Author Topic: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)  (Read 5746 times)

Offline Resonance

  • Poltergeist in residence
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 79
Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2005, 06:36:56 AM »

Harry Potter suffers the same problem that most of Tolkiens characters suffer, they are 1 dimensional (and as for Snape betraying Dumbledore, we'll have to wait for book 7 to find out his motivations)

Harry - Omg. I wish I had a non-abusive family. Omigosh Voldemort = Evil. Omg. Snape = evil. etc etc
Boromir - Omg. Must save Gondor. Great ring of power. We wants it my precious. But. My Honour. Bla. (which is more than i can say about Legolas and Gimli!)

etc etc.

most of Tolkiens other characters also lack personality, at least the Bit characters in Harry Potter make you want to know more about them.
(<--Luna fanboy)

Sadly, that's the same fate that the characters seem to suffer in The Wheel of Time. Except they take longer to have anything happen in WOT.

*puts on Asbestos suit*

ok, I'll object to this comparison. :)
Although it is refreshing to read a criticism of major icon Tolkien, and even in his most iconic work, I just don't think the hat fits. I've heard the onedimensional accusation about Tolkien before, and from a close friend that I respect a lot, so it is safe to say that you are not alone in your views, although I liked my friends way of putting it a little better; he called it a story jammed with (only) perfect people.
But I personally think that you both, and probably a lot of people with you, are missing out on something, there.

My claim: Tolkiens characters aren't onedimensional: they are subtle. There is a difference; I'll insist. They don't wear their private feelings and thoughts on their sleeves, and as such, they are perhaps a little too polite and civilized to be recognized as entirely real, in this brash and open day and age. I think J.R.R. was radically oldfashioned, especially around modes of living, even for his own day. And I'll agree that you can tell how he does like to portray iconic situations and forr strong people to take responsibility and 'step into character' when shit hits the fan. The guy was a pious catholic christian, what can you say?
As for simply being bored out of reading LotR; well, it IS pretty dour fare at times, I'll agree; but it'll give you a major return if you stick it out, as Rowlings fastfood could never; his world becoming real to you, and the characters becoming actual characters, actually choosing to live their lives out in such a dignified manner.

Hint/Spoiler: read up on the unrelenting (childish) loyalty and rage of Sam against the animal lives of Gollum and Shelob as they assail his beloved Frodo. In that love, loyalty and rage is expressed the authors own immediate feelings about what is worth dying, or wading through Hell for, I think, and in Frodos personal devotion to duty and propriety, untill he is finally crushed under the growing power of the One, at the edge of Mount Doom, those sacred ideals are crystalized.

While Jackson did a decent enough job, the films just didn't measure up satisfyingly, for my part.
Nor could they be expected to, I think. The media has its limits.

Do I need to add that I sincerely enjoy reading Tolkien?
Probably not. Ah, well, shoot.