LOTR vs Harry Potter [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lush

02-13-2002, 10:22 PM

I think it's useless to pit Harry Potter against the LotR. Some people will prefer the latter, some the former, some both. I happen to be in that last category. I actually interchanged reading Tolkien with J.K. Rowling, and can't say it did me any harm. Potter is delightful, less deep, certainly more juvenile, but a great read nonetheless, and not without its share of seriousness. Makes me feel like a wee babe again. What I like most about Rowling is that she doesn't insult her young readers' intelligence. As for Tolkien, his writing is like a great, deep pool of image and thought. I am currently sitting at the at the bottom, and couldn't think of a better place to be. As for the films, I have not seen the first Potter installment, but from what I hear, PJ certainly outgunned Chris Columbus. I may watch it on video, just because Daniel Radcliffe is such a cute kid, and I LOVE Richard Harris. But, y'know, I think pretty much the entire world has caught on to the fact that the cinematic version of the LotR is a tastier treat. Unless of course you're Rhud, and that treat has caught in your throat. [ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

avarrogion

02-13-2002, 10:42 PM

Well i have read the Potter books and like as mention before i found it quite boring maybe it is because Rowling lacks in plot!! And she can`t be compared to great writers like Tolkien. The movie on Potter boy is a major let down..don`t anyone think so?

chucks888

02-14-2002, 12:28 AM

Of course people here like LOTR better....it's a LOTR message board!-Chuck

avarrogion

02-14-2002, 12:31 AM

But there are some in here who enjoy Potter because their gal frenz of boyfrez do...am i rght? Anyway i found out that in Potter there is an element of Greek influence...(Cerebrus the three headed dog in the film) Am i right?

Gayalondiel

02-14-2002, 08:25 AM

Probably there's a lot of greek influence, as in ancient myths and legends.I could go on about this, but as its Harry Potter not LOTR i'll just point out that pretty much all Rowling's 'creatures': giant spiders, centaurs, sphinxes, dragons etc are drawn straight from classical mythology, Greek or otherwise. they behave like they would in myth too (eg the sphinx asks riddles, see 'Oedipus Tyrannus' by sophocles)JRRT can be said to have done much the same, Elves and Dwarves aren't new creatures, and they act right: real-life 'dwarves' were very persecuted in centuries past and would have receded to their own dwellings, symbolised by living underground (poorly explained and a bit tenuous i know). other creatures, like dragons and the watcher in the water can be seen in myth, (the watcher may possibly be derived from the Kracken).Lots of authors do this, indeed its probably impossible to write (especially fantasy) without influence. after all, today's mythology is yesterday's fantasy tale

Ellesime

02-14-2002, 01:54 PM

I liked the Harry Potter books/movie but you just can't compare it to LOTR. Also, I can't help but find a striking reseblence between Dementors and Nazgul...Dumbledor and Gandalf... Wormtail and Grima/Wormtongue....

avarrogion

02-14-2002, 11:47 PM

Guess you are rght at the resemblence...juz maybe she have read Tolkien`s work and some mythology and decide to put them into a book? Anyway anyone here know when the game for LOTR will be coming up?

Rose Cotton

02-16-2002, 08:02 PM

Before I read LotR I was a HP nut. I have noticed the similarites between the two but I think it was just coincidence. HP is a wonderful story and deserves applase. And LotR is even better and more complex. But comparing the two is like comparing the Rivendell and Lorien. They are kind of alike but have their own aspects and qualitys that make them great storys. Comparing them is not realy bad but it will put down the best points of the stories. And while we're on the subject HP is not some little child story. It has a great meaning and Rowling's writing is superb. Both HP and LotR are perfect books and would be even better if they worked together. In fact when me and my friends role play we love mixing LotR's charicters with HP charicters.Does anyone know what I'm talking about though?

the_master_of_puppets

02-17-2002, 06:09 AM

i think rose has pretty much summed up my opinion there too! I, too, used to be a devoted harry potter fan; and then i read lord of the rings. although i still 'like' harry potter i am no longer the fan that i was. LOTR is a book which takes you on an emotional journey with the characters, so you really connect with them, & i never got that with HP, which also makes the whole thing more life-like. The plot of LOTR is also on grander scale, and the efford Tolkien put into creating Middle Earth makes you almost believe its possible....somewhere....Also, i think Rowling has taken some creative license and, do i dare say copied(!) some of Tolkiens work. By which i mean Wormtounge being changed to wormtail although the 2 characters do the same job, some of Voldemorts charactoristics are similar of Saurons (although in that kinda of fantacy novel there isnt much you can do about that), and there was something else but i cant remember it! lol. well anyway, thats just my opinions, and i hope at least someone agrees!!

the Lorien wanderer

02-17-2002, 09:41 AM

I read the Harry Potter books and enjoyed them thoroughly. Rowling may have drawn on some elements from Tolkien but to say that she copied him is really over-reacting. And anyway, almost all subsequent fantasy authors have some similarities with Tolkien.IMHO, I think the two are different to be constructively compared but if simply asked who's better, it would definitely be Tolkien. Tolkien is the god of fantasy, Rowling is a mortal.

Ugluk

02-17-2002, 09:58 AM

The potter books were good, i enjoyed them a lot, but it couldnt beat lotr in the slightest. although i think she used some of the ideas. such as the resemblance of some of the characters. it may be just chance bur 4 instance: Poor lower class loyal Sam, is Frodos best frend = Potters poor loyal frend Ron Gandalf, very grand and wise = Albus dumbledore, grand and wise see my point! but otherwise rowling only used tolkiens works for ideas, the stories arent totally based on it.

Balefalathiel

02-17-2002, 01:57 PM

You got a point, Ugluk...

dragongirlG

02-19-2002, 04:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think it's useless to pit Harry Potter against the LotR. Some people will prefer the latter, some the former, some both. I happen to be in that last category. I actually interchanged reading Tolkien with J.K. Rowling, and can't say it did me any harm. Potter is delightful, less deep, certainly more juvenile, but a great read nonetheless, and not without its share of seriousness. Makes me feel like a wee babe again. What I like most about Rowling is that she doesn't insult her young readers' intelligence. As for Tolkien, his writing is like a great, deep pool of image and thought. I am currently sitting at the at the bottom, and couldn't think of a better place to be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I couldn't have said it better myself You guys take the words right out of my mouth! I agree that Rowling did use mythological elements (Fluffy is a modified version of Cerberus) but she didn't mean to plaigiarize Tolkien. I think that anyone who reads [I}LOTR[/I] will most likely use some of its elements in their writing; I once wrote about a desolate landscape and then realized that it was similar to the description of Mordor that I had read. I personally hope that people don't try and compare Rowling and Tolkien because their novels are totally different. I believe that they are both geniuses and excellent authors. They may be similar because their series are both about emotional growth, both include dark evil creatures, traitors, wizards, and whatever else, but they are just as good as each other and it's not worth the time trying to figure out which series is better. The best thing is just to read them and enjoy them both, not to compare the two or try to insult one of the author's work. Both series DO have plots and are both great reads. Sit back, relax, and enjoy them! Don't compare.

Lily Tussle

02-19-2002, 06:12 PM

One of my most favourite authors once said that Tolkien was the beginning of Fantasy. Of course you had those sappy medievil melodramatic romances, but that was hardly "fantasy". So as I see it, everything after Tolkien was based, even if only remotely, on Tolkien. I mean, come on, he's got to be the genuis author of the millenium!The problem, I think, is that no one in the Fellowship is female! Sure, Galadriel and Arwen are major chracters, not to mention Luthién, Ëarendil, and Éowyn.....but I still think it's a little unfair that ALL the MAIN characters are MALE.... (can you tell I'm bitter? )

Makayla

02-19-2002, 06:26 PM

Well,Im not going to lie.I did read Harry Potter.And enjoyed it at that! Its way below my level,but it was a good book. Rowling seems to have had her own ideas though. I dont see people flying around on broom sticks in LOTR's.

NazgulNumberTen

07-11-2002, 08:44 PM

rowling uses no new ideas! she is a plagerist! 90% of harry potter is copied from a book called larry potter which was published in the early 90's!

Catherine

07-11-2002, 08:54 PM

Harry Potter does have some but very little of its own ideas and I think TLOTR is sooooooo much better!!

NicktheOrc

07-12-2002, 01:55 AM

Harry Potter is a blatant ripoff of heaps of stuff. Ever since I started reading LOTR, I hated myself for ever liking HP. The following things are what JK edited a bit.The one on the left is the original, the one on the right is the ripoff.Gandalf - Dumbledore Nazgûl - Dementors Spiders of Mirkwood - Spiders of Forbid. Forest Black Breath - Dementor's Breath (just my name for the ripoff) Sam Gamgee - Ron Weasley Basilisk - Probably got the idea of a serpent from Smaug Sauron - Voldemort Orcs/Goblins/ Uruks - Goblins of Gringotts Watcher in the Water - Giant Squid And the list goes on...[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: NicktheOrc ][ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: NicktheOrc ]

Brinniel

07-12-2002, 03:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Before I read LotR I was a HP nut <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So was I. Then I read LOTR and liked it 10 times better. But I still think the HP books are very good. They are well written and you do not find very many modern fantasies. I thought HP was very original. The plots between HP and LOTR were completely different! Here are a few explanations for the simularites:Gandalf/Dumbledore-I'm sure that these two books aren't the only ones that include old, wise men that happen to know magic. Actually I know that for a fact.Nazgul/Dementors-Black cloaked creature tend to bring fear into the reader's mind. With something this evil, you know they will keep reading.Spiders of Mirkwood/Spiders of Forbidden Forest-Spiders are good to use since they tend to give people the heebie jeebies. (At least they do for me.) There's a movie coming out about spiders called Eight Legged Freaks. Are you going to say that they copied off The Hobbit too? Giant spiders were not an original idea from Tolkien.Sam/Ron-All main characters have a sidekick!Basilisk/Smaug-Don't know where that came from. They aren't even alike except for the fact that they are serpents! A basilisk is known for its deadly stare, while a dragon is known for breathing fire and their greed for treasure.Sauron/Voldemort-All stories have a bad guy! You really can't have a story without one.Orcs/Goblins-These guys are nothing alike. Orcs were bad, tall, green guys who were originally elves. The goblins in HP are good, short, fair skinned guys who are just grouchy.The Watcher in the Water/Giant Squid-Like spiders, we have to have somthing to freak out readers! Besides the squid in HP doesn't seem evil. I believe in the books it mention that students play with it. It may look like the creature from LOTR, but otherwise it is completely different.Not everything in HP is original and not everything in LOTR is either. If all stories were completely original, what story would there be? There would only be one book existing with elves, one book with a bad guy, one book with dragons.......That would be terrible, wouldn't it? If that happened there would definately be no LOTR. So, lighten up and don't accuse Rowling of stealing Tolkien's ideas.Whew, that was a long post![ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Brinniel ][ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Brinniel ]

*Varda*

07-12-2002, 03:38 AM

Can we PLEASE drop this subject already? There have already been several threads on the topic and basically it's just getting boring. The 'similarities' above have all been covered by Brinniel on why they mean nothing so I won't go into that, but can I just say All authors have influences Perhaps Tolkien influenced JK Rowling, but to say she plagiarized his works is rubbish. They're even for different age groups! The style of the writing is completely different! The plot is different! Most stories are similar in some ways - I'm know Tolkien was influenced by many things and if you keep going far enough back he too could be called a plagiarist on the basic things you're accusing JK Rowling of doing. So let the poor woman write in peace!~*Varda Elentari*~

Frodosgirl

07-12-2002, 10:43 AM

i read all 4 harry potter books and thought they were good, then read the LOTR books and thought they had a stronger story line. It carried on better when the changed books but in harry potter it was the same u knew skool would end he would end up back home and something would happen. the film was a big disappointment i thought it would be better. but when i sax LOTR i thought it was much better and not a disappointment. comparing the books Rowling hasnt copied any thing from LOTR, Harry Potter isnt much of a Fantasy Novel.

Daniel Telcontar

07-12-2002, 11:20 AM

A note to those who insist Rowling copied Tolkien: Gandalf/Dumbledore: neither of the authors are the first to use a longbearded old man as a sage, who advices the main character.Nazgûl/dementor: the dementors are creatures that removes all happiness from you, eventually making you crazy. Rowling thought of depressions when inventing them, because she thinks it is the worst you can experience.Black Breath/Dementor's kiss: Black breath can be healed, dementor's kiss is instant and soulremoving.Watcher in the Water/Giant Squid: the watcher is evil, or unfriendly, and the same as Kracken, which make Tolkien the copist. The squid is friendly, e.g. when a student falls in the lake it puts him back in the boat.Sam Gamgee/Ron Weasley: Sam is a friend but also a servant, and he stays with Frodo to the end. Ron is definately not Harry's servant, and they often disagree. Also in all four books Harry goes on alone, because Ron cannot follow him or must do something else.Basilisk: A mythical monster which is very old, far older than Tolkien, who didn't invent Dragons, but stole them from the Chinese.Sauron/Voldemort: Sauron is older than the Earth, plus he has a master who was the beginning of evil. Voldemort is only one of many dark wizards, and he has no master, nor will he submit himself to anyone.Spiders of Mirkwood/Spiders of the forbidden Forest: The spiders in LOTR eat humans, like in HP, but there are differences. In LOTR, they are enemies of the elves, and described as evil. In HP, their leader has never tasted human flesh, and his best friend is a human. Also the other creatures of the forest does not seem to be hostile against the spiders, but think of them as natural beings who have their habitat in the Forest, unlike the elves who fight the spiders in Mirkwood.Orcs/Goblins: The orcs in LOTR are pure evil, and only thinks of killing and destroying good. The Goblins in HP run a bank! They may only have their own intentions at heart, but the wizards are not afraid of dealing with them, or trusting their money to the Goblins.I hope you see some reason in this, and maybe stop critizing Harry Potter as harsh as you do.Sorry Briniel that I have the same arguments as you, I had not noticed your post before now.[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Daniel Telcontar ]

Aragost

07-12-2002, 12:11 PM

lord of the rings is better I've read both of them and i dont think a 10 year old would be brave enuf to purposly go into so many life threataning situations.HP is too unrealistic

Gayalondiel

07-12-2002, 12:36 PM

I'm not going to do the lists again, but i'd like to add one thing to Daniel and Brinniel's points:JK Rowling intentionally utilises mythical items/monsters in her stories. The philosopher's Stone, Phoenixes, Basilisks, Giant Squid (never sighted although some suggestive evidence has been found), typical fairy-tale elves (house-elves), Broomsticks and capes... I could go on. You can't escape folklore when you write about wizards, and it shows a great deal of thought on her part to make use of varied myths and monsters. JRRT was also influenced by myth and tradition, (not sure which specifically but i'm pretty sure he was). Does that mean that he too copied myth authors? You wouldn't say Gandalf was a plagarism of Merlin. Although beautifully adapted and set in place in a new mythology, Tolkien did not create complete original ideas every time he created a character. to my mind, that makes a story far more believable; it ties it in with our own reality. That's pretty much what Rowling has done, the difference being that her books are aimed at a different audience/level of thought. It doesn't make her a bad author.Sorry, didn't realise i'd gone on so long. Just one more thing; people on this site use 'plagarise' a lot. that's not accurate unless one had actually transposed a character or plot very specifically without credit to the original. To a writer, that's a very serious accusation, and its just not justified here.

little_hobbit

07-12-2002, 01:27 PM

I have to admit that I was a Harry Potter fan before Lord of the Rings. Sadly, I only read the books and became a fan after the movie. I love them both and they both are good in their own ways. Yes, Harry Potter does have some similarities but it would be so hard to write a fantasy novel without having any similarities to Lord of the Rings. They are two completely different types of stories so I don't know what the big deal is.

Gimli Son Of Gloin

07-12-2002, 03:21 PM

I think the HP books are kinda, erm, stupid? No offense but that's my opinion. Last time I started a thread like this it turned into a huge flame and got closed down

Lindolirian

07-12-2002, 03:26 PM

Hoom Hom..... I've never read Harry Potter or seen the movie, but I have heard a good deal about it. I suppose thats enough for me to conclude that...LOTR RULZ!!!!!yay

Gimli Son Of Gloin

07-12-2002, 07:19 PM

lol. My dos centavos- Harry Potter es muy stupedo!

Brinniel

07-12-2002, 08:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sorry Briniel that I have the same arguments as you, I had not noticed your post before now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's alright, Daniel. Though your argument was for the same things, you brought up some different reasons also, which means that HP and LOTR are nothing alike if we can think of that many.I agree with *Varda*. This subject does need to be dropped. Now that you know that HP and LOTR are completely different books, stop complaining about how much you dislike HP on an LOTR site. That doesn't belong here![ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Brinniel ]

Gimli Son Of Gloin

07-12-2002, 08:23 PM

Good point...

NazgulNumberTen

07-14-2002, 02:01 PM

before it is dropped, i must get out one thought why can't we all get along? sure they are different, but think of what could happen if they joined forces... [ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: NazgulNumberTen ]

Brinniel

07-14-2002, 11:30 PM

LOL! Hehe! I love that pic! I can't stop laughing! I've heard of many stories where Frodo and Sam land at Hogwarts or vice versa.

MallornLeaf

07-18-2002, 10:52 AM

personally, I think it would be an insult to LOTR to think that harry potter was at all like it. I have never read the books, but most of my friends tell me they were dissappointing. here is the material difference between the two: LOTR is Christian undertone/fantasy. HP is witchcraft overtone/fantasy.both are religions here's the problem: in America now, there is supposed to be no religion in school. well, if that is the case, and HP represents the religion (for so it was called by the supreme court) of witchcraft... how come HP is allowed in schools, but the Bible isn't?

MallornLeaf

07-18-2002, 10:56 AM

oh and by the way, I love that poster... it's absolutely hilarious!

Mornie Alantie

07-18-2002, 10:59 AM

Most people who have debated about HP here know my oppinion. It hasn't changed, Amen MallornLeaf and Gimli Son of Gloin on this subject, The two books are just pictures of Books that have class and those that dont.Anyway, I dont want to infuriate people like last time. Or mayde I do.

Mornie Alantie

07-18-2002, 11:01 AM

That is a Hilarios poster, But doesn't Haldir die in the next movie? wouldn't that create a problem for the next HP movies?

Emni Windrunner

07-18-2002, 11:04 AM

I'm going to get a migraine if I beat my head against the wall much harder.Harry Potter is NOT about the corruption of youth with ideas of witch craft. I am so sick and tired of people screaming about it! I happen to be a Christian. I happen to have read Harry Potter. I happen to like it! There is very little about Harry Potter that does not fit into the realm of traditional fantasy writing. It's in a different setting than a lot of fantasy books, but it is still typical fantasy. The only dark magic that appears in the Harry Potter books is presented as evil and wrong, and it is perpetrated by a villain about as sympathetic as Sauron. Honestly, how many people really want to emulate Sauron? Most of the other spells and charms that appear in the books are similar to tricks that Gandalf uses. Gandalf lights up his staff when they go through Moria; Harry lights the tip of his wand when going through a dark passageway. How is Gandalf Christian-undertoned and Harry witchcraft-overtoned? At the risk of making a deplorably bad pun, the anti-Harry Potter craze is a witch hunt, nothing more or less. It's a drumhead, mostly masterminded by people who can't talk because they haven't read the books.Sorry for the rant. Literature is a pressure point for me--particularly fantasy literature.

*Varda*

07-18-2002, 11:17 AM

Lord of the Rings isn't meant to have Christian undertones. Tolkien seriously disliked the use of allegory. Sure, probably some of his religion worked it's way into his writing but to say it has Christian undertones I don't think is true. Moral undertones yes.As for Harry Potter, a few of you already know my opinion on this - so I won't go into detail. Just stop saying it's awful if you haven't read it. Don't compare Harry Potter and LotR - they're two completely separate literary works. I don't know what posessed someone to compare the two in the first place, they're totally different.~*Varda Elentari*~

Mornie Alantie

07-18-2002, 11:18 AM

I've gotta reply to that. Harry Potter uses the Cult, No matter what you want to believe, I does. Give me a break, lighting up the want that is lame, that is like saying smoking a candy cigarrete and smoking a real one are the same. Tolkien did not study the cult to write his books. No matter what you will believe Rowling did. Well it is straying from Tolkien a little to much here, so I leave it at that.

Emni Windrunner

07-18-2002, 11:24 AM

Not dissing, just curious for my own education: Can you name for me a documented source in which J.K. Rowling actually says she studied the Occult for the writing of the Harry Potter books?And, still on that topic: I cannot say that she did or did not; all I know is what I've read in those books, and the books present anything that could be taken as Occultic in nature as evil and not to be emulated.[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]

*Varda*

07-18-2002, 11:29 AM

Good question Emni. I'd really like to know actually for my own knowledge.Also, if you're just going to repeat the same continuous anti-HP arguments (not naming anyone, just in general - it goes for the pro-HP too) can we just drop it? The anti-HPers aren't going to change their minds anytime soon (unless they actually read the book perhaps) and the pro-HPers aren't either. No one's going to get converted.Also to point out and remind people this is a LotR site. If you're going to argue the merits of Harry Potter try and work LotR into the discussion somewhere or BW will undoubtedly close the thread. Trust me. (speaking from experience here...)~*VArda Elentari*~

Nufaciel

07-18-2002, 04:30 PM

*bangs head against the desk again, and again, and again, exasperated that this topic will never end*

MallornLeaf

07-18-2002, 08:13 PM

Just for the record, I have not strayed from LOTR. On my last post, I compared the two, and plan to do the same. weather you like it or not, Tolkein was a catholic. he beleived in the Bible. Also, I agree, LOTR was not an allegory, JRRT hated allegories. It was not a direct adaption or allegory of the Bible or any Bible story, but it WAS meant to have christian worldviews. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It does not have Christian Undertones, just morals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DUH! what do you think I mean by undertones? unertones come from morals. So... it would be reasonable to beleive that If the Morals are Christain and undertones come from morals, then the undertones would also be christian. (what has happened to common sense these days?)Also, HP is deffinately witchcraft. Can you honestly tell me that they don't quote any spells in HP? last time I checked, however, LOTR has no recited spells. Unless you have seen children beating on doors screaming "Mellon! Mellon!" (the only "spell" in LOTR) then it is safe to say that LOTR does not use witchcraft.I realize that I cannot argue completely b/c I have never read the books. I WOULD read the books if I was interested. I'm not opposed to the books in general. I am opposed to what they teach. I am opposed to the fact schools distribute them as excellent books, yet students can't be seen with their Bible. . . that would be "discrimination" to have a Bible in School! NO!!!!! Discrimination is teaching HP and persecuting the Bible. Varda said that the only way I would change my opinion is if I read the books. But my opinion deals with more than the books themselves. My opinion is only strong because of the Morals involved--not the books.

Mornie Alantie

07-18-2002, 08:56 PM

I have noticed that you guys are the ones straying, not me or MallornLeaf. If real cult is in HP, and real witchcraft, How could Rowling have got without studying it. How much blunter do you need it? Do I have to spell it out for you? wait a minute- Allegories are like C.S. Lewis's cronicals The death of Aslon the lion= the crusifiction. Tolkiens LOTR gives good examples of good morals, I have heard fans of HP say that HP is about a boy that gets mixed up in all this magic stuff.What does Harry Potter Teach kids anyway? loyalty? hah right, theres just a thirteen year girl murdering people and being posessed(which has to do with cult megatime)by Valdemorte. There is cult in HP, Possesion, shape changing, spells, blood sucking, need I say more? Well I'll go now, I know you guys wont listen to it anyway. i dont have to read the books to know of some of the evil stuff in HP. By the way, if no cult is used in HP why on fan websites is there real books on cult, and witchcraft. TTYL

Bulelainwen

07-18-2002, 09:24 PM

I think she got some ideas from LOTR, when i see HP previews i dont see Dumbledore talking to Harry i see Gandalf talking to Frodo, it gets annoying sometimes

dragongirlG

07-19-2002, 10:02 AM

*bangs head against the wall like Emni and Nufaciel*GIVE ME A BREAK ALREADY!

Luinsewiel

07-19-2002, 11:30 AM

As many have already noted The Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter are two very different books, Good ole JRR set out to write a ledgend a fictional history of the Earth, And i believe( correct me if i'm wrong) That Harry Potter started out as a bed-time story for Ms. Rowling's children. It's like comparing the Discover Spot books or even Winne The Poohwith say...***looks at book shelf*** The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy or The Amber Spy Glasseven. I'm sure i Ms. Rowling wanted to write a <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>great, deep pool of image and thought <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(great Way to Explain it! ) She could. She's most likly A better author than Any of you, And i would like to see you write a book that has touched so many children's (an adult's) hearts.As for Harry Potter in school, If it gets the kids to read what is the big problem? If they like Harry Potter maybe they'll start to read other longer books. I think Alot of people have under estimated children's common sense. They're not that Impressionable/ Gullible what ever you want to call it. Just because when Harry says Luminous or whatever he can make a stick light up doesn't mean that if you or I say it it'll happen. kids know that. They know Hogwarts isn't real, They know that God is good and the Devil is bad. I seriously doubt many ten year olds are going to join the occult after reading Harry Potter. and you can't say that i don't know what i'm talking about because Iread Harry Potter when i was ten and it certainly didn't do anything bad to me. Harry Potter is allowed in school because it is a piece of fictional writing. You don't have to study the occult to make up Latin sounding words that make things float. Any one can do that. I'm pretty sure that no Wiccans use floo powder to get from place to place. I agree that religeion should be kept out of schools but in my humble opinion Harry Potter and The Worst Wicth ect. are not religion. (wouldn't the first part of the silmarillion be considered religous considering arda represents earth?) I'm going to shut up now and never type so much again

Emni Windrunner

07-19-2002, 01:14 PM

I am not trying to draw a comparison between LOTR and HP. I am not trying to scream about HP at the expense of a discussion of LOTR. What I am trying to do is to say that people should not talk who have not read the books--HP or LOTR. I know people who won't read LOTR or go to see it in the theater because of the Nazgul, who look Satanic and damaging to the psyche, apparently. I do not have a problem with seeing the movie or reading the books because evil is real, and the Nazgul are a great representation of evil--nothing good, nothing appealing except raw power and cruelty (if that appeals to you). By the same token (Note: I am not comparing the works; I am comparing some portrayals in the works), HP shows evil for what it is. The Dementors, the Death Eaters, Voldemort...none of them look good, appealing, or like anything any sane person would want to emulate. Like LOTR, HP has a heavy infusion of so-called "Judeo-Christian" morals. There is right and wrong, and in the end, there is no middle ground.PS Please also note: there is a difference between a cult and the Occult. A cult is a religious group that has extreme and bizarre practices and beliefs. The Occult is Satanic practice. ~EW~PPS I did not put any time into studying the Occult beyond reading the newspaper when there has been Satanic activity discovered and watching a documentary on Sean Sellers, and I could have told you everything Rowling covers in her books. That doesn't make either her or me Satanists or involved in the Occult; it makes us both observant. ~EW~PPPS Ginny Weasley was eleven, not thirteen, and she opened herself up to influence and possession--and she was most certainly influenced and, at times, possessed. This is a Biblical principle, which is why God states unequivocally in Leviticus that the people should have nothing to do with spiritism or mediums, which open them up to influence. Again, nothing you have to be a Satanist to know. ~EW~

*Varda*

07-19-2002, 04:36 PM

This should not be a discussion on whether Harry Potter is good or bad. That's personal opinion. We could argue about it for hours but no one's going to change their opinion.I must admit, I'm quite interested by the fact that no one's actually produced a quote stating that Rowling studied the Occult yet. Just goes to show widely held belief is not necessarily proven or true.

MallornLeaf

07-19-2002, 10:32 PM

Again, this all boils down to the same thing: we all have different beleifs. My purpose in writing anything in this forum is not to jam Christianity into your face. it is, rather, to let you know what I beleive and why I beleive it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And I would like to see any of you write a book that has touched so many Children's (and adult's) hearts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is a small amount of good and a large amount of bad to this statement. It is good that Children are reading. It is good that children are being educated by literature. I must admit, that is my favorite form of study--literature. While it is true, I beleive, that not all 10 year olds, after reading HP, Will go around trying to fly on broomsticks, some will get the idea that it is possible. Unfortunately, it IS possible. Through the Occult and mediums (that beleive me, are real) such things can be done. In the Bible, Saul went to a "witch" and communicated with a deceased Samuel. That's why this is dangerous. It IS real. It IS a religion. Now this is a free country. Freedom of Religion. But here's what I don't understand: Even parents nowadays can't always teach their children the Bible b/c that would be "harming the child's right to choose his/her own religion." So the Bible is kicked out of school b/c there is supposed to be "separation of church and state." the Occult is a form of church. Why is that allowed in schools? Shouldn't there be a separation of church and state? no--not when it comes to THIS church! wouldn't we be harming a child's right to choose his/her own religion? No--not when it comes to THIS religion! Do you see what I'm getting at? Christianity is the only religion being smothered. people are scared of it. do you want to know why? do you want to know why YOU are scared of it? It's because in your heart of hearts you know it's real. It's a "threat" to your beleifs, b/c unlike yours, its real. There is a Real God... a Real hope. But people don't want to be accountable to a higher being. They want to be their own gods. so they twist things around to make it fit their lifestyles. But that doesn't help. they continue searching, but unless they turn to God, they'll always be searching. These are all signs that the end is near. I'm afraid for all the people on this website who think that nothing is wrong. The end is coming. Where will YOU spend eternity?[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: MallornLeaf ]

pherostien

07-19-2002, 10:58 PM

I will have to admit I loved Harry Potter until about two years ago. Then I read LotR trilogy. And has any one noticed that Rowling's Womping Willow is just like Tolkien's Old man Willow. Rowling totally stole half of Tolkien's ideas.

*Varda*

07-20-2002, 06:29 AM

The point is, Mallorn Leaf, that Harry Potter is NOT about the Occult. The 'spells' in Harry Potter are absolutely nothing like what Occult stuff would be like. I don't know how many times I can stress that enough. Yet you're never going to realise that so it's useless.May i point out that Lord Of the rings ALSO has spells involved? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Naur an edraith ammen! Naur dan i ngaurhoth! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> FotR - A Journey in the DarkUsed to set things on fire. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Annon edhellen, edro hi ammen! Fennas nogothrim, lasto beth lammen! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> FotR - A Journey in the DarkTrying to open the door.So is that so different from Harry saying 'Alohomora' to open the door? 'Ah' but you'll say. 'Rowling used the Occult when she was writing Harry Potter'. Well she didn't They're latin words. All there is to it. It's hardly related to the Occult. The language we speak comes from Latin. The day someone produces a quote stating Rowling studied the Occult is the day I'll think about believing it. But no such quote has actually appeared. Now, if this is an argument about which book is better, I think Lord Of The Rings. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy Harry Potter as well. Reading Harry Potter won't send me to hell, and if it does then do I want my God to be my God? But that's not really a subject on this forum. The other (and final) point. You can seriously annoy people by saying you're afraid for their souls etc. when you don't even know them at all. So I would advise not saying that.

Melephelwen

07-20-2002, 09:20 AM

I would really wish people would close this topic, but I still have a thing to say: MallornLeaf, you make it sound as if somebody believed in and worshipped(sp?) HP in the same way as the bible. None of you are getting further, except making people even more convinced of what they think!

orlandoandsaran

07-20-2002, 09:33 AM

Melephelwen: I agree with you too. I used to read Harry Potter before and i saw the movie. It was really boring. And when i saw LOTR, I thought....the Harry Potter movie shouldne't even be compared to LOTR AT ALL. Anyway, everybody has their own opinions and soon the BW will close down this thread.

The Barrow-Wight

07-21-2002, 08:26 AM

This thread is comparing HP to LotR, so its a topic that has a place on the Downs. The only way I'd close it is if it got completely off-topic or became a flame war. I haven't read most of it, so I don't know if its getting ugly or not. But unless it does, I have no plans of shutting it down.Discuss nicely, and please post support of your argument rather than simple sentimental statements (i.e. 'HP stinks'). Discuss, discuss, discuss.... but never discount without support!

Calencoire

07-21-2002, 09:21 AM

I think some things are similar between LOTR and Harry Potter, but have any of you read Dragonlance? I'm reading the Chronicles now, and I am seeing SO many similarities. There is a large group going off and doing things, dwarves, elves, draconiens,(like orcs) and they even have a forest thats haunted by the dead, and its just like the Paths of the Dead. There are many more but I just don't want to list them now.

Gayalondiel

07-21-2002, 09:24 AM

Most of my thoughts on this were represented earlier in this thread, but i had a new thought reading this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Harry Potter is NOT about the corruption of youth with ideas of witch craft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well said. Has NO-ONE here ever read the 'Worst Witch' books? or seen the dramatisation? They are stories of a witches boarding school (you can see elements of this in HP as well). I loved these books, and there were spells and broomsticks and familiars in those. I've NEVER heard even a worry that these books have influenced a child to an interest in the Occult. So why should HP be so different?OK, hopefully that was my last 2 cents on this thread

dragongirlG

07-21-2002, 11:44 AM

I, personally, have been exposed to spells and witchcraft in literature, books, and movies ever since I've been little. But does that mean I'm part of the occult? NO! I'm Christian, I believe in God. I just enjoy reading things about magic. I think it has high entertainment value. It's even part of Arthurian legend--Merlin, anyone? J.K. Rowling simply used her knowledge of Latin, which is perfectly reasonable, to create a story, NOT to promote witchcraft. Hopefully I won't have to be in this thread anymore after this. Can't we all just drop the subject anyway? I've been in at least three threads like this already, and it's getting old.

Mornie Alantie

07-22-2002, 03:29 PM

Why do people say there is no evidence to the occult in HP. There is sucking the blood of an animal, which is in satanic occults, Possesion has to do with the occult greatly, curses, and spells, these all have to do with the occult, and if I read the books Im sure I could find many more.In LOTR, Tolkien does not base his books on witchcraft or the occult, and if HP doesn't what is it about? HP has many different types of occult and witchcraft in it. Tolkien may say some words in elvish but rarely you find out what they mean. Plus they are not used to murder.

Sweatpea Knotwise

07-22-2002, 03:59 PM

I think in likening Potter and LOTR to Rivendell and Lorien, you are giving Potter more credit than it deserves. I would not accuse Rowling of stealing ideas, since Tolkien was not completely original either (and if you want to see a case for plagiarism, read The Sword of Shannara), but I would certainly not put Potter on so close a level with LOTR. Here’s my idea – and mayhap only a “hobbit-like” thinker will see validity in it…. Comparing Potter to LOTR is like comparing a Burger King meal to a four course dinner at The Four Seasons. Sure, the Whopper and fries are quite yummy for a quick bite, but you don’t know what you’re missing until you’ve savored white truffle risotto, lobster bisque, and filet mignon, topped off with tiramisu and espresso.Whoa.... I didn't realize this thread had a "page 2". It looks like the subject has degenerated to a "Potter is evil" level.[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sweatpea Knotwise ]

Sangoff

07-22-2002, 08:07 PM

I've never read or seen Harry Potter, and I don't want to. To me it looks nothing like LotR or anything that I would like for that matter. So I would definetly choose LotR over HP.

Alkanoonion

07-22-2002, 09:16 PM

Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Anorien

07-22-2002, 09:23 PM

I never much liked Harry Potter...and yes, some of the things are quite obvious that were copied. Well, most of fantasy is alike. And you all know that Tolkien was the first one to really write fantasy, right?

NazgulNumberTen

07-22-2002, 09:32 PM

mmmust kill...dorky wizard...musttt kill... lets face it, this topic will never end, there will always be a debate.

*Varda*

07-23-2002, 04:02 AM

Mornie, give me a quote where Rowling says she studied the Occult and I might have more respect for what you think. Please stop endlessly repeating what you say and come up with some more convincing, detailed arguments. If you feel so strongly that you're right, it shouldn't be difficult.

Melephelwen

07-23-2002, 04:28 AM

*Varda* already said it, but Mornie: if you're so convinced come up with some arguments you haven't already said a billion times!

Alkanoonion

07-23-2002, 05:01 AM

It would be nice if people stoped going around in circles. The same people want to continue an argument that was started in a previous thread, That tread was stoped for which I was very pleased, maybe it is time to stop this one before it degrades into name calling. Also what has religion got to do with the original topic?

Daniel Telcontar

07-23-2002, 05:14 AM

Sorry for continuing but I couldn't let it go: Mornie says that in HP they suck the blood of an animal, like in satanic rituals. But it also says that it is of a unicorn, a beautiful creature, and that whoever does it is cursed, living a terrible life. So the books strongly says NOT to suck animal blood, because it's wrong. There are many good morals in HP, that kids can learn from. Tolkien also has morals, and he also used things that weren't created by himself (e.g. dragons, elves, goblins, trolls, wraiths). As I see it, that is the only comparison between the books.PS. Can't you guys stop writing in color, it gets annoying and tends to reduce how serious your posts seem to be.

Alkanoonion

07-23-2002, 05:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PS. Can't you guys stop writing in color, it gets annoying and tends to reduce how serious your posts seem to beDaniel Telcontar <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats the best reply I have seen on this topic so far. (the off topic part)

*Varda*

07-23-2002, 09:40 AM

Alkanoonion, I agree with you that this topic is going round in circles. I'm getting some serious deja vu from the last Harry Potter thread, but it was hard not to put my opinion across. If anything, the one thing I've noticed in this thread is that the pro-HPer's seem to have more evidence for their views and use quotes from LotR and HP, whereas the people so against it can't come up with any evidence for their views, partly because the majority of them haven't read HP.'Magic and Occultic practices are wrong' they say. Fair enough, but they seem to forget Gandalf used magic too (I put some quotes in a previous reply). It was just a different setting and different context. Galadriel had magic too. Where exactly do you draw the line? And in HP when the magic is bad it's made absolutely clear. Kids aren't stupid.And I completely agree with Daniel Telcontar about the different coloured fonts. I've been guilty of this in the past, but not to the extent where there's about 5 different colours in one post. It reduces the seriousness of your opinion.

Mornie Alantie

07-23-2002, 02:12 PM

I have not seen a single bit of evidence from the hp supporters, all I get is Hp does not have the Occult. Also one of the reasons the same subject is brought up hundreds of times is I haven't seen a good straight answer. The "Magic" in HP and LOTR are totally different. Gandalf never uses magic to murder someone in the LOTR. In fact he is told to use it the least as possible. And if Rowling did not use the Occult in her work, what did she use? And why would Harry Potter go to a school for Witchcraft and Wizardry?

