I LOVE both series, but I went with Narnia.

I love the fact that Lewis was so openly christian in his books,
though not allegories, the stories clearly let us see christian teachings.
I read them as mere stories, but as a christian, I do really love the christian teachings in them as well.

LOTR has some christian elements,
I did a report on it my junior year of high school, but it's harder to find.
I do love that these books are so detailed. But these books are also darker in feel, not a bad things for it works well. But I love the fact that Narnia is a much "lighter" read.

once again,
I love both series tremendously and while I vote for Narnia today-
I may very well vote for LOTR tomorrow.

Of course, I picked LOTR.

I kinda wish this wasn't brought up again. It's like comparing Apples to Oranges, Peas to Carrots. They may be in the same genre, but they are both unique books in their own right.

And even though I don't like Harry Potter either, I think the same way on that subject too.. they just don't seem like anything close to Narnia...

This vote tears me apart
But in the end I voted for LOTR. It's like what Erucenindë said though, they're unique and it's almost too hard to really 'compare' them.

I like them both!

But, I choose NARNIA!

I chose Narnia!

1. I like the Christian elements: themes, symbols, etc.
2. I don't like LOTR. I tried to read the first book but I had nightmares so it didn't happen. I even gave the book away. Sorry, folks...

I know C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien were friends. But I just read an article that listed disagreements between them on life, theology, and fantasy literature that strained the friendship. And the two finally grew apart. So, your thoughts, anyone?

Oh, absolutely definitely Narnia! I have read LotR, but to me the books were stuffy and a bit boring at parts, plus they took FOREVER to read! I love the fact that four siblings could save Narnia with the help of Aslan - I mean, it's so amazing. And like narnian1 said, Narnia is a much lighter read.

1. I like the Christian elements: themes, symbols, etc.

I agree with the fact that Lewis put more open allegory in his books, but that doesn't make Tolkien's works not Christian. LOTR takes a more dramatic spin into another world, I think, but the theme of humans being tempted by power comes straight out of Genesis 3.

2. I don't like LOTR. I tried to read the first book but I had nightmares so it didn't happen. I even gave the book away. Sorry, folks...

How about starting with The Hobbit? The tone is a lot lighter and makes a better introduction to the trilogy than just trying to dive right in.

I know C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien were friends. But I just read an article that listed disagreements between them on life, theology, and fantasy literature that strained the friendship. And the two finally grew apart. So, your thoughts, anyone?

Tolkien was actually very influential on Lewis's conversion to Christianity. So, whatever happened afterward, God did use Tolkien to draw Lewis to Himself. They did dislike each other's fantasies; Lewis thought Tolkien's too dark, and Tolkien thought Lewis had too much allegory.

It was a hard choice for me. I love the Narnia books because they are so Child like, but I love how J.R.R.T. writes, and he uses a lot of allegories, but in a more discreet manner.
Take the character Gollum, we are always having to fight between two side, what is right, and what is wrong. Gollum ultimately chooses wrong, and pays for it.
Frodo has the same choice, but he chooses right, and he is always being supported and lifted up by his best friend Sam.
So how did I vote? Again it was a hard choice,but........I went for LOTR. I love both authors, and all the books. Both set were written by godly Christian men, and Respect both of them greatly!!!

I saw Narnia first, but simpley LOVED LOTR!!!!!!!!!!! But, since I HAD to make a choice, I chose NARNIA!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think CS Lewis wrote his story a little better than JRR Tolkien. Lewis explained good & evil better. Plus, Sauron wanted to rule the world & death for ALL hobbits. Jadis & Miraz just wanted POWER, but they would kill when they had to.
PeterFan

Just a note, but I think Sauron wanted power and dominion over the all of Middle-Earth, and specifically, the race of men, who were the most dominate at that time. The elves were fading, and Sauron really overlooked the hobbits.. which was his downfall. Sauron couldn't care less about hobbits, he was concerned about men, who at the time, really were the greater threat militarily.

Just a note, but I think Sauron wanted power and dominion over the all of Middle-Earth, and specifically, the race of men, who were the most dominate at that time. The elves were fading, and Sauron really overlooked the hobbits.. which was his downfall. Sauron couldn't care less about hobbits, he was concerned about men, who at the time, really were the greater threat militarily.

Great thoughts about it, and I quite agree with you, but what does that relate to? Sorry, I miss the connection.

Sorry, I forgot to quote.

Plus, Sauron wanted to rule the world & death for ALL hobbits.

thus my reply above.

Now I get it! Good point, Erucenindë.

From the old forums, before they fade away ...

Instead of trotting out that old expression "comparing apples to oranges," maybe we're comparing the spare eloquence of Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea to Melville's deep-diving Moby-Dick. Both are powerful exercises, but they are not the same.

