MSNBC: J.K. Rowling being compared to J.R.R. Tolkien (?)

:wtf:

if this is true i'll start reading the Harry Potter series TODAY

:shrug:

Personally, I like them both. But I don't re-read all the Harry Potters every year.

:D

IMHO

insofar as she's created a fully realized alternate universe, from regulations for using magic and the bureaucracy to oversee it, to what kind of candy is on the Hogwart's Express snack trolley. Witness the number of people who enjoy dressing up as Hogwart's students.

Plus, they are really great stories, She's a very good storyteller with vivid characters, compelling plot points that keep you turning the page.

But, high lit Harry Potter ain't. JRRT was in part trying to amuse himself with his love of languages and poetry and marry that with epic myths.

I can't imagine SCHTOOPING Tolkien :bounce:
http://www.unc.edu/~elwhite/untitled.bmp





http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/06/27/svROWLING_narrowweb__300x472,0.jpg

at first.

Just glancing at your post I thought it meant you couldn't imagine SCHTOOPING JKR and would rather SCHTOOP JRRT! :P :silly:

Usually any complaint about JK is met with the retort, "yeah but she's made a brazillion quid so fuck you!"

However, if you were to say, "yeah but she has fantastic knockers!" then that's different. :D

I got a magic wand for her.

Tolkein practically LIVED in a world he created. The level of detail he put into his books, especially the languages and cultures he created, are unmatched. Very few authors can come close to what he did in that respect, maybe Frank Herbert did with his Dune series, but not many others.

Rowling does write well, especially in the last 3 books. She does a great job of tying together all the many plots and sub-plots of the 7 book series. She also adds many layers to the story through references to well known history, myths, popular culture, and languages.

She's no Tolkein, but she's not trying to be. She's aiming for a different audience and reading level.

If you havent read the HP books, give them a shot, but dont expect a Tolkein high-fanstasy experience. I think the first book is probably the weakest of the series, from a literary standpoint. The story is good, but she's still learning how to write it, and its probably the most geared towards kids.

The only one I've read... One sitting on a train. It was simply entertaining and FUN. That she has captured such an enduring audience does my heart good!

:D

They get WAY better as they go along...

:shrug:

Some people can't even count.

If people are still very much into her stuff (as people are into Tolkien's) 50 or 60 years from now, I may consider it.

Seems to me JRRT did it without all the marketing.

would be to someone like CS Lewis actually. His Narnia series for children has always been very popular with the younger set, and like HP is not quite as rich and complex as LOTRs.

but the politics... Jeebus. Christian Tory all the way.

JKR can be pretty conservative in some areas, but in others she's definitely pushing a tolerant (dare I say leftist?) agenda. She's all about family and friends (Harry in the end realizes that Ron and Hermione are his family). She's also VERY opposed to hatred and racism.

But I think it's a bit stupid to pit one against the other, even for JRRT. People who like Narnia are likely to get into Tolkien and Harry Potter and Susan Cooper and Philip Pullman and Tamora Pierce. Kids who like to read fantasy should try them all. :D

Tolkien? Tolkien?????

Oh, dear God! The culture of the sub-literate has finally arrived.

Next week, Stephen King will be compared to Victor Hugo, whilst Danielle Steel gets compared to Emily Bronte the following month.

I think I'll kill myself to save me from the inevitable frustration...

Sub-literate: Somewhere between literate and illiterate, yet gravitating towards the lower end of the spectrum.

A turn of phrase my grandfather used quite frequently while referring to his many grandchildren (including yours truly). I don't know if it was ever in the popular lexicons, but I've adopted it and used it from time to time.


Caveat: I've never read (nor seen) any of the Harry Potter series and for all I know, they may actually be really good. But as was posted upthread, comparing Rowlings to Tolkien won't be valid for another 60 years...

compare the two authors, much as I love Harry Potter. Tolkien was a different kind of writer with probably a different purpose. I enjoy his books, but frankly not as much as the potter series. I found his books dragged and at times bored me a little. However, their merit is totally different, and enjoyment doesn't equal merit or mean that two enjoyable books are similar beyond that.
I'd rather enjoy Tolkien as Tolkien and Harry Potter as Harry Potter.
I just find it a little offensive to hear HP readers referred to as sub-literate. The books are good, and they've encouraged people to read. Even if the books weren't as good as they are, the very fact that I know a number of kids and young adults that never read a book on their own before and are now reading not only this but hunting for more exciting stories means they have some merit.

Point taken with grace, and my (sincere) apologies to you for typing w/o thinking. :blush:

(This coming from a guy who thought the Danny Dunn series, Alvin Fernald series, and the Three Investigator series were all legitimate and thoughtful literature as I was growing up... so I'm in no position of literary authority either)

I wasn't that offended :)

and maybe even a little bit more.

Both JRRT and JKR have spent a HUGH amount of time conceptualizing their worlds. But they're very different.