Daniel Telcontar

07-23-2002, 02:23 PM

For the umpteen time: ROWLING'S MAGIC WORDS ARE LATIN!! It has been stated so a hundred times, and it is a fact!!! And whenever killing/controlling/torturing spells are mentioned, it is also mentioned how bad and wrong they are. If you think that Rowling's books are immoral because there are spells used to kill in it, then I say Silmarillion is immoral because Melkor tortures elves to make orcs!! Someone might get the idea of taking a cat and make it into a toad!!You state that Gandalf does not use magic to murder, but he does. In the Hobbit he kills the goblins, and in Moria he destroys the bridge, killing the Balrog. You might say it is different because they are beings of evil, but in HP the only ones to kill are evil beings, beings that you cannot be sympathetic with, Voldemort, Wormtounge and the Dementors. Not Harry Potter, Dumbledore or any of the good guys. LOTR actually teaches that it is alright to kill if those you kill are evil, whereas in HP Dumbledore explains that life is something precious that can only be taken, not given, which is why we should never kill.[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Daniel Telcontar ]

*Varda*

07-23-2002, 03:45 PM

Mornie, does it not occur to you that there is good magic in Harry Potter as well? And does it also not occur to you that very likely both Sauron and Saruman used evil magic to hurt others? As for no evidence you have shown nothing to prove HP has occultic practices. You're saying your opinion and trying to present it as fact. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Then Sauron shifted shape, from wolf to serpent, and from monster to his own accustomed form <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Silmarillion, Of Beren and LuthienIs that not considered evil magic? Shapeshifting? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Her will strove with him for a while, but he put forth his power, and having learned who she was he constrained her to gaze into his eyes, and he laid a spell of utter darkness and forgetfulness upon her, so that she could remember nothing that had ever befallen her, nor her own name, nor the name of any other thing, and for many days she could neither hear, nor see, nor stir by her own will. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Silmarillion, Of Turin TurambarBecause that's such a nice thing to do to somebody...that's not evil at all! j/k That leads her to marrying her brother...worse than you'd find in HP.To be perfectly honest Mornie, the 'evil' things you're whittering on about in HP aren't really much compared to the things that happen throughout LotR and the Silmarillion. The quotes I found were probably some of the milder ones as I haven't read it all yet. Why is such magic unacceptable in Harry Potter and not LotR?Oh, and Mornie, if you say we have shown no evidence and that all we say is that HP doesn't have occultic practices you're clearly not reading the posts we write. As for your 'occultic' practices and Rowling studying them, I've heard of everything you mentioned and I've never been interested in Occultic practices. It's general knowledge.[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: *Varda* ]

Ravenna

07-23-2002, 04:51 PM

I've read and watched both, and liked them in very different ways. HP was primarily aimed at children and there's nothing in it I am bothered about my kids reading, its mostly mythology. LOTR is more original in subject and context. As to corrupting our kids, as I say often to my two, 'it's NOT real, it's only a book/film, people do things in there that you can't or shouldn't do in real life'. If we act like it's real the kids might too, if we don't they won't. I honestly don't feel there is all that much to compare between the two as they are so very different. Anyway most fantasy books I've read have superficial similarities, after all, details may differ, but basic plots follow very similar lines whatever you read. As to the accusations of Occult practices, I've read a few books with that stuff in (yuck), and I think I can safely say that HP is nothing like them.

Knight_Link

07-23-2002, 07:50 PM

GOOD GOD!!! how can you even ask a a like that?!?!?!?! lotr is by far the better of the two. now dont get me wrong, i like harry potter (rather large fan of it myself), but you REALLY cant compare the two, you just cant...harry IS good, but it doesnt have the depth that lotr does, if you understand what i mean...ummm....yeah, thats all.

Emni Windrunner

07-25-2002, 12:21 AM

I find it very interesting, Mornie, that you know these isolated scenes without having read the books or seen the movie. In my Biblical exegesis class, we call that proof-texting, and it's not a good practice. You can edge yourself into a really difficult place by throwing out an isolated statement or scene without knowing, considering, and taking into account the context of that statement or scene. Consider for a moment that evil tends to take on a uniform appearance after a certain point. I'm not talking about an isolated sin, like lying, but rather the devotion to and practice of evil. At the root of any true portrayal of evil, a true narrator will eventually have to deal with the fact that evil comes from demonic sources. A denial of this would be a denial of the very Judeo-Christian values you're defending. Devotion to the demonic, as exemplified by the villains in both LOTR and HP, starts with a desire to destroy or to co-opt what has been created by good, and continues with someone acting on that desire. In The Silmarillion, Melkor Morgoth acted on that desire by destroying all of the good things that the Valar created, and by twisting and corrupting (since he could not destroy or completely re-create) what Iluvitar created, e.g. the Elves. Rowling uses the same principle and goes a different, but wholly legitimate, direction with it. God commands throughout the Pentateuch that, since life is contained in blood and life is sacred, blood is not to be drunk or eaten. God commands that since human life is sacred, human life is not to be taken by another human because it would profane the Image of God. God commands that we are to have nothing to do with spiritism because it opens us to the influence of demons, who are opposed to God and will lead us in opposition to Him. In the first case, the only person who consumes any blood, human or animal (and he does both), in HP is Voldemort, who, as I've said more times than I can count, is about as lovable as Sauron. Furthermore, when he consumes unicorn blood, he brings a curse on himself for it, and the scene in which it takes place is so frightening and so dark that no one in their right minds would take it into their head that it's a positive thing. And when Voldemort drinks Harry's blood, that scene makes the one with the unicorn look downright warm and fuzzy! Rowling makes it clear that this practice is evil, and that evil is undesirable. In the second case, the only people who actually take human life in the HP books are villains, and the ones who aren't Voldemort himself are almost as unsavory as he is. There are two characters (Sirius Black and Harry) who consider murdering, but Sirius (at least in my opinion) isn't a good guy, either, and Harry thinks better of it long before he actually tries to pull the trigger. Furthermore, Rowling pulls no punches here; she makes it clear that the hatred driving Harry's desire for revenge is a poison and it is unequivocally wrong. Based on the context of the confrontation (the end of Book 3), I think a case could be made for saying that Rowling considers murder unjustifiable in any context. Confronted with the man who all but killed his parents and nearly got him killed at least once, Harry is still not justified in killing him. And finally, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Ginny Weasley's tampering with things that shouldn't be messed with put her in a very bad narrative light. She, like many people who tamper with the supernatural (in the REAL world), started out innocently enough, writing to someone she thought to be harmless and friendly. You could compare Tom Riddle's diary to any number of gateways to demonic activity that are out there--Ouija boards, for example. The fact that she started out innocently did not save her, and in fact probably further endangered her. She opened herself up to Voldemort's influence, and in that way unleashed a whole world of trouble, both for herself and for her classmates. Ginny is not portrayed as a villain, but she does come across as a victim of her own naivete and wilfullness--both very bad traits when dealing with Voldemort (just as they're detrimental when dealing with demons). "Tom" did not have her best interests at heart; he was using her, just as demons use people as hosts and tools. I think that the climax of Book 2 is one of the best arguments out there for being wary of what spiritual influences we knowingly or unknowingly open ourselves up to. Whether Rowling specifically intended to convey that message, I don't know; I haven't talked to her or seen any quotes on the subject. What I do know, however, is that the things that many people scream about as being evil and reasons not to read the book, are good reasons to read and discuss the book, because they deal with the very real subject of the existence and activity of evil. Anyone who does a serious treatment of the subject of evil will have to take into consideration the Occult. Why? Because the Occult is the embodiment of evil in its most unadulterated form. Tolkien pulled no punches, and neither does Rowling. So far, they are equal in that regard. Literarily, there are obviously differences, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Melephelwen

07-25-2002, 03:46 AM

Wow Emni, that was the best I've seen on this topic so far! *looks very impressed* You have my full support!!!

