Harry Potter and The Stolen Plot... [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

HerenIstarion

11-04-2002, 03:30 PM

Not so stolen I daresay. Similiraities are not essential - after all, almost all wizards in history were supposed to be bearded, and there were quite a few items with magical qualities, among those flying carpets, rings/cloaks/caps of invisibility etc, so ideas are just common and free to be picked up by every one. And Dobby, though not very educated, is not similar to Gollum in his essential - he's magical creature, and Gollum is human. Nor the genre - Harry is school-story, though colored with magic and with very tense plot, and LoTR is epic far more profound. And though in both books the main enemy is labelled Dark Lord, Harry and LoTr can't and must not be weighed on the same scale - you don't get heavy weight champion boxer on the same ring as a amateur feather weight, do you?
So, let the children (J.K.Rowling, with all respect, in this case) play...

disclaimer: H-I read all 4 Harry Potter books 2 times and found those most fascinating, yet still...

Morgul Queen

11-04-2002, 06:03 PM

But seriously compare these people/things
Nazgul/Dementors
Mirror of Galadriel/Mirror of Erisad
Mirkwood/Forbidden Forest

Love Morgul smilies/smile.gif

Orual

11-04-2002, 06:14 PM

What's really similar to LotR are the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander. You can tell that somebody'd read Tolkien more than once! You can draw parallels to some of the characters (Gwydion is Aragorn, Dallben is Gandalf, etc.) and the end is so close to the end of RotK that it's not even funny.

~*~Orual~*~

Manwe Sulimo

11-04-2002, 06:57 PM

*Coughs*

Wormtongue....Wormtail....Wormtongue...

*Coughs*

mithuel

11-04-2002, 07:24 PM

I think in most cases, writers of fantasy fiction have been inspired to write fantasy in the first place after reading Lord of the Rings. Such writers list Tolkien again and again as the most profound influence on their work.
It would be a very foolish writer who actually plagiarised Tolkien (they would have zero chance of getting away with it) but subliminal influences from his work must occur all the time. Also, when similarities with Tolkien do exist, and the writer has acknowledged him as an inspiration, this can be seen rather more as a form of homage or respect to Tolkien's work. He started a whole new genre of writing so it is small wonder that his influence can be so often perceived.

onewhitetree

11-04-2002, 07:50 PM

Believe it or not, few of Tolkien's ideas contained in the actual plot of The Hobbit and LotR were really, truly original. Smaug is the dragon from Beowulf (so sly! so philosophically unorthodox!), and the Valar are extremely similar to Norse mythological gods and goddesses. Above all, be it allegory or no (a can of worms in which I care not to be involved), LotR is "Christian, and what is more, Roman Catholic," to quote the old man himself (not you, Sharkey). Morals aren't new now, and they weren't new then.

Kalimac

11-04-2002, 10:22 PM

Tolkien not only combined a lot of older themes/stories/ideas in his stories, he seems hardly to have left any of them OUT! Can you imagine trying to write a fantasy story with NO Tolkienesque components at all? No orphaned/solitary heroes, no wizards (good or evil), no riddled-with-evil Dark Lord, no wicked agents, no comic companions, no princesses who love adventurers (or someone that their father doesn't approve of) no faithful steed, no friggin' QUEST. It wouldn't be worth reading at the end. NOT that I'm saying that people should just be allowed to lift from Tolkien wholesale (yes, "Sword of Shannara" I'm looking in your direction) but that there are going to be parallels if you look hard enough.

For Harry Potter, the only parallel that really took me aback was the Dementors; I can't think of a mythological figure to parallel them, and they are very like the Nazgul. I don't know about the Mirror of Erised, though - magic mirrors of whatever kind have been a fairy-tale staple since Snow White, and Erised is very different from Galadriel's mirror - much less ambiguous; you see what you wish you were or had. With Galadriel you can see past, present, future, and possible future - the trick is telling which is which. And for Dobby - well, Dobby seems to fall more on the comic-companion side of the slate.

Wormtail and Wormtongue are probably related, but it's a small enough element that you can call it an Homage and not a Plagiarism smilies/smile.gif. Besides, Tolkien hardly has a hammerlock on nasty, snivelly little characters with "Worm" in their names. How about C.S. Lewis's tempter Wormwood, nephew of Screwtape?

Orual - I see what you mean about Prydain? But who gets to be Prince Rhun? smilies/smile.gif. (Even Pippin has more intellectual firepower than that young man does).

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

Orual

11-05-2002, 06:44 PM

LoL, Kalimac! Prince Rhun was...yeah, a little lacking in genius. Not exactly the "wisest of the wise," I think I can safely say. As for a parallel there, you got me! Prince Rhun, I believe, was totally Alexander. ^_^

I agree, though. Tolkien had both a lot of influence and a lot of influences. I think that Gwydian was actually based on a mythological character, not Aragorn, but they were so similar...and the whole Dallben/Gandalf thing blew me away. (I can even hear Gandalf saying some of Dallben's lines..."I am far too old to be polite!") But it was the ending that really threw me for a loop. However, because I can just see somebody two chapters away from finishing the High King reading this thread, I won't give it away...suffice to say that it was so similar that it left no doubt that Tolkien was a huge influence in Alexander's writing. smilies/rolleyes.gif

~*~Orual~*~

Frodo Baggins

11-05-2002, 09:19 PM

Orual, I just recognised your name. I love that story, it made me cry. Where is Redival and Istra/Psyche? smilies/wink.gif

Well, someone told me about the Wormtail?Wormtaogue thing. I personally have never read HP. Not to be mean but J.K Rowling should just leave off all the witchcraft and GO HOME! An i'm mad that LOTR movies mut be preceede by a HP movie every year!!!!
There's no comparison, LOTR is one million times better!

Orual

11-05-2002, 09:29 PM

That's right, Frodo Baggins, it's from "Till We Have Faces." Wasn't it wonderful?? I'd never read Lewis before (I couldn't stand the Narnia Chronicles...: smilies/tongue.gifrepares to be stoned: smilies/smile.gif, but I totally fell in love with Orual. It's kind of like Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister, only...well, only good. My brother, the mythology guru, told me that in the original Orual is jealous and evil, but Lewis so beautifully brought out her side of the story...

Anyhow, comparing LotR to HP is like...is like...shooting a fly with an elephant gun. LotR is a lifetime's achievement, an accomplishment that few people will ever have. Harry Potter is just...not. No two ways about it. LotR is an adult's book, and HP is a children's book. Comparing HP to the Hobbit would be more fair, but even then it's no comparison. There just aren't any writers like Tolkien anymore. It's like my sig...after Tolkien, "there went the last"...great fantasy author.

~*~Orual~*~

LePetitChoux

11-06-2002, 12:27 PM

Um, this thread has kinda been done hundreds of times before, but I'll post anyway.

Harry potter is extremely similar to LotR, but SO WHAT? Its clearly almost definitely NOT a coincidence, but I must say I loved the harry potter books. If JKR did in fact copy soe things, then she has done a good job of transforming them. I mean the whole overall plot of most stories is the same: GOOD http://www.plauder-smilies.de/angel2.gif vs EVIL
smilies/evil.gif . Would you call it bad that JRRT "borrowed" a few ideas from previous stories? NO, because the way he did it is completely amazing! Same with JKR, she may not have all original ideas, but at least what she does is good. If it was completely unimaginative, THEN I'd let off steam! http://www.plauder-smilies.de/tiere/grommit.gif

Rumil

11-06-2002, 04:02 PM

Have you looked at the Hogwarts Crest-
smilies/smile.gif
'Numquam titillandibus drac dormiens'
(my Latin is rusty so I may have got that a bit wrong)

Does it remind you of a not entirely unrelated Tolkien saying?

On the back of my copy of the Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore's name is embroidered on his cloak in Dwarven runes. (OK, Elven runes really but you know what I mean!)

I'm sure JK Rowling put these snippets in to pay homage to the great man, but I find more similarities in her work to old public school children's stories of the 50s and before, even perhaps Tom Brown's schooldays.
Now all we need is a 'Flashman' - perhaps Draco Malfoy - to continue the series in more hilarious fashion.
smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/biggrin.gif

Faye Took

11-06-2002, 06:06 PM

Well maybe Tolkien enspired her?
Or just an Odd coinsedence (sp?)?

Bill Ferny

11-09-2002, 11:57 AM

Rumil,

I’m not aware of a Tolkien saying that goes like, never tickle a sleeping dragon. Is that Latin phrase in the books or just in the movie?

TolkienGurl

11-09-2002, 12:09 PM

Have you noticed how similar LOTR and The Sword of Shannara series are!?!? My uncle told me that it was intentional, because Terry Brooks (the author) wanted to pay a tribute to Tolkien.

Besides, LOTR and Harry Potter are 2 absolutely different books. Maybe Rowling used some elements of Tolkien's, but she didn't copy his ideas at all.

Anyway, both of these topics have been discussed elsewhere. Its really not that important.

Harry Potter and Tolkien (4 pages) N&N
Re:Any opinions of Harry Potter? (4 pages) N&N

LePetitChoux

11-09-2002, 12:23 PM

My friend saw HP&tCoS yesterday and says the new HP movie is even worse than the 1st....What can that mean? I thought Philosopher's Stone was as bad as films go... http://www.plauder-smilies.de/eek7.gif http://www.plauder-smilies.de/sad/confusedbig.gif http://www.plauder-smilies.de/crap.gif http://www.plauder-smilies.de/tiere/grommit.gif

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: LePetitChoux ]

Bill Ferny

11-09-2002, 12:38 PM

LePet,

How did your friend see it? It doesn't come out for another 5 days.

Edit: Was there already a showing in England?

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

LePetitChoux

11-09-2002, 01:32 PM

I guess an early screening... they do that sometimes. http://www.plauder-smilies.de/tiere/grommit.gif

Ainalondwen

11-09-2002, 01:39 PM

Oh dear, I haven't seen the first Harry Potter film...hold on, I haven't read any of the books either.

I have only seen the trailers for the films, and I am quite surprised about the similarities. But I suppose that is the way with fantasy writers, a lot of inspiration from the man himself.

I believe in Tolkein.

Bill Ferny

11-09-2002, 04:38 PM

I completely understand some people not liking Harry Potter. Believe it or not, there are those who don't like LotR! smilies/eek.gif However, there's very little similar about the two. Its like comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, Harry Potter has wizards, dragons, at least one sword, and an evil villain. If that is the basis for saying Rawling plagiarized from Tolkien, then you had better be prepared to get rid of every scrap of fantasy ever written.

I can't believe the audacity of those thirteenth century minstrels to have read the future and to have stolen from Tolkien when they put together the Authorian Legends! Those bastards!

VanimaEdhel

11-10-2002, 04:13 PM

Haven't we had a discussion about "Homages to Lord of the Rings" already? About how so many other books reflect an aspect of Lord of the Rings?

Rumil

11-10-2002, 06:52 PM

Bill,

the quote I was thinking of is in The Hobbit, where Bilbo says 'never laugh at sleeping dragons' which 'later became a saying'.

I think there's more than enough room for JRRT and JKR, their greatest similarity being that they're both un-putdown-able! Does anyone know when the 'Order of the Phoenix' is due out now?

Bill Ferny

11-10-2002, 06:59 PM

Ah, ok. Thanks Rumil.

Its infuriating that its taking so long for the fifth book to come out. I heard that one of the reasons it is taking so long is that the books will be getting more and more sinister, and JKR wants to let "her kids" grow up a bit.

Frodo Baggins

11-10-2002, 07:39 PM

Rumil, read "The Hobbit" again. Bilbo actually said "Never laugh at live dragons".

