Narnia versus Lord of the Rings

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Dawq902"]

LotR is wicked awesome and Narnia is like a childrens version of LotR.

parkurtommo

How so? :?

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

How so? :?

Dawq902

That's not obvious because it's a non-sequitir.

The main characters are children/=/childrens version of LOTR.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

How so? :?

So what?

Narnia is not similar enough to LOTR to warrant that comment.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] I wonder how many people here have actually read the Narnia books. Dawq902

Honestly, after some of these responses, I'm thinking not many.

Narnia naturally seems simpler because it doesn't have the lore and the mythology and what not, but in terms of actual plot and theme, I don't really see how Narnia is much simpler.

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Because the main characters are children.GreySeal9

That's not obvious because it's a non-sequitir.

The main characters are children/=/childrens version of LOTR.

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Honestly, after some of these responses, I'm thinking not many.

Narnia naturally seems simpler because it doesn't have the lore and the mythology and what not, but in terms of actual plot and theme, I don't really see how Narnia is much simpler.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

How so? :?

GreySeal9

So what?

Narnia is not similar enough to LOTR to warrant that comment.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Because the main characters are children.Dawq902

So what?

Narnia is not similar enough to LOTR to warrant that comment.

Those similarities are so vague.

Yes, they both have fantasy worlds, but their is a dinstinct difference in the way that those worlds are presented. Also, Narnia has interplay between its fantasy world and what the "contemporary" world of the time.

Narnia doesn't have a central villain. It has a different antagonist for each book and the majority of them are not "rulers".

What do you mean by each character does something unique?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Dawq902"] Yeah I thought that was obvious lolDawq902

That's not obvious because it's a non-sequitir.

The main characters are children/=/childrens version of LOTR.

Maybe so, but the presence of children as the main character doesn't make something a children's book automatically.

For example, His Dark Materials had child characters, but it is arguably more adult than LOTR.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Because the main characters are children.parkurtommo

So what?

Narnia is not similar enough to LOTR to warrant that comment.

Narnia doesn't have the lore and mythology, so yes, it is much simpler in that respect, but plot-wise, theme-wise, I don't see LOTR as being more complex.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

So what?

Narnia is not similar enough to LOTR to warrant that comment.

GreySeal9

Narnia doesn't have the lore and mythology, so yes, it is much simpler in that respect, but plot-wise, theme-wise, I don't see LOTR as being more complex.

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Honestly, after some of these responses, I'm thinking not many.

GreySeal9

Narnia naturally seems simpler because it doesn't have the lore and the mythology and what not, but in terms of actual plot and theme, I don't really see how Narnia is much simpler.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Dawq902"] I've actually read quite a few and the Narnia books are much simpler. Also the Narnia movies are not nearly as violent/scary as the LotR ones. I read a Narnia book for like my 4th grade book report. I certainly could not have read a LotR book for it.Teenaged

Narnia naturally seems simpler because it doesn't have the lore and the mythology and what not, but in terms of actual plot and theme, I don't really see how Narnia is much simpler.

Because I see those things as world-building rather than story-building. In terms of the actual plot progression, LOTR is not really more complex.

That being said, I'll concede that the lines are more blurred as far as theme is concerned.

Lord Of The Rings, no contest

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Narnia naturally seems simpler because it doesn't have the lore and the mythology and what not, but in terms of actual plot and theme, I don't really see how Narnia is much simpler.

GreySeal9

Because I see those things as world-building rather than story-building. In terms of the actual plot progression, LOTR is not really more complex.

That being said, I'll concede that the lines are more blurred as far as theme is concerned.

The lore and mythology of LOTR werent imo just a finer "decoration" of the "actual" plot. And that the difference of LOTR with other books. It does not have the same kind of focus on story like other conventional books (it seems - I havent read Narnia).

Imo in LOTR there is no distinction between an "actual" story and other side-stories or back-stories (with some exceptions maybe such as the chapters about Tom Bombadil). Sure, most of the book is dedicated to the "main" story but it is no way separate from other stories being told in it (again with exceptions maybe in cases where it references events that can be found in Silmarillion). It all just feels as one piece, and the back-stories are important to the main story.

One reason for that and I have explained it in other threads is that to me at least it seems that Tolkien's interest was actually the mythology and the lore. That was the first priority. Not the other way around: a mythology created just to make the "main" story more believable. The "main" story of LOTR is simply a piece of the mythology and figuratively speaking, Tolkien simply took a magnifying glass on it and gave us a more detailed narrative of it.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Why do you consider mythology and lore to have no impact on "actual" plot and theme? The two arent that distinct.

