well versed in literature, myths, and language where as HP was written by someone who though intelligent yes not so well versed as Tolkien. That is why I believe that though the HP books are popular now, they will not keep on being popular as LOTR has.

NickAdams

07-03-2007, 01:41 PM

I saw a lot of similarities between the two (keep in mind that I saw both sets of movies)

Both had weird, hooded, evil creatures (LOTR - Ring Wraiths and HP - Dementors)

Both had white-haired, wise elders (Gandalf - LOTR and HP - Dumbledore)

Both had the somewhat unrelunctant hero who just sort of inherited the burden/honor - (LOTR - Frodo and HP - Harry Potter)

Both had dark lords (LOTR - Sauron and HP - Voldemart)

Personally, I like LOTR better but I do like Harry Potter

Don't forget (LOTR - Golem and HP - Dobby)

I would have to disagree with the fact that it paved the way for Narnia. Tolkien and C.S Lewis both rose at the same time. In fact I believe they were even collegues at one time.

I heard somewhere that Tolkien and Lewis flipped a coin to see who would write a fantasy and who would write a science-fiction novel.

Dori

07-03-2007, 02:10 PM

Lord of the Rings far surpasses Harry Potter, in my opinion. Tolkien's genius is not only visible in the Lord of the Rings, but in his other works that were posthumously published. I'm a firm believer in saying that it would take one far more genius to create what Tolkien created than it would to create what J.K. Rowlings created.

What inevitably inspired me to become the reader I am is The Hobbit. I have read it no less than three times and every time seems more entertaining than the last. Of course, my mom practically indoctrined it into my head when I was a little runt by always putting in the cartoon movie of The Hobbit. Therefore, I have always been somewhat partial to Tolkien.

smartgirl

07-03-2007, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Shalot
I saw a lot of similarities between the two (keep in mind that I saw both sets of movies)
Both had weird, hooded, evil creatures (LOTR - Ring Wraiths and HP - Dementors)
Both had white-haired, wise elders (Gandalf - LOTR and HP - Dumbledore)
Both had the somewhat unrelunctant hero who just sort of inherited the burden/honor - (LOTR - Frodo and HP - Harry Potter)
Both had dark lords (LOTR - Sauron and HP - Voldemart)
Personally, I like LOTR better but I do like Harry Potter

I disagree with you. LOTR is a great series, but Harry potter is more of a fantasy. That's what I like about it. Harry Potter is better for most people my age, and younger.

I love Harry potter. I first began reading at age 2 3/4. I started reading everything that I could. A while later, things began to get boring. I stopped reading. I only read when i had to for school, and didn't start truely reading until someone told me about the Harry potter book. I read it and loved it. I waited for the next one, and read it. So on. I now wait for the 7th book of the series. I can't wait til it comes out. Jo is an awesome writer. Her imagination is what brings kids back into reading.

IN the end....... I would have to say that for me, Harry potter wins.

Saphira

08-16-2008, 03:22 PM

I like both books. Both has got magic, dragons and fantasy animals. I can't really decide what I think but I read LOTR in second grade and Harry Potter in fourth grade, so I think LOTR wins.

/Saphira

Dori

08-16-2008, 08:00 PM

I wouldn't compare the two because it's like comparing Shakespeare to Dan Brown!

Just kidding. :p

JBI

08-16-2008, 10:16 PM

stlukesguild

08-16-2008, 10:56 PM

Which is better, a Big Mac or Whopper?

Like minds? I almost posted the exact same question.:lol:

Logos

08-16-2008, 11:04 PM

Which is better, a Big Mac or Whopper? Keep in mind, the Big Mac came first, whereas the Whopper is a rip off of it, but on the other hand, the Whopper has different topics, yet a similar flavor, and is thicker (perhaps about 7 to its 3) in terms of patty size. Oh man! the Whopper to be sure. It doesn't have all that oily "tartar sauce" goo with green chunks of what the ?? in it, and yeah it's bigger and tastes better, but you musts have the poutine with it too to round out the ultimate carbo coma effect :D

misterlit

08-16-2008, 11:15 PM

Okay...Harry Potter does not even come near being Lord of the Rings, not at all!

crisaor

08-17-2008, 02:29 AM

You're comparing books and hamburguers here, but yes, the Whopper is also much better. :lol:

Equality72521

08-17-2008, 04:06 PM

Lord of the Rings. Hands down. Harry Potter is overrated, in my personal opinion. They're okay at best. But Lord of the Rings...One of the greatest series I've ever read in my life.

Drkshadow03

08-17-2008, 05:52 PM

Generally, The Lord of the Rings passes the basic criteria for literature: we still read it after all this time, scholars still write about it, and it still gets taught in the classroom.

Not only does it get taught in specialty classes (I took one during undergrad, specifically on LOTR), but many professors who normally loathe fantasy and teach more traditional classes make a special exception for LOTRs (again anecdotal evidence).

Most of the scholarship, as I had to read quite a bit for my undergrad class that I took, seems pretty sharp and shows just how rich the work can be at times.

On the other hand, part of me agrees with JBI in some of his more specific criticisms. Tolkien goes on way too much about the damn trees and the writing can be a little flat. He certainly is no Shakespeare.

It also proves my point about sub-Canons. As long as a genre called "fantasy" exists, LOTR ain't going anywhere since it's a seminal work of that genre, and I don't think too many people would disagree with that.

Thus far it's stood the test of time.

As for Harry Potter's literary status, I think it's still too early to say. I personally really enjoyed the Harry Potter books, they were a lot of fun, the writing was enjoyable and more complex than a great deal of other children's lit being written these days, they were written in a way that both children and adults could appreciate, they have interesting themes dealing with contemporary/eternal issues like racism, friendship, love, fascism, coming-of-age, dealing with power, fame and popularity, and terrorism. They mix traditional mythological/fantastical elements and tropes, with traditional features of the boarding school genre, with World War II allegory, with modern political commentary. The characters felt real and developed with their own particular personalities and issues.

I think it's hard to compare Potter with Rings. They are very different novels. They might both be fantasy, but they are technically in different sub-genres. Rings is more typical second-world fantasy, while one piece of criticism I read placed Potter in the wainscott genre (basically a sub-genre of fantasy where the events happen in the real world and there is a secret underground society of fantastical creatures that exist alongside and unseen in the real world). They read very different, thematically they are doing very different things, structurally they are very different, the characters are very different (there is a lot more life and vitality, I think, to Potter's characters), and the entire reading experience is pretty much different.

MorpheusSandman

08-17-2008, 07:55 PM

Very different kinds of fantasy, though I think one truth carries for both: If you don't immediately love the mythology, you're probably not going to like the books. Tolkien's fantasy never did appeal to me. Some were immediately drawn to the concept of Hobbits and Middle-Earth. To me, LotR seemed like a watered-down bastard of the legitimate ancient myths. Tolkien's writing style also bores me. It's the same pattern: Long descriptions of landscape, long descriptions of historical facts, dialogue/narrative, rinse, repeat. At best his style comes off as Dickens-lite.

