Narnia vs Lord of the Rings. Common elements.

It's no secret that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis read their stories to each other. Have you noticed how many common elements there are in their stories.

I'll start the conversation, but hopefully you who've read both can add more.

1) Magic rings. In both cases, they not only make the user invisible, but take them to a different world. In Frodo's case, he was taken to the "wraith world", which is why the Ring-Wraiths could see him when he put on the rings.

In Narnia, they went to different worlds.

2) In the Silmarillion, music played a part in the creation of the world/universe. In Chronicles of Narnia, singing was the vehicle of the creation of Narnia.

Do you see any other similarities?

LloydBrown said:

I haven't read CSL yet, but after seeing the trailer for Narnia, I assure you I will before the movies release.

Tolkien I know very well. LotR 19 reads. Silmarillion 8 times. Hobbit 7 times. I'll get back to you on this one.

Click to expand...

I've read much of Tolkien, including Silmarillion, his biography, his letters, and some of Lost Tales, and other books. But I don't read and re-read.

MadScientistMatt said:

More thoughts...

Both of them have one of their most powerful magic characters die, then return with more powers.

In both LOTR and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the first magical character who wears white turns out to be evil. And both times one of the major characters gets in trouble for failing to realize this.

Both have countries that seem to be vaguely patterned after the Middle East and send armies that oppose the heroes. (In LOTR, they seem to be from a land to the south that the main characters never visit.)

The bad guys from both Calormene and Mordor practice slavery.

I'm sure there's more if you look hard enough...

Click to expand...

Good job. I'm thinking of something in particular, I'm waiting to see if someone gets it. But you'd have to know the Silmarillion.

Does anyone else notice that C.S Lewis writing style improved over the series? Although I think the opening was an interesting part of the story, I think he would have told it better later. But unlike Tolkien, C.S Lewis didn't get caught up in re-writes.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that alot of writers find their style as they go.

pb10220 said:

A very special Tree (or 2, with Tolkien) factors into the beginning of the history of each...

Click to expand...

You're hot on the trail. Do you want to elaborate a little further on

1) The purpose of the trees (2 trees in Tolkien) and the tree in "L,W,W"

2) The dangers of wrongful possession of the fruit of the trees. How was it wrong?

Tolkien elaborates a bit on the trees. They are extremely metaphorical.

What was Feanor's transgression that led to the days of sorrow for the Eldar? The metaphorical answer. Obviously, he took light from the two trees in the garden, and made the Silmarills, which were gems carrying the light. What was so bad about that, and the fact he refused to give it back to save the trees?

In fact, in C.S.Lewis, he also brings in some of Tolkien's views on human obsession with immortality (stretching this life) through Aslan, in that wrongly eating of the fruit of the tree would have prolonged days, but it would have multiplied sorrows to cause grief of life.

Medievalist said:

Lewis "borrowed" bits of Tolkien's mythic prehistory from "Silmarillion" for both the Narnia books, and his "Space trilogy." Tolkien was less than pleased.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there is no doubt that some of Tolkien's thinking drifted into C.S. Lewis stories. However, in all fairness, Tolkien more than acknowledges that without C.S.Lewis, his LOTR would never have gotten published. He had to sit through alot of revisions of the story, which is a really loyal thing to do.

But you also have to add the "common" factor, in that both are drawing from the same sources, which accounted for their friendship in the first place.

I love Mythology and Fairy Tales more than pure fantasy. I consider them roots, more than offshoots. I'm also well read in the Old Testament, and have a general understanding of the history of religion.

If in theory, you put me in a room with C.S.Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien, at the end of the day, we would be talking about much the same thing. For instance, if we talked about the Garden of Eden, and the lessons of the book, we'd likely have picked it apart, "What was the nature of sin?" "Why is eating an apple a problem?"- Oh it wasn't eating an apple, it was an attempt to acquire a nature?"

"Why wouldn't God have made a separate tree of good, and a separate tree of evil?" Why wouldn't God want us to be "like god" or "like God?" Trick question. Why would Eve who was created in the image and LIKENESS of God, "like God", be tricked into buying her own car, and eat fruit to try to be "like God"

There are so many profound questions, and those lead to ideas, and sometimes assumptions. One assumption I have is that "good and evil" can both be evil, in a contextual way. In other words, it would make perfect sense that a good God, wouldn't want to withhold "good" from anyone. So why are they in the same tree? Rather, how contextually, is "good" itself evil, and what was the "good" in the knowledge of the tree? Well, we sort of know the answer, in the sense that we have a concept of "good", but how many times through trying to do good, have we "estranged loved ones", become "judgmental and vendictive." In other words, our attempts at goodness can be just as faulty or even more harmful than our attempts to drown away our sorrows in the dregs of pleasures.

And so, now you have the basis for another mythology, or another fantasy, because Man's attempts at being good have caused more pain and suffering than mankind's attempts at "obvious vice".