Teenaged

Because I see those things as world-building rather than story-building. In terms of the actual plot progression, LOTR is not really more complex.

That being said, I'll concede that the lines are more blurred as far as theme is concerned.

The lore and mythology of LOTR werent imo just a finer "decoration" of the "actual" plot. And that the difference of LOTR with other books. It does not have the same kind of focus on story like other conventional books (it seems - I havent read Narnia).

Imo in LOTR there is no distinction between an "actual" story and other side-stories or back-stories (with some exceptions maybe such as the chapters about Tom Bombadil). Sure, most of the book is dedicated to the "main" story but it is no way separate from other stories being told in it (again with exceptions maybe in cases where it references events that can be found in Silmarillion). It all just feels as one piece, and the back-stories are important to the main story.

One reason for that and I have explained it in other threads is that to me at least it seems that Tolkien's interest was actually the mythology and the lore. That was the first priority. Not the other way around: a mythology created just to make the "main" story more believable. The "main" story of LOTR is simply a piece of the mythology and figuratively speaking, Tolkien simply took a magnifying glass on it and gave us a more detailed narrative of it.

This is an interesting argument.

And I think it's convincing, but even if one treats the lore a parts of the plot, is any of that really "complex" in of itself? To me, the fact that it has all that makes it come complex in terms of its structure, but the story itself, the themes, they don't really strike me as more complex (I don't really think complex=better BTW).

Something like His Dark Materials easily has more thematic complexity than Narnia (due to grey morality), but I don't see LOTR as being more complex in that way even if it is more "adult".

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Because I see those things as world-building rather than story-building. In terms of the actual plot progression, LOTR is not really more complex.

That being said, I'll concede that the lines are more blurred as far as theme is concerned.

The lore and mythology of LOTR werent imo just a finer "decoration" of the "actual" plot. And that the difference of LOTR with other books. It does not have the same kind of focus on story like other conventional books (it seems - I havent read Narnia).

Imo in LOTR there is no distinction between an "actual" story and other side-stories or back-stories (with some exceptions maybe such as the chapters about Tom Bombadil). Sure, most of the book is dedicated to the "main" story but it is no way separate from other stories being told in it (again with exceptions maybe in cases where it references events that can be found in Silmarillion). It all just feels as one piece, and the back-stories are important to the main story.

One reason for that and I have explained it in other threads is that to me at least it seems that Tolkien's interest was actually the mythology and the lore. That was the first priority. Not the other way around: a mythology created just to make the "main" story more believable. The "main" story of LOTR is simply a piece of the mythology and figuratively speaking, Tolkien simply took a magnifying glass on it and gave us a more detailed narrative of it.

This is an interesting argument.

And I think it's convincing, but even if one treats the lore a parts of the plot, is any of that really "complex" in of itself? To me, the fact that it has all that makes it come complex in terms of its structure, but the story itself, the themes, they don't really strike me as more complex (I don't really think complex=better BTW).

Something like His Dark Materials easily has more thematic complexity than Narnia (due to grey morality), but I don't see LOTR as being more complex in that way even if it is more "adult".

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I disagree.

The lore and mythology of LOTR werent imo just a finer "decoration" of the "actual" plot. And that the difference of LOTR with other books. It does not have the same kind of focus on story like other conventional books (it seems - I havent read Narnia).

Imo in LOTR there is no distinction between an "actual" story and other side-stories or back-stories (with some exceptions maybe such as the chapters about Tom Bombadil). Sure, most of the book is dedicated to the "main" story but it is no way separate from other stories being told in it (again with exceptions maybe in cases where it references events that can be found in Silmarillion). It all just feels as one piece, and the back-stories are important to the main story.

One reason for that and I have explained it in other threads is that to me at least it seems that Tolkien's interest was actually the mythology and the lore. That was the first priority. Not the other way around: a mythology created just to make the "main" story more believable. The "main" story of LOTR is simply a piece of the mythology and figuratively speaking, Tolkien simply took a magnifying glass on it and gave us a more detailed narrative of it.

Dawq902

This is an interesting argument.

And I think it's convincing, but even if one treats the lore a parts of the plot, is any of that really "complex" in of itself? To me, the fact that it has all that makes it come complex in terms of its structure, but the story itself, the themes, they don't really strike me as more complex (I don't really think complex=better BTW).

Something like His Dark Materials easily has more thematic complexity than Narnia (due to grey morality), but I don't see LOTR as being more complex in that way even if it is more "adult".

Well, yeah, LOTR is more complex in terms of structure. I won't deny that.

That being said, I think any well-written book has the bolded characteristic even if it is only implied.

Easily Narnia. I can't stand the way LOTR is written. The movies are an entirely different animal.

At least LoTR has great movie adaptations and tries to brainwash you religiously subtlety.TheFallenDemon

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Because I see those things as world-building rather than story-building. In terms of the actual plot progression, LOTR is not really more complex.

That being said, I'll concede that the lines are more blurred as far as theme is concerned.

GreySeal9

The lore and mythology of LOTR werent imo just a finer "decoration" of the "actual" plot. And that the difference of LOTR with other books. It does not have the same kind of focus on story like other conventional books (it seems - I havent read Narnia).

Imo in LOTR there is no distinction between an "actual" story and other side-stories or back-stories (with some exceptions maybe such as the chapters about Tom Bombadil). Sure, most of the book is dedicated to the "main" story but it is no way separate from other stories being told in it (again with exceptions maybe in cases where it references events that can be found in Silmarillion). It all just feels as one piece, and the back-stories are important to the main story.

One reason for that and I have explained it in other threads is that to me at least it seems that Tolkien's interest was actually the mythology and the lore. That was the first priority. Not the other way around: a mythology created just to make the "main" story more believable. The "main" story of LOTR is simply a piece of the mythology and figuratively speaking, Tolkien simply took a magnifying glass on it and gave us a more detailed narrative of it.

This is an interesting argument.

And I think it's convincing, but even if one treats the lore a parts of the plot, is any of that really "complex" in of itself? To me, the fact that it has all that makes it come complex in terms of its structure, but the story itself, the themes, they don't really strike me as more complex (I don't really think complex=better BTW).

Something like His Dark Materials easily has more thematic complexity than Narnia (due to grey morality), but I don't see LOTR as being more complex in that way even if it is more "adult".

What I am saying btw make sense in my head but I probably dont express myself well. Anyway.

I wouldnt use the word "complex". I just believe that LOTR achieves certain things which I dont know if other books do. One of it is the believability and that is achieved exactly because to me LOTR doesnt come off as a commercial book (and I dont think its success makes it one). I like that it is actually just one chapter of a huge mythology. I like it that the main story is given the focus that I feel was necessary but not so much that it overshadows the importance of back-stories. I like it that it takes its time and doesnt gave an expectable story-line (sort of speak - not that other books are predictable) with climaxes pretty much where one would expect them. I like it that all these "unconventionalities" (I dont know if that word exists) dont seem (to me at least) to be intentional efforts to make something "hip" and original.

If anyone would comment on complexity of LOTR it would be imo about the combination of the above features in a way that it doesnt ruin things but it actually gives a different feel to what you are reading than other books probably.

So in essence if someone asked me to name a very broad feature of LOTR that makes it stand out, is not complexity. I would mention the fact that it's different; in all the ways I mentioned above (and perhaps more).

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I disagree.

The lore and mythology of LOTR werent imo just a finer "decoration" of the "actual" plot. And that the difference of LOTR with other books. It does not have the same kind of focus on story like other conventional books (it seems - I havent read Narnia).

Imo in LOTR there is no distinction between an "actual" story and other side-stories or back-stories (with some exceptions maybe such as the chapters about Tom Bombadil). Sure, most of the book is dedicated to the "main" story but it is no way separate from other stories being told in it (again with exceptions maybe in cases where it references events that can be found in Silmarillion). It all just feels as one piece, and the back-stories are important to the main story.

One reason for that and I have explained it in other threads is that to me at least it seems that Tolkien's interest was actually the mythology and the lore. That was the first priority. Not the other way around: a mythology created just to make the "main" story more believable. The "main" story of LOTR is simply a piece of the mythology and figuratively speaking, Tolkien simply took a magnifying glass on it and gave us a more detailed narrative of it.

Teenaged

This is an interesting argument.

And I think it's convincing, but even if one treats the lore a parts of the plot, is any of that really "complex" in of itself? To me, the fact that it has all that makes it come complex in terms of its structure, but the story itself, the themes, they don't really strike me as more complex (I don't really think complex=better BTW).

Something like His Dark Materials easily has more thematic complexity than Narnia (due to grey morality), but I don't see LOTR as being more complex in that way even if it is more "adult".

What I am saying btw make sense in my head but I probably dont express myself well. Anyway.

I wouldnt use the word "complex". I just believe that LOTR achieves certain things which I dont know if other books do. One of it is the believability and that is achieved exactly because to me LOTR doesnt come off as a commercial book (and I dont think its success makes it one). I like that it is actually just one chapter of a huge mythology. I like it that the main story is given the focus that I feel was necessary but not so much that it overshadows the importance of back-stories. I like it that it takes its time and doesnt gave an expectable story-line (sort of speak - not that other books are predictable) with climaxes pretty much where one would expect them. I like it that all these "unconventionalities" (I dont know if that word exists) dont seem (to me at least) to be intentional efforts to make something "hip" and original.

If anyone would comment on complexity of LOTR it would be imo about the combination of the above features in a way that it doesnt ruin things but it actually gives a different feel to what you are reading than other books probably.

So in essence if someone asked me to name a very broad feature of LOTR that makes it stand out, is not complexity. I would mention the fact that it's different; in all the ways I mentioned above (and perhaps more).

Good post. I certainly don't like the way LOTR is told, but I think you lay out strong justifications for the way that LOTR is structured.

Good post. I certainly don't like the way LOTR is told, but I think you lay out strong justifications for the way that LOTR is structured.

GreySeal9

At the end of the day it all boils down to what you enjoy reading. Different strokes etc.

Lord of the Rings, no contest.

ones a children's book, the other is book (except for the hobbit)

LOTR is also a harder read than Narnia

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

The first published Narnia book was published before LOTR.

Even if Narnia was inspired by LOTR, I would still consider it to have way better storytelling.

LORD_BLACKGULT

I seem to have gotten my dates mixed up. :P

As for storytelling, if the characters are not likable, then the storytelling is meaningless.

I can't seem to find a single redeemable feature of Narnia....

ones a children's book, the other is book (except for the hobbit)Diviniuz

I dunno man. I have a copy of 'the Hobbit', it looks an awful lot like a book to me.

i dont know why someone should expect a different result in the poll

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]

ones a children's book, the other is book (except for the hobbit)worlock77

I dunno man. I have a copy of 'the Hobbit', it looks an awful lot like a book to me.

That just its clever book disguise. It's really a toy.

Narnia is boring.

LOTR wins by default.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]

ones a children's book, the other is book (except for the hobbit)GreySeal9

I dunno man. I have a copy of 'the Hobbit', it looks an awful lot like a book to me.

That just its clever book disguise. It's really a toy.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I dunno man. I have a copy of 'the Hobbit', it looks an awful lot like a book to me.

parkurtommo

That just its clever book disguise. It's really a toy.

Seriously?

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]

ones a children's book, the other is book (except for the hobbit)worlock77

I dunno man. I have a copy of 'the Hobbit', it looks an awful lot like a book to me.

I want to change it to adult novel, but it sounds dirty

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I dunno man. I have a copy of 'the Hobbit', it looks an awful lot like a book to me.

parkurtommo

That just its clever book disguise. It's really a toy.

Dead serious. In clever book diguise mode, it claims to be published by Allen & Unwin, but it's really made by Hasbro.

Trust me on this. I've done the research.

Ok here's what it told me, IDK if you know enough about this to know what video cards it could run but I'd like your input! :P

Motherboard

ManufacturerFUJITSU SIEMENS

ModelD48

Version20

Chipset VendorIntel

Chipset ModelGL40

Chipset Revision07

Southbridge VendorIntel

Southbridge Model82801IM (ICH9-M)

Southbridge Revision03

parkurtommo

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

That just its clever book disguise. It's really a toy.

GreySeal9

Dead serious. In clever book diguise, it claims to be published by Allen & Unwin, but it's really made by Hasbro.

Trust me on this. I've done the research.

I liked the Lord of the Rings movies, got them all on DVD and have watched them several times. I couldn't even make it through ten minutes of one of those Narnia movies.

Both are great but have to go with LotR trilogy. ExoticAnimal

If we're just doing books...I am in agreement with OP. I actually stopped reading RotK while Frodo and Sam climbed the mountain in the end. I just didn't care anymore. I found the books to get progressively less interesting.

I appreciate all the Narnia books, except for Dawn Treader. Boring.

LOTR for me. Narnia just seems incredibly shallow in comparison.

Only Narnia book I have read is The lion, the witch and the wardrobe. It is a great book but I prefer lord of the rings. Even though sometimes I'm not a fan of his writing style (derp 3 page paragraph to describe a ****ing tree or whatever), overall the lord of the rings trilogy is epic.

As far as the movies go, no contest- LOTR all the way.

Lord of the Rings for sure.

LotR has far more substance

Lord of the Rings.

I like both equally as books and that's what I voted for, but I find that Lords of the Rings can be a little difficult to read, at least for me but I love the lore too much.