I might simply say that HP's mythology intrigues me more. It's probably because of how differently it's handled. In LotR Tolkien seems constantly weighed down with the gravity that is his fictional world. Rowling, contrarily, seems mystified by her characters, world, and narrative happenings. Everything she writes is written with a kind of wide-eyed sense of wonder and discovery. It also extends to such a wide range of audiences reading them who picks up on her wonder and enjoyment. This extends to the characters, where I think those in HP, as the above poster noted, has more life and vitality. There's almost nothing in LotR, other than race, to distinguish one character from another, and they seem to be merely shadows to advance the plot.

Tolkien gets the attention of scholars because no one person has ever crafted such an intricate and thorough mythology before. Rowling is ignored because she's simply trying to tell entertaining fantasy stories. Ironically, Tolkien said he was trying to do the same without a hint of allegory or complex themes (which doesn't prevent people from finding what isn't there, of course).

If pressed, I might could admit that Tolkien's achievement is so extraordinary that, by default, I have to declare LotR the better books. But if allowed to view them subjectively then I enjoy HP much, much more than I do LotR.

mortalterror

08-18-2008, 09:17 AM

I saw a lot of similarities between the two (keep in mind that I saw both sets of movies)

Both had weird, hooded, evil creatures (LOTR - Ring Wraiths and HP - Dementors)

Both had white-haired, wise elders (Gandalf - LOTR and HP - Dumbledore)

Both had the somewhat unrelunctant hero who just sort of inherited the burden/honor - (LOTR - Frodo and HP - Harry Potter)

Both had dark lords (LOTR - Sauron and HP - Voldemart)

Personally, I like LOTR better but I do like Harry Potter

I haven't followed the Harry Potter series at all, but I did notice some strong similarities between LOTR and the Star Wars franchise:

Star Wars = Lord of the Rings
Obi-Wan Kenobi = Gandalf the Grey
Luke Skywalker = Frodo Baggins
Han Solo = Strider aka Aragorn
R2D2 + C3P0 = Merry + Pippin
Princess Leia Organa = Princess Arwen Undomiel
Chewbacca = Boromir/Gimli
Darth Vader = Saruman the White
The Emperor Palpatine = Sauron

integrity

08-19-2008, 07:41 PM

Is this thread for real? :crash:

Why do I feel like I'm at Comicon...yet...I'm not. I'm on a McForum.

My failed commitment to quit forums due to pretentious pointless debates has been long standing, but I think this thread might have driven the final nail in the coffin.

My advice...forget Big Macs and Whoppers...go eat a Gardenburger. It's more tasty, and better for your soul. Just like real literature.

JBI

08-19-2008, 08:39 PM

I haven't followed the Harry Potter series at all, but I did notice some strong similarities between LOTR and the Star Wars franchise:

Star Wars = Lord of the Rings
Obi-Wan Kenobi = Gandalf the Grey
Luke Skywalker = Frodo Baggins
Han Solo = Strider aka Aragorn
R2D2 + C3P0 = Merry + Pippin
Princess Leia Organa = Princess Arwen Undomiel
Chewbacca = Boromir/Gimli
Darth Vader = Saruman the White
The Emperor Palpatine = Sauron

Try doing that with The Nibelungenlied and Lord of The Rings. Or with Virgil and the Homer.

Either way though, neither Star Wars nor Lord of the Rings are very good literature. This is judging on the first 3 Star Wars movies, if I were to go with the books it would be laughable.

qimissung

08-19-2008, 09:04 PM

Why does one have to be better than the other?

Drkshadow03

08-19-2008, 11:01 PM

Try doing that with The Nibelungenlied and Lord of The Rings. Or with Virgil and the Homer.

Either way though, neither Star Wars nor Lord of the Rings are very good literature. This is judging on the first 3 Star Wars movies, if I were to go with the books it would be laughable.

You do realize the Original Star Wars film is considered to be one of the top 100 American films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies)as chosen by both AFI and professional critics from Times Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/the_complete_list.html), plus was nominated for an Academy Award in Best Picture (http://www.filmsite.org/aa77.html).

JBI

08-20-2008, 12:26 AM

You do realize the Original Star Wars film is considered to be one of the top 100 American films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies)as chosen by both AFI and professional critics from Times Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/the_complete_list.html), plus was nominated for an Academy Award in Best Picture (http://www.filmsite.org/aa77.html).

Yes, it they are great movies. Did I say they weren't? And Puccini wrote great operas, but his librettos are terrible.

MorpheusSandman

08-20-2008, 04:50 AM

Yes, it they are great movies. Did I say they weren't?Judging films based on literary value is rather pointless. Even Stanley Kubrick noted that the best films tend to have the lightest screenplays because the visual aspect tends not to be written down as in actual literature.

JBI

08-20-2008, 04:55 AM

Judging films based on literary value is rather pointless. Even Stanley Kubrick noted that the best films tend to have the lightest screenplays because the visual aspect tends not to be written down as in actual literature.

Still though, one cannot deny the flimsiness of the writing in Star Wars.

Either way however, I can agree that Star Wars has some value as a movie, and I think the Lord of the Rings movies have transcended their mediocre book, but the Potter movies, in comparison are complete rubbish, and I have seen a few of them, so I am not judging based on other's opinions.

MorpheusSandman

08-20-2008, 08:16 AM

Still though, one cannot deny the flimsiness of the writing in Star Wars.I'll take flimsy writing and imaginative and visionary execution over the opposite any day when it comes to film.

I can agree that Star Wars has some value as a movie,I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Star Wars had a huge impact in terms of movie production. How you could get by with a limited budget, a hammy script, and a mediocre director if there was genuine vision, imagination, and a really talented production crew (sound, music, special effects, etc.) backing it all up. So much of Star Wars hasn't become iconic just due to popularity - most if it was deservedly so.

and I think the Lord of the Rings movies have transcended their mediocre book, but the Potter movies, in comparison are complete rubbish, and I have seen a few of them, so I am not judging based on other's opinions.Whether you like the LotR an Tolkien's writing I'm not sure how you disrespect the extraordinary accomplishment of Tolkien's mythos. As for the Potter movies, I've only seen 2 and haven't been impressed at all.

Drkshadow03

08-20-2008, 11:08 AM

Kafka's Crow

08-20-2008, 11:24 AM

Both are rubbish, specially "LOTR" which pretend to be 'literature.' "HP" are funny and don't (yet) pretend to be classics or even literature. "HP" win this one. Next!

mortalterror

08-21-2008, 08:40 AM

I agree with Darkshadow. There is such a thing as high melodrama. Star Wars, Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life, and much of the work of Charles Dickens or Victor Hugo definitely qualifies.

balehead

09-25-2009, 01:29 AM

I enjoyed LOTR more than HP; because of the writing style. Theyboth have complex storylines, but LOTR wins it for me due to the amazing writing style of Tolkein

JBI

09-25-2009, 02:01 AM

I'll take flimsy writing and imaginative and visionary execution over the opposite any day when it comes to film.