Tolkien is boring in part because the characters are flat and the plot is just a long snore followed by a HUGH action scene, then back to snoresville. Rinse, repeat.

And there are probably very few people who could read LOTR overnight as so many did with this latest Potter book which doesn't say a lot for its depth or complexity.

Everyone is welcome to read what they want, of course, and if you prefer Rowling, that's what works for you. But to me, comparing someone who is writing now to someone who is still read and considered a classic after some 50 or 60 years is pretty absurd.

Doesn't mean it wasn't good.

but damn, it was a struggle. :(

A long, boring struggle. :(

over the span of about twenty hours before. I "get" the story and all that, but it doesn't really require much thinking, just the ability to not lose interest during some of the more boring stretches of the series.

I mean, really, throughout the book, good is good and evil is evil, and the good guys always win at the end of the day. The characters are pretty flat, with a few exceptions (Boromir). So, what exactly is there to really meditate on while reading LOTR?

Note: I have not read a single Harry Potter book, so feel free to discard that counterargument.

Yeah,I'm a snob...

is not aimed at children really. Its pretty complex.

The book did indeed evolve out of stories he used to tell his children. But the book is pretty heavy for kids. Teenagers, yes. Most teens read it. But I would say kids, no, fairly unlikely.

But not the LOTR. I think it started out that way with the birthday and the old forest and Tom Bombadil, but the story just evolved. Tolkien talks about this in "Letters."

LOTR bears up under repeated readings, which for me is a sign of great literature. I can't imagine rereading say, a Grisham. Grisham is so plot driven, that once you finish, you have pretty much groked the entire novel.

I remember the first time rereading LOTR and catching the foreshadowing of the ents. The first time through, by the point the ents are introduced, I had forgotten about the foreshadowing. Each time I read it, I discover something new it seems.

LOTR is about so much more than the plot.

J.K. Rowlings has created a marvelous world, filled with memorable characters, many of which are deeply three-dimensional. Moreover, she has done it all while managing to appeal to both children and adults, certainly no small feat. She should get huge kudos for the body of work she has produced. It will stand the test of time.


However, with the exception of pulp writers and some early horror and science-fiction, J.R.R. Tolkien invented the genre. That whole Dungeons-and-Dragons style set up of dwarves, elves and humans living in a fantasy world, which has been recast since LOTR time and time again, is entirely due to Tolkien's vision. He didn't just create a body of work, set in his own incredibly imaginitive world. He created an entire line of literature that has carried down through over half a century. In doing so, he invented at least two languages completely out of whole cloth, while setting the groundwork for the entire fantasy genre for not just the rest of his lifetime, but likely ours as well.

J.K. Rowlings is a wonderfully imaginitive writer. J.R.R. Tolkien is a colossus. The difference is huge.

I only have one thing to say about what you said, the bit about inventing languages out of whole cloth. He didn't quite do that; he took inspiration from actual languages that are and that have been. Quenya took inspiration from Finnish, a language he was very fond of, whilst Sindarin contains elements of Welsh. But inventing languages was his life-long hobby.

:hi:

Fortunately she doesn't try to prove it as frequently.

Cloaked demons?
Dementors
Ringwraiths

Giant spider
Shelob
Aragog

a burden on him
Harry
Frodo

Goblins?
Evil!
Banker

Dark lord
Sauron
Voldemort

Great wizard
Dumbledore
Gandalf

forest dwellers
Elves
Centaurs

faithful
Sam Gamgee
Ron Weasley

Transport?
Broomstick
Horses

Tower?
Orthanc
Gryffindor

forest
Forbidden
Mirkwood

cute bothersome uhhh...thing
Smeagol
Dobby

troublemaker
wormtongue
Malfoy

Dwarf
Gimli
Flitwick

protector
Aragorn
Prongs

sword
Godric Gryffindors
the sword that was broken

Council
Elronds
Minestry of magic

guardian (in place of parents)
Sirius Black
Bilbo Baggins

group to go against evil
Fellowship of the Ring
Order of the phoenix

Safe Haven
Rivendell
Hogwarts

One uses horses and one broomsticks? They both used modes of transportation? Wow! Holy shit! That Rowling is a thief. Her characters should be imobile the whole book.

There were swords and forests in a fantasy book? OMG!!! Obviously outright theft

Trouble makers in books? JRR is the only one to ever use that, Rowling must have stole the idea of a trouble maker from Tolkien

Elronds? Ministry of magic? those are the same thing? :crazy:

through the Dementors were an obvious rip-off of the Ringwraiths there's no disputing that fact. At least the movie version. I never read them and don't care to. Nothing against them they're great books for kids and some very single socially awkward adults.

I *love* people who don't read things but somehow know about all the type of people that do. Especially when they POST ON THE INTERNET about 'single socially awkward adults'.

not just Elrond. Having haven't read HP, I have not idea whether or not it's the analog of the Ministry of Magic.

Anything in that sort of genre is necessarily lifted from LOTR. It's virtually impossible not to.

from the classic telling of the Hero's Quest.