What the heck is a "House Elf" anyway. Not a true elf (e.g. Legolas) I imagine.

Orual

11-10-2002, 07:54 PM

House elves! LoL! Don't get me STARTED! I had nightmares for days after I saw that stupid picture in Chamber of Secrets...it was a wee bit much for me to handle right on the slide from LotR. It was like a hairpin turn. Legolas... Galadriel... Elrond... Arwen... Haldir... WHAM! Dobby. smilies/eek.gif Kind of like a kick in the head, no? smilies/evil.gif

~*~Orual~*~

Bill Ferny

11-10-2002, 08:45 PM

Hmmm, now we've seemed to have come full circle, from complaining that HP was too much like LotR, to now HP's elves aren't enough like LotR's elves.

Edit: By the way, Tolkien never claimed to have a monopoly on true elves. Its kind of difficult seeing as how elves aren't real.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

Orual

11-10-2002, 08:52 PM

No complaining from me! Not then and not now. It would've been all the more disturbing if J.K. Rowling had made them more like Tolkien's elves. ::thinks about it, shudders. Thinks, shudders...::

Oh, I know that Tolkien never had a monopoly on true elves. He just had one on my perception of elves.

~*~Orual~*~

Bill Ferny

11-10-2002, 09:15 PM

Actually I was refering to Frodo Baggins' post, not yours. smilies/wink.gif

Orome

11-10-2002, 09:38 PM

basically the harry potter movies were made for little kids who would just be in awe of the "magic". the movie was not well done at all, the books are decent, but the movies were/are abysmal.

just my 2 cents worth

Giggles

11-11-2002, 01:27 PM

I like both the books and the films but i could quite happily sit there and watch a film which had all the parts of the book even if it was 6 or 7 hours long!

Rumil

11-11-2002, 01:41 PM

Frodo, you're quite right, I was typing from memory and got not only the Potter quote back to front but the Bilbo quote mixed up !

Ho Hum, I think I'm going senile and thus really shouldn't be reading Harry Potter. Well I am nearly 7000 years old...

Amanaduial the archer

11-11-2002, 03:02 PM

*cough*

Dark Lord...jeez, she didnt even try to change that one...

*cough*

still, Im thinking a little more kindly of JK Rowling at the moment (considering my usual opinions of her, not hard!) ever since I found out that Voldemorte means Flight Of Death, which is incredibly classy...

dragoneyes

11-11-2002, 03:23 PM

I really like the books, but I have to say I find a huge amount wrong with the film(s) so I can't really watch it more than once smilies/rolleyes.gif

steve

11-11-2002, 07:15 PM

Orual

11-11-2002, 07:26 PM

LoL, Bill! I guess my personality is showing. I'm always leaping up to say sorry. It's my fault--my only one. smilies/evil.gif

~*~Orual~*~

Mintyztwin

11-11-2002, 08:00 PM

hah! I KNEW your name was from that book Orual!!!!! I just refrained from asking 'cause I'm a scaredy-kumquat.

I personally didn't see that much similarity between the HP books and LotR other than they were LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG. (I like that, really!)

But, to now totally contradict myself, how can you not be semi-similar on subjects that are stereotyped, and used all through the ages!!! Look at the myths! Aragorn bears a resemblence (slight, but a resemblence) to Hercules! They both go through umpteen-zillion trials, until Hercules becomes a god, and Aragorn becomes a King of imense power and long life. (Not unlike a god.) Okay, strange simili I probably shouldn't have used. Ah well.

Elana

11-12-2002, 09:57 AM

Personally I think that the Harry Potter books are marvelous. They don't top the Lord of the Rings (I don't think anything ever could...) because the LoTR books were part of my childhood. They helped me grow up. They gave me someplace I could escape to whenever I wasn't feeling content with my life. Just think, maybe the HP books do that for some child out there...

Gayalondiel

11-12-2002, 05:12 PM

Dark Lord...jeez, she didnt even try to change that one...

I feel i should point out that, like so many things already listed here, the term "Dark Lord" was not created by JRRT, nor is it specific to his work. Traditionally, the forces of evil have always been associated with darkness and the term is pretty generic for the chief bad guy of most mythologies. (Another figure who claims the name is this guy called Satan, I think he's been around a bit longer than Sauron)

Mintyztwin

11-12-2002, 06:34 PM

Satan, Morgoth, Sauron, Whatshisname,just as long as they all get beaten in the end!

The end is coming! Mwahahahahahahahah!!! I think there are better things to panic about other than stolen plots. LIKE POSSIBLE NOT BEING ALLOWED TO SEE TTT!!!! smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif

Orual

11-12-2002, 06:54 PM

LIKE POSSIBLE NOT BEING ALLOWED TO SEE TT

AIGH! That /is/ something to worry about!!!!!!!! smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif

~*~Orual~*~

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Orual ]

TealDude3

11-12-2002, 07:17 PM

I know what the problem is. Tolkien's work is so world renowned that it is almost impossible to keep your mind off of it when writing fantasy novels. I'm not saying it is a bad thing. But there is one thing that can never top Tolkien's work. Detail. Detail is what made Tolkien's writing a phenomenon. Not even the movie can top what Tolkien created.

Lord of the Rings is a fairy tale. It never happened. Exept for somewhere in our hearts.
-Sir Ian McKellen

Orual

11-12-2002, 07:27 PM

Detail, talent, and soul. Nobody writes like Tolkien anymore--he poured so much of himself into that work, so much attention, so much time, and, like you said, so much detail. But it was also the characters--if you can find me another Samwise Gamgee in any other work, I'll eat my hat. His characters are so complete that you feel you know them, and even the villains (with the possible exception of Sauron) are...not "likeable," but...oh, I don't know. I can't find the word. But there's a certain magic about LotR that nobody else has been able to replicate, and I don't think that anybody could ever hope to.

~*~Orual~*~

Mintyztwin

11-12-2002, 08:41 PM

Are you saying Sauron's likeable!!! smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif
(just kidding! smilies/wink.gif ) Yep. I know what'cha mean. Ain't nothing like it anywhere! 'Tis in a class by itself.

Elana

11-12-2002, 10:35 PM

well saruman is hardly likeable but i can see some sense in what he was doing...what most people would do if they were scared for their own safety..."if you can't beat them join them"....yeah but when it talks of sarumans enchanting voice i almost think of him as a good guy thats just misunderstood for a minute.

Orual

11-13-2002, 05:56 PM

Ah! Don't you like Sauron???? What's wrong with you people? ^_^

LoL, excuse my stumbling. I simply couldn't think of the world--still can't. There's just a wholeness about all the characters, even the villains, that you can see them as real people and not as token evil characters. Am I making any sense? I'm trying...

~*~Orual~*~

Morgul Queen

11-13-2002, 08:41 PM

I think your making perfect sense, i mean it like you can see into the bad guys head for a moment and slightly understand them and why they're doing what they're doing. smilies/evil.gif

Mintyztwin

11-14-2002, 01:23 AM

I get it! I'm just "pushing" your leg. smilies/wink.gif Yeah. I really like how we get into Gollum/Smeagol's head in TTT. It really makes him all the more human, (or hobbit) and pathetic! *sniff* So sad! smilies/frown.gif

Aryana

11-14-2002, 11:04 AM

This is a message for tumil about the Hogwarts moto.
BASCIALLY to stop me from screaming at you all, im gonna keep this as short as possible.
JKR did classics at A level and i think even at UNI
the motto means never tickle a sleeping dragon
very funny and very dumbledoreish
like the rest of them books
that has NOTHING to do with tolkien, cause im sure he would NEVER use something so humourous.
dont get me wrong, i love LoTR and tolkien is an amazing writer, but he isnt for children so he wouldnt use that, JKR is!

and also about you all thinking that dumbledore is gandalf. why dont u realise that gandalf is merlin! the first great wizard EVER. all fantasy writers use him as a template for their great and powerful ideas, and everyone takes ideas from mythology and folk tales and lots of celtic myths as well.
even if she did use some of tolkiens basic ideas, and ideas from other places too, it doesnt matter. its inspiration. everyone needs it and surely it means shes read them and likes them, so she cant be that bad eh?

There is no origional idea, everyone gets tiny ideas from an amazing amount of places, and its not cpying its just as i said before inspiration.

smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif
see youve got me all angry now.
personally i think HP are just fantastic. i agree the films r pretty ******, but thats to be expected, cause u cant follow up such a fantasitc book with so much magic that well.

you cant compare HP and LOTR just because they have one main similarity. MAGIC! magic is in every fantasy book ever, but i dont see you all slaughtering other authours for using it.

oh yeh, and i dont know who you are, but whoever said that JK should just go home. READ THE DAMN BOOKS! how can u critise and judge someones work if u havent even read it dont base your opinions on the films cause they r **** .
anyway im gonna go now, but u all better go home and do your homework before preaching about tolkien being the one god.
because even though his books r great, he wasnt amazing. he was a racist facist little old man. think about it. the orcs, evil and black, come from the same place that africa would be if you compared the two maps of our world and middle earth.
now u cant say thats a coincidence!
ha!
i have proved u all wrong! mwhahahahaha!
(with thanks to my equally angry friend, izzie!)
mwhahahahahahaha
byeeee
dont hate me just cause im right smilies/wink.gif

TealDude3

11-14-2002, 11:34 AM

But we haven't judged the HP books, and we haven't said that they were bad. We were just pointing out similarities between the books. So be careful what you say, or you will find yourself judging other people, as you just did. You judged that we were judging HP.

Aryana

11-14-2002, 12:15 PM

I didnt make any assumptions at all. Ive read all the posts and people infact did judge HP. one person told JK to go home and that the books werent good so ha! smilies/tongue.gif
look i dont wanna get into a heated debate about it, cause i dont wanna make any enemies.
im just saying that the books r fab and JK didnt steal anything. she has her own ideas, Tolkien isnt the only person in the world with an imagination. smilies/smile.gif

Orual

11-14-2002, 03:40 PM

Woah, Aryana, racist and facist? Those are some pretty heavy charges (not that they haven't been brought up before). I severely doubt that racism had anything to do with the geography of Middle-earth. Black has always been a colour associated with evil, that wasn't Tolkien's idea. And when Sauron was in Mirkwood, that was the base of evil, and it wasn't anywhere near where Africa would've been...though I can't really see how you can put the entire map of Earth and squeeze it into Middle-earth. (Not to say you can't, I haven't tried it, but still...)

I don't think that the general feeling here is so avidly anti-Harry Potter as you seem to have gathered. Personally, I like Harry Potter and plan to go see the movie tomorrow. I simply don't like it as much as the Lord of the Rings. You may like it more--I could care less. You really don't need to get so angry.

~*~Orual~*~

Mintyztwin

11-14-2002, 04:37 PM

I'm really sorry we made you upset, Aryana! smilies/frown.gif If I sad anything that was judgmental, or angering, I really apologize.
I do not, however, agree with the HP books. I'm not allowed to see the movie, or read them. (Actually, I'm old enough that I don't allow myself to read them, etc.) Actually, I think I'll send you a PM apologizing, instead of wasting thread space! smilies/biggrin.gif
And Gandalf is NOT Merlin!!!! Merlin was a dingbat. He died . . . interestingly. Sealed in a tomb by the woman he loved. And he KNEW she was gonna do that BEFORE he fell in love with her. (He was after all, a magician!) Gandalf would never be so stupid!! smilies/biggrin.gif smilies/wink.gif

Rumil

11-14-2002, 06:24 PM

Wow Aryana, haven't seen such a fantastic rant in ages smilies/biggrin.gif

I certainly wasn't hassling JK Rowling, I love the Potter books. I just like the idea of Rowling perhaps half-remembering what Bilbo said (Never laugh at live dragons) [I think I got it right this time smilies/wink.gif ]

I think 20th century fantasy is often so effective because it taps in to ancient archetypes, as in 'meme' theory. For some reason, a wizard 'should' have a pointy hat and a staff! I expect you could trace many of the charcters right back to oral legends (if all the intervening sources had survived)

I do object to you referring to Tolkien as a fascist. After all his son was fighting the Nazis when he was writing Lord of the Rings.