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Star Wars had a huge impact in terms of movie production. How you could get by with a limited budget, a hammy script, and a mediocre director if there was genuine vision, imagination, and a really talented production crew (sound, music, special effects, etc.) backing it all up. So much of Star Wars hasn't become iconic just due to popularity - most if it was deservedly so.

Whether you like the LotR an Tolkien's writing I'm not sure how you disrespect the extraordinary accomplishment of Tolkien's mythos. As for the Potter movies, I've only seen 2 and haven't been impressed at all.

That isn't the point - one can criticize things if they choose - I'm not going to play the game where we say "this is canonical, this isn't" it's not worth my time - I merely call a spade a spade.

As for the Tolkien mythos, what is to respect? the diegesis is so restricted to the text that there is nothing to really appreciate - the mythology is completely Tolkien-isolated - it's artificial, and will stay artificial - when you read Beowulf, it is legendary - it is real, or perhaps, constructed as real - Tolkien is archaic, and cheap in comparison.

What's this extraordinary accomplishment? A bored, boring professors fascination with making up his own little world, and then hammering out the details? Is that really praiseworthy in itself?

Don't get me wrong, I respect the trends of fantasy, as hypotheticals - and have discussed at length post-Tolkien novelists working in genre, like Robert Jordan - but the constructed world is only a vehicle, unless there is some mimesis, in which case is it either a metaphor, or a distortion. When it comes down to it, I'd take a novelist like Guy Gavriel Kay's constructed realities, which function mimetically, in a sort of metaphorical vein, rather than Tolkien's any day. The reason, is that Kay doesn't restrict anything - he merely uses the setting as backdrop for a sort of removed historical fiction, where he is more free to bend things around his own creativity - is he a great author? Well, I'll let others decide that - but compared to other genre writers, well, lets make a comparison.

Harry Potter - as we know it, the setting is essentially restricted to 10 or so places, but really 2-3 - that alley they go to, the school, the ministry of magic, and the houses of the friends, and that town they go to, which functions more like an aspect of the school - with emphasis essentially on the school only, and very little outside, except perhaps the last book.

The school itself functions as a dated British style boarding school, with enough razzmatazz to keep some viewers interested - but arguably, less and less secrets as books progress, as magic, once the trick is revealed I guess, seems to lose its flare. The world itself is clever in some ways, boring in others, cliché most of the time, but barely bending much as to make it really enjoyable - the whole notion of Wizard School has been done... to death, and isn't something someone who reads the genre will not have been familiar with.

The actual setting for the training of wizards seems to be rooted with the very nature of wizardry itself. Feists Magician has a such school, Le Guin's Earthsea, or in other forms - Terry Goodkind's various institutions, or Robert Jordan's White Tower (for only women, which is a nice touch). I think though, that the modeling on the British boarding school tradition is the most defining feature of Rowling's - is that more authentic though? doubtfully.

Tolkien's World - we see a construct of mythological borrowings woven into a sort of northern Germanic saga like tale, with intricate details down to the names of trees and their age. But is this really interesting? The conceptualization seems a lament for a rightfully passed time of feudal simplicity and aristocratic dominance - he seems to have imagined a boyhood fantasy of the medieval times (with dragons!) without any other implications - he may have languages and lore, but where are the real practical elements of the text?

Robert Jordan - a very interesting world - perhaps too idealistic at times, and originally, though thankfully not lingeringly modeled on Tolkien's Fellowship, the world, geographically perhaps is the largest - the details are there, if not as refined and precise as Tolkien - there is quite a bit of creativity - albeit, perhaps not in character creation - but enough to really give a sort of life to the world - I think the distinctive cultural personalities work, and really use the whole genre as a vehicle for getting away with discussing cultural idiosyncrasies and traditions in interesting ways. The attention paid to, for instance, fashion is very interesting - but still, as a metaphor, the setting barely functions - it is more a vehicle for expansive escape and removal - perhaps not such a bad thing - I have my reservations about Jordan's quality mind you, and I am in no way suggesting he is good literature, but in terms of constructed reality, he seems to blow the top off of previous conventions, by really working to distinctly landscape, especially with things of interest, like food and manners - though, of course, he perhaps drew things too widely and in not as refined and nuanced detail as would've been liked.

Steven Erikson - the least comprehensible of the mentioned novelists, and perhaps the most wacky - his world seems to have nothing really in common with anything - it is way weird, and essentially uninteresting to me. The Malazan landscape has lots of names and places, but very little sense (or, at least from the first book) and seems to lack any real desire to make itself known - I hear things become more clear in later books, but after 500 pages of no idea what the hell anything was, I think I've given up. Lots of numbers and names with 's and strange consonant clusters, but no actual sense or application.

George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire - A strange world - the weather graphing seems awkward, but perhaps makes more sense as the novels progress - culturally, I guess, things are modeled more closely than the others on our own world, but as a setting with a message, I can't help but think this landscape functions as a sort of rape fantasy - I've gone into detail over it elsewhere, so I am not going to restate my points, other than to say that though perhaps somewhat rooted in history, his treatment of sexuality is unjustifiable as a moral sense of "entertainment" and lacks the functionality as social or cultural criticism necessary to justify it in any sense - he seems to like beating, raping, deflowering, and enslaving children, so I'll leave him to it.

I hope this gives a general sense - none of these writers are Peake though, who seems to have had some idea as to the potential of setting - I'll add more names later for comparison if others are interested, but right now it is quite late, and I've already stayed writing this for too long.

WICKES

09-25-2009, 06:24 AM

I thought 'The Hobbit' was very good. A great little fantasy story. I started LOTR though and found the first one incredibly dull. I only got about 80 pages in.

It always amuses me that in the '60s Californian Hippies, high on drugs, used to phone Tolkein up at 3 or 4 in the morning at home in Oxford (or was he professor at Cambridge?) and go on about how 'cool' the Hobbits were and asking him what they were smoking:lol: Can you imagine this old English gentleman on the phone at 3 in the morning to a stoned San Francisco hippy!

"hey man, we really dig those little hobbit guys...real cool little dudes"

"who is this? Look I don't wish to be rude but I think you have rather a cheek phoning a chap up at this time of the morning!"

"Hey man, there is no time...all time is relative man"

Boo Radley

09-25-2009, 07:10 PM

Very silly. May as well compare a pedal boat on a pond to the Bismarck.

Scheherazade

09-25-2009, 07:13 PM

Very silly. May as well compare a pedal boat on a pond to the Bismarck.Nice one but which one is which?

:p

Boo Radley

09-25-2009, 10:29 PM

Nice one but which one is which?

:p

One author is still going round in circles making froth and bubbles, the other has already sunk. I hope that was a rhetorical question.:redface:

mal4mac

09-26-2009, 06:53 AM

"JRR Tolkien's books are a laboured reorganisation of Norse myth by a writer who struggled with the sentence structures of English."

