Narnia Dwarves? Or Lord of the Rings?

[Tsukiko]

which do u think look more real and realistic

i love lotr dwarves. they look more real and all.

[SkandarLover892]

we meet again........lotr, duhh! ^^

[Aravis Kenobi]

I voted LOTR. They look more real to me, too.

[SkandarLover892]

good job.^^

[Aravis Kenobi]

The narnia dwarves didn't look all that real, to me.

[SkandarLover892]

they looked dorky^^

[Aravis Kenobi]

That's what I thought.

[SkandarLover892]

haha^^ it's kinda funny actually

[Mrs Gil-Galad Took]

Nobody can beat a dwarf like Gimli :D The Narnia dwarfs were funny, but I like the LOTR dwarfs better.

[LifeMaiden]

Because Tolkien gave so much background info on each of the races that inhabited Middle Earth, I'd say I his dwarves were more realistic...I liked where they lived in the mines of Moria and their great dwarf realm.

[Saruman]

Tolkien gives a much greater depth to his Dwarves than Lewis does to his. The Hobbit is, to me, a timeless classic, and the journeyings of the Dwarves and little Bilbo Baggins, and the fearsome yet loveable Gandalf will always be a warm treat to enjoy, not least to mention Gimli in LOTR. It's no wonder Christopher Lee reads LOTR on an annual basis! ;)

[Gwen]

LotR!!! :p

[Malacandra]

Nitpick: Lewis uses the customary English plural dwarfs. And yes, Tolkien gives his Khazad much greater depth; Lewis's dwarfs are more the usual kind of Snow White-y types, with not much to be said about them except that they like digging and are good smiths and archers. That said, while Gimli could probably kick Trumpkin's behind any time he wanted, the two would probably like each other. :)

[msdavidwenham]

No one can out to Gimli.

[Narborg]

Narnia, they have more srepect for other races.

[Tsukiko]

Narnia, they have more srepect for other races.

yes..your right! Like in lotr, the dwarves hate the Elves, and they are pretty rude..but..

thge Dwarves in LB were soo mean and whenever they say "the dwarfs are for the dwarfs" im like "ugh..shut up!!" that does get annoying.. :rolleyes:

[Danny]

Narnia, they have more srepect for other races.

Yes, but that is the sort of thing that gives Tolkien's Dwarves more depth.

Tolkien uses the prejudice of the Dwarves as (dare I say it?) allegory, no...let's be more repecting of Tolkien...an example or a relative parallel perhaps, to our own prejudices of other races/cultures.

This was something very applicable to the time that "The Lord of the Rings" was written, as the Second World War was being waged and there was much political strife between such countries as England and Germany...obviously...the USA and Japan, Poland and Germany etc.

And also, Tolkien resolves the prejudice between Legolas and Gimli, and in effect, Elves and Dwarves, as Gimli is later pronounced an "elf-friend", giving us a sense of hope, as human beings, that we can overcome our own prejudices and differences if we work together as one.

Tolkien was more adamant about creating cultures than Lewis, focusing on the language and politics of his invented races, rather than emphasizing on characterisation (which the critics are always ready to dig at), giving his stories a more heroic or classical quality akin to that of the Greek epics such as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, or the famous anglo-saxon epic Beowulf.

Basically...I prefer Tolkien's dwarves. :D

[crjr9833]

The Dwarves of The Lord of the Rings are much more interesting for a number of reasons:

A. They have an intrigueing history.
B. They are more tough and are hardier as opposed to the Narnian dwarfs who tend to complain alot.
and finally
C. Characters such as Thorin Oakenshield and Gimli are more likable than say Nickabrik or Trumpkin in that they have more resolve but are also superior in battle.

Alot of these things has to do with the authors as well; Tolkien delved deeper into their history and was more descriptive of the dwarves' personality while Lewis, writing a children's novel, did not feel the need to be so precise.

[Copperfox]

Narnia lacks the depth of history Middle Earth has, not because Lewis was incapable of spinning out a make-believe history (he had done this as a BOY, with "Boxen"), but because Narnia is not _supposed_ to be like Middle Earth. Aslan purposely created the Narnian world all in one day as a smorgasbord of mythical elements, because (1) it pleased Him and the other two Persons of the Trinity that it should be so, and (2) in order to give the humans who would colonize Narnia a wide variety of sentient beings to interact with.

Anyway, the subject of Dwarfs/-ves is what started me writing this entry. I suspect that some readers of "Prince Caspian" have imagined they were discovering "racism" on Lewis' part because Trumpkin the Red Dwarf was good while Nikabrik the Black Dwarf was bad. But if I'm not mistaken, Lewis' classing dwarfs as red and black was not motivated by ANY ideas about whether differences in human skin color had a moral significance. Remember that Lewis was a history scholar. The color combination of red _and_ black was associated with one or more European revolutionary movements of the past. I think that Narnian dwarfs collectively symbolize banners that were once hoisted by working-class men with grievances. (The traitor dwarfs in "The Last Battle" could be considered revolutionaries--at least in their own minds.) Nikabrik was shown as someone who would carry his grievances beyond all justification, but I don't think we were meant to assume that every Black Dwarf in Caspian's army felt the same way as Nikabrik did. If the other Black Dwarfs _had_ been in lockstep with Nikabrik, he might have had some of them standing near to back his play when he tried to gain approval for enlisting the Hag and the Werewolf.

Which sends me off on a brief tangent. If I were scripting the "Prince Caspian" film, when Aslan sends Peter and Edmund inside the caves to stop
Nikabrik's plan, I would have Him say something like this in addition to what the book has Him saying to them: "And remember something you knew in your former life in Narnia: regardless of what stories told in your world say, no monster you will encounter is immune to your steel."

