Alexander vs. Tolkien

I've read two series in near succession of each other: Lloyd Alexander's *Prydain Chronicles* and J.R.R. Tolkien's *Lord of the Rings* (which I have yet to finish, but still...) and have found something amazing.
Both Alexander's and Tolkien's Books have deep ties to Welsh mythology and the similarities are thus:
-Both are in distant lands that very CLOSELY resemble Wales
-Both are epics, with good in the form of simple farm people, pitted against evil, both in the form of a Dark Lord.
-Both have Protagonists (Frodo Baggins in Tolkien's and Taran of Caer Dallben in Alexander's) who are from peaceful farm-like homelands and both wanted an Adventure in which to prove their heroism and Bravery and Manhood.
-Upon ventering out past the boundaries of their safe havens, both heroes deeply regretted ever wanting to come on said adventure and miss the safe comforts of their homeland.
-Both have mysterious, wise, all-powerful wizards who help the main characters in their plights.
-Both end with final battles in which the Dark Lord is defeated.
-Both series' epilogues contain the heroes leaving to the "Land across the Sea" In the east, where they will live forever.
-Both have strange, sub-human creatures with speech impediments ("Smeagol"/"Gollum" in Lord of the Rings and "Gurgi" in Prydain).
-Both had large amounts of poetry and song in similar Celtic and Welsh verse.

I came across the comparison when a friend of mine saw me reading the last of Prydain, "The High King" (Cross-reference with the "Return of the King"), and said--I am paraphrasing--that she used to like Prydain before reading LOTR, and then realized that Prydain was Cop-out.
Prydain is NOT a Cop-out. Yes, the reading level of Prydain is significantly lower that Lord of the Rings, mainly because Alexander was writing for a much younger audience than Tolkien.
Both Alexander's and Tolkien's Author's Notes claim that the setting in which their stories take place are in a land totally of their own envention but do have significant ties to Welsh scenery and myths and Lore. I did notice that Alexander's book stuck much closer to the legends of Wales while Tolkien strayed far more into the heart of Fantasy itself, which is not to the advantage nor disadvantage of either parties. In Prydain, The "Bauble" of Princess Eilonwy and the bottomless food wallet of Gurgi do come from real Welsh lore, as do many motifs, including the "Land beyond the Sea," appearing in both novels.
Another similarity concerning the ending of the two books: While the majority of the successful heroes of the novels go to the Land beyond the Sea and immortality therein, there must, in each book, be one character to stay behind to complete, and even carry one, the story; Sanwise Gamgee in LOTR, and Taran (along with his beloved Princess Eilonwy and "faithful Gurgi") in Prydain.
A difference I found, however: in Prydain, the language was easy, roll-off-your-tongue simple, obviously for Alexander's younger audiences, while LOTR's language was so rich, I found, that I couldn't read in long periods. Beautiful and addicting, yes, but so rich and decadent, that I felt as if I were coming up for air between chapters, and even paragraphs.
I see it like this: Alexander's Writing is like the dinner rolls at Thanksgiving: I never get tired of them, even after I lose count of how many I've actually consumed; Tolkien's is like a chocolate-covered banana split Sundae with nuts, caramel, whipped cream, and a cherry on top: so delicious that it's the first thing I take off the buffet desert table, but so rich, that I must wolf down several Dinner rolls in between small servings of Sundae, yet I never really getting tired of the sweet, loaded-down richness of the Sundae. Both are delicious Must-Have's.
I also found that both of the books had similar morals and themes in them, despite their taking completely different paths to get to the morals.
In both Series' favors: I have fallen in love with the characters in both. Taran, Eilonwy, Fflewder Fflamm (I don't know if I got enough F's and M' in there), Gurgi, Prince Gwydion, Orwen, Orduu, and Orgoch, etc, in Prydain, and Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, Legolas, and Gimli in Lord of the Rings. Each are Superb in their own, complete differentials.