If I had the time I could probably show how she stole from Star Wars.

Maybe they both stole from Homer.

virtually every character, creature, location, and plot linecan be referenced back to something from a Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, Spaghetti Western , WWII or Samurai movie.

It's like we've been telling the same story in myriad forms for thousands of years. Predates the written word, no doubt.

The basic form is that our hero leaves home (The Shire, Tatooine, Kansas) for some reason (safguarding a ring, fleeing Imperial Stormtroopers, transported by a tornado), makes new friends (Aragorn, Kenobi, Scarcrow), faces many dangers (orcs, death stars, flying monkeys), suffers greatly (losing a finger, loses an arm, loses her new found friends), finally emerging victorious (ring destroyed, death star blown up, finds her way home).

The form is easily recognizable. What separates the works is in the telling.

Our Hero leaves Little Whinging because he's a wizard and has to go to wizard school. There he meets Ron and Hermione, faces the Dark Lord, suffers greatly (through constant pain, the deaths of friends, and realizing truths about himself and the people around him), and finally kills the Dark Lord.

Good times. :D

And castles and swords and demons.

k thx

It's all borrowed. All literature.

maybe everyone stole from LOTR. :eyes:

It's about kids who find a magical book at the library and teach themselves how to be wizards. It had a lot of sci-fi elements in it, and it was a better read, IMO.

But I can't remember who wrote it or the title.

Much beyond that, the comparisons rapidly lose tangibility.

It'd be more apt to compare her to Stephen King, who has
famously described his own work as "the literary equivalent
of a Big Mac with fries".

I enjoy her books; I'll probably start # 7 this evening.
But she's no Tolkien, and she's not trying to be.

As has been said, Tolkien pretty much invented the "high fantasy" genre, and thus subsequent authors in that genre, or anything that cribs even remotely from it, draws influence from Tolkien, whether willingly or not.

That being said, Tolkien created a world that is more serious, detailed, and real than Rowling's, I feel, because Rowling kept this light tongue-in-cheek feel throughout the Potter series that keep you grounded in the fact that this is a fictional series. Honestly, I like both approaches. Tolkien handwaves very little, while Rowling handwaves much more, but I always got the feeling that it was intentional and meant to be slightly silly.

Needless to say, Potter is a much easier read than LOTR, probably because Rowling wasn't drawing from a career of analysing the poetic style of Beowulf. Thus, it's much easier to lightly undertake a reading of a Potter book than one of the LOTR books.

While I was touched by the endings of both series, the LOTR ending is by far the more final (read the last paragraph and Return of the King and tell me there isn't this awesome send of finality there - Tolkien didn't need to say that there would be no future books with those characters; he said it right in the text). The end of HP7 is an obvious endorsement of the fact that things do go on for the characters (those that lived, anyway), in a more or less peaceful fashion.

So, take your pick. Frankly, I really do like both, for similar reasons at the start, though, ultimately, they do have significantly divegent treatment of the fantasy genre, which both have literary merit. I do think, and hope, that kids who got sucked into Potter will go on to read Tolkien (I was the opposite, having read The Hobbit and LOTR and barely understanding a word of any of it before I ever opened a Harry Potter book). And I think in 60 years, people (if we're still around) will be talking about Harry Potter in some way, though I have no idea of the precise details.

:popcorn:

you started reading it yesterday and almost finished the first book in two hours, who are you kidding??? Busted! :*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5Z53BI9JU

:rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


I love that part.

:hi::hug:

Harry Potter is some GOOD TIMES, but I'll tell you straight up that the first three books are setting up the story. The last four are the completion of the story. Aight?

The class bigotry and assumption of hierarchy is standard for the high fantasy genre that Tolkien reinvented for the 20th century, but JKR went far beyond this.

I love how people tend to forget the rather racist undertones of the LOTR, especially the description of the Haladrim (Muslims in fantasy clothes) and those from Far Hadrad (Africans in fantasy clothes).

When I reread, I try to skip those parts.

on edit: i am aware i oversimplify, but his books have racist overtones, and while i appreciate his writing i cannot be blind to this.

The legends written in those languages formed the basis of those works. By the way--read those stories. The pale folk--not all blonde by any means--fought each other.

Other cultures have some amazing myths & legends. Too bad nobody can be bothered to turn them into novels. To produce works with the depth of Tolkien's requires years of study & dedication.

Absolutely NO comparison.

NONE AT ALL.

When she designs a brand new working language, get back to me. THEN I'll relent. However, I will NEVER repent. Compared to J.R.R. she's a hack.

and has more psychological depth than Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was creating a very medieval set of myths, and it suffers from the simplicity of that period.

Don't believe it.

I love the harry potter books, but it they're not on the same level.

though jo would seem to be more popular, at least for now. whether her books stand the test of time is another matter.

...only if those are the only two fantasy authors you've ever heard of, and you haven't read either. :crazy: