Tolkien vs. Rowling

[coriolan_cmc2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 32191

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "luminary_extraordinaire" <ktchong73 at y...> 
wrote:
However, 
> characterization is NOT a strong point of Tolkien. With very few 
> exceptions, Tolkien's characters rarely grow.  There is very little 
> narrative arc (i.e., character growth and development) in Tolkien's 
> books.  Of course, the positions and placements of the characters 
> change, but they remain essentially the SAME characters with the 
SAME 
> personalities throughout the whole book

> Harry Potter books, on the other hand, are better in 
> characterization.   Rowling's "magical" world and its settings are 
> pale in comparison to Tolkien's.  However, Rowling is much, much 
> better than Tolkien in creating lively, endearing, realistic 
> characters who develop and grow over time.  

You might be interested in what Erich Auerbach has to say in 
comparing the portrayal of character in Homer as compared to the 
Hebrew Scripture (the first chapter of Mimesis: The Representation of 
Reality in Western Literature). His analysis sees that same 
static/dynamic contrast that you detect in Tolkien and Rowling

http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/biblicalfictions/mimesis.htm

Just an excerpt:

Herein lies the reason why the great figures of the Old Testament are 
so much more fully developed, so much more fraught with their own 
biographical past, so much more distinct as individuals, than are the 
Homeric heroes. Achilles and  Odysseus are splendidly described in 
many well-ordered words, epithets cling to them, their emotions are 
constantly displayed in their words and deeds—but they have no 
development, and their life-histories are clearly set forth once and 
for all. So little are the Homeric heroes presented as developing  or 
having developed, that most of them — Nestor, Agamemnon, Achilles—
appear to be of an age fixed from the very first. Even Odysseus, in 
whose case the long lapse of time and the many events which occurred 
offer so much opportunity for biographical development, shows almost 
nothing of it. Odysseus on his return is exactly the same as he was 
when he left Ithaca two decades earlier. But what a road, what a 
fate, lie between the Jacob who cheated his father out of his 
blessing and the old man whose favorite son has been torn to pieces 
by a wild beast!—between David the harp player, persecuted by his 
lord's jealousy, and the old king, surrounded by violent intrigues, 
whom Abishag the Shunnamite warmed in his bed, and he knew her not! 
The old man, of whom we know how he has become what he is is more of 
an individual than the young man; for it is only during the course of 
an eventful life that men are differentiated into full individuality; 
and it is this history of a personality which the Old Testament 
presents to us as the formation undergone by those whom God has 
chosen to be examples. Fraught with their development, sometimes even 
aged to the verge of dissolution, they show a distinct stamp of 
individuality entirely foreign to the Homeric heroes. Time can touch 
the latter only outwardly, and even that change is brought to our 
observation as little as possible; whereas the stern hand of God is 
ever upon the Old Testament figures; he has not only made them once 
and for all and chosen them, but he continues to work upon them, 
bends them and kneads them, and, without destroying them in essence, 
produces from them forms which their youth gave no grounds for 
anticipating. 


 And how much wider is the pendulum swing of their lives than that 
of the Homeric heroes! For they are bearers of the divine will, and 
yet they are fallible, subject to misfortune and humiliation—and in 
the midst of misfortune and in their humiliation their acts and words 
reveal the transcendent majesty of God. There is hardly one of them 
who does not, like Adam, undergo the deepest humiliation—and hardly 
one who is not deemed worthy of God's personal intervention and 
personal inspiration. Humiliation and elevation go far deeper and far 
higher than in Homer, and they belong basically together. The poor 
beggar Odysseus is only masquerading, but Adam is really cast down, 
Jacob really a refugee, Joseph really in the pit and then a slave to 
be bought and sold. But their greatness, rising out of humiliation, 
is almost superhuman and an image of God's greatness. The reader 
clearly feels how the extent of the pendulum's swing is connected 
with the intensity of the personal history—precisely the most extreme 
circumstances, in which we are immeasurably forsaken and in despair, 
or immeasurably joyous and exalted, give us, if we survive them, a 
personal stamp which is recognized as the product of a rich 
existence, a rich development. And very often, indeed generally, this 
element of development gives the Old Testament stories a historical 
character, even when the subject is purely legendary and traditional. 
[end quote]

One difference though is that Auerbach (correctly) sees Homer as 
ahistorical in its persepctive, while the Hebrew Scripture is 
drenched in history. In Tolkien, by contrast, the biographies of the 
individual characters often count for little, yet everyone (even 
Gollum) is aware of the epic rise and fall of the kings and peoples 
of Middle Earth (even if it is reduced in some cases to the foggiest 
legend). JKR certainly doesn't banish history (especially in QTA), 
but it is interesting how little the saga of earlier generations 
overtly affects the outlook of the students. History at Hogwarts is 
taught by the dullest instructor, and Hermione is regarded as boring 
whenever she quotes from a historical reference book; the name of Tom 
Riddle has been completely forgotten to the point that his 50-year 
trophies can be left out in the open; Harry, whose deepest desire is 
to see his family again, can't be bothered to do the research needed 
to find out more about them, etc.

   - CMC