[Copperfox]

Sometimes it is not only a good plan, but the ONLY possible plan, that somebody MUST win. There are enemies who are not our enemies merely because of a misunderstanding, but because those enemies are in fact evil and enjoy being evil: Sauron, Jadis, Emperor Palpatine, Osama bin-Laden, Kim Jong-Il. There can be no kissy-kissy compromise with obstinate evil.

Also, I was annoyed by that "Colman Trio" line about Jesus being a communist. Big C or small c, it is at best misleading to suggest this. The usual justification offered for turning the Gospel of Mark into the Gospel of Marx is not found in any of the Gospels, but in the Book of Acts, where the early Christians are said to have shared their goods in common. But it makes a huge difference that this commun-AL-ism was VOL-UN-TAR-EEE! Marxism would have the sharing done at gunpoint.

Repackaged Soviet Communism has made too many inroads in fantasy and sci-fi already, as when "STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION" offered
its crude space-alien caricature of capitalists in the form of the
Ferengi, who lived by "Rules of Acquisition," as a heavy-handed
attempt to perpetuate the LIE that private industry does nothing
but steal and parasitize. I enjoyed "DOCTOR WHO," but it bugged me that no privately-owned business was EVER portrayed favorably in that series. The widespread vilifying of the Free World's free enterprise system prompts me to pose these questions:

(1) In the former Soviet Union, does Vladimir Putin have the
power to arrest and imprison wealthy businessmen, or do they have
the power to arrest and imprison him?
(2) In Communist China, do you have to be a Communist Party
member to lead one of their so-called business corporations, or do
you have to lead one of the corporations to get into the Party?
(3) In the United States, does the federal government have
the power to break up megacorporations with antitrust actions, or
do the corporations have the power to break up the government?

Well, I live near Washington, DC; and last time I checked,
the federal government was still the same size. The pseudo-
capitalistic businesses of China are still under the authority of
the Communist Party; and wealthy Russian businessmen are
still subject to arrest by the Putin regime.

So why is there NO end of Hollywood movies telling us that
all the world's troubles come from the EEEEEEE-vil business
corporations? Even in Hollywood, I hesitate to believe that this
nonsense is always and only motivated by directors and writers
really desiring to impose Marxism on the world. There is, in my
view, another psychological phenomenon at work, one which is
almost as helpful to the repackaged Communist movement as
the blatant pro-Communism of a Jane Fonda.

It is a form of moral cowardice, in which one pretends to
believe that a comparatively small evil is the greatest evil, in
order to close one's eyes to what really are the greatest evils.
It's what Screwtape called "rushing about with fire extinguishers when there is a flood, and crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under."

Right now, America is under the threat of mass murder
plotted by Middle Eastern and Western Asian Islamo-fascist
thugs. Therefore, naturally, Hollywood makes movies in which
all terrorists are fair-haired Europeans and red-state Americans.
Many African countries are suffering due to the predatory
policies of native-born rulers who are socialists. Therefore,
naturally, Hollywood would have us believe that those awful
white supremacists are the real problem to this day. Muslim
radicals in free countries try to destroy everyone else's freedom
by making perfectly-serious threats of death against anyone
who publishes anything they don't like. Therefore, naturally,
countless fools tell us that it's Christians and Jews who need to
be apologetic and ashamed.

Such upside-down reasoning helps nothing. We need to call
things what they are. Private enterprise is subject to corruption,
because ALL human activities are; but it is not inherently bad.
It is, in fact, THE reason, under God, why America is prosperous.
Forced collectivism, on the other hand, is the power which, in
the 20th century, caused more than 100 million deaths, outdoing
all other causes of murder INCLUDING Islamist terrorism.
And when Islamist terrorism is finally defeated--as it will be,
because in the end humanity simply will not stand for it--the
totalitarian collectivist movement, whether actually labelled
as Marxism or not, will be waiting to fill the vacuum...

...all the while, of course, distracting us from the real threat
by pointing with its left index finger and yelling, "Look out!
Here come the EEEE-vil business corporations!"

Joseph Richard Ravitts

[NARNIANKNIGHT]

lotr are better

[Bramblefox]

LotR, definately.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

Lotr. They look better. I would rather be a Dwarf from Lotr.

[~Lava~]

Everyone on here could be dancing to a different tune the minute PC comes out. The fact of the matter is we all (including myself) see the LOTR dwarves in a better light because the only Narnian Dwarf we have actually gotten to know in the Narnia series is the shady very unlikable Ginabrik. It might be that when we meet Trumpkin we see things differently.

[Son of Adam]

I voted for the LOTR dwarves but only because they have come to typify what a fantasy dwarf is supposed to look like. Yet the Narnian dwarves are a different breed altogether and it may be like comparing apples to oranges. Different worlds, different cultures, different physical appearances which would only be natural if one considers multiple dimentions.

[~Lava~]

Here, here!!!!

[Gondor Knight of Narnia]

Ah peanuts, I like LotR dwarves better!They're shorter, stockier, and quite plump...er. :D AND THEY TOSS GNARLY AXES!!Not once have I seen a Narnian dwarf toss an axe... Oh certainly throwing axes don't fly as far as arrows do...but look at the size of the axe head compared to the arrow head... :D

[lieke]

LotR dwarves all the way:D

[Twilight]

I'd say I prefer Tolkien's dwarves becasue they seem more real to me, not like they've just jumped out of a fairy tale, know what I mean? Tolkien dwarves are more earthy, more rugged, more like what dwarves are meant to be.