comparing Tolkien and Rowling

by Travis

Philip Nel, author of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Novels: A Reader’s Guide, contributed an excellent article to The Lion and the Unicorn in 2005.  In “Is There a Text in this Advertising Campaign,” Nel argues effectively in favor of the series’ literary merits (contra the position of John Pennington, in particular, and A.S. Byatt and Harold Bloom more generally).  I was very happy to find this article a few months ago, not least because it was helpful in shoring up my defense of the series contra Pennington in the second chapter of my book. 

Reviewing the article once again last night, I came across a great statement that stopped me in my tracks, which I want to set before the Pub for discussion.  Dealing with the criticism that Rowling’s fantasy is not as effective or as full fo wonder as Tolkien’s, Nel instead (I think wisely) chooses to focus on their deliberate differences and take each on its own merit.  Pennington makes the criticism that Rowling’s world is not as complete as Tolkien’s, and therefore less effective and believable as a secondary world.  Holding in mind the complexities, the fullness, and the differences between Tolkien’s and Rowlings worlds, here is the Nel’s statement in defense of Potter:

Tolkien lets his narrative unfold as a history, and Rowling has her history unfold as a narrative. (p. 255)

Discuss!

{ 19 comments }