By coincidence, I am re-reading The Hobbit right now, for the first time in many years. At one time I may have wanted to chuck you out the window myself for your comment, but right at the moment I completely understand!

I think Tolkien's work is superior to Rowling's for many reasons - I think it is more epic in scope, deeper in richness of meaning, more elaborate in scale (in Tolkien's world you have the languages, the long histories, etc), and the fact that he was breaking ground when he wrote his Middle Earth tales.

Nevertheless, I do think Harry Potter is in some ways more readable, and more immediately satisfying....at least compared to The Hobbit. The characters are at least much more complex. I am realizing for the first time how light The Hobbit is compared to The Lord of the Rings, and it has me just the tiniest bit disappointed. I plan on cruising through LOTR again afterwards, and I hope I don't discover the same disappointment!

Also, Shrode - I'm going to start calling you "De" - for "Defenestrated one".

Seriously? DUMBLEDORE???

My favorite line from Amy's review:

"LOST is really a show of its time; it is a perfect example of post-modernism. And post-modernism tends to make me cranky."

You'd be dead to me if you weren't Shrode.

I mean De.

I like to think of them as two very different characters. Certainly, there are many similarities, but I think Dumbledore's character changed over the course of the HP series in ways that Gandalf never did. (This is more attributed to Tolkien's vision than anything else.) If this is the case, I think you have to give it up to Gandalf over Dumbledore.

Reading HP1, Dumbledore says screwy, strange things and comes across as an aloof goofball who also just happens to hold everything together. In HP5, on the other hand, he's the very thin shred of hope that stands between evil domination of the world and good (like Jacob?); and there's not an ounce of lightheartedness that exists in him. One could argue that this change is a result of his response to the times/his environment, but I really think that the character changed over the course of the series - not just developed.

Aside from the change - I wonder how Gandalf would behave if he were instructing 12 year-olds and not "mature" hobbits. Likewise, I wonder how Dumbledore would have acted if all we saw of his dialogue/actions was his involvement with only the adult characters in the story.

My personal endearment to Dumbledore is his shepherding care of the students, particularly Harry. Gandalf, on the other hand, shows quite a bit of wit in his wise advice and leadership. (We don't see Dumbledore as a leader as often as we see him as a coach/caretaker)

Dumbledore's shining moment is the personal sacrifice in the cave while Gandalf's (first) shining moment is "You Shall Not PAAAAAASS!"

I love Dumbledore - don't get me wrong - but I think Gandalf takes this one . . .

I don't know anything about Harry Potter vs. LOTR (though I'm sure I would say Gandalf is better because I love Tolkien), but the fact that you used the word "defenestrated" in a blog post makes you automatically awesome. So if they vote you off, Shrode, I'll petition to get you back on. #ridiculouswordsftw

III,

We won't vote Shrode off. First of all, his Harry Potter fanboy delusions aside, he's awesome, although his awesomeness has dropped a bit (to somewhere around Radagast the Brown levels) due to this latest, unfortunate line of thought.

But the main reason we won't vote him off is because last time I tried to conduct a Thinklings purge (of Blo, who we really aren't even sure exists) I was unceremoniously, and rather quickly, I might add, removed from the Thinklings by Rod, and all my Nexus rights and privileges were revoked, I thought permanently.

Rod later relented and bestowed his gracious kindness upon me by reinstating me, and we don't talk about "the troubles", as we call them, anymore.

So Shrode stays.

Now, Shrode, go read The Silmarillion for penance.

Ally - Richard Harris was, by far, the superior Dumbledore. He was far better than Ian would be. Of course, Harris has passed on.

I don't think that Ian would do it anyway - who else is out there?

Radagast the Brown

However, he was an ally and confidant of Gandalf, who describes him in The Hobbit as his "cousin". He was also friends with the skin-changer Beorn, who deemed him to be "not a bad fellow as wizards go" ...

Radagast lived for much of his time in Middle-earth at Rhosgobel in the Vales of Anduin, on the western eaves of Mirkwood, near the Gladden Fields. He had a strong affinity for — and relationship with — wild animals, and it seemed his greatest concern was with the kelvar and olvar (flora and fauna) of Middle-earth. He was wiser than any Man in all things concerning herbs and beasts. It is said he spoke the many tongues of birds, and was a "master of shapes and changes of hue". Radagast is also described by Gandalf as "never a traveller, unless driven by great need", "a worthy Wizard", and "honest".

Tolkien writes that he gave up his mission as one of the Wizards by becoming too obsessed with animals and plants. Tolkien also wrote that he did not believe that Radagast's failure was as great as Saruman's and that he may eventually have been allowed (or chose) to return to the Undying Lands.

Ally,
I haven't been able to think of anyone who would make an awesome Dumbledore, til just now.

Peter O'Toole
Michael Caine
Sean Connery

Quaid:

In my opinion, Gandalf changes from The Hobbit to LOTR in a way that is similar to what you have said about Dumbledore. Gandalf says some pretty goofy things in The Hobbit.

Oooh, Patrick Stewart would have been a great Dumbledore.

I want Paul Bettany to show up at some point, but that's probably just me. ;) I do agree that Dumbledore is a much more approachable character than Gandalf--there's more vulnerability and frailty there.

Ally, you quoted the Gambon line that made it perfectly clear that Gambon didn't know the character remotely.

At every moment, he's over-acting and never radiates the aura of total control and comfort that book-Dumbledore gives.

When I saw that hysterical screaming "Did you put your name in the goblet?" I grabbed the book and looked for that scene. The adverb used is "calmly," I believe.

Gambon seems to think "calmly" and "hysterically" are synonyms.

I would have loved to see McKellen in the role, though it was unlikely.

Liam Neeson doesn't look the part, but he would have been good. Better than Gambon, anyway.

Peter O'Toole ... brilliant!

Patrick Stewart is always brilliant, and the same goes for Michael Caine. Great choices.

Just about anyone but Gambon would have been an improvement.

No way I'd ever play Dummybore.

Karl,that's good info. I'm listening to the unabridged "Hobbit" right now, and that helps to know. Tolkien's tone is very interesting. He wrote it like a kindly grandfather telling a story to "modern" children in England. He says things like "you would laugh from a safe distance if you saw the dwarves sitting there like children with beards" And "they know the tunnels as well as you know how to get to the nearest post office."

Gandalf messes with Bilbo a little in the beginning, saying "Now by 'Good Morning' you mean 'go away'."

I think there must have been some Gandalf in Dumbledore. There are many similiarities, for example the way that Gandalf can be silly or serious depending on the situation. (Like with the elves). He can communicate and talk to different races and creatures. He's everybody's friend.

Karl, there are going to have to be several HP posts. One just won't do. There are many brewing...

Jared,
And I wouldn't play BlandAwful either. So there.

You think that's blasphemy. After re-reading Harry Potter for the 4th time (man, it's time to read some other books), I actually thought it might be better than LOTR. Being that I hadn't read it in several years, I had to go back and see if it was true. Fortunately, after reading LOTR, I can still declare it's my favorite series of all time. Harry Potter is a close second, though.