Tim,I have to agree that I find the world of Middle Earth much more rich and appealing than I do Narnia. Having read both LOTR and the Narnia series multiple times, though, I don’t think it’s fair to make a comparison. The Chronicles of Narnia are essentially children’s books, and so Lewis focused on the story and the narrative and as you noted, the moral principles the characters live out. Tolkien, on the other hand, was a skilled linguist and spent years developing the languages, culture, history and geography of Middle Earth as a backdrop to play out the epic story on. It’s a far more intellectual approach intentionally. Maybe that’s why I like the land of the Rings so much better. Reading the book, even in the Hobbit, you really visualize the place and time the events are happening in. Far more so than in Narnia, where the focus is more on the characters.

BTW, I have read the Hobbit aloud to my kids (twice), and the entire Narnia series (once). They want me to do the Lord of the Rings, but I don’t think it’s a good idea because of all the background. Doesn’t lend itself to reading aloud, or to impatient young people.

I’d rather be in Narnia, anyday. For exactly the reasons you prefer The Trilogy, I love the Chronicles. Tolkien’s descriptions get tedious for me and I get lost. In fact, the movie versions helped clear a lot up for me, as his style bogs so much things become unclear. For example, the hobbits , Merry and Pippin weren’t clearly established in my mind from just reading. It’s also confusing how close some of the main characters names are, Arwhen and whats-her-face, and the 2 main bad guys, Sauran, and what’s-his-face. (I know I’m driving the hard-core fans nuts!) But the main reason I love Narnia more is it seems to have more of an eternal, mystical, heavenly feel to it. Tolkien has some of that, when Frodo gets on the boat to go home, it rings deep, but the Narnia books actually minister to me, and seem richer in doctrine. For example, read “Mere Christianity” and then read “The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe”. Without being obvious or preachy, (or dorky, like Hinds’ Feet) the Professor uses the same reasoning to determine what truth is that Lewis does in the “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” chapters of his masterpiece. It’s pretty brilliant to bring this sort of logic down to the level of an 8 year ol

” `Here is the heart of Elvendom on earth,’ he said, `and here my heart dwells ever, unless there be a light beyond the dark roads that we still must tread, you and I. Come with me! ’ And taking Frodo’s hand in his, he left the hill of Cerin Amroth and came there never again as living man.”

Those words while not a huge part of the story have always tugged at me and it is the depth of incidentals that make LOTR so much more compelling. I like Narnia, but the grittiness and reality just suck you in so that you can picture your self climbing the winding stair or looking over the Gladden Fields but not in Cair Paravel in a like manner.

They both work but LOTR captures my imagination in a way that Narnia does not.

I enjoyed both series, but what I loved about Lewis’s books is the more blatant Gospel references. One of my favourites was this: ” I daren’t come and drink,” said Jill.”Then you will die of thirst,” said the Lion.”Oh dear!” said Jill, coming another step nearer. “I suppose I must go and look for another stream then.”“There is no other stream,” said the Lion.

What a wonderful reference to Jesus as the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6)

As Phil said, I don’t think that it is fair to compare Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia.

Lewis wrote his books mainly toward a children’s audience where as Tolkien wrote his book to an adult audience.

The writing styles of Lewis and Tolkien are so totally different that you cannot compare them as you have. Lewis wrote in a simplistic way leaving out long descriptions and gory details of battles. Tolkien went to the other extreme and was so detailed you almost have to have a PHD to read his books.

Again, these are just their personal writing voices and that it totally normal.

As Steve Hays did say “Tolkien is the superior of Lewis inasmuch as the former worked out a consistent, self-enclosed fantasy world whereas Lewis is highly eclectic. In other respects, Lewis is the superior. He shares, with Tolkien, a great visual imagination, but Lewis brings a numinous intensity to some of his descriptions—aided by an elegant, yet unpretentious prose style. Moreover, Lewis was a man of ideas as well as a man of imagination. Furthermore, he writes as a Christian. And when he found images with which to clothes his ideas, the result was impressive.”

I personally cried at the end of The Last Battle when Lewis writes “for it was really only the beginning of the real story.”

Maybe Tolkien was so full of details that he came across as rather dry to me? Maybe a persons personality is just what attracts them to different writers.

God bless, great article!Eric Novak

I grew up on Narnia and only read the LotR once I was much older, so I have a certain sentimental attachment to Narnia since they had a large formative effect on my life. I would agree that Tolkein’s work is much more in-depth, especially with back-story, but I think that’s because the two authors approached their works with very different mindsets. Middle Earth was created by Tolkein because he wanted somewhere to base the languages he had created (he was, after all, a linguist). Middle Earth was his medium for devising a whole new world, and he enjoyed creating as much backstory and history as he could. Lewis created Narnia, however, simply as a child’s fairy tale to answer the question “What would happen if Christ came to a different world?” Although he fleshed the world out later, that more allegorical purpose constrained just how deep the world could get.