Let's see ... people mentioned children's literature as an art form, point-of-view characters, religious significance, God as a character, and world-building.

If we're talking about children's literature, we'd do better to compare The Chronicles of Narnia to The Hobbit. It's true that The Lord of the Rings was never intended as children's literature, though children can get a lot out of it. But I would propose that anyone who doesn't "get" LotR should probably read The Hobbit first. After all, some of the actors in the Peter Jackson LotR films didn't "get" the long novels either, at first, because they hadn't read the first one.

Who is the best narrator for Narnia-on-audiobook? I'd say Inglis is a great narrator for The Hobbit and strongly recommend it as an introduction to the Tolkien materials.

For point-of-view characters, there are both strong similarities and major differences. Hobbits aren't actually the same life-forms as four children named Pevensie, but the stories wouldn't unfold with the same wonder if we heard the tales from the point of view of a knight or his princess-of-the-blood-royal. Both mythologies depend upon the innocence of their protagonists to interpret the universe we see, and their hidden courage lets us grow alongside them.

Religious significance ... there's no right answer as to which story "speaks" to each reader. I was deeply attached to both epics but not at the same time. It comes and goes, one being more "in the moment" at some time, and probably does for a lot of readers.

Now, a big difference between the two books is God as a character. God-the-Father is mentioned a few times as "Emperor-over-sea," but for the most part the Narnia stories have God-the-Son as the major character, one who interacts, instructs, celebrates, mourns, and plays. It's not surprising that a Jesus who said "let the children come unto me" would translate as a welcoming figure, gentle yet strong, in another world. Reminds me of a line from Joan of Arcadia: "I'm always serious, which doesn't mean I'm not fun."

In Tolkien's The Silmarillion, God-the-Father is a character. He creates the world and authorizes angels to enter the world and help His children. In The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, God-the-Holy-Spirit is the most "visible" because God authorizes Gandalf the angel to advise and aid the Children. Tolkien was very clear that Gandalf's declaration "I am a servant of the Secret Fire" is a direct reference to the Holy Spirit. It is God-the-Father and God-the-Spirit Who nudge the characters and, in Spock's words, make "random factors operate in their favor" i.e., when they go in the direction God wants them to go, God makes them conveniently lucky. The Spirit also gives the characters the ability to speak in tongues when they are in distress, so that they can call upon angels to aid them, and the angels then do so.

Now, Tolkien always intended his writing to be informed by his deep faith, so one of the ways people unintentionally hurt him was when they told him they considered his work "secular." He absolutely intended the Middle-Earth stories to be taken as Christian. In fact I often hear on these forums the sentiment he was examining. Remember when Puddleglum, Eustace, and Jill took a stand that "I'm going to live as Narnian as I can, even if there wasn't any Narnia"? That's one of the attitudes that informs Tolkien's work. There are only two known human prophets in Middle-Earth, Malbeth and Andreth (unless Elves like Finrod and Glorfindel count). The characters don't seem to have written Scriptures. God-the-Son has not yet come to earth. They don't seem to have Judaism either, to point them in that direction. So the characters, guided by the Spirit inside their conscience, have to decide whether they're going to serve God without knowing very much about Him -- whether they want to "live as Eru Iluvatar would want" without knowing what He wants or what He might ask of them.

In Tolkien God-the-Son has not yet incarnated into the world. There is a "Lost Tale" about an Elf named Finrod Felagund and a human prophetess named Andreth, in which they discuss why humans die. It's hard to find in print -- I still haven't seen it in whole -- but one of the major points is that Finrod has heard something about God someday "entering into the world" for the sake of Men, though Finrod doesn't know why or how that would work. (I really do need to find the thing, because what little I've heard exasperated me, that an Elf would know more about human salvation than a human prophet. Which one is the prophet, again?) Andreth has her doubts that the awesome power of God might enter the world, wondering "would it not shatter Arda?" Finrod isn't clear how that would work either but he has more faith that if God wants to do it, it will be done.

I think the reference to children's literature as art, and how The Chronicles of Narnia taps into the child in all of us, are spot-on. The Hobbit does this also. Probably most of us who dabble in writing can recall advertisements in magazines telling us that We Can Make Big Money Writing Children's Books. Those ads bothered me, though for a long time I didn't know why. Well, it is because there's a bias, a wrong belief, that writing for children is somehow easier than writing for adults who supposedly have mnore discernment to recognize if you stink at it. No, it is not easier to write for children simply because they are children. Children are pretty perceptive, and they can tell if someone is talking down to them or failing to take them seriously. If you haven't learned to write, then learn to write first, then write something, and if it's any good and it speaks to children, they'll read it. But never assume that children deserve less than the best writers and writing we can give them.

I'm voting for Tolkien because that's what I've been re-reading this year, but it's not a vote against Lewis and Narnia. They're both wonder-ful and wonderful.