Rowling's Goblins = Tolkien's Dwarves?

[Elmo]

i read somewhere that the state of the dragon shows a lot about the goblins and their contempt for 'lesser' beings. Maybe most of them were all nasty little fascists.

[Firefoot]

At first I was inclined to agree that the goblins and dwarves really are rather similar, but then I realized that that's only really in their present states. You also, I think, have to look at their histories and positions in the larger whole.

I get the impression that in Rowling's books, goblins and wizards have never really gotten along. They had an incredibly bloody history, which came to a sort of status quo once goblins were no longer allowed to use wands. Wizards have always had a sort of superiority complex over goblins - and it seems that they must in some respect be more powerful, as they are able to enforce the no-wand mandate on the goblins.

The story on Dwarves is a bit different. Dwarves and Elves at one point were more than allies, they were friends. They may not have quite lived together, but they certainly worked together and fought together. Later on, they got into a bit of a disagreement and became estranged. And while there was clearly animosity, certainly neither race ever ruled the other.

So I suppose what you're left with is this: Goblins are less powerful than dwarves within their respective worlds, Goblins are less likely to make real friends/alliances with those outside their race, and Dwarves are less extremist than Goblins concerning their craft (even taking Griphook as an extremist, Bill did tell Harry about Goblin ideas on ownership that sounded much more widespread than just the fanatics).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

So I suppose what you're left with is this: Goblins are less powerful than dwarves within their respective worlds, Goblins are less likely to make real friends/alliances with those outside their race, and Dwarves are less extremist than Goblins concerning their craft (even taking Griphook as an extremist, Bill did tell Harry about Goblin ideas on ownership that sounded much more widespread than just the fanatics).

I'll admit up front that I haven't read books IV through VI, but in reading Deathly Hallows it was not Tolkien's dwarves that I thought of when reading about the goblins, but Tolkien's elves.

Tolkien's dwarves trade their goods for keeps--at least in LotR. This idea of ownership sounds more like the ultimate artist's control, extending beyond the making into the life of the work. And the artists in Tolkien are the elves. In fact, I thought of the story of the silmarils and of Fëanor 's terrible vengance to recover them and of Maedhros' and Maglor's harrowing pursuit of them as well.

There are many characteristics which the Rowling goblins don't share with the Tolkien elves,. However, there are enough references to the scent of the sea wafting through the Shell Cottage chapter where ownership is discussed and debated so often (not only of the Gryffindor sword but of Muriel's--shades of Miriel!--diadem also) that I recall what the sea meant to Tolkien's elves. They might not be hoarders of gold, but they an aloof race which values creation and their history isn't spotless.

If there is some sort of relationship between Rowling's races and Tolkien's, wouldn't the orcs more likely be the Death Eaters--a far more sophisticated horror.

EDIT: I suppose what I am getting at is that Rowling's races have more mixed characteristics than Tolkien's races.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies! I hope to get back to the main topic of differences between the races in both authors' works again soon. For now, to avoid starting a new thread, I'd like to add two brief comparisons which do not concern that topic.

The name Bagshot shows up in both works. In Hobbit/LotR, it's Bagshot Row, Bilbo's home address. In HP, it's the surname of the witch who wrote the school textbook on the history of magic. In real life, it's the name of a village in Surrey, as well as of Bagshot Park on Bagshot Heath, a royal residence. (Thanks, Google and Wikipedia, for the quick infos! Interestingly, the list of occurrences of the name includes the HP character but not Tolkien's road name.)

Another similar element: as this post points out, the One Ring is what Rowling calls a 'Horcrux' in her books. In both cases, it is used by the major baddie to split up his soul/power and must be destroyed to destroy him finally. I was not able to find a real life reference to this term and am not aware of its linguistic background. Perhaps someone has information on that.

[Firefoot]

I was not able to find a real life reference to this term and am not aware of its linguistic background. Perhaps someone has information on that.

I don't know anything for sure, but I'm going to use these two premises: a) JKR made up the word 'horcrux' and b) as in many of her spells, she based the word off of Latin.