Mark Lawson, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4326748,00.html

"A vast concourse of inadequate works, for adults and for children, crams the dustbins of the ages. At a time when public judgment is no better and no worse than what is proclaimed by the ideological cheerleaders who have so destroyed humanistic study, anything goes. The cultural critics will, soon enough, introduce Harry Potter into their college curriculum, and The New York Times will go on celebrating another confirmation of the dumbing-down it leads and exemplifies."

Harold Bloom, http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html

Drkshadow03

09-26-2009, 09:35 AM

JBI

09-26-2009, 09:51 AM

Heh. I took a LOTR class in college. It was a good class. Harder than most of my regular classes, though.

Heh, just for fun, I'd like to add they offer 1 fantasy course in English lit in my university (biggest in the country), and they for the past few years have not taught Tolkien;

This is the reading list:

Lord Dunsany, The King of Elfland’s Daughter; L. Frank Baum, The Marvelous Land of Oz; C. J. Cherryh, The Dreaming Tree; Emma Bull, War For The Oaks; Johanna Sinisalo, Troll: A Love Story; Matthew Lewis, The Monk; H.P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories (Penguin Twentieth Century Classics Edition, Ed. S. T. Joshi); Shirley Jackson, We Have Always Lived in The Castle; Ramsey Campbell, The Darkest Part of The Woods; course Reader.

The package is mostly short stories and genre related earlier poetry, as well as a few essays thrown in. But you can see, Tolkien isn't unanimously praised, even within the genre - Moorcock, who I'm sure you have heard of Drkshadow, as you probably know, has written at great length on the subject - Le Guin has essentially in her non-fiction work, projected an aesthetic completely different in every way than Tolkien - the dreadful Donaldson's Thomas Covenant is a direct anti-Tolkien (and a terrible set of text, but we'll leave it at that) - the actual acceptance of a Tolkien model applies more for epic veins than for anything else, and ultimately, the epic stuff tends to be the stuff taken less seriously (lets be honest, no critic should want to sit down and read 6+ 700 page books to comment, especially when they are released over a couple decades).

Stylistically, I think the best "genre" writer of fantasy is probably Roger Zelazny - he seems to be the one with the best command of language, in terms of style. But, although there is some importance on the Tolkien vein of literature (it's sales make it unavoidable, to be honest), you end up, usually, finding the best stuff as far away from Tolkien as you can go.

Gene Wolfe, for instance, although somewhat reliant on Tolkien as an original ground breaker, seems far more rooted in English Modernism, and therefore far more profound. He, I would argue, is far better than the sort of English nostalgia that dominates Tolkien.

The genre itself doesn't need Tolkien much anymore, except in the sense that English novels need Pamela or Clarissa. The Tolkien landscape has already been absorbed - we don't see people reading Madame Chrysanthème despite its influence on its generation - it's profound influence (though some Area specialists brought out a translation that is used as an example of East-Asian Orientalism in university classrooms). Harry Potter doesn't seem much better to me either - I think we're beyond it - it didn't break any ground, or perfect any broken ground - as a text, it doesn't engage other texts, or engage the world - it's sort of like a silly British tale of typically British things outside of their real social implications.

Drkshadow03

09-26-2009, 12:51 PM

Heh, just for fun, I'd like to add they offer 1 fantasy course in English lit in my university (biggest in the country), and they for the past few years have not taught Tolkien;

This is the reading list:

Lord Dunsany, The King of Elfland’s Daughter; L. Frank Baum, The Marvelous Land of Oz; C. J. Cherryh, The Dreaming Tree; Emma Bull, War For The Oaks; Johanna Sinisalo, Troll: A Love Story; Matthew Lewis, The Monk; H.P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories (Penguin Twentieth Century Classics Edition, Ed. S. T. Joshi); Shirley Jackson, We Have Always Lived in The Castle; Ramsey Campbell, The Darkest Part of The Woods; course Reader.

The package is mostly short stories and genre related earlier poetry, as well as a few essays thrown in. But you can see, Tolkien isn't unanimously praised, even within the genre - Moorcock, who I'm sure you have heard of Drkshadow, as you probably know, has written at great length on the subject - Le Guin has essentially in her non-fiction work, projected an aesthetic completely different in every way than Tolkien - the dreadful Donaldson's Thomas Covenant is a direct anti-Tolkien (and a terrible set of text, but we'll leave it at that) - the actual acceptance of a Tolkien model applies more for epic veins than for anything else, and ultimately, the epic stuff tends to be the stuff taken less seriously (lets be honest, no critic should want to sit down and read 6+ 700 page books to comment, especially when they are released over a couple decades).

Stylistically, I think the best "genre" writer of fantasy is probably Roger Zelazny - he seems to be the one with the best command of language, in terms of style. But, although there is some importance on the Tolkien vein of literature (it's sales make it unavoidable, to be honest), you end up, usually, finding the best stuff as far away from Tolkien as you can go.

Gene Wolfe, for instance, although somewhat reliant on Tolkien as an original ground breaker, seems far more rooted in English Modernism, and therefore far more profound. He, I would argue, is far better than the sort of English nostalgia that dominates Tolkien.

The genre itself doesn't need Tolkien much anymore, except in the sense that English novels need Pamela or Clarissa. The Tolkien landscape has already been absorbed - we don't see people reading Madame Chrysanthème despite its influence on its generation - it's profound influence (though some Area specialists brought out a translation that is used as an example of East-Asian Orientalism in university classrooms). Harry Potter doesn't seem much better to me either - I think we're beyond it - it didn't break any ground, or perfect any broken ground - as a text, it doesn't engage other texts, or engage the world - it's sort of like a silly British tale of typically British things outside of their real social implications.

A couple of thoughts:

I admit I am not a huge Tolkien fan myself. I don't dislike Tolkien exactly; I enjoyed his work for the most part, but I don't feel the need to worship it like some fans do, and would agree there is plenty of better fiction out there, fantasy or otherwise.

Tolkien in many ways is still the center of the fantasy genre. I think the fact that writers such as Moorcock in his essay, Epic Pooh, and writers like China Mieville (certainly a billion times better than Tolkien) who called Tolkien the wen on fantasy's buttocks (to paraphrase a bit), still find themselves striving with Tolkien, even as they reject his aesthetic vision and politics, fifty years later, is rather telling; Tolkien is still a force that fantasy writers, especially ones working in an the epic vein or a parallel vein (New Weird), need to respond to, even if that response is one of rebellion. Then there is the fact that so far Tolkien's popularity hasn't waned; this is a book that has continued its popularity for 50+ years when many other fantasy novels have long since fallen out-of-print into the dustbin of used book stores. Likewise, people have been producing scholarship on Tolkien for ages in both book form and peer-reviewed articles and informal scholarship (popular articles), with no sign of letting up. Will Tolkien stand the test of time forever? Beats the hell out of me; I haven't lived forever yet. Has Tolkien stood the test of time so far? Yep, I would say so.

I would agree Tolkien is most influential in the epic vein. You don't see too many Urban fantasy writers spewing complaints about the outmoded influence of Tolkien. That's also the problem when discussions like this happen. Fantasy is a huge genre, with a lot of niches; it doesn't begin and end with Epic fantasy. Besides, lately Martin has been more influential than Tolkien in dictating the direction of epic fantasy ( especially on writers such as Abercrombie, Lynch, Stover, and Hobb).

