Well, I have to agree that Dickens takes the cake on the long-winded, and I really wish I had been able to give Tolkien a fair chance when I first read The Fellowship (maybe I will give it another go sometime). And it is hard to compare Rowling’s fantastic YA fiction with Tolkien’s trilogy that usually has an older audience.

I think something that could make Rowling more competitive against Tolkien then would be more history and theory of magic, and some insight into the rest of the world and how all of this affects it. Obviously there must be American wizards. Wouldn’t the Death Eaters have gone there too, etc. Tolkien definitely created a more defined world, which I think is one of the reasons it is so lasting and why other mediums borrow his archetypes so often.

Well said, as always, Sean.

But none of this is of course to say that Rowling is bad. I accept her writing is more accessible, and I absolutely adore her style pacing, character development and Dialogue: my god, have you read other YA fiction? It’s like no one else knows how to talk, or heard other kids speak. But with Rowling, you can totally believe in the characters humanity by the way they talk to each other, and she doesn’t do that ridiculous “fill up the diologue of kids with hip slang and references to show how COOL and WITH IT we are” thing that a lot of other writers do (most of whom are in comics) and I love her for all of that. However, she just isn’t as good as Tolkien is at making her story acessible to the rest of the world, and other religions than Christianity (which is a shame, because she was doing so well, and then the Seventh book happened); and there exists some unresolved discrepancies with the story as a whole, such as:

- the technology thing. What, the wizarding world is so isolated from the rest of the world that they have no idea how to use a telephone or the Underground, and yet there’s things like the knight bus, and the train, and the flying car, and Sirius’ bike? I know, I know, the Rule of Cool and all that, but it took me right out of the work. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have had there things, I’m just saying that it should have been better explained.

- The way magic works. Rowling has her main characters working with magic every day, but it’s still kind of nebulous about how everything works. We barely see the kids at school learning any theory of magic: how it works, if there are any schools (er, areas of magic I mean, and their rulus, y’know alteration, conjuration, etc), what magic can and should be used for, why the Unforgivable curses are bad, and stuff like that. Yeah, it would have taken some time, but it would have avoided pitfalls like power creep, and why the kids use the same magic as the adults, but maybe I’m alone in that.

There were more things here and there which took me out, but those are the two main things.

There is one thing I like more about HP though, and that’s Dumbledore. I think I like him more thematically than Gandalf. Yeah, Gandalf was awesome, with his unbelievable power used sparingly and his too-damn-old-to-be-polite personality and the fact that he was the biggest go getter in the series, and he came back from the dead. But the thing is, nothing about him or the wizards were really explained in the story; I learned later that he and the other wizards were Maiar (sort of like demigods or angels) and in fact, could not die until the Vaiar (gods) called em home. But then you have Dumbledore, who’s smart enough to be a wizard (that’s where wizard come from, “wise one,” and their strength has never been magic so much as simply knowing a lot of stuff, notice how gandalf barely ever did any magic? But I digress), and charismatic enough to be a mentor, but has no divine power. But we come to know him, posthumously, and we get to know him in the story. His entire character arc was pretty much The Fantastic Mentor Deconstructed, and I think it’s really amazing. So a point in HP’s favor for dumbledore.

So, in conclusion, between the two, I’d prefer Tolkien’s world to Rowlings. That’s what he gave fantasy, in the long run; Rowling way tell better stories, and the themes of LOTR have been around forever, and the myth of the thing happens again and again if joseph campbell is to be believed, but ol JRR gave us world building, and God bless him for it.

HP(not the computer) does a great job containing the story with its wizard class only policy allowing a more personal feel. However HP is a bit more confined in scope where LotR affects its entire world, HP is mostly the wizards in England that will eventually change the world when its big bad is done having their tea and the football game is done. Overall HP is more accessible of the two so I believe that it will years down the road spawn cliches of its own…..I’m looking at you X-Men: First Class movie series.

I guess I might have to agree that something of Middle Earth sticks with you more because the world seems so much more realized and possible. If I had to choose one to live in, it would be a hard choice.

I love both those wizards equally though, and in the movies they were played by such great actors (Well, Richard Harris, anyway, I’ve never really warmed to the new Dumbledore).

And I see just what you mean about Dobby and Gollum. I suppose I chose to compare them because they are both small creature characters that help and hinder the main protagonist depending on the circumstance, they are both outcasts, etc., but you are right that they serve very different roles despite having some similarities. I actually like Gollum more personally for the very reasons you gave that make him unique.

When it comes to LOTR, I’m a mythology junkie, so the fact that Tolkien created this entire mythos really hooked me. I read The Silmarillion and loved it, in spite of its archaic language.

I love them both, really. J.K. Rowling is superior in terms of writing style and overall characterization, but I love the richness of Middle Earth, and the epic scale of Tolkien’s stories. At the end of the day, though, I think Middle Earth stays with me more.

Rowling, on the other hand, builds the mythology to suit the very specific story she had in mind. So I think that in many ways, her work is more accessible from a reader’s standpoint; she just wants to make the story happen, and writes in a very straightforward style.

Tolkien’s writing is much more formalized–he wants us to feel like we’re reading history.

I tend to like Gandalf better than Dumbledore. Dumbledore is charismatic and smart, but I prefer Gandalf’s air of steely competence. He lets the armor down occasionally, but at no point does he ever allow even the slightest hint that he doesn’t have a backup plan. My preference has nothing to do with relative power levels or any of that geeky stuff, which is irrelevant anyway I just like his character.

I question your comparison of Dobby to Gollum, though; I think they serve VERY different purposes. Dobby is downtrodden, yes, but not tragically; he’s a model of optimism and perseverance. Gollum’s purpose is one and one only; to show the tragedy of a soul who has been utterly defeated by his lust.

Gollum’s arc is really interesting, especially considering that his ultimate purpose is to unwittingly save the world through his desperation. To me, his death is a powerful statement about purpose: even something broken and evil can be used for good. It’s a great picture of Tolkien’s faith in God’s plan.