Orual

11-14-2002, 08:57 PM

And I'm sorry if my post was unduly snippy. I'm just taking longer than I expected to adjust to a kinder, gentler board than I'm used to. smilies/frown.gif

~*~Orual~*~

Arwen_Evenstar

11-16-2002, 12:55 AM

Having not read every reply on this post it is possible, but not proboble, that this has already been posted. In the Harry Potter related book, 'Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them' on page 27 there is this post-script:
...Convinced by the spotless and empty bed that such a creature had indeed killed Janus, his wife and children entered a period of strict mourning which was rudely interrupted when Janus was discoverd living five miles away with the landlady of the Green Dragon
Yes, the Green Dragon smilies/mad.gif , and i could not let such a crime go unspoken. Well perhaps crime is a little harsh...
Bye!

11-16-2002, 05:41 PM

Some people think Mirror of Galadriel and The Mirror of Erised are similar. Not true at all. Here's proof:

Mirror of Galadriel: Not exactly a "mirror", but a basin of magic water. It shows, according to Galadriel: "...for the mirror shows many things. Things that were, things that are, and some things that have not yet come to pass."

Mirror of Erised: An actual mirror. It shows "the deepest, most desperate desires of our hearts."

So, no, the mirrors are different. Now, I don't want to make enemies right away by defending Harry Potter, the book that I like slightly better than LOTR, so excuse anything you may consider "against Tolkien". smilies/smile.gif Anyway, you can't pretend Tolkien came up with stuff all on his own. He borrowed some stuff, too. The Beowulf, for instance? Lots of authors use methods that others have, but it doesn't mean it's a total ripoff. But, there's an exception to every rule...Deltora Quest, for instance? smilies/evil.gif

Cherie Centaur

11-19-2002, 07:40 PM

Hi I'm new. Anyway, I have to see TTT. I got to see Shelob and Treebeard, not to mention Faramir. He's my favorite of the race of men. So the world isn't ending.
smilies/biggrin.gif
Also I'm sure many an author famous or unknown have been inspired by Tolkien and his works.

Mintyztwin

11-19-2002, 07:45 PM

Welcome!!! Hey, I recognize that name!!! Do you hail from Xanth, Cherie? I haven't read those books in a long time! Hmm . . . I'd forgotten all about them .. . 'scuse me, I'll be back eventually.

Cherie Centaur

11-20-2002, 06:03 PM

Of course! I started reading those now that I've read the trilogy and the hobbit, which I am more obsessed over. smilies/wink.gif

I thought since everyone would probally choose something to do with LOTHR and since my elven name was already takn I chose this. Like it? smilies/tongue.gif

Mintyztwin

11-20-2002, 08:39 PM

Yep, I shore do! I like your sig too!! I can't find my series though! I think they're in storage. Nuts. I'll just have to read MY HOMWORK ASSIGNMENT!!!! Grrr . . . smilies/mad.gif

Niltaliel

11-22-2002, 05:43 PM

Harry Potter and the Stolen Plot? I don't think so.
True, there are many similarities. But J. K. Rowling borrowed from many stories, myths, and legends.. as did Tolkien. The plot of Harry Potter doesn't seem the same as the plot of Lord of the Rings to me. Sorry to break it to you, but a plot is a storyline, not characters and creatures. Dementors are not a plot. Wormtail is not a plot.
If you are one of those people who insists on finding something wrong with Harry Potter, do not look for it in this way.

Pookabunny

11-23-2002, 11:41 PM

There are some similarities, but one cannot say that Harry Potter is the stolen Plot of the Lord of the Rings. Granted, there are common ideas, but nothing was STOLEN. Yes, both have a mirror. Yes, both main characters own an item that makes them invisible. And yes, they both have an all-consuming, evil bad-guy (what kind of story won't???) But come one! If anyone says that a good versus evil plot is stolen, then they need to relate everything to the Bible! The use of magic, reluctant and young heroes, close friends and kinships are cornerstones for ANY excellent story!

As an avid fan of BOTH, I hate when people say "one is better than the other".

Wow some people really got passionate about this discussion. Just don't end up throwing stuff at each other *ducks* smilies/tongue.gif smilies/wink.gif

Kiara

11-25-2002, 03:01 PM

Mintyztwin:

question: where did you pick that stuff up about Merlin? I have never heard that before and just wanted to know. I have read, on the other hand, a very flattering series about him (and it loops Atlantis and of course King Arthur into the tale). Anyone here heard of Stephen R. Lawhead? One of my top favorite authors (Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowling falling in there somewhere as well).

Also, about Rowling, did you all know there was a woman who sued her for supposedly plagiarizing her ideas? It was unbelievable: some lady name Nancy something or other who had a story about Nuclear War survivors etc...really bizarre. Anyway, you could tell SHE hadn't read the books either....All I know is I'm committed to NOT being that kind of person. Might as well have an educated opinion, no?

Frodo Baggins

11-25-2002, 08:49 PM

*tries to resist bursting into tears after a reprimand like that*

Well Aranya I was the one that told JKR to go home. I admit that. That was bad.
Tolkien never use something humorous? HA! I find some of his writings rather funny. The hobbits bath song for example, hilarious! And does tickling dragons have to do with ANYTHING?? Another point, JRRT's writings actually have substance, theres depth there, JKR has little depth.

Gandlaf is not Merlin, he is Olorin, wisest of all Maiar.
You say all fantasy writies use mythology, Do ALL fantasy writers invent such a diverse collection of languages?
I do not thimk JRRT is the one god, I KNOW who God is and it isn't JRRT, though he was a man of God.
"A racist facist little old man"? I think not!!! An amazing mind. I know I could not think of all the things he did. Orcs actually come from the north and the east, not the south, thr men of Harad come from there.

You cannot prove me wrong! And I won't claim to be right, for I have not all the answers, but I know what I believe.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Frodo Baggins ]

Kalessin

11-25-2002, 09:25 PM

Hello everyone smilies/smile.gif

Am I alone in seeing surreal similarities between this thread and the old Trilogy and Bible controversies? Then, it was "hey, Gandalf = Jesus!" ... now it's "hey, Dumbledore = Gandalf!". Plus ca change smilies/smile.gif.

In fact, it's the clear and evident differences between Harry Potter and LotR that are a source of controversy, NOT the similarities (which are pretty superficial and could equally be inferred between countless works with shared narrative elements, or between all/any major works of fantasy and various ancient mythologies from across the world).

For example, whilst on these boards I have at various times seen the works of Tolkien sincerely praised for manifesting an essentially Christian moral sensibility, I have seen the Harry Potter books attacked for 'promoting' witchcraft and moral relativism. This has been such a hot topic I won't dwell upon it, the arguments are all well-rehearsed smilies/smile.gif.

It's also clearly the case that Tolkien was consciously attempting to create a working mythos with cosmological integrity as the basis for epic narrative. This was a serious and detailed literary exercise encompassing geography, anthropology, language, history and so on in the grand academic tradition.

On the other hand, Rowling's universe is here, it is part of our world, no more than a jump of wizardly consciousness from a London train station to a whimsical and (compared to Tolkien) fairly contemporary environment. The broomsticks, cod-latin phrases and unusual confectionery are (to my mind) not at all part of some viable mythical reality - there is a far more modern (or post-modern) sensibility at work here. These elements are self-referential (I refuse to delve at length into postmodernism, just take my word for it smilies/smile.gif), certainly ironic and in many cases designed for humorous effect.

And there is an even more obvious difference. Harry Potter was written for children (ie. within the genre of Children's Books). Written well enough to appeal to more than just children, sure, but LotR and The Silmarillion, for example, were written for ... well, who? Everyone? The English, maybe? But certainly NOT as part of a popular accepted genre, apart from perhaps 'epic narrative', where in Tolkien's day you might have found Beowulf, La Morte d'Arthur etc.

The differences, therefore, in intent and content are what count, not the similarities. For what it's worth, my streetwise 11-year old son tells me he finds Harry Potter a little childish, and LotR a bit overbearing and serious! Apparently the most popular film in his school is 'The Matrix', so what does THAT tell you?

Don't tell me - "hey, Neo = Aragorn!" smilies/smile.gif

Peace

Kalessin

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Estelyn Telcontar

11-25-2002, 10:49 PM

Welcome back, Kalessin - we have missed your posts on the forum! smilies/smile.gif

Lady_Artemis

11-26-2002, 04:00 PM

Okay, this may be old but Aryana, I don't hate you because you are right, I hate you because you are wrong. HP is good in its own right, we all understand that, but it will never ever come nearly as close to the complexity and in depthness of Lord of the Rings. J.R.R. Tolkien also is not racist or facist. Sure he may have downplayed the role of women in his books but that is a result of the time period in which it was written.And what are you talking about with the maps looking like Europe? You're just asking for trouble there. The only reason that came to your mind is because you yourslef think that way. I have read all 4 of the HP books numerous times but because the story is so simple it can hardly compare to Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings explores the weaknesses and strengths of the human race using the Fellowship as a way of showing the different facets of man. And I hope you get mad. smilies/evil.gif

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Lady_Artemis ]

Thenamir

11-26-2002, 04:46 PM

DISCLAIMER
I have NOT read ANY of the HP books. My beef in this post is to critique Aryana's debating style, not to burn JKR at the stake.
END DISCLAIMER

Aryana appears to have been a flame-thrower who sets a blaze and then sits back to watch the fireworks. But just in case Aryana is still following the thread:

You throw around a lot of big-sounding words to make yourself look intelligent and knowledgable, but calling Tolkien a "racist facist little old man" shows that you do not have the first clue what you are talking about, and probably don't have the first idea of the definition of "facism" without the aid of a dictionary.

The people who frequent this forum are usually (not always) very well read, intelligent folks, and they come here to make points or discuss ideas and possibilities. They DON'T come here to skewer and barbecue the others and then run off laughing like a deranged bomber, as you have done. That's the childish act of the 6-year-old who thinks it's funny to set a paper bag of dog-poop on fire at someone's door, ring the doorbell, and run away.

ONE PERSON, count 'em, ONE, said 'JKR go home', and you launch into a tirade about everyone who has posted on the thread, as if someone just stating "LOTR is a superior piece of literature over HP" is guilty of a capital crime. u all better go home and do your homework before preaching about tolkien being the one god.
NOT ONE of us said that JRRT is the One God. It looks like there's someone else that needs to do the homework... even though his books r great, he wasnt amazing Sorry Aryana, that's a matter of opinion -- and most of the world disagrees with you. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was voted Book of the Century and Book of the Millenium, and has won more awards than the number of months you've been alive. His books continue to sell at an alarming rate, even before the movies came out.

JRRT wrote the books from the background of being a Christian man and one of the world's leading authorities on ancient languages and mythologies. JK Rowling wrote from the position of being a broke, unemployed mom who needed to make an income and studied books about modern day witchcraft to make her book more "accurate".

JRRT wrote about common folks in uncommon circumstances and exalted the quiet common life of the hobbits and the peaceful folk of Middle Earth. He wrote so little about "magic" in his books that you could leave it out in most places and still have an epic story. Having not read JKR, I can hardly speak to specifics, but it appears to me from all I've heard that magic is thrown around as somthing common (like for playing games of Quiddich). And it also seems that the ones who don't use magic are rather looked down upon, and given uncomplementary names like "muggles".

the orcs, evil and black, come from the same place that africa would be if you compared the two maps of our world and middle earth.
now u cant say thats a coincidence!