Really, I don't understand when people say, "we are beyond something." If we were actually beyond a particular book, behavior, philosophy, idea, or whatever, then no one would being engaging in it and there would be no need for that phrase. If we are still engaging in a behavior or still want to read a particular book then that suggests that we are in fact not beyond it at all.

One pattern you tend to have when you talk about literature in general is that you forget that the value of literature doesn't solely rest in who it influenced and whether it still is an influence, but literary works have intrinsic value in and of themselves for what it can teach us about the world and the people in it.

mal4mac

09-26-2009, 01:15 PM

Harry Potter ... doesn't engage other texts, or engage the world - it's sort of like a silly British tale of typically British things outside of their real social implications.

I just about agree with this. But I'd say, living in Brit. land, that it promulgates "sad, cliched distortions of upper-middle class British things" rather than simply "typically British things". We don't all go to naff public schools, and none of us travel by steam train, and we aren't all obsessed with daft sports with rules beyond understanding...

JBI

09-26-2009, 01:54 PM

I just about agree with this. But I'd say, living in Brit. land, that it promulgates "sad, cliched distortions of upper-middle class British things" rather than simply "typically British things". We don't all go to naff public schools, and none of us travel by steam train, and we aren't all obsessed with daft sports with rules beyond understanding...

No, but even the little things - that game they play on brooms, Quidditch or however you spell it - it's simply a play on rugby (mixed perhaps with tinges of Soccer/football) culture. The outlook is very British, but I think the interesting thing is the presence of girls on the teams. Which I think isn't as deep as I am making it, but asks questions like "why are all the very physical positions on the team taken by men, and agile positions taken by females?" Still though the outlook on a sort of sporting culture is very British.

Likewise, I think there are some suggestions of British pub culture, though, none really worked upon too greatly - still though, yes, I would have to agree, the class system is really biased - the whole house system that divides the school clearly has class-related implications.

Scheherazade

09-26-2009, 08:30 PM

I hope that was a rhetorical question.:redface:What is a rhetorical question?

:p

rimbaud

09-26-2009, 09:17 PM

well I haven't read the LOTR series, but I have read The HP series, and I must say i really liked the last 2 books, I think they are very different from the other five. I especially liked the character development in Tom Riddle and Severus Snape, as well as Dumbledore

PhoenixPassion

09-27-2009, 10:25 AM

JBI

09-27-2009, 10:41 AM

I love both series equally. I cannot possibly compare the two series because they are distinct in their own ways. They have made their mark on literature in unique ways. The societies they represent are eras apart. LotR is an epic fantasy that has been an inspiration for decades, and will be inspiration for years to come, for many generations of authors. I believe Harry Potter will have this influence as well for a different category of authors.

Meh, I think there is a lot of Emperor's New Clothes going on, and some people are just too afraid to comment that they don't like either - Britain may have voted the Rings the best novel, but ultimately, I doubt many of the people who voted for it have read it, much less anything else.

mona amon

09-27-2009, 01:07 PM

I doubt many of the people who voted for it have read it

I think that could be true. Quite a few of them probably voted for the book after seeing, and loving, the movies.

But as for the Emperor's New Clothes part, isn't it more fashionable on a literature forum to say you don't like them (especially Harry Potter)?

Babyguile

09-28-2009, 07:47 AM

JBI

09-28-2009, 09:53 AM

I find this insulting.

It's like comparing Joe Satriani to Fred Durst (guitarists).

Satriani was the innovator, he created a new way of playing and founded a whole new realm of art for the guitar. Durst lives of Satriani, note for note, most likely unconsiously (not the case with Rowling).

The Lord Of The Rings is literature. Serious, serious literature that has something to say. Harry Potter is just a fantasy book. It lives by the cliches created by Tolkien, word for word.

Glad you think so. The fact that Tolkien created a world means nothing in terms of attesting to the quality of a book. You will need to elaborate further as exactly a) makes the Rings serious literature, and b) what exactly it has to say before I think anyone is convinced of anything.

I think that could be true. Quite a few of them probably voted for the book after seeing, and loving, the movies.

But as for the Emperor's New Clothes part, isn't it more fashionable on a literature forum to say you don't like them (especially Harry Potter)?

Perhaps on a literary forum, but that is because of the huge threads they take up - in truth though, if they weren't mentioned, I doubt anybody would really care one way or another.

Drkshadow03

09-28-2009, 10:02 AM

I find this insulting.

It's like comparing Joe Satriani to Fred Durst (guitarists).

Satriani was the innovator, he created a new way of playing and founded a whole new realm of art for the guitar. Durst lives of Satriani, note for note, most likely unconsiously (not the case with Rowling).

The Lord Of The Rings is literature. Serious, serious literature that has something to say. Harry Potter is just a fantasy book. It lives by the cliches created by Tolkien, word for word.

You're actually insulted? Why are J. R. R. Tolkien reincarnated? Fred Durst is nothing like Satriani. It's not just a matter of talent (granted Durst is abysmal), but one of different styles too. Durst didn't steal from Satriani; he isn't talented enough to copy him. You'd actually need to have some talent with a guitar to copy Satriani's shredding abilities.

Likewise, Happy Potter is a copy of Tolkien word for word?! So if I open up the first book of HP and the first page of LOTR, they will say exactly the same thing? HP is nothing like LOTR. I already addressed some of those differences here in this essay (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=760860&postcount=200).

Babyguile

10-07-2009, 09:52 AM

Glad you think so. The fact that Tolkien created a world means nothing in terms of attesting to the quality of a book. You will need to elaborate further as exactly a) makes the Rings serious literature, and b) what exactly it has to say before I think anyone is convinced of anything.

You failed to understand the point I clearly made. You've exhausted the bolded point enough in this thread I think.

The world Tolkien created, which is remarkable in many ways by its own merits (believe this), was just a vehicle for what he wanted to say. What Rowling and all (99% of American fantasy writers) other fantasy authors after him did, was paint with the same colours as Tolkien, but not with the depth. Tolkien created the cliches, yes, but they weren't cliches back then. He wasn't following a set formula in order to get published and acheive mere popularity like these newer authors do.

It's very simple.

You're actually insulted? Why are J. R. R. Tolkien reincarnated? Fred Durst is nothing like Satriani. It's not just a matter of talent (granted Durst is abysmal), but one of different styles too. Durst didn't steal from Satriani; he isn't talented enough to copy him. You'd actually need to have some talent with a guitar to copy Satriani's shredding abilities.

Likewise, Happy Potter is a copy of Tolkien word for word?! So if I open up the first book of HP and the first page of LOTR, they will say exactly the same thing? HP is nothing like LOTR. I already addressed some of those differences here in this essay (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=760860&postcount=200).

This is silly and semi-facetious.

JBI

10-07-2009, 01:07 PM

You failed to understand the point I clearly made. You've exhausted the bolded point enough in this thread I think.