Every mad scientist is trying to improve the world "The world of his imagination". Most wars have a "good" objective, as weighed by those who wage wars. And we haven't even touched on the evils done in the name of religion.

So, there is a giant question. "What is wrong with our concepts of "good?"

You'd imagine if (time machines allowed) we could get together and bang heads, you would eventually have similar life lessons imbedded in all our stories. Would we be stealing from each other, or stealing from the origional sources? I don't particularly consider that stealing though. Rather, those books "moral of the story" were written to be heard. And even afterwards, they were re-interpreted.

The story of Numenor was an Atlantis clone, which Tolkien didn't steal, but borrowed from. It was a part of his dream from childhood of a giant wave. However, when he writes the story, he also borrows from Noah's Ark, from the Tower of Bable, from Sodom and Gomorrah. He brings them all together in his story. Plus he puts Norse, Greek mythological elements into it. In fact, some of his stories are straight out of mythology (In the Silmarillion)

I love this sort of thinking. In book one of my story, the son of a protagonist winds up a villian, not because of malice, but because of fear and insecurity, and stubbornly following a path where he thinks he knows better. It's amazing that many of mankind's worst violations "against humanity" were attempts by people to improve humanity.

Yet, few see harboring prolonged "fear" or "insecurity" as evil. But "Kill them before they kill us," is born of insecurity. They might not have wanted to kill us. Maybe they were like us, afraid we'd kill them. And so you have two peoples who don't want to kill anyone, killing, because they fear being killed. (Desire for safety in the imagination is where the war started) And it virtually becomes the Mantra of this character in my story.

He locks his own beautiful daughter in a dungeon, "For her own good," which triggers more pathos.

pb10220 said:

(QUOTE: Natesgate)
She was tricked because she was deceived by the one who could tap into that desire and warp it by infecting it with pride...so that her chief desire was no longer for God and His glory, but for her own.

PHP:

So, there is a giant question. "What is wrong with our concepts of "good?"

Click to expand...

The Lord of the Rings was not about coveting power according to Tolkien. It was about man striving for immortality. Elves are an offshoot of mankind, or the first branch of mankind. Perhaps somewhat like Pre-deluvian man.

The Elves, according to Tolkien, were tempted by the rings because with them they could preserve the world as they knew it. But Tolkien implies this would not have preserved the world but Embalmed it like an unchanging corpse. The Elves grew weary of Middle Earth. They feared change, and were therefore drawn to the undying lands where things stayed the same.

The temptation from the human perspective (Mankind), which is really most evident with Sauron leading Numenor into Morgoth worship, (in the Silmarillion) was the temptation to prolong life. They coveted the Valar's immortality, and tried to steal it.

Tolkien is clear that this obsession to prolong life (this fallen body in a fallen world) did not lead to more joy or happiness, but a stretching process, where life gets longer, but not leading to happiness. So, in effect the Numenorians turned to the dark arts, and to Morgoth worship out of fear of mortality. And so Bilbo's line, "I feel like too little butter spread over too much bread." Everyone who wore the ring were "stretched". They lived longer, but their lives were not happy.

(Spoilers)

In the Magician's Nephew (Name?) the uncle is obsessed with his own little tower of Babel- magic rings. He is motivated by pondering his own mortality, and is hoping that in using his nephew as a lab rat, he will find a magic world that preserves his life, and this is his undoing. So Tolkien and Lewis both use "fear" as the core of the fall. But "fear" was not only the uncles motivation, it was the witches as well.

The witch was so afraid of losing control, she embalmed her entire world, and made everyone into statues. In fact she even embalms herself.

This may seem distant and remote, but it is the same core element of Tolkien's story. Feanor was the creator of the Silmarils which are Jewels. But he only made the "casings". The light came from two trees. The Silmarils, according to Tolkien represented a divine light. He later referred to the sun and moon as the lesser lights of a fallen world.

Why was Feanor insecure? His parents were really screwed up people, especially for Elves. His mother stopped wanting to live after he was born, and willed herself to die. His father went into a dark funk, and this is what led Feanor into his folly. Although his dad spoiled him, according to the story, he never felt his father was satisfied or content with him. And so when Feanor was a certain age, his father remarried (uncommon with elves-like Arwyn, one partner for life), and he hated his father's new family.

The light of the Silmarils were never meant to be owned. The light was meant for everyone to enjoy. (Just like in the tree that Aslan wanted to preserve The temptation offered to ??? was that he could take the fruit for himself. (Robbing Narnia of the tree that wold come from it).

Later, when Morgoth and Ungoliant attacked the trees, they could have been revived if Feanor would have given up the Silmarils. In other words, he possessed the ability to let go, and therefore bless the inhabitants of the earth, or to own these gems to the detriment of all. He chose to hold onto the Silmarils, and later Varda cursed them.

Oh, and another commonality- in both stories, the Trees were awakened, and then went back to sleep. And they were angry.