Brian Carney in the WSJ analyzes two tales of magic that are on the screens this winter, and determines that Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is much more sophisticated and moral than Rowling’s Harry Potter.
This kind of moral complexity is simply absent from Ms. Rowling’s books. Contrast Tolkien’s careful use of the ring with Ms. Rowling’s rather flip use of another great artifact of legend, the philosopher’s stone. Alchemists believed the stone would turn lead into gold. As a bonus, it was also thought to confer eternal life. The conceit of “Harry Potter” is that such a stone has been made and the bad guy wants it.
This is a setup worthy of Tolkien; indeed, it mimics his tale in vital respects. But Ms. Rowling’s story manages to bring to light none of the moral dilemmas–of mortality, wealth, power–that the existence of the stone naturally suggests. The reader simply accepts as given that both sides want it, no particular importance is assigned to its powers and Harry never shows any interest in using it. He merely wants to keep it away from the bad guy. Once that’s accomplished, the stone drops out of the story, like a token at the end of some video game.
In Tolkien’s world the temptation of evil is one that all, or nearly all, of his characters must confront. The argument of Tolkien’s tale–controversial, to be sure–is that, while intentions matter, the way we act is far more important than why we act. His story, for all its narrative brio, presents a serious rebuttal to the idea that good ends justify using evil means.
Well, duh.
I mean, Rowling was out to write a good story. Tolkien drew on grand themes, intentionally creating an epic with profound ethical implications. Both succeeded, but to compare the two is like comparing … well, Goldfinger and Lawrence of Arabia.
Still, it’s an interesting article. And it made me want to catch the first installment of LotR even more. Got to arrange a sitter for the 19th ….
(Via InstaPundit)