The world Tolkien created, which is remarkable in many ways by its own merits (believe this), was just a vehicle for what he wanted to say. What Rowling and all (99% of American fantasy writers) other fantasy authors after him did, was paint with the same colours as Tolkien, but not with the depth. Tolkien created the cliches, yes, but they weren't cliches back then. He wasn't following a set formula in order to get published and acheive mere popularity like these newer authors do.

It's very simple.

What did he create? Look at his long bibliography - he just relocated things, he didn't create very much. Elves aren't his invention, and neither are Goblins - trolls, dragons, giants, even tree spirits are not his invention. Wizards surely aren't, and there have been little people for as long as there have been people, probably. Certainly the languages were an "invention", if we take grafting living or evolved languages into new forms - but even so, to what extent can we call that art?

We don't need to accept Tolkien's world making, and setting as anything special - the fact that he invented a style that many mediocre authors have mimicked doesn't attest to anything - the book Madame Chrysanthème by Pierre Loti, for instance, was adapted numerous times, had immense influence, and even laid the foundation for what is now the most preformed opera in the US, Madama Butterfly - is it a good novel? Hardly. IT sold well though, and its orientalist projection of Japan dominated for quite a long time, and even has, to an extent survived until this day, in various forms.

The point I will make, is that creating a fake world isn't art - what you do inside the world is the artistic part, and how you portray it - so, ultimately, bad prose, no matter how well drawn the setting of a story is, is still bad prose.

Babyguile

10-07-2009, 01:54 PM

What did he create? Look at his long bibliography - he just relocated things, he didn't create very much. Elves aren't his invention, and neither are Goblins - trolls, dragons, giants, even tree spirits are not his invention. Wizards surely aren't, and there have been little people for as long as there have been people, probably. Certainly the languages were an "invention", if we take grafting living or evolved languages into new forms - but even so, to what extent can we call that art?

We don't need to accept Tolkien's world making, and setting as anything special - the fact that he invented a style that many mediocre authors have mimicked doesn't attest to anything - the book Madame Chrysanthème by Pierre Loti, for instance, was adapted numerous times, had immense influence, and even laid the foundation for what is now the most preformed opera in the US, Madama Butterfly - is it a good novel? Hardly. IT sold well though, and its orientalist projection of Japan dominated for quite a long time, and even has, to an extent survived until this day, in various forms.

The point I will make, is that creating a fake world isn't art - what you do inside the world is the artistic part, and how you portray it - so, ultimately, bad prose, no matter how well drawn the setting of a story is, is still bad prose.

You are still pre-occupied with Middle-earth. My post stated that this was only a vehicle. Just like the streets of industrialised London were a vehicle for countless great Victorian novels. And even as I feel I can defend the originality of Tolkien in this respect, I really do want you to stop this pre-occupation with his world.

Now, it's not important whether you view his world as genious or grossly over-rated, we should be discussing his literary merit. His voice, his talents, his craft, the metaphors and (dare I say it) the allegories. If you have read LOTR and not picked up on these and identified LOTR as being above all those that went after it, then you must have read them with pre-concieved notions and bias, and that's a shame.

JBI

10-07-2009, 05:15 PM

You are still pre-occupied with Middle-earth. My post stated that this was only a vehicle. Just like the streets of industrialised London were a vehicle for countless great Victorian novels. And even as I feel I can defend the originality of Tolkien in this respect, I really do want you to stop this pre-occupation with his world.

Now, it's not important whether you view his world as genious or grossly over-rated, we should be discussing his literary merit. His voice, his talents, his craft, the metaphors and (dare I say it) the allegories. If you have read LOTR and not picked up on these and identified LOTR as being above all those that went after it, then you must have read them with pre-concieved notions and bias, and that's a shame.

Alright, his boring prose, one dimensional characters, not-so-interesting plot, and mediocre, often backward morals - which shall we discuss first? Certainly, if we are to talk metaphor, what better place to start then his god-awful poetry?

Literary merit implies that there is something worth merit there - what is it? You do a great job of accusing me, yet, as far as I can tell, you merely tell me to stop talking about subjects that come up, and focus on his "literary merit". I have quoted bits of terrible prose (perhaps on another thread, this one is lengthy and I don't feel like rereading it totally), and have discussed character and other aspects of fiction on the text itself, yet somehow you are the one accusing me of failing to realize his literary merit. Lets be frank, tell me what you think is good about the book, and what you think we should discuss, rather than attacking me for not saying what you want me to say, that Tolkien is a genius, and his followers are all toss - quite frankly, Tolkien, when it came to writing fiction, was hardly a genius, and, for the most part, his followers are all toss.

You pretend like you are the only one who can read Tolkien, well then, you preach his merit, show it to me. Give me something that displays this merit - if the setting is only vehicle, than give me something, anything that shows what is beyond the setting is worthy of merit. So far, you have done a good job attacking my posts, meanwhile you have said absolutely nothing.

Perhaps maybe if you said something besides criticized what others would say, people would take you more seriously, as it is, if you reply in the same fashion to this post, I'll simply ignore you as a troll, since you clearly have no desire to support your arguments, but seem the first to criticize others'.

Babyguile

10-07-2009, 05:42 PM

JBI

10-07-2009, 09:54 PM

I knew this would be your next line of attack: to ask me to effectively teach you about his work. There has long been scholars on Tolkien, they are writing some fascinating things all the time. Read them, and be convinced.

I am not about to teach you anything, you have read the books with cynicism and perhaps annoyance at the praise they get, with much the same mind-set that you approached Martin's work with I would guess, though you didn't even read them did you? I'd like to know if you finished LOTR before you began this dogmatic campaign against it. And so I don't feel it's my place to teach you anything about a book that has been around for over half a century and has recieved more public accolades and scholary attention than any other book of its type.

Yes, Tolkien's poetry is horrendous and I always skip it besides some whimsical songs from the Hobbit which I fins brilliant, but if it's any consolation he was a good painter ;) And please, stop trying to pigeon hole me over an internet forum, it is a very silly thing to do.

Good, and since you have said that you don't wish to "teach" anybody anything, we can dismiss your arguments as something which you "don't want to make."

There has been as much, if not more scholarship bashing Tolkien as there has supporting it. Don't think I'm ignorant, unread, or flat out base. So far, I have showed, and supported my opinion, whereas you have merely criticized me, meanwhile hiding behind a veil of "go out there and read something, you ignorant bully." Lets be honest, one wouldn't be too hard pressed to think some poster is a tad bit hypocritical no? Accusing someone of not discussing "other aspects", but when the question is reverted, hiding behind absolutely nothing.

I'm not trying to pigeon whole anybody, I think I already have.

And, just for kicks - I read the books first at age 9, when I didn't even know how popular the texts were - the movies were a few years later - I'll be honest though, I got through the Hobit, but on my first read I got trapped somewhere in the second Volume of The Rings. Quit assuming things, and quit calling me biased when quite simply, one could merely invert the statement and suggest that you yourself are biased and read the book looking for "good", avoiding all the "bad", and boring as a way of trying to fit in with a public opinion of said text - one could say that, but who would be rude enough to call you a biased, mediocre reader?