If that's so, the word "horcrux" is not itself a Latin word (according to my dictionary). However, "crux" is, meaning cross, or more loosely torment or trouble. "Hor" is the beginning of many words (horror, horribilis, horreo, etc.) whose meanings run along the lines of dread, fright, horror etc. To me this makes sense; the making of a horcrux might be thought of as a crucifixion of the soul, or simply a torment. The "hor" prefix might have something to do with the dread that the concept of horcruxes inspires in normal wizards.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

The name Bagshot shows up in both works. In Hobbit/LotR, it's Bagshot Row, Bilbo's home address. In HP, it's the surname of the witch who wrote the school textbook on the history of magic. In real life, it's the name of a village in Surrey, as well as of Bagshot Park on Bagshot Heath, a royal residence. (Thanks, Google and Wikipedia, for the quick infos! Interestingly, the list of occurrences of the name includes the HP character but not Tolkien's road name.)

Both writers play off English place names. From several other threads/posts here on the Downs, we've been shown a letter where Tolkien comments on Miss Honeybourne's name, apparently saying he would add such a nameplace to the map of The Shire. Yet Honeybourne is already a real place name in the UK.

Then of course Rowling gives us the village of Budleigh Babberton, where Dumbledore and Harry find Horace Slughorn, the potions master from Hogwarts, squatting while hiding out after a year on the run from He Who Must Not Be Named. In Devon, on the mouth of the Otter River and across from Torquay, where a very infamous Towers establishment exists or existed, lies the real life Budleigh Salterton, a picturesque town on England's Jurassic Coast. (Yes, it has one!) I wonder if Ms Rowling or anyone else knows of anyone hiding out in the real Budleigh Salterton, who might be quite a bit of a babbler?

I wonder how much more fun it must be to read both authors if one is intimately familiar with the English map and place names? I know of Upper and Lower Slaughter, but neither author to my knowledge has engaged in any wordplay with those villages.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'd like to comment on the most obvious - blatantly so! - difference between a race as portrayed by Tolkien and by Rowling. Though elves are on the good side in both stories, they couldn't be more different. Tolkien's Elves are tall, beautiful, noble, creative persons who show leadership in the events of Middle-earth. Rowling's elves are house servants - more like slaves, actually, since they are not paid for their services. They are hobbit-sized in stature and apparently not particularly attractive in appearance. They have no power, no initiative for their own fate (as a rule), and if they have creativity, it probably goes into cooking or other tasks that are more menial than artistic.

Both authors deviate from the typical elfs of fairy tales, diminutive winged creatures that live in flowers, whose magical power is equal to their stature. I am aware of the darker, more powerful elves of folk legends, though I know too little to expound upon the differences.

Rowling's wizard race is closer to Tolkien's Elves, I think; they are different, with innate magical powers, and they often protect the non-magical humans.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

They have no power

They actually do. They have magic of their own. Dobby uses it in the second (or was it the third?) book to vandalise in Harry's aunt and uncle's house and if I'm not mistaken, the house elf magic plays a part in the latest book as well. So, in this area, Rowling's house-elves are not that different from Tolkien's Elves, though the question of whether Elves have magic or not can always be debated...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Rowling's wizard race is closer to Tolkien's Elves, I think; they are different, with innate magical powers, and they often protect the non-magical humans.

I could never see Rowling's wizard race in any way similar to Tolkien's elves. The wizards and witches are neither nostalgic nor backward looking; they don't have ancient memories of angelic beings; they don't live in a mythic past, but our time; they aren't almost-immortal; they aren't all gorgeous and elegant and sophisticated. And more importantly, they have behaviour characteristics of humans, specifically senses of humour, spite, silliness. I can't for the world imagine a Tolkien elf enjoying a joke about boogers or eating things like Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans, Chocolate Frogs, Cockroach Clusters, Jelly Slugs, Blood Pops, Acid Pops and, well, I can't imagine a Tolkien elf creating the kind of store which Fred and George excel in.

In fact, I've always seen Rowling's wizards and witches simply as humans but endowed with greater talent and imagination and charm than the slower, more mundane muggles. Forgive me if this is wrong; the Dursleys made such an impact on me.