I guess JK Rowling must be a racist, becuase the ULTIMATE bad guy is called "the DARK LORD". You can't say that's a coincidence!!! George Lucas must be a racist too, because, well, look at DARTH VADER! The BAD GUY all dressed up in BLACK!! ROFL!!!

Aryana, you have some serious issues to work through, and you have my sympathy. You know, it's OK not to like LOTR and to love HP. It's OK to love LOTR and hate HP. It'a all a matter of opinion.

One final note. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum, you really should buy a dictionary and learn to use it. Your posts have the same grasp of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar as the average parakeet.

Lady_Artemis

11-26-2002, 04:51 PM

Go Thenamir! I totally agree!! Yay!!!!!! You should never apologize for something you didn't do. smilies/smile.gif

dragoneyes

11-26-2002, 05:39 PM

I have to say I've not read all the first page but seeing the second, everyone is trying to argue different points from the same 'side' if I can use that word, except Thenamir, that was a truly original post.

I beleive this has been debated aplenty and if you actually compare PLOTS of the two books, you find little in common except the dark lord rising again, even then at different points in the story.

When she going to write the next darn book? Is all I really have to say about Harry Potter. I just really badly contradicted myself didn't I? I would now like to let everyone know that I am a fool and so shall shut-up. smilies/tongue.gif

Mintyztwin

11-26-2002, 05:59 PM

Kiara I got that info on Merlin from a book on King Arthur. It's my book, but my best friend has it, so I can't tell you what it was. It was, however, well researched. They did a lot of weird stuff in the Middle Ages!

Okay, sorry for the interuption! Carry on, folks! *backs out of the fray*

Morgul Queen

11-26-2002, 09:09 PM

Well, Dragoneyes I heard from my friend sarah who is a HP nut (shes almost as bad as I am with LotR) that all the HP books are finished but theyre locked in a vault somewhere by the publishers who are just using them as chairs.

RiderOfRohan

11-27-2002, 08:07 PM

As an aviadr i lieve that there is a fine line between bing inpired by another author and copying off of that author. I believe that Rowling has an original pot but you just can't stop wondering about the similarities.

I am NOT saying that her works are any where near as powerful and creative (and many other things) as Tolkien's works. I'e said my bit and now I'll leave this open to debate.

Frodo Baggins

11-27-2002, 08:57 PM

WOo HOO! GO THENAMIR!!! Thena, Aryana probably doesn't know what hit her!
*sigh*

I wish i had the courage to do what Thenamir does.

Faye Took

11-27-2002, 11:48 PM

Ok here is my personal opinion about JK Rowling.

Well I have noticed many simalarities but maybe she was inspiered by Tolkien. I mean many people are well, like me! Anyways, I don't think that the plots are stollen just maybe some tidbits of Lord of the Rings.

Bill Ferny

11-29-2002, 10:40 AM

LOL, I've been away from this thread for a few weeks, and wow! Arayna, what a childish rant! By the way, facists and racests aren't the same. While it is true that some racests have been facists, some democrates have been racests, and many more facists have been feminists. (humph) Any way, sticks and stones...

Did JKR even read LotRs?

Dimhuanion

11-29-2002, 12:24 PM

Tolkiens genius provided the world and all the authors in it with the basis of all mythological type books etc. Without Tolien the world would be without Elves, Goblins, Orcs wizardsetc and wat would be the fun in that. I think we should all be very gratefull.

rainbownelle

11-30-2002, 03:05 PM

Yes I agree totally
because...
Frodo = Harry
Sam = Ron
Sauron = Voldemort
Gandalf = Dumbledore
Quirrel = Snape
Bree = Hogsmeade
But I think perhaps thats just because there's a goodie, a baddie, the goodie's best friend etc..in every good book!
But I know, there are a lot of similarities
smilies/confused.gif

Bill Ferny

12-01-2002, 08:26 AM

“Quirrel = Snape” –I don’t get that one.

We aren’t the only ones upset over this horrendous act of plagiarism!

At this very moment, those who adhere to the dictums of Lucasology are tuning up the plasma interfaces of their light sabres:

Luke Skywalker = Harry
R2D2/CP30 = Ron
Darth Vader = Voldemort
Obi Wan Kanobi = Dumbledore
Mos Isly = Hogsmeade

Of course, medieval literary scholars (who, incidentally, still argue that the spur and not the longbow was the most important pre-gunpowder innovation) are putting aside their reasoned responses to arguments that King Arthur was the anti-Christ to take up the chivalrous fight:

Author = Harry
Lancelot = Ron
Morgan le Fay = Voldemort
Merlin = Dumbledore
Camelot = Hogsmeade

I also heard that Shannara fans are just a hair upset, and have been busy repositioning their trebuchets (from the book critics) to take some shots at that vile English woman:

Shea/Wil/Brin Ohmsford = Harry
Skull Bearers = Dementors
The Warlock Lord = Voldemort
Allanon = Dumbledore
Shady Vale = Hogsmeade

Shakespearean thespians the world over have their buskins all askew:

Hamlet = Harry
Haratio = Ron
Claudius = Voldemort
Ophelia = Hermione
Denmark = Hogsmeade

But small are these in comparison is the wrath of the Trekers, who from convention to convention (where they still find time to scoff at the notion of magic and discuss the unlimited potential of warp technology) are putting aside the pointed ear thing with Peter Jackson to level their phasers against Harry Potter and his broomstick:

James T. Kirk = Harry
Bones = Ron
Khan = Voldemort
Spock = Dumbledore
The Enterprise = Hogwarts

Manwe Sulimo

12-01-2002, 08:42 AM

That's "Trekkies".

you cant compare HP and LOTR just because they have one main similarity. MAGIC! magic is in every fantasy book ever, but i dont see you all slaughtering other authours for using it.

There's no magic in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf's "magic" is equivalent to an archangel's powers. So, unless you think that (depending on your religion) God's servants use "magic", Tolkien is the only author who didn't use "magic" in his stories.

And, guys, lay off on the "stolen plot" thing....Tolkien created modern fantasy, so it's natural that every other modern fantasy story has Tolkien-istic elements in it smilies/smile.gif

Bill Ferny

12-01-2002, 08:50 AM

Sorry. Far be it from me to offend the sensibilities of those brave enough to dress as klingons in public!

Rosseiliantiel

12-01-2002, 09:45 AM

I read a book where the author uses 'Sirdan' and 'The Blue Havens'. Silly.
I can't remember what it's called.

-Imrahil-

12-01-2002, 11:02 AM

Agree Manwe. Tolkien never really had "magic" like Rowlings did. Hers was visible, Tolkien's was hidden, but you knew it was there.

LePetitChoux

12-01-2002, 02:49 PM

I was watching HP yesterday, and NOT enjoying it, but I noticed that the scene in the forest with Quirell is exactly like the scene at Weathertop! Harry runs away from a cloaket thing about to kill him, and trips over and falls! smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif smilies/eek.gif Freaky!

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: LePetitChoux ]

engwaalphiel

12-01-2002, 02:56 PM

mordor136

12-02-2002, 11:46 AM

Warning this is a non tolkien related post please don't delete it!I heard this funny talking about this Harry Potter script that had been illegally posted on the internet. Well I heard this guy in the background say,"Yea and you know what a few years ago there was this book that gave away the entire plot!" smilies/biggrin.gif

Thenamir

12-02-2002, 05:06 PM

Pssst! C'mon over here, I got some secret inside info on the Lord of the Rings movies. Here be spoilers, don't read if you don't want to know!

Gandalf comes back from the dead!

Frodo claims the ring, but Gollum bites his finger off to get it back, and falls into Mount Doom!

Oh, yeah -- Aragorn and Arwen get married, and Aragorn becomes king!

Strangely similar to a trilogy that was published back in the late 50's....

Lady_Artemis

12-03-2002, 07:08 AM

Wow Thenamir! Are you serious? Gandalf comes back from the dead!? Wow! Just kidding. I love spoiling the movies for those who haven't read the books yet. Its great fun. I always say, read the book before its a movie. Otherwise you will get lost in the book looking for events that either never occur or are in the wrong order. Hmmm, I wonder how many people had the movies ruined because of that little clip of sarcasm.... Hopefully not a lot. smilies/tongue.gif

Orofaniel

07-09-2003, 07:57 AM

Quite frankly how can there NOT be similarites that people will pick up on from LOTR and HP , JK Rowling would have been inspired by Tolkien (as were probably most fantasty writers recently). Harry Potter is a paving way for younger kids up to LOTR , its like a stepping stone. A very cliche point I know , it's probably been said i know but i just had to make the point.

Well, I totally agree with you. I also think that HP is not as "deep" as LOTR and Tolkien's books and that make them very different. (I think HP is not that "deep" because it is a children's book.)But at the same time simelar because I think Rowling was inspired by Tolkien.

I've read that many find Wormtail and Wormtounge very simelar indeed, because they are both traitors and the because of the name.....I agree here too. I see this as one of those inspirations Rowling got from Tolkien.

Lalaith

07-09-2003, 08:49 AM

Hate to say this, but Tolkien's Wormtongue was not the first. There was a 10th century Norse saga hero, Gunnlaugr Ormstunga (ie Wormtongue) he a poet at the court of the Norwegian king and well known for his cunning. Tolkien as an expert of that period would certainly have known about him...

Not sayiing Tolkien is a plagiarist, but he was inspired by a certain period of literature and history, and he makes use of time-honoured literary devices, just as Rowling does. I think the parallels drawn between the two authors are mostly quite spurious ones, due to the fact that they both happened to be made into movies at the same time.

Annalaliath

07-09-2003, 03:07 PM

Did anyone see the special on JK Rowling on PBS? It was last weekend I think. She did take alot of her stuff from legend. They(PBS) put alot of effort into looking into the story. Tolkien was not mentioned once. A Gray Lady was mentioned, and all and the possible connections. If you read HP you can see a few parrallels to LOTR but I realy could care less weather or not she was inspired by Tolkien. I like both authors and so there you have it. They both get the same respect, sometimes I will sit down and forget about homework till the book is done and others I just read when I have a spare momnet to breath in.

But all that is said in this thread is most likely debated else where. I don't think that Rowling should be compaired to Tolkien, I read both of them and come to the conclusion that they are similer yes, but still very diferant. So don't go out trying to find something that isn't there.

Wormtail and Wormtounge; Wormtail was a little discusting idot that pretened to be a rat for years. He was hiding from the inistry of magic, because he had killed some people and pinned it on Sirus Black. When he came out of this raty shape he was nothing but Voldemort's pet, it seems.He ended up sacraficing more than he planned for. Wormtounge was a bit more free thinking, he did what he was told, but he wasn't as snivliing as Wormtail. ( But when you tink about it I need to read the book again , it is all a haze) ....... More could be said but I will stop here.