Drkshadow03

10-07-2009, 10:00 PM

I have to agree with JBI. You haven't provided much evidence in defense of LOTR.

Babyguile

10-07-2009, 10:43 PM

Good, and since you have said that you don't wish to "teach" anybody anything, we can dismiss your arguments as something which you "don't want to make."

There has been as much, if not more scholarship bashing Tolkien as there has supporting it. Don't think I'm ignorant, unread, or flat out base. So far, I have showed, and supported my opinion, whereas you have merely criticized me, meanwhile hiding behind a veil of "go out there and read something, you ignorant bully." Lets be honest, one wouldn't be too hard pressed to think some poster is a tad bit hypocritical no? Accusing someone of not discussing "other aspects", but when the question is reverted, hiding behind absolutely nothing.

I'm not trying to pigeon whole anybody, I think I already have.

And, just for kicks - I read the books first at age 9, when I didn't even know how popular the texts were - the movies were a few years later - I'll be honest though, I got through the Hobit, but on my first read I got trapped somewhere in the second Volume of The Rings. Quit assuming things, and quit calling me biased when quite simply, one could merely invert the statement and suggest that you yourself are biased and read the book looking for "good", avoiding all the "bad", and boring as a way of trying to fit in with a public opinion of said text - one could say that, but who would be rude enough to call you a biased, mediocre reader?

Yes you could level those same things about me because we are both ignorant of one another as we have never met, however, I am not dogmatically either for or against the work and I hope I've shown that here.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'scholarly support'. What does that mean? That a scholar is a 'fan' of a book rather than an objective critic? All books recieve praise and criticism, almost always they will recieve more of the latter, but that's the way it is.

What do you want me to say? Literature is subjective. Tolkien was against his work being a direct allegory for anything.

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.

He wanted us to see our own value in the book. If I was to describe what the book says for me, I would only be feeding your cynicism. I don't care if you see little in the book, that's your opinion, let's move on and both agree to stop the accusations levelled at one another. I'm not giving you anything else, and I do not appreciate the weakly hidden insults in your posts, why not be brave enough to say them plainly? Are you not?

JBI

10-07-2009, 10:59 PM

Yes you could level those same things about me because we are both ignorant of one another as we have never met, however, I am not dogmatically either for or against the work and I hope I've shown that here.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'scholarly support'. What does that mean? That a scholar is a 'fan' of a book rather than an objective critic? All books recieve praise and criticism, almost always they will recieve more of the latter, but that's the way it is.

Scholars who support the text as an expression of good, canonical literature, versus scholars who reject the book as toss, for whatever reason, and either choose to attack a certain aspect, such as the use of color, specifically black and white to designate good and evil, or stylistic inadequacies - the text itself, being relatively new, undergoes scholarly research and opinion that both supports it, and debases it, as such literature is want to do.

For instance, you could have a critic who suggests the book aught not to be read, that would be a critic against supporting the text as expression worth studying, whereas you could have a critic obsessed with the book, and supporting it as reputable good literature - such is the way of much academic work - objectivity is often quite boring, I'm afraid. The value game is a load of **** in terms of scholarly work, but the discussion of quality, especially with newish texts, is never absent - especially with a text like The Lord of The Rings, which somehow upsurged into popular imagination by means of strange fascinations a few decades after it was published, and then coasted after having 3 major award winning movies done on it - the actual movies, it can be argued, are perhaps the most significant factor, as they transformed it from cult-fiction more toward popular fiction.

It's actually strange though, the way popular fiction gets debated on these boards - even obvious perhaps good, or at least critically acclaimed authors who are popular get swept aside, but it is generally the ones that people acknowledge as mediocre that get the ground time.

Marquez, for instance, is a far better "fantasy" writer than Tolkien, if we can stretch the genre to allow Marquez in, which I think is justafiable. Likewise, we get some authors even more popular than Rowling if that can be believed with essentially no appearance on these boards, such as Jin Yong, who, though perhaps not classifiable as fantasy, since the genre of fantasy seems more of a Western, anglophone construct, is perhaps the most consistently popular writer alive today, having more movie and television adaptations than author I can think of (and the fact that these are all marketed at the country with the largest population in the world doesn't hurt much) - not to mention scholarly work as well, as he has even been absorbed into the Chinese academies as "studiable" and "supported" literature - to what extent then, can we say such a discussion on Potter and Tolkien is worth having?

Modest Proposal

10-08-2009, 01:29 AM

Scholars who support the text as an expression of good, canonical literature, versus scholars who reject the book as toss, for whatever reason, and either choose to attack a certain aspect, such as the use of color, specifically black and white to designate good and evil, or stylistic inadequacies - the text itself, being relatively new, undergoes scholarly research and opinion that both supports it, and debases it, as such literature is want to do.

For instance, you could have a critic who suggests the book aught not to be read, that would be a critic against supporting the text as expression worth studying, whereas you could have a critic obsessed with the book, and supporting it as reputable good literature - such is the way of much academic work - objectivity is often quite boring, I'm afraid. The value game is a load of **** in terms of scholarly work, but the discussion of quality, especially with newish texts, is never absent - especially with a text like The Lord of The Rings, which somehow upsurged into popular imagination by means of strange fascinations a few decades after it was published, and then coasted after having 3 major award winning movies done on it - the actual movies, it can be argued, are perhaps the most significant factor, as they transformed it from cult-fiction more toward popular fiction.

It's actually strange though, the way popular fiction gets debated on these boards - even obvious perhaps good, or at least critically acclaimed authors who are popular get swept aside, but it is generally the ones that people acknowledge as mediocre that get the ground time.

Marquez, for instance, is a far better "fantasy" writer than Tolkien, if we can stretch the genre to allow Marquez in, which I think is justafiable. Likewise, we get some authors even more popular than Rowling if that can be believed with essentially no appearance on these boards, such as Jin Yong, who, though perhaps not classifiable as fantasy, since the genre of fantasy seems more of a Western, anglophone construct, is perhaps the most consistently popular writer alive today, having more movie and television adaptations than author I can think of (and the fact that these are all marketed at the country with the largest population in the world doesn't hurt much) - not to mention scholarly work as well, as he has even been absorbed into the Chinese academies as "studiable" and "supported" literature - to what extent then, can we say such a discussion on Potter and Tolkien is worth having?

Your criticism, specifically in the last paragraph, seems to be a little untenable. Marquez's writing is magical-realism, a story like Beloved, that appropriates a singular or few magical elements into an otherwise realistic setting. This means that the story can deal with very dramatic, even topical issues, for modern readers. Tolkein however, was doing something very different.

Where Marquez was a journalist, Tolkein was first a medievalist. He was steeped in Beowulf, Sir Gawain, The Mabanogian (his essay on Bewulf and translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight being some of the most respected of their kind among "scholars"). He wrote his series in the vein of the great western mythology, and is perhaps the most successful person to ever attempt such an anachronistic feat. The fact that it is so popular and even GETS dozens of scholarly essays a year should be enough to dispell the myth of its unworthiness.