On an interesting side-note, I just went to a lecture last night by a Cambridge professor named Michael Ward who has written a book entitled Planet Narnia wherein he attempts to explain the eclectic nature of the Narnia books. His theory, which he put forth very convincingly, is that Lewis wrote each of the seven books under the influence of each of the seven classical planets: Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Saturn (in order by book). This theory explains the seemingly random appearance of Father Christmas (the symbol of joviality) in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and the prominence of both war and Nature in Prince Caspian (as Mars was the god of both war and nature), etc. It was a fascinating theory that does seem to answer a lot of questions about Lewis’ eclecticism, and seems to make the works much deeper than they first appear. I encourage you to check the book out if you’re interested in Narnia in any way.

Let me state the obvious. Your choices reflect who you are. You are evaluating the books as an adult. I think it would be strange to prefer the world of Narnia to Middle-earth as an adult. Lewis was writing to a neice who had already grown beyond the years of the story. Tolkein wrote for an older audience. Yes they were written to his children but his children were older than the neice to whom Lewis wrote and so required a different methodology.

That being said, the two men were radically differnt in personality. I remember hearing Harry Blamires speak at seminary (he studied under Lewis and later wroteth book, The Christina Mind). He said that while Tolkein’s books were far more detailed and enjoyable for an adult to read, Lewis’s books were far more effective in reaching the heart of even the youngest children and were targeted there.

Intererestingly, Blamires said that at teh University, Lewis’ ability to make things simple and yet vivid with few words, something that children need, made him a huge hit in the University lecture hall with adults. At the same time, Tolkien, was so rich and detailed in his books, and for this we love him, yet he was a total bore in the classroom. At the university they would schedule Lewis for the largest lecture halls when he was on the docket to speak while Tolkein they would place in the smallest lecture halls for fear of embarassing the man because of the paucity of the crowd.

Hello, this is Devin Brown checking in to say that I have enjoyed the discussion so far.

I don’t suppose the question about which world—Narnia or Middle-Earth—is more enjoyable (or superior, or preferable) can ever have a definitive answer. Although I have written more on Lewis than on Tolkien recently, I enjoy their enchanted worlds equally, and both series have played an important role in my life and the way I think.

If I make a list of my favorite scenes from both series, I end up with quite a long list. I could never choose between the two authors. I’m glad I don’t have to.

I enjoy the LOTR series much more than the CON series. I think the simple fact that Lewis was writing more analogically makes his themes fairly obvious and, as you pointed out, simple. But LOTR, while it bears many analogical traits, is more fun because there’s no direct meaning you have to pull out of the text. Rather, you learn more and more about each character, nearly all of whom are neither pure good or evil, and you see how they were, are, and change over time (often becoming either more good or more evil). Then you pull back and see the larger significance of each character’s spiritual journey, how it affects the history of middle earth…and you say…ahhhhhhh!

hey! safari users can post comments now!

personally, i made the mistake of trying to read tolkien’s notes and introduction to middle earth before actually beginning the lord of the rings. consequently, i barely made it out alive and - in spite of my own linguistic interests - was bored out of my mind after a couple chapters.

meanwhile, lewis is a kindred spirit who writes lively, almost lilting prose. and the history you get of narnia from all the books (i’ve read four and a half so far, mostly as a grownup) is just enough, never too much. as for relating to characters, lewis’ children are just heroic enough to inspire and just flawed enough to be real children. lewis - i think rightly - gave more credit to children than the average grownup tends to.

Having read both as a teenager, even then I preferred the depth of characters in LOTR to Narnia. In terms theological underpinnings, I find I actually preferred the Space Trilogy for Lewis and his exploration of different theological issues as they are explored from a completely “out of the box” manner. Tolkien builds an incredible world and story, but Lewis, more so even in the Space Trilogy, touches on the deep spiritual issues in a manner that is easy to understand.

I read the Narnia books when I was young and enjoyed them at the time. I’ve since reread a few and been less enthused, but still find them enjoyable for what they were intended as. I read the Hobbit and LOTR in high school and enjoyed those quite a bit. As stories I would say I prefer them to Narnia for the reasons you gave.

After reading those, I went on to read the Silmarillion. “Long, dense, and boring” describes much of it well, as does describing the experience as clawing through it, but there are certainly some gems to be found within. Of particular note, I’d strongly recommend reading its opening account of the creation of the world. It does a beautiful job of describing the beauty of God, His majesty and power, and the contrast of Satan’s fall. Only the first couple pages, but they were the motivation for me to finish the book when I read it, hunting for similar gems.

Josh