[ July 09, 2003: Message edited by: Annalaliath ]

Noldorin King

07-09-2003, 05:13 PM

Well, there are indeed remarkable similarities between the two series but as for the story itself, there's not much. Tolkien is for much mature readers whereas Rowling has this charm to attract all people at any age. however, there is no point denying that she's also a Tolkien reader. Rowling was able to create a world not so unlike the real one and Tolkien had his own way in designing what we know as Arda

mrslegolastoyou

07-10-2003, 06:01 AM

what ever it is I don't likeHarry Potter because al it is is coping of LOTr and that ain't alowed in my book so I don't want to have anything to do with Harry Potter! By the way has anyone sen POTC

Bunko

07-10-2003, 09:53 AM

Another similarity is the saying

"him we do not name"

I aggree with the other posts that there are many similarities but both are totally different books. I personally prefer LOTR but HP is a good read as well, a bit more easy going

Annalaliath

07-10-2003, 11:12 AM

But you have to admit that the Dark Lords are very different. One keeps coming back while the other comes back and is defeated. Although, if you count Melkor then there is another. The Dark Lords in LOTR come back for a time but not over and over and over again like Voldemort.(funny my mom calls Wal- mart, Val-demort, I wonder why?) He is the chief nemesis in almost all the HP books, the new one has about 2 the Ministry of Magic and Him Who Must Not be Names....... But any way he keeps coming back and tries to kill Harry every time. Sauron and Melkor come back so that they can control Arda and all that is in it, perverting the beauty and stifling the inhabitants. This debate can go on for ever!

Aragost

07-10-2003, 11:43 AM

Gandalfs magic is eqivalent to an archangels power

wouldn't it be angels=maiar&archangels=valar

What do you mean Sauron only came back once?

Kates Frodo Temp

07-10-2003, 06:34 PM

I don't read HP, and don't want to. I know as little about it as is possible. But I do have something to contribute to this thread:

If an author write better than his contemporaries, they will term him a plagiarist; if as well, a pretender; but, if worse, he may stand some chance of commendation as a genius of some promise, from whom much may be expected, by a due attention to their good counsel and advice.
Colton

Now you're all sensible Tolkienites. Think about that quote, and stop criticizing writing in this manner. If the author writes badly, or writes that with which you do not agree, as he/she very well may, then you have grounds to complain, but stop this "stolen plot" nonsense!

~Kate's~

Esgallhugwen

07-11-2003, 07:05 PM

Why do people always have to bring up harry potter?? this is an LOR site if i'm not mistaken. I've never read the books or seen the movies and i don't intend to because it is not my cup of tea, i'm fine with the whole potter thing as lomg as people do not mention that it is better than LOR, because i must say that i do not feel that it is. The lady author was writting children's books although they were meant for "everyone" then some character is supposed to die in the phoenix that info she purposely leaked out to get more book sales by crazed kids and adults alike. Tolkien wasn't really interested in what other people thought because he had originally just wrote the histories and stories for his own leisure as many people do in their spare time; scribbling down parts of stories that pop into their heads or are parts of oringinal stories, for tolkien was fascinatied by words at a very young age thanks to his mother and he had a greater purpose to make a history like tale for his home country of Britain because it had no original story of it's own. But i also must admit that it is hard to find original material for a story these days, but author's are supposed to be imaginitive, so she should have tried to make her story have less conections then it has. If she was paying homage to tolkien does she write it somewhere in her books that she does? or has she ever admitted to it? Or has she taken those ideas to be her own? I do not want to start a war or words this is just my opinion and i am not dissing potter although i have no like for him. smilies/smile.gif

Tarien Ithil

07-12-2003, 04:26 AM

Palantir/Philosopher's Stone

I think Rowling only 'borrowed' ideas from Tolkien and changed them a bit, so it would be a little harsh saying she 'stole' ideas.

And, yes, tbis is a Tolkien site, but it wouldn't hurt to discuss the simaralities between LOTR and Harry Potter. smilies/smile.gif

Best,

Tarien

Iarwain

07-12-2003, 06:07 PM

Rowling has taken elements from all sorts of fantasy novels. Harry is a collection of general experience, from the classical dragon to the unheard of boggart (sp?). It really doesn't seem that she specifically borrowed from Tolkien any more than she did from Dickens. That's all.

Iarwain

Tarien Ithil

07-13-2003, 05:09 AM

Yes, Rowling certainly used her vivid imagination and used classic fairy-tale myths and transformed them into something original.

But may I disagree with you, Iarwain (politely). I do think Rowling has somehow 'borrowed' soem of Tolkien's ideas and turned them into her own perception. smilies/smile.gif

Best.

Tarien

Adastrea

07-13-2003, 08:34 AM

I can see some similarities...but then who can't with the majority of fantasy? Both JKR JRRT have drawn on myth and legend to create their stories. But I don't compare the two. I look on LOTR as adult fiction and HP as childrens though the latest was much darker.

I guess though I am an Avid LOTR fan (and yes I like it more than HP) I wanted to point out a few of the parallels I have drawn.

For starters my sig below. while studying at Oxford University, JRRT came in touch with the poem "the Crist of Cynewulf". Tolkien was especially fascinated by the cryptic couplet: Eálá Earendel engla beorhtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended - "Hail Earendel, brightest of angels, over Middle Earth sent to men ". This poem positively inspired him. To state the sil charcter derived from this isn't really necessary! Strong links to norse and Irish myth can be found. Just look at the Tuatha Dé Danann: Imortal, beyond the beauty of man, came in white ships-need I say more. Le Morte D'Arthur has already been mentioned but I have come across a character in there called Balin. Oh and a bit of trivia a bilbo is an iron bar used to secure prisoners shackles!

I remember their being a reference to Rangers in C.S.Lewis' Silver Chair...

Basically I love LOTR both books and their basis in myth only makes them more enjoyabe giving them a tight anchor in your subconcious. But one thing I do not see JRRT as a racist facist! Attacking the authors personally is just a childish tactic. Both had a dream they shared, both dreams mean different things to different people. Thats the beauty of the human mind not everyone sees the same thing the same way smilies/smile.gif

Oh I heard of Boggarts before they turn milk sour stuff like that smilies/smile.gifHelpful aren't they!

Annalaliath

07-13-2003, 12:31 PM

If you start to hate HP and JKR because she used old mythology, Greek and some old ghost stories and such, then you have to put Tolkien down just to be fair. They both were inspired by legend and history, and JKR was probably also inspired by JRRT.

What I am trying to say is before you cast the first stone, do your homework. It is not a nice thing to say that someone is a plagiarist. If you don't like it like I don't like Romance or most mystery, I am not talking to you. But those who are flaming JKR should rethink and read her books, and then do some research and then if the evidence points to plagiarism, go for it. But from the spot where I sit, having read all the books, I see nothing to be upset about.

And yes Bogarts are evil little fairies. All fairies are according to my Field guide to Irish fairies.

Aragost

07-13-2003, 01:38 PM

Rowling only 'borrowed' ideas from Tolkien

Like she will reaturn them.

Tarien Ithil

07-17-2003, 07:15 AM

Well, she can't exactly return them, because her books have been published and everything, so I guess all we can do is list all the similarities between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.

BTW: Don't any of you think C.S Lewis's work and Tolkien's are somwhat similar? Just a thought.

Daisy Brambleburr

07-19-2003, 06:45 AM

Nobodys ideas are completely original. Just like Tolkien took his ideas from Beowulf etc Rowling probably found her ideas from lots of different sources. There are bound to be similarities, because it's the fantasy genre and lots of things relate to each other. For instance, some people say that Gandalf and Dumbledore are similar. They are just traditional images of wizards that so many people have used. Rowling is playing off the stereotypical image of wizards and witches. Except for Gandalf, Tokien doesn't. he created a totally different place from the world that Rowling created. Of course, you could argue that she copied the lesser known 'Worst Witch' books. But I think that the Harry Potter books and Lord of the Rings are very different and I like them both.
Sorry if I repeted anyones points, but I don't have time to read the whole entire topic. Just thought I'd chip in my 2 cents!

Frodo2968thewhite

07-20-2003, 09:36 AM

HOW TRUE!

Orofaniel

07-23-2003, 04:54 AM

Wormtail and Wormtounge; Wormtail was a little discusting idot that pretened to be a rat for years. He was hiding from the inistry of magic, because he had killed some people and pinned it on Sirus Black. When he came out of this raty shape he was nothing but Voldemort's pet, it seems.He ended up sacraficing more than he planned for. Wormtounge was a bit more free thinking, he did what he was told, but he wasn't as snivliing as Wormtail. ( But when you tink about it I need to read the book again , it is all a haze) ....... More could be said but I will stop here.

When I mentioned Wormtounge and Wormatail, I meant that the names were very simelar. And that they both are "bad guys". I know that thye have different stories and stuff...

Lord of Angmar

07-24-2003, 11:43 AM

Personally, and please do not stone me to death for this, I loathe the Harry Potter series. The writing, while it has gotten better since the juvenile and awkward composition of the book, has never seemed anywhere near up to par with the great fantasy classics (Lord of the Rings, Out of the Silent Planet, etc.).

That being said, I do not think it can be compared with Professor Tolkien's works, and, although it may have derived some of its ideas and names from those of Lord of the Rings, what fantasy novel in the last 4 decades hasn't? Furthermore, Harry Potter is a children's book. It was designed to appeal to and has an obvious target audience of children, from the cover of the book to the characters on its pages. The Lord of the Rings was never meant to cater to children (except, that is, when it was first conceived as a sequel to the hobbit). The writing is moodier, more mature and more linguistically sound, and the characters are vastly different (except for Dumbledore, who I believe is the only real direct rip-off of Lord of the Rings). I do not really think any logical comparisons can be drawn between them other than they are both works of fantasy, and basic ideas and character traits are expressed (in different ways, mind you) in both series.

Orofaniel

07-24-2003, 02:38 PM

I agree with you, that's all I've got to say.....for now anyway... smilies/biggrin.gif

Iarwain

07-25-2003, 03:31 PM

Adding to my last post, I didn't say that Rowling didn't borrow from Dickens. In fact, we can (forcefully) compare Potter to Oliver Twist and David Copperfield. Perhaps that's going too far. Oh well, goodbye.

Iarwain

alatar

08-26-2010, 08:02 PM

Nerwen

08-26-2010, 09:13 PM

It's taken years, but I'd finally put down my animosity towards the Harry Potter series. I've liked the movies, and the Lego video game looks cute, but the books...well...there's an ugly history there that I'd rather not revisit.

So I've started reading the series, comparing what I read to the movies, and to, of course, Lord of the Rings. What was striking to me (and possibly in a post somewhere in the billion within this thread) is how HP:The Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone ends much like FotR. Harry/Frodo wake up after facing the enemy, in a bed, with a wizard at his side recounting what happened just before our hero blacks out. I read the chapter with Harry lying in the Hogwart's hospital and couldn't help but see Frodo in Rivendell with Gandalf at his side.

Coincidence?

More than that, probably: Tolkien's influenced so much of later fantasy, so why not this? That's not quite the same as saying the plot was "stolen", though. I've read things that do copy The Lord of the Rings directly, and there's a difference.

Also, as this guy (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=48457&postcount=80) points out, you can draw comparisons between the HP novels and a lot of other things too.

That poster is being funny, of course, but in fact I do have a problem with the HP books being generally a bit derivative (rather than straight rip-offs of any one thing). It's not that Rowling uses elements that appear in other stories, it's that I've never found what she does with them all that interesting. That's just my personal reaction, of course. I know they caught a lot of kids'– and even adults'– imaginations.

Btw, as I've said elsewhere, it's always fun when someone unearths one of these prehistoric threads. The Downers of the First Age certainly had quite a lively debating style:

This is a message for tumil about the Hogwarts moto.
BASCIALLY to stop me from screaming at you all, im gonna keep this as short as possible.
JKR did classics at A level and i think even at UNI
Srsly? UNI?!! NOES!!!111:eek:

the motto means never tickle a sleeping dragon
very funny and very dumbledoreish
like the rest of them books
that has NOTHING to do with tolkien, cause im sure he would NEVER use something so humourous.
Nope. As we all know, Tolkien never used any line remotely like that, anywhere.

dont get me wrong, i love LoTR and tolkien is an amazing writer, but he isnt for children so he wouldnt use that, JKR is!
What, Tolkien write a childrens' book? The very idea!

and also about you all thinking that dumbledore is gandalf. why dont u realise that gandalf is merlin!
Oh.

anyway im gonna go now, but u all better go home and do your homework before preaching about tolkien being the one god.
because even though his books r great, he wasnt amazing. he was a racist facist little old man. think about it. the orcs, evil and black, come from the same place that africa would be if you compared the two maps of our world and middle earth.
now u cant say thats a coincidence!
ha!
i have proved u all wrong! mwhahahahaha!
(with thanks to my equally angry friend, izzie!)
mwhahahahahahaha
byeeee
dont hate me just cause im right
Well, how can one possibly counter such a devastating argument as that?

*sigh* Darn it, I why didn't I join the Downs eight years ago? Everyone's so staid and literate these days!

Note: seriously, most of the thread is not like that at all.

alatar

08-27-2010, 03:45 AM

Nerwen

08-27-2010, 05:24 AM

Grima Wormtongue is called thus as no one, with the exception of the bewitched Theoden, likes his slithering ways and constant lying. Peter Pettigrew Wormtail, a rat in more ways than one, is named thus as...:confused:

One nick seems natural; the other forced.

And I'm not even going to mention anything about a certain person going into hiding after losing a finger. :o

Okay, that's a point. "Wormtail" is an obvious... er... reference, let us say. And as you say, it doesn't quite work.

Not sure about the missing finger. It may be simply that Rowling wanted to include the old tradition that a shapeshifter's injuries persist from one form to another, and just happened to pick "missing digit" as the telltale mutilation, when it could as easily have been a torn ear, or something.

alatar

08-27-2010, 06:30 AM

Okay, that's a point. "Wormtail" is an obvious... er... reference, let us say. And as you say, it doesn't quite work.
So at least it's not just me.

Not sure about the missing finger. It may be simply that Rowling wanted to include the old tradition that a shapeshifter's injuries persist from one form to another, and just happened to pick "missing digit" as the telltale mutilation, when it could as easily have been a torn ear, or something.
Two fingers could have worked even better to fool the MoM of Pettigrew's death, but no, we need to leave nine...

Bet it was his Ring finger. :D

Nerwen

08-27-2010, 07:53 AM

So at least it's not just me.

Two fingers could have worked even better to fool the MoM of Pettigrew's death, but no, we need to leave nine...

Bet it was his Ring finger. :D
It's a long time since I read any of the HP books, but according to various internet sources I just checked it, it's his index finger. Which is extremely strange considering he was at liberty to pick any finger to sacrifice.

Anyway, the parallel is hardly unique. One of Lloyd Alexander's Prydein novels has an evil wizard named Morda who cuts off his own finger (the little finger, because he had a tad more common sense than Wormtail) pours his life-force into it to render himself immortal, and dies when it's destroyed.

So working out what's coincidence, what's imitation, and exactly who's copying who isn't that easy.

alatar

08-27-2010, 08:00 AM

So working out what's coincidence, what's imitation, and exactly who's copying who isn't that easy.
You clearly need to be more biased and conspiratorial. ;):D

Rumil

08-27-2010, 11:33 AM

Goodness me, this is an old thread!

Maybe one day I'll figure out what I was trying to say about sleeping dragons!

HP versus LoTR is a bit of an unnecessary fight in my opinion. Both use traditional archetypical characters, eg Gandalf/Dumbledore/Merlin/Obi Wan Kenobi, and plots - orphan saves world from ultimate baddy, so its not that surprising that similarities emerge. Baddies - Nazgul and Dementors - are dark shadowy figures, but so are traditional ghosts, ghouls etc, and bright yellow figures just don't fit as bad-guys!

Maybe this is one of the reasons that both books are so accessible?

But the differences are marked as well, JRRT was far more interested in philology, landscape and history and the broad sweep of time and story in his sub-created world. Rowling grafts the fantasy on top of the familiar muggle world that we all know, and is more concerned with feelings and relationships. Tolkien rarely if ever says what his characters are feeling, we get to know them through their words and deeds. Rowling, in common with most modern authors, explicitly shows what Harry is feeling, a very different approach. She also draws on traditional boarding school stories (going right back to the Victorian 'Tom Brown's Schooldays') as much if not more than Fantasy.

For me, there's room for both on my shelf, but it's the Tolkien that I'd save from a house fire by a long way!

Nerwen

08-28-2010, 07:28 PM

Oh, hello, "tumil"!

Goodness me, this is an old thread!

Maybe one day I'll figure out what I was trying to say about sleeping dragons!

Just that the Latin motto on the Hogwarts crest (Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus) is probably inspired by "Never laugh at live dragons".

I'm sure JK Rowling put these snippets in to pay homage to the great man.

Which is an important distinction– authors can put in those kind of minor references as a tribute. If the line appeared as dialogue in a quest fantasy starring a little person, that might qualify as theft.

So I don't know why that particular post sent the Potter fangirl bananas, actually. Incidentally, I'm rather curious as to where the young lady got all her theories about Merlin and fascism from, since I'm pretty sure she was bluffing about having read "Lord of the Rings".

Inziladun

08-28-2010, 09:48 PM

This is indeed an interesting thread.

I started reading the HP books around 2003, mainly because my wife had read them, and I found myself conscripted to go with her and see the movies. ;)
I was surprised to find myself enjoying them, though it got a bit predictable by the time Books 6 and 7 rolled around.

Tolkien rarely if ever says what his characters are feeling, we get to know them through their words and deeds. Rowling, in common with most modern authors, explicitly shows what Harry is feeling, a very different approach.

That's a good observation. Rowling certainly does spend a lot time explaining thoughts and motivations. But, to be fair, she really only does it with Harry.

Tolkien does that some too though, doesn't he? Frodo and Sam come to mind. Frodo, in pretty much the first half of FOTR, and Sam in ROTK.
Not to mention Bilbo in The Hobbit. But there are certainly differences in the ways the information is presented to the reader from one author to the other.

For me, there's room for both on my shelf, but it's the Tolkien that I'd save from a house fire by a long way!

A nice summary! Rowling doesn't have the narrative or linguistic chops to stand with Tolkien at the end of the day (I'd never have spent ten years hanging around a J.K.Rowling forum!), but the HP books are pleasant enough for what they are.

Galadriel

08-29-2010, 01:31 AM

Oh wow this thing is older than an Egyptian coffin. I frankly feel Rowling DID rip off a few things, but not exactly the entire plot. Also, I don't find Dobby and Gollum all that similar. But Old Man Willow and than strange Whomping Willow are too alike for my liking :p Not to mention Gandalf and Dumbledore.
Then again, most contemporary fantasy authors have, either consciously or unconsciously, ripped something off LotR.

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

08-29-2010, 02:06 PM

For myself, HP and the works of Tolkien were different in one very profound way: Rowling was telling a story. Tolkien was attempting to create a mythology. The depth of thought and work that goes into the latter runs far deeper, IMHO — and it was something I appreciated even when I first read LotR at age 11, back in the mid 1960s. I still appreciate it today. HP didn't work for me the first time I read the word "muggle." But to explain all the whys and wherefores would take more energy than I have at the moment (and possibly take years and cost millions of lives :D).

As to the person with the venomous "I'm right" attitude — alas, I've seen that so often over the years, it's something I've come to expect the minute someone begins any discussion comparing one thing to another. "My current favorite fandom, right or wrong (and next week, I'll have a new fave and be dumping just as viciously on what I'm defending today)" is an attitude that apparently grew quite common with the expansion of a media-oriented culture.

Rowling borrowed from Tolkien. So did Terry Brooks and Stephen Donaldson and a lot of other writers. Where the line between homage and rip-off lies is always vague, but is usually a question of how much of the work is "borrowed," and the amount of original thought the author put into it. *

All IMHO, as ever.

Lalaith

09-05-2010, 02:53 PM

The Downs have become more literate over the years, that's for sure. Some of the spelling, punctuation and syntax back there...*shudder*

alatar

09-05-2010, 07:21 PM

By the by, note that I am not accusing Rowlings of anything sinister or untoward. I just happened to be reading 'Stone' and noticed that Harry woke up to a bedside Wizard that was able to fill us all in on the last scene.

The HP books are cute, readable, though having read books 1-4 I'm starting to get a little irked at some of the typecasting (i.e. character X always does this). Then again, the Silmarillion has its repetitions...

wilwarin538

09-13-2010, 07:16 AM

It's a long time since I read any of the HP books, but according to various internet sources I just checked it, it's his index finger. Which is extremely strange considering he was at liberty to pick any finger to sacrifice.

I recently watched the 6th film, and they made it his right hand ring finger for the movie. I found that quite funny. And it is strange he'd pick that finger, losing a pinky makes far more sense. ;)

Morsul the Dark

09-13-2010, 05:08 PM

Everyone seems to draw the link between Dumbledore and Gandalf.

I disagree that Dumbledore is too close to Gandalf for comfort, well rather agree and disagree.

They are extremely similar no doubt, however they both fill an Archetype. Merlin and his apprentice, certainly come to mind.

Galadriel

09-21-2010, 11:23 AM

The Downs have become more literate over the years, that's for sure. Some of the spelling, punctuation and syntax back there...*shudder*

That, I am afraid, just reminds me of bad fan fiction T_T

alatar

12-17-2010, 12:26 PM

What about this
Faramir in TTT named Sauron as The one who we do not name and in HP they call whats his name the one who should not be named, and also how many times do it give refrence to Sauron changing shape to fit his needs, IE werewolf, and this is used by that bag guy in Hp also
I too found it interesting that both Rowling and Tolkien use the 'he whom we do not name' nomenclature for the bad guy.

Why this today? I've been reading the following:

It was in the lap of ignorance, in the season of alarm, in the bosom of calamity, that mankind ever formed his first notions of the Divinity. From hence it is obvious that his ideas on this subject are to be suspected, that his notions are in a great measure false, that they are always afflicting. Indeed, upon whatever part of our sphere we cast our eyes, whether it be upon the frozen climates of the north, upon the parching regions of the south, or under the more temperate zones, we every where behold the people when assailed by misfortunes, have either made to themselves national gods, or else have adopted those which have been given them by their conquerors; before these beings, either of their own creation or adoption, they have tremblingly prostrated themselves in the hour of calamity, soliciting relief; have ignorantly attributed to blocks of stone, or to men like themselves, those natural effects which were above their comprehension; the inhabitants of many nations, not contented with the national gods, made each to himself one or more gods, which he supposed presided exclusively over his own household, from whom he supposed he derived his own peculiar happiness, to whom he attributed all his domestic misfortunes. The idea of these powerful agents, these supposed distributors of good and evil, was always associated with that of terror; their name was never pronounced without recalling to man's wind either his own particular calamities or those of his fathers. In many places man trembles at this day, because his progenitors have trembled for thousands of years past. The thought of his gods always awakened in man the most afflicting ideas. If he recurred to the source of his actual fears, to the commencement of those melancholy impressions that stamp themselves in his mind when their name is announced, he would find it in the conflagrations, in the revolutions, in those extended disasters, that have at various times destroyed large portions of the human race; that overwhelmed with dismay those miserable beings who escaped the destruction of the earth; these in transmitting to posterity, the tradition of such afflicting events, have also transmitted to him their fears; have delivered down to their successors, those gloomy ideas which their bewildered imaginations, coupled with their barbarous ignorance of natural causes, had formed to them of the anger of their irritated gods, to which their alarm falsely attributed these sweeping disasters. (emphasis mine)

As we can see above, not naming something was a way of hiding from destructive forces. Faramir, I assume, did not name Sauron as it might have been thought to bring the attention of the Eye. Inhabitants of Harry Potter's world do not say Voldemort's name as, I assume, it may bring evil.

