Rowling vs Tolkien, who created the most creative world?

Bighuey · Post by **Bighuey** » 11 May 2011, 00:56

Tolkien for sure.

Evapohler · Post by **Evapohler** » 13 May 2011, 18:02

Rowling, even though I love Tolkien, too.

Artdude · Post by **Artdude** » 15 May 2011, 11:58

How is Tolkein not the clear winner?
Let's consider :

Setting:
Rowling relies on the immediate world around us, and famous places (such as Kings cross station) to propel us into the Potter world. This arguably makes it more tangible, however when we get there, it's so massively uninteresting that it's actually boring. The Potter setting's are nothing compared with it's gothic/magic predecessors. On the other hand, someone childishly remarked about feeling like LOTR was just in a forest. You clearly didn't read it then. 'That forest' is one of several, which are inhabited by far more interesting things than the Potter forests. Middle Earth is vast. Tolkein pretty much lived in Middle Earth in real life, in order to create it in it's majesty. It's a completely seperate, constructed world with vast open plains, intricate forests, clusters of houses, villages and towns, evil lairs, caves, and inhabited mountains. 1-0 to lord of the rings.

Characters:
Let's actuallly consider Harry potter himself. His scar, his glasses, and his magic wand/cape have become iconic. Notice how neither his personality, nor his interaction with others, nor his social standpoint are remembered (for those who say - who's is? Look at almost every Dickens character, all of the canterbury tales characters, and the dude from Catcher in the Rye.) It's because he is a fundamentally boring, unexplored, pointless character. So are Ron and Hermione. They are such one-dimensional, boring characters. Dumbledore and Voldermort are slightly more interesting. Oh and so is Snape. You remember him for being evil don't you? Not because of his appearance - that is secondary. If you don't explore character's enough - your book is boring! (see Ian Mcewan's enduring love as an example.) However, Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry/Pippin, Saruman, and Tom Bombadil are all well explored, structured characters, with a number of different qualities/flaws. This makes them interesting.I admit Frodo is a little bland, but when the rest of the book is filled with such well fleshed out characters, I don't care actually. 2-0 Lord of the rings.

Plot Lines:
Harry Potter follows one person, all the time. There is little diversion from this. On the other hand, there are two wildly different major plot lines in LOTR, and several minor plot lines within each. This adds up to a more interesting, and satisfying story, with more opportunity for crossover, and a more satisfying end when they converge once more. This arguably makes it 3-0 LOTR.

Narrative qualities:
Harry Potter is for children. No question. It's written in a boring, and unemotive way, which any hardcore Potter fan would have to admit. Rowling's creations would be so much more interesting, had it been told well. On the other hand, Tolkien tells the story(ies) in a very engaging, sophisticated way, which adds to the book unendingly. Rowling's laziness in the later Potter books is but a testament to her growing wealth and complacency. Tolkein wins, even if there are some long winded travelling parts. 4-0 LOTR

Finally, the plot lines themselves:
I realise that this is subjective to individual people. Personally I find a story about a supernatural quest containing huge barriers and problems, encompassing strange characters, with very engaging battle scenes, chase sequences and followable through constructed, drawn out maps very very interesting, and ultimately enjoyable. I find Harry Potter boring, uninventive, linear, unemotive and silly. There are few decent plot lines after the first book - which I concede is very good indeed.

This is not a biased judgement. I loved both as a child, however upon slightly closer inspection, LOTR is a clear winner in all of the above subjects.

Kchirgwi · Post by **Kchirgwi** » 24 May 2011, 13:09

Artdude wrote:How is Tolkein not the clear winner?
Let's consider :

Thank you! I am now interested in trying again at the LOTR series.

Evapohler · Post by **Evapohler** » 24 May 2011, 22:03

I agree that Middle Earth is astounding, but I love Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, Sirius's house, The Weasley's home, the train, the bus, the inn, and so many of the other magical places she created. I also enjoyed the many different peoples, creatures, and spells.

And it 's not really true that we only follow Harry. We see from many other points of view in the later books. We even start with theDursleys in book one.

Artdude · Post by **Artdude** » 25 May 2011, 08:49

Evapohler wrote:I agree that Middle Earth is astounding, but I love Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, Sirius's house, The Weasley's home, the train, the bus, the inn, and so many of the other magical places she created. I also enjoyed the many different peoples, creatures, and spells.

And it 's not really true that we only follow Harry. We see from many other points of view in the later books. We even start with theDursleys in book one.

You start at the Dursley's but the focus very quickly shifts to Harry. The point I was trying to make was that in LOTR, the Frodo/Sam plot is equal to the Merry/Pippin, Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli, Gandalf/Saruman plots (And the numerous others that feature.) They are all equal and add to the story as much as one another. In Harry Potter - If we're honest, Harry is the main character, and any deviation from his story is quickly brought back after a very short period of time. And what you say about the harry Potter locations - there are all the ones you've listed, but they aren't very significant or interesting. Fair enough Diagon Alley and Hogwarts itself are quite interesting, but your only given description when it's relevant to Harry's story. It's on a bit of a need-to-know basis. Whereas in Lord of the Rings, you get the whole picture, and then the character's role in the location. You get more than just the surface in Lord of The Rings.