Is it as well written as even the fantasy of say Chesterton? Probably not. Is it as popular as Rowling's books? Obviously not. Is it one of the great feats in 20th century literature? Yes and certainly surpassing Chesterton and Rowling in this measure.

onioneater

10-08-2009, 02:48 PM

LOTR is much better than HP.

Drkshadow03

10-08-2009, 02:59 PM

LOTR is much better than HP.

Not according to Joe, and he knows everything, and everyone knows that you can't challenge the viewpoint of someone who knows everything! So there!

Babyguile

10-08-2009, 04:33 PM

Not according to Joe, and he knows everything, and everyone knows that you can't challenge the viewpoint of someone who knows everything! So there!

Is JBI Joe? That's ludicrous. He's gone off on a complete tangent and he has lost me and maybe even lost himself. Ludicrous.

Modest Proposal

10-08-2009, 05:16 PM

What did he create? Look at his long bibliography - he just relocated things, he didn't create very much. Elves aren't his invention, and neither are Goblins - trolls, dragons, giants, even tree spirits are not his invention. Wizards surely aren't, and there have been little people for as long as there have been people, probably. Certainly the languages were an "invention", if we take grafting living or evolved languages into new forms - but even so, to what extent can we call that art?

We don't need to accept Tolkien's world making, and setting as anything special - the fact that he invented a style that many mediocre authors have mimicked doesn't attest to anything - the book Madame Chrysanthème by Pierre Loti, for instance, was adapted numerous times, had immense influence, and even laid the foundation for what is now the most preformed opera in the US, Madama Butterfly - is it a good novel? Hardly. IT sold well though, and its orientalist projection of Japan dominated for quite a long time, and even has, to an extent survived until this day, in various forms.

The point I will make, is that creating a fake world isn't art - what you do inside the world is the artistic part, and how you portray it - so, ultimately, bad prose, no matter how well drawn the setting of a story is, is still bad prose.

If you will permit me a, perhaps, hackneyed metaphore, I would like to consider your arguement about prose being the sole determinant of art, in parallel with painting. Is only that painted "beautifully" worthy?

Picasso, like almost any great artist, first learned to paint realistically before he explored different avenues of art and their different values. All of his most important paintings could very easily be argued as his least traditionally "beautiful" as well. Does this make them less worthy? I think not, in fact it is what is revealed despite a lack of realism that gavehis work power.

Similarly, Tolkein worked in a different mode then aesthetes like Nabokov, who constantly searched for "le juste mot". Tolkein tried to reveal truths--and let us face it, the illumination of truth might be the only REAL goal of any art: "truth is beauty, beauty truth. That is all you know on earth and all you need to know.--, not through the reality of his time, but through the reality of a made up time. Is the Illiad not representitive of Grecian questions because it has fantasy?

I think that if we see Tolkien's work as a whole, and not as a series of--maybe--mediocre sentences, then we can see his artistic merit in the same way we see some like Picasso's. beauty, perfection, balance are great, but it is the manifestation of truth that MAKES art.

JBI

10-08-2009, 06:22 PM

soundofmusic

10-08-2009, 07:25 PM

:alien: Okay, I admit it, at a little past two score and ten, I read entirely for my own pleasure. I am not terribly concerned if they have intellectual merit or if they are written by an Oxford professor. I didn't identify with "Lord of..." twenty some years ago, when I read the first two books; so I never finished.
I like Harry Potter, though I sometimes have thought I detect a co-writer in some of the later books :confused: (What do you think?) I get a little uncomfortable when I feel as if there is too much sexual tension between the male characters. I'm really uncomfortable with the sadism: Professor Umbridge and the cutting pen; I cringe when Dumbledore wants Harry to force him to drink all that water...and I'm going to stop reading before Harry marries Jenny (I prefer my fantasy characters to stay always young, always beautiful):wave:

Modest Proposal

10-09-2009, 01:35 AM

And what "truth" is that? Where is this "truth"? What "truth" did he write? The word "truth" is as undefined as the word "art". Just saying Tolkien penned "truth" means nothing. A science textbook perhaps pens "truth", but we don't call it artistic, now do we - besides which, truth and art don't necessarily agree. The actual concept of metaphor is one that lacks truth - it suspends truth, by making something something which it isn't for a period of time - there need not be any "truth" for the work to be good, otherwise we would only read the most naturalistic of authors, and only look within them for truths.

Where is the truth in, lets say, Homer's Odyssey, or Petrarch's Canzoniere - even contemporaries of Petrarch proposed the theory that Laura hadn't existed, and I don't think anyone could argue he actually saw a doe with a diamond necklace reading hand's off - the truth isn't necessary - he didn't actually sail a ship between Scylla and Charybdis, does that make his sonnet any less powerful? Historically, even his letters are falsified - he didn't actually climb Mount Ventoux with his brother - or at least not at that date.

There's no need to lift Keats out of context (which, by the way, was used in An Ode to a Grecian Urn as an allusion to Shakespeare's Sonnets, and is a passage noted for its ambiguity) to try and prove a point which makes no sense.

I do not believe in universal truths, and I do not think Tolkien is a good writer, nor do I think he really had much to say of interest about the world, humanity, or anything else - I do not think there is much in the texts. You declaring that he somehow is "truthful" or imbues his texts with "truth" means nothing to me. Quite simply, when it comes down to it, it's still boring, clunky prose.

And PS, your reference to Picasso makes absolutely no sense in context, or at least I cannot discern any point you were trying to make. Picasso may have started off as a realist painter (i do not know his biography), but it is his innovations and artistic style that we remember him for, not his realistic paintings.

Wow, I'm a little unimpressed. Let me start off by saying that if there is no universal truth, then there is no universal beauty. So your entire arguement predicated on an objective view of good prose, is bunk.

As to Picasso, did you even read my text? I never said his realistic work was important. I said that his work not trying to be realistic, but rather trying to reveal truth--I know you don't like the word--in abstract manners is what has lasted. Thus, I connect the arguement that Tolkein not trying to use perfect writing--think perfect replication for the painting metaphore--but rather using a strange world to try to reveal ideas and beliefs--what he sees as truths--is art. Art is not based solely on aesthetic merit, but also on what is revealed.

I am sorry, but I don't feel like my last paragraph is really that debatable--I have never heard anyone say that literature is just nice prose--, so I will move on to what is probably more at issue.

That is, of course, whether Tolkein attempted and/or did reveal truths. I agree that for the most part this is a subjective view, and I am in no way going to ask you to buy wholesale what the book projects, but I believe much that is said in the book is very important and meaningful. I too read it in elementary school and distinctly remember enjoying it, but it was reading it as an adult where I began to understand the implied matters of human nature: The corruptability of all men--and hobbits--, the futility of ever using evil, even for a good end, and also the allure of personal conquest and honor over affecting an actual righteous end.

Now, I am not suggesting these are new or groundbreaking ideas but, as I said, that they are truisms and they are evinced beautifully and powerfully in the story.