Is there a word that, today in RL, you do not speak as you feel that, by naming it, you bring about misfortune?

Inziladun

12-17-2010, 01:28 PM

Is there a word that, today in RL, you do not speak as you feel that, by naming it, you bring about misfortune?

The terror that is GaGa. ;)

Morthoron

12-17-2010, 01:47 PM

The terror that is GaGa. ;)

Now you've gone and done it!

*awaits the apocalypse*

Galadriel55

12-17-2010, 03:11 PM

Aside from the similarities already mentioned, there is one that really jumped out at me when I read HP1. That random centaur, Firenze, who saves Harry in the Forbidden Forest plays exactly Gildor's role. Even the dialogue is similar. Then, you can't destory Sauron without destroying the Ring, in which he put a good chunk of his power; you can't destroy Voldemort without destroying the Horcruxes, which contain his soul. Btw, I heard that some JRRT fan sued Rowling for this one :). And Aragog is an exact copy of Shelob.

Aiwendil

12-17-2010, 03:20 PM

And Aragog is an exact copy of Shelob.

Only not so evil . . .

alatar

12-17-2010, 03:28 PM

Only not so evil . . .
HP - LotR for kids? ;)

Galadriel55

12-17-2010, 03:37 PM

HP - LotR for kids? ;)

Sort of. I like LOTR WAAAY better. In LOTR feelings=emotions, in HP, feelings=facts. simple enough for kids, but very boring for people like e. What surprises me about HP, though, is that I know many "almost-adults" completely nuts about it. :rolleyes:

Galadriel55

12-17-2010, 06:32 PM

xMellrynxMaidenx

12-18-2010, 08:03 PM

Also, HP is action action action. Most of the "interesting parts" are the ones with action, and when there isn't that much of it, the book just sounds soooo boring and tedious. On the other hand, when you read LOTR, even though action is involved, its by far not the most important thing. The book isn't based on action, but JRRT used some action to illustrate some ideas. And the parts without any action are just as good, and carry just as many (if not more) messages.

I would have to disagree. HP isn't just "action, action, action," it's composed of other things as well. Feelings=facts? Hardly, there's emotion in there too, there's TONS of it. You have to read book 1-7 to see it all though. I quite enjoy the lore of the HP world as much as I do LotR's. What's "interesting" to you, won't be to someone else, so opinions will vary on "the 'interesting parts' are the ones with action". I love the wizarding world of Harry Potter and have since I was a child. I'll admit there are things in it that are similar IE the Whomping Willow and Old Man Willow, the Nazgul and Dementors, Wormtongue and Wormtail,Shelob/Aragog and the effects the locket of Regulus Black had on the wearer (even then the effects were different, the locket made people feel angry, while the One Ring made them feel...greed, perhaps?).

You can't compare Voldemort to Sauron because books set in the fantasy world usually tend to have a "Dark Lord". But that really doesn't mean she stole anything from JRRT, I mean honestly, how many of you have actually created something and then a few days later you find that someone else has an idea very similar to yours and is writing about it. Are you going to jump to conclusions and shout plagiarism? What if that person has never even read what you first created? No doubt if you go to other fantasy themed books you'll find smaller or larger similarities to Tolkien's works.

JK was influenced by MacBeth, the Iliad, the Pardoner's Tale from the Canterbury Tales, Chronicles of Narnia, etc. She even gives props to Tolkien in an interview saying how he created a whole new mythology, something in which she never could have hoped to accomplish.

Other than that her books are NOTHING like the Lord of the Rings. I love both series and think both to be brilliant writers.

Galadriel55

12-18-2010, 08:12 PM

I've read all the HP books, and still I insist that there are a lot of similarities. But yes, Mellyrn's right about the fact that they are different. Their ideas are different, but there are many physical similarities. What do you think of this comproise? ;)

xMellrynxMaidenx

12-18-2010, 08:24 PM

I think it seems fair enough ;)

The fact of the matter is, no matter what you'll have some of us who will still love the series despite the similarities and then there's some that won't like it. Just a matter of preference, really. The same goes for any series, really.

xMellrynxMaidenx

12-18-2010, 08:31 PM

Is there a word that, today in RL, you do not speak as you feel that, by naming it, you bring about misfortune?

Twilight.

I call it the Series That Shall Not Be Named, in my house. Of course, my mother doesn't find it the least bit amusing. :p

Galadriel55

12-18-2010, 09:33 PM

no matter what you'll have some of us who will still love the series despite the similarities and then there's some that won't like it. Just a matter of preference, really. The same goes for any series, really.
(bolding mine)

I am not a big fan of HP, but not because of its similarities to LOTR. Without comparing it to anything, its not really a book that I'd be nuts about. And yes, it really depends on which book you personally prefer. hopefully we won't get any arguments about that from anyone! :)

alatar

12-20-2010, 01:41 PM

Sort of. I like LOTR WAAAY better. In LOTR feelings=emotions, in HP, feelings=facts. simple enough for kids, but very boring for people like e. What surprises me about HP, though, is that I know many "almost-adults" completely nuts about it.
Almost adults!?! :D

I'm not nearly nuts about HP; however, I do find them an entertaining and enjoyable read.

The movies are far better than the LotR ones, though now that I've read the HP books, I can see where the directors made changes that might have angered the fans.

But LotR will still be my favorite.

And similarities can always be found between any two items - that's the beauty of cloud watching and Rorschach ink blots.

But anyway, I can understand Tolkien building on the older custom of not naming 'evil,' but Rowling's world is somewhat contemporaneous with ours, so...

Galadriel55

12-22-2010, 10:40 AM

For lack of a better word I said "almost adults", meaning people around their 20s. Their too old to be teenagers, but too young to be adults.
I was probably a bit harsh when I said that feelings=facts in HP; they are close to, though, in my opinion. HP just doesn't leave that kind of message that Tolkien does. For example, sometimes when I wanna refrain myself from doing something bad, I say "don't be a Celegorm" (since he annoys me the most), but I never say something like "don't be a Kreacher". The books simpy have a very different effect on me. HP is addicting but not as deep as Tolkien's books. Its just like... once you read Tolkien, it's part of you; HP remains a book. Its's just not as strong.
And again, this is my opinion; you might say otherwise. :p

Hurray! It's my 500th post!

alatar

01-10-2011, 09:06 AM

Galadriel55

01-10-2011, 05:11 PM

Well, if Rowling really copied it to that extend, she'd be sued for copyright. :p
It's very hard to make a story that doesn't resemble even a little bit some other author's book. And sometimes you unintentionally "copy" things. Many a time I've caught myself rewriting a scene or using a quote from some book when doing creative writing in English class. If I really think about it, I can detect "Tolkien scenes/characters" in almost any book I've read. So, personally, I forgive JKR for stealing some ideas from JRRT. ;)

Galadriel

01-11-2011, 12:52 AM

Well, if Rowling really copied it to that extend, she'd be sued for copyright.

True that :p But either way, I don't think she's ripped it off. I just think she's done a slightly clichéd fantasy: the search of a magical object, to be found by a 'chosen' person.

Galadriel

01-11-2011, 01:01 AM

Galadriel55

01-11-2011, 06:16 AM

It is mostly opinion, but HP does seem to remain a children's book after all. The problem is that HP fans keep ON arguing that it is literature and it is possibly one of the most deep books ever written. That gets me annoyed.

Deep books? Deep books?! That had me laughing my head off for about 10 minutes!
Apologies to all HP fans; I couldn't help it

alatar

01-11-2011, 09:33 AM

Depth is relative.

Galadriel

01-12-2011, 02:30 AM

Deep books? Deep books?! That had me laughing my head off for about 10 minutes!
Apologies to all HP fans; I couldn't help it

Believe it or not, my best friend didn't talk to me for two days because I said HP wasn't literature :eek:

Galadriel

01-12-2011, 02:31 AM

Twilight.

I call it the Series That Shall Not Be Named, in my house. Of course, my mother doesn't find it the least bit amusing. :p

HAHA! Series That Shall Not Be Named! I salute to you!

Morthoron

01-12-2011, 08:49 AM

I'm halfway through "The Deathly Hallows," and it's even more obvious that HP and LotR have very little in common.

Dumbledore is not Gandalf. Gandalf only exits the stage for a short time, and returns after Moria to lead the forces of good.
Harry is not Frodo. Even though Elijah Wood (in the movies) makes Frodo appear younger, Frodo is middle aged. Harry, on the other hand, is just 17 (at the oldest) and is at times as silly as teenagers come (sorry to all you teens; note that we all go through that stage, even me).
Frodo had a goal. He knows that he has to get the ring to the fire, and so heads towards Mordor as best as he can. Harry knows that he's to find and destroy the horcruxes, and defeat Voldemort, not isn't sure how, or where any are, or much of anything. Harry and Hermione spend some of the first half of the book, simply wandering around at random (to avoid being found) while awaiting for something to happen that may allow them to make progress towards their goal.
Ron isn't Sam. And neither Hermione nor Ron are Gollum.
Harry et al have a tent. :D

Rowlings admitted to lifting the essence of the Dumbledore and Harry characters from T.H. White's The Once and Future King. I am utterly too lazy and disinterested in this discussion to actually find the interview, but her 2 characters do indeed bear a remarkable resemblance to White's Merlin and Wart, particularly from the first section of the book, The Sword in the Stone.

The orphaned Wart may have had a more kindlier guardian/adopted father in Sir Ector, but his circumstances as a second-class son to Kay are the same as Potter, as is the absent-minded Merlin's tutelage and interest in Wart comparable to Dumbledore/Potter.

alatar

11-29-2011, 09:03 PM

On the other hand...

Read the Deathly Hallows, but the second installment of the movie is more in my mind. Snape, in a pensieve flashback, accuses Dumbledore of keeping Harry alive just long enough to be killed/sacrificed at the right moment, when Voldemort would be at his weakest. Snape, rightfully or no, states that Dumbledore does not care for Harry, and sees the Headmaster only thinking of the Potter as a pawn to be used/thrown away in a larger game.

Couldn't Gandalf be so accused, helping Frodo along the way to Mordor, knowing that most likely he would not survive the quest?

Inziladun

11-30-2011, 06:27 AM

Read the Deathly Hallows, but the second installment of the movie is more in my mind. Snape, in a pensieve flashback, accuses Dumbledore of keeping Harry alive just long enough to be killed/sacrificed at the right moment, when Voldemort would be at his weakest. Snape, rightfully or no, states that Dumbledore does not care for Harry, and sees the Headmaster only thinking of the Potter as a pawn to be used/thrown away in a larger game.

Couldn't Gandalf be so accused, helping Frodo along the way to Mordor, knowing that most likely he would not survive the quest?

One could take the view that Gandalf was calculating and manipulative, and as Saruman said, holding his "tools" until their task was done, then dropping them.

Gandalf certainly thought along the lines of another wise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA&feature=related) individual, however.

Also, I think it's noteworthy that both Dumbledore and Gandalf allow themselves to be sacrificed for the greater good, affirming their true belief in their respective causes.

Galadriel55

11-30-2011, 05:22 PM

I don't like comparing Gandalf to Dumbledore. Even though they have a similar "mentor" task/role and do many similar things (uch as sacrifice themselves), and even look somewhat alike - but to me they are completely different characters.

One thing that contributes to that opinion is that Gandalf is initially good, wise, etc, and Dumbledore is quite the opposite until he sees the error of his ways. I am not saying that either one is better, but I can't say that comming in to the world with wisdom and missing becoming a Voldemort by a milimeter is not the same thing.