Evapohler · Post by **Evapohler** » 25 May 2011, 20:30

Extraneous description isn't always a plus.

Pigs on the Wing · Post by **Pigs on the Wing** » 25 May 2011, 20:40

I'm going to go with Tolkien here.

BookReviewer · Post by **BookReviewer** » 25 May 2011, 21:49

robert monroe is better than both.

P.S. StephenKingMen is<SNIP>for not responding back to my private message.

StephenKingman · Post by **StephenKingman** » 26 May 2011, 10:10

BookReviewer wrote: P.S. StephenKingMen is a douche for not responding back to my private message.

I dont know of you are trying to be funny or not, but i dont get time every day to see messages. As it happens i got it today and yes, i liked the Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. A little patience in expecting a reply rather than publicly calling me a douche would be appreciated is that asking a lot?

Artdude · Post by **Artdude** » 26 May 2011, 10:43

Evapohler wrote:Extraneous description isn't always a plus.

I entirely agree. But for examples like Lord of the rings, where (in some ways) the most important part of the story is the setting, it needs the extra description that Rowling doesn't quite acheive.

Evapohler · Post by **Evapohler** » 26 May 2011, 11:51

BUt as you said, Rowling wasn't creating an entirely new world. Not as much description was required of her. That doesn't make her less creative, because what she does create is fascinating, and even though MIddle Earth is a separate world from ours, not everything in it is entirely new.

I hate taking this position against Tolkien, because I absolutely love his works and even teach them in my classes. And I love your previous post where you defended his work. You make excellent points. But sometimes I feel called to arms when I read claims that work written primarily for children can't be as good as work written primarily for a larger audience.

When Tolkien was asked to follow the unexpected success of The Hobbit with another book for kids, he failed with LotR. It's really too difficult for most young readers (put your fangs back in--those of you reading this were probably voracious readers as children and so can't be included in with "most"). If you compare the Hobbit and LotR, you can clearly see that the latter work got away from him in terms of audience. Rowling's ability to write books that aged along with her audience is one worth noting.

Many of the young college aged students who come in my class find the HObbit delightful and many of them find it boring. Many of them find LotR delightful, and majority find it too hard to stay with because of all the description and side notes (the very narrator that WE find charming puts them off). But all my students with very few exceptions have loved Harry Potter, even ones who were sure they wouldn't. This doesn't mean that Rowling wins our debate over which author is the most creative. I bring it up to show that some of the other aspects of LotR that you were using to claim his superiority to Rowling (like multiple plot liines, elaborate description, details to new languages, ets) are the very aspects that turn some readers away.

So take away narrative style and just look at the inventions in both works. To me, Tolkien the HObbits are the most fascinating element because they are a creature I have never ever before seen and are so believable that after reading the Prologue to LOTR, I remember briefly wondering if there really could be such people still among us. BUt magic rings and dragons and elves and dwarves, etc. not so much.

Now look at all of the very original things Rowling created in her many works-the boggit one example, Quidditch, I mean the list goes on.

I love them both. Truly I do. But I don't see Tolkien as the CLEAR winner.

pa3de8 · Post by **pa3de8** » 05 Dec 2011, 11:16

I have to go with Tolkien. I saw all the Potter movies. I saw all the LOTR movies. I was way more impressed with the LOTR. I won't read books I've seen movies of because to me that's overkill. I do know that some books are way better than the movies as well. But at this time, I'd have to say Tolkien gets it done better than Rowling.

PS: I also think that LOTR is more adult oriented than Potter. Just an observation and my opinion, but I've seen more adults interested in LOTR than the Potter series and vice versa with the younger generation.

Again, my opinion only from what I have experienced.

Scott B.

arnaleigh · Post by **arnaleigh** » 25 Nov 2013, 22:41

While both are great I think Tolkien created the more creative world. He invented languages, maps and there's even appendix's that detail the history about what happened before LOTR and how it ended up that way.

FNAWrite · Post by **FNAWrite** » 26 Nov 2013, 15:43

Put me down on the Tolkien side.

Some of the argument put forth here by Rowling boosters seems a little less than reasonable.

Above on this page it is said "Rowling wasn't creating an entirely new world. Not as much description was required of her. That doesn't make her less creative" So the person who does not create an entire new world is not less creative compared to the person who does create an entirely new world? Doesn't seem to add up does it?

As we used to say in AD&D - there's dungeon masters and there's players.

early on a poster said: "But It would be ignorant saying the premise: Since Harry Potter is written for kids and LOTR is written for adults. And Adults>Kids. Then LOTR>HP."

How is that ignorant?

As an adult, do you read children's books? If so, do you prefer 'grown-up" books? Think of the reasons why. It is certainly not ignorant to assert that indeed adults are greater than children and the things of adulthood are greater and 9usually) more complex than the things of childhood.

Whether they are children's books or not, as I read them as an adult, the Harry Potter books always had the flavor of children's books. To me, children's books are lesser books than adult books.