Cumulonimbus

There are few things the human mind can’t do. Their bodies are more or less limited in every degree, but little can stop one’s mind. There is a common phrase. It’s along the lines of: “You can’t imagine,” or “Beyond the imagination,” etc. This undermines the human intelligence. Anything can be imagined. Imagining is one thing; believing is another.
Believe is a word often affiliated with not certain. We often say believe in replacement of the dangerous, commitment-forming word know. To save ourselves from the hazard of being accused of certainty, we often say, “I believe that was the case,” or “I believe I saw…” To go a step further, to believe something is quite different than to believe you believe something. Belief is a frame of mind.
So, say you are performing the common, stress-relieving activity of watching clouds, perhaps sighting shapes in them. Is it ever so hard to believe that those clouds exist? The quick answer is that you know that those clouds exist. I would then correct you. You know that you see clouds. You perceive, even at such a great distance (or the distance you believe to exist. Pardon: that you know to exist), all the facts of clouds that you’ve learned over time. (This learning I’m referring to is other people telling you what they know, which they learned from other people who learned that from other people, until you reach people who believe they knew something about clouds).
When someone says, “You can’t imagine,” they really mean “It’s hard to believe.” Of course, I won’t quickly believe in, or dare say I know of (outside my mind), a world of winged horses or wand-waving wizards, but I will say I that believe in believing there is such a world.
Back to subject of clouds, I would say what everyone “knows.” Clouds are evaporated water molecules, which condensates together to form the cloud. The shapes, or types, of clouds differ from each individual based on the conditions during their formation. Anyone who has past the second grade could tell you that.
Another fact, so well known, they don’t bother to tell you in school, is that clouds could not support anything heavier or denser than the cloud itself. A human would fall right through. Thinking on the subject, I once posed this question to a friend. A new imagining: why can’t a person live on a cloud?
She answered that they would fall through.
I asked her why.
She said it was because clouds are light and fluffy. It couldn’t support the weight.
To solidify her knowledge of this “fact” to myself, I asked after her proof.
She repeated that people would go right through.
I wondered if she had tried.
She hadn’t.
This conversation brings up the thought: planes and birds go right through clouds. Then it occurred to me: Birds only fly through thin clouds, I believe. They wouldn’t bother trying to power through one of those thick, puffy, cottage-cheese-looking ones. As for planes, I am certain anything can go through anything if allotted enough momentum (thus also answering the question of skydivers).
So she, as with all else, counting myself, couldn’t offer satisfying reason why a people could not, based on all of our given evidence, live on clouds.

The Eye of the Beholder

A sick day found me alone, curled up on a sofa, in the dark, watching Disney's Beauty and the Beast. It is my all time favorite Disney Movie, for many reasons, but the most prominent, being Beast.
He is the epitome of animated perfection, first off, being goofy when the moment suits, terrifying at all the right times, though not so much so that it's still a family show, and lovable in the End. Also, he is the Pinnacle of Anthropomorphism; the artists, after fishing around
for sometime on the right human/animal balance, decided on an image based on a Silver back gorilla, which would give him the "Human" feel, crossed with a wolf, hence the hind legs and tail, as well as other beastly characteristics. But there is more to him than pure artistry.
Beast was a Prince turned Brute by a beautiful enchantress, after which he locked himself away in his cursed castle. So, no matter how long he has actually been a beast, his heart and mind are still that of a 21 year old man, or boy, if you will. The Feminine race alone is alien to him, not to mention kindness and love. And so the Beautiful Belle reaches out to him and--Viola!--The spell is broken.
Re-watching this movie made me realize the deep emotions, especially of Love and the REALness of the characters, though it was made well over a decade ago. I also reflected on the contrasts between the Movie version and the original Fairy tale, mainly the retelling in Robin McKinley's book, Beauty. And I saw one Major difference: While in the Film, It is beast who must change his beastly nature before he can change his beastly appearance by learning to Love. In the book, however, he has already overcome himself after years stowed away in his castle in the forest. When Beauty shows up, he loves her at first sight. It is Beauty who must change her heart to be able to accept him, and in so doing, accept herself. So the question is asked: Who has the real challenge? The Hideous in overcoming the physical and emotional challenge of being a Beast, whether physically, emotionally or both; or the Beautiful, in witnessing the beast and having sympathy and try to understand the Ugly, and accepting it despite the obvious barrier of both Appearances and--in the case of the Movie version--the cruel actions and seeing the kindness and goodness inside.
While that may be a philosophical reason to enjoy both book and movie, I still prefer the Film. And I love Beast, past the "Moral of the Story." Though my infatuation is rather hard to explain, I shall try any way.
He's furry/hairy and teeth-y. He has an awesome, billowy cape, an amazing singing voice and roaring voice; he has kindness, but self-doubt. He can make enormous snowballs, has the heftiest pair of eyebrows ever to move individually. He's adorably awkward, yet frightening. But most of all, Beast battles on roofs and jump from half-way up a stair case onto the next floor without bothering to make the turn in between. He's a Beast, what other reason need I?