Moreover, although both like a good laugh, Dumbledore overdoes it a bit. Gandalf always has a wise word in his pocket, even for the fattest of hobbits. Dumbledore is sometimes a bit... nuts. I cannot see Gandalf saying half the things Dumbledore said, or did. Gandalf wouldn't accept Dumbledore's position in the first place, but that's something beside the point. Dumbledore sometimes gets plain silly. It's possible that this rift is there because of the different perspectives: teenagers vs sometimes immature, though grown up hobbits.

Gandalf has a much more serious personality, but with less hidden twists and turns (just ask Rita Skeeter).

One could take the view that Gandalf was calculating and manipulative, and as Saruman said, holding his "tools" until their task was done, then dropping them.

I would disagree. Dumbledore still had that hidden streak of greed/selfishness in him. Gandalf did not have it from the start. I see his motivation for defeating Voldemort as a partially personal one. Then, about the "tools", Gandalf told Frodo exactly what he was going for, whereas Dumbledore kept a lot quiet. In fact, he kept secret from Harry the most impotant part - that Harry carries a piece of Voldemort's soul with him.

You could argue that this makes Dumbledore a much interesting character to analyse. I think that he's just different. Too different to say better or worse.

and sees the Headmaster only thinking of the Potter as a pawn to be used/thrown away in a larger game.

Gandalf sees himself as one of the pieces too - perhaps not a pawn, but something like a bishop.

Inziladun

11-30-2011, 07:46 PM

I would disagree. Dumbledore still had that hidden streak of greed/selfishness in him. Gandalf did not have it from the start. I see his motivation for defeating Voldemort as a partially personal one. Then, about the "tools", Gandalf told Frodo exactly what he was going for, whereas Dumbledore kept a lot quiet. In fact, he kept secret from Harry the most impotant part - that Harry carries a piece of Voldemort's soul with him.

When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.

Gandalf sees himself as one of the pieces too - perhaps not a pawn, but something like a bishop.

Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron. Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.

Galadriel55

11-30-2011, 09:01 PM

When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.

But on the other other other (?) hand, you could say that he only does it because it personally affects him. He doesn't work for the whole world of GOOD, he works for himself.

And on the yet another hand, one could say that Gandalf is a pretty boring character compared to the multi-sided Dumbledore. Not my own opinion either, but it could be.

And on the hand that I didn't mention yet, one could argue that Dumbledore is not a "proper" mentor.

And the only question left is how many octopi is it needed to give enough hands. :rolleyes:

Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron.

But at the same time he's the opposite. He's still one of the chess pieces, even if it is the queen and not a pawn. He is both above and within the game.

Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.

And that he did, disregarding his sense of rightness more than once.

I think I'm just agruing for the sake or arguing here, because really I agree with you.

Pitchwife

12-01-2011, 07:13 PM

And the only question left is how many octopi is it needed to give enough hands.
Octopodes.

In terms of lying/not telling the whole truth, we might say Dumbledore is modelled more on Star Wars' Obi-wan Kenobi than on Gandalf - although I'd say Obi-wan himself (at least in the first trilogy, disregarding the prequels) was modelled on Gandalf to some degree.

It's interesting that all three characters sacrificed themselves at some point of the story; and I think it's safe to say that in all three of them the sacrifice was based on the knowledge that death is not the end, there's something else involved (the Force/King's Cross*/Eru's providence).

*Speaking of which, does anybody else think that Rowling's choice of that chapter title might have to do with something else than Harry associating the intermediate afterlife with the station of that name? Especially as Harry has just sacrificed himself for his friends and, as we learn in the following chapter, thus earned them the same protection against Voldemort his mother gave him, in other words redeemed them from evil?

Galadriel55

12-01-2011, 07:36 PM

Octopodes.

Yes. That.

*Speaking of which, does anybody else think that Rowling's choice of that chapter title might have to do with something else than Harry associating the intermediate afterlife with the station of that name? Especially as Harry has just sacrificed himself for his friends and, as we learn in the following chapter, thus earned them the same protection against Voldemort his mother gave him, in other words redeemed them from evil?

I never really thought about the name, but it's an interesting idea. I thought - and think - that the fact that it's a station is enough for a symbolic idea. It's not afterlife yet, but the point at which you choose to take the train, or to go back home (aka let go of your life, or continue living).

Although the analogy you talked about doesn't leave much question about it, I really don't want to look at HP as another Christian creation. It's messy enough already just as fiction.

Nerwen

12-01-2011, 08:39 PM

In terms of lying/not telling the whole truth, we might say Dumbledore is modelled more on Star Wars' Obi-wan Kenobi than on Gandalf - although I'd say Obi-wan himself (at least in the first trilogy, disregarding the prequels) was modelled on Gandalf to some degree.

Well, you know, in all this talk of Harry Potter being "stolen" from Tolkien, I don't think anyone's mentioned that the phrase "join the Dark Side" occurs in the very first book. Now there's stealing for you!:eek:

Seriously– my own reservations about the HP series have nothing to do with (supposed) theft. It's more that I think Rowling's pretty limited as a writer, and that the ambitiousness of the later books only serves to highlight this. Obviously the real fans aren't going to agree with me here, but I just feel she ends up biting off more than she can chew.

Galadriel55

12-01-2011, 08:46 PM

Seriously– my own reservations about the HP series have nothing to do with (supposed) theft. It's more that I think Rowling's pretty limited as a writer, and that the ambitiousness of the later books only serves to highlight this. Obviously the real fans aren't going to agree with me here, but I just feel she ends up biting off more than she can chew.

100% agreed.

(no, I won't start a rant listing the HP series' faults)

blantyr

12-02-2011, 04:54 AM

Although the analogy you talked about doesn't leave much question about it, I really don't want to look at HP as another Christian creation. It's messy enough already just as fiction.

My sister generously loaned me a book a while back, God and Harry Potter at Yale: Teaching Faith and Fantasy Fiction In An Ivy League Classroom (http://www.amazon.com/God-Harry-Potter-Yale-Classroom/dp/0982963319) The Amazon.com review follows.

Who would have believed it? Studying Harry Potter at Yale University? To learn about Christian theology?

But it happened! 'God and Harry Potter at Yale' is the story of the controversial course, 'Harry Potter and Christian Theology,' its teacher, the Rev. Danielle Tumminio, and what she taught and learned from her brilliant undergraduate students. They explored the heights of theology and literature for answers about eternal questions of faith, revelation, salvation, and what it means to be human. Come to the American Hogwarts in New Haven to join these Ivy League Seekers and their guide as they examine the stories of the Chosen One and Dark Lord for a greater understanding of the Potter novels and life's mysteries.

The Author does know both the Potter books and Christian theology... at a post graduate level. One can illustrate many of the basic questions in Christian theology using illustrations from the Potter books.

The big question is whether you can get more than a few chapters in before choking and gagging. I couldn't.

Well, you likely know me by know. I find many scholarly readings of Tolkien somewhat pretentious. I find scholarly readings of Potter far more so. Still, there is enough there that I can see how Reverend Danielle takes her efforts as seriously as many contributors to this forum. The chapter titles in the book do reference basic Christian themes like Sacrifice and Faith. You can take the great questions various philosophers and priests have been debating for centuries and find themes based on these questions all over the Potter books. A Potter fan might find the book a solid short cut introduction to formal Christian theology.

Ugh. I kind of enjoyed the Potter stories as stories, but can't take them seriously as a source of Truth or Wisdom. Of course, I'd say the same thing about Lord of the Rings or the Star Wars movies. Fantasy, especially when you take it towards an epic level, explores Good, Evil, Sacrifice, Faith, Heroism and similar stuff. If one immerses one's self in such sub creations at a young an impressionable age, such stories might well help shape one's values. The nuns at my Saturday School sure used similar stories and parables found in the Bible to that end.

Middle Earth, that galaxy far far away and Hogwarts are to me primarily excellent yarns and entertainment. Various folks are attracted to one more than the other. Various people will take one or another of them seriously. Color me dubious.

Pitchwife

12-02-2011, 03:39 PM

For all Gods and Goddesses' sake, blantyr, I meant nothing of the kind. I see Rowling alluding to a Christian myth, not writing a "christian creation" or, Danu forbid, a theological allegory. It's just rather ironic considering all the hullaballoo made about the series by hordes of Harry-hating Christian fundamentalist muggles.

And fully d'accord about Rowling's limitations, Nerwen - she's a competent and entertaining writer, but nowhere near e.g. Tolkien's league. There is at times a painful disharmony between the schoolboy story background with
its classroom comedy and obligatory Quidditch match in every volume and the darker theme of the gradually increasing struggle against evil, and the way everybody (including, at times, the author) is doting on Harry would be unpalatable if we didn't have Snape.

EDIT: PS.- You know one thing that irks me greatly about the end of the story? We have the Hogwarts motto "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus", and we have a character named Draco. In my book, when you include a coincidence like that in your story, you have to do something with it. I always expected Draco to turn against Voldemort in the end and do something real flashy (like saving Harry's life or what do I know), so I could brandish the book at the ceiling and cry out, "I knew it!" That lukewarm not-quite-conversion Rowling wrote for him was a huge disappointment.

Galadriel55

12-02-2011, 04:54 PM

And fully d'accord about Rowling's limitations, Nerwen - she's a competent and entertaining writer, but nowhere near e.g. Tolkien's league. There is at times a painful disharmony between the schoolboy story background with its classroom comedy and obligatory Quidditch match in every volume and the darker theme of the gradually increasing struggle against evil, and the way everybody (including, at times, the author) is doting on Harry would be unpalatable if we didn't have Snape.

I would add that Rowling made too many and too complex "rules", so many that she can't even follow them herself sometimes. She focuses on the rules instead of depth of character and feeling. And when she attempts feeling, instead of giving it depth she just writes all these gushy love affairs, or simply increases the death rate.

An exception to that is the Sirius-Bellatrix-Molly thing. I find it satisfying that Molly "avenges" Sirius in a way.

One thing that I could say in her favour, though, is her use of Latin. Many HP fans that I've talked to are annoyed by it, but I see it as positive thing, and I love deciphering the spells.

She borrowed from Latin like Tolkien from Finnish and Anglo-Saxon. She sisn't steal the idea, but it's a similarity.

EDIT: PS.- You know one thing that irks me greatly about the end of the story? We have the Hogwarts motto "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus", and we have a character named Draco. In my book, when you include a coincidence like that in your story, you have to do something with it. I always expected Draco to turn against Voldemort in the end and do something real flashy (like saving Harry's life or what do I know), so I could brandish the book at the ceiling and cry out, "I knew it!" That lukewarm not-quite-conversion Rowling wrote for him was a huge disappointment.

No one's allowed to tickle a sleeping Draco. :p

(But doesn't that phrase ring a bell? ;))

The thing that irks me is that Voldemort is completely destroyed. (I know I'm weird...)

alatar

12-02-2011, 08:53 PM

Speaking of sacrifice, I don't see Gandalf's and Dumbledore's sacrifices on the same level (or maybe we're not talking about the same events, me having read HP only once). Gandalf sacrifices himself when facing the Balrog, again when he marches with others to the Black gate. Dumbledore, on the other hand, though finding a gagillion uses for dragon's blood (poor dragons), didn't see the Ring as cursed until it was too late. He then burdens Snape's with his murder/ euthanization and harry with finishing what should be an adult's task.

And regarding King's Cross, being a 'Merican, I know nothing of geography or allusions, but methinks that Rowling was just getting all of those fundamentalist haters back, showing that reading HP was not demonic. ;)