Emni Windrunner

07-25-2002, 10:25 AM

*blushes*Thanks. I honestly don't know where half of the stuff I said came from...but now that I've had some sleep, it all still makes sense. I should post during the wee hours more often.

kendra

07-25-2002, 01:04 PM

i used to like harry potter, only because everyone else did.but the movie ruined it completly!

Georgia Peach

07-25-2002, 02:00 PM

here are 2 little Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings connections: 1) Howard Shore, who composed the music for LOTR also composed music for Mrs. Doubtfire, which was directed by Chris Columbus, the director of HP 2) Chris Columbus wrote The Goonies, which stars Sean Astin, who is Sam in LOTR. just a couple cool connections I thought you might like to hear ciao ~Rose Chubb from Tookbank~

Mornie Alantie

07-25-2002, 08:06 PM

Possesion is a form of cult. So is Drinking the blood of animals and humans. These are in Harry Potter. No matter how Rowling approached them, saying they are bad or whatever, that is not why she put them in her books. They were in there to give the bad guys a more evil presence. These are real forms of satanism and they are not there to teach kids anything, just make the books a little more thrilling.The drinking of the Unicorns blood gave Voldemorte a curse. In real witchcraft, if you hurt anyone or if you do things like that to animals, they say you will be punished/cursed. I did not know this and other stuff about the cult/witchcraft till I watch a video on the connection of HP and Witchcraft/occult. Christian experts on Occultic and witchcraft who looked into HP and did a video on it. Most likely the average person doesn't know to much about the occult. I can see that here cause people still denie that HP has the occult in it. Rowling might not have just known about it and happened to put a lot of it in her books.I have noticed certain things with shapechanging in LOTR that has made me a little edgy. Yet Tolkien did not center his books on Withcraft and wizardry as did Rowling(such as Harry going to Hogwarts school for witchcraft and wizardry, and defeating the bad guy by witchcraft and wizardry). Also Tolkien was a bornagain Christian and he and C.S. Lewis constantly kept eachother in check. It was not put in there with the intention of it relating to The craft or the occult.I know that the Spells in HP are in Latin, that is not my point. My point is the backround of the spells. Dont they even give the words for the spell Voldemorte used on Harry's parents? I can see a small kid running around screaming that at people not realizing the reason of the words.Also Harry's mother put some kind of protection blessing on Harry. If you looked into it, it has a great deal to do with the godesses in witchcraft.Tolkien never gave great emphises to the evil things the bad guys did, in the books, all you know is that Saruman makes the Uruk Hia by Orcs and men. He doesn't explain how it happened and what evil went into it. In the Hobbit it says that there was a flash and two goblins lay dead. It doesn't even say what Gandalf did to them. Tolkiens "Magic" is so diffenrent from the witchcraft and occult in Harry Potter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the scene in which it takes place is so frightening and so dark that no one in their right minds would take it into their head that it's a positive thing. And when Voldemort drinks Harry's blood, that scene makes the one with the unicorn look downright warm and fuzzy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>what is this doing in a childrens book. It all has to do with the Occult. No mater how bad Rowling posed it to be. Like I said Tolkien would Rarely descibe how the Bad guy stuff happens. He doesn't descibe to us how Morgorth twisted the elves. All he said is that he did it.

Emni Windrunner

07-25-2002, 09:32 PM

Okay, I have a few things to say in reply to your post, Mornie.Firstly, the books are meant to be read with children, not just by children. They were marketed to all ages, not just children. And, being blunt, Book 4 is different from the others in that it is where the face of evil is bared to the reader and the characters; even if I'd let my kids read the first three unsupervised (which I wouldn't, because I'm into the involved parenting thing), they wouldn't go near the fourth one without me. If you would read HP, Mornie, you would be able to tell that much of the narrative is directed to a more mature audience than, say, ten year-olds. Rowling is not necessarily responsible for how her book is marketed.Secondly, Harry does not use magic to defeat Voldemort! In Book 1, he is saved by luck (more on that in a minute, since you brought it up indirectly); in Book 2, he's saved by his wits and his nobility of character; in Book 3, he's saved by the cowardice of the villain (Wormtail, not Voldemort); in Book 4, he barely escapes, and that's by sheer luck, too! In only one of those cases did magic have something to do with it, and that was purely accidental since neither he nor Voldemort knew about the Priori Incantatem.As for the "blessing" you spoke of Mornie--the one placed on Harry by his mother--that did not happen as you seem to think it did, and it most certainly was not magical. Harry's mother died to save him when he was an infant. Because of her sacrifice, he had some protection from Voldemort. It was not a magical protection, but it was a supernatural one; you might call it spiritual protection. That is not to say that her spirit is protecting her--it's not at all implied that that's the case; rather, the sacrifice itself protects him. Lily Potter is not a goddess figure. She is a real woman, a normal woman, and a loving mother. If she ever comes across as larger-than-life, it's because Harry never really knew her and he's idealizing her, which any kid will do for a parent he or she never knew.Finally, in answer to your question about why Harry goes to a school for witchcraft and wizardry...Well, if you have abilities that could give you power in the ordinary world, you could be very dangerous if you weren't trained; any of us could. The point here is that people not trained are potential loose cannons, and people not trained to use abilities responsibly may well use them to dominate others without those abilities. It's the same rationale the Jedi Knights used in Star Wars for the training of everyone with Force-sensitivity. Harry's not in school to learn how to worship the devil or how to rule the world with magic; indeed, he's there to learn that it is not for him to rule the world, and how to defend himself against the devil (hence the required class Defense Against the Dark Arts that he must take all seven years he's at Hogwarts).You have some valid concerns, Mornie. The only problem is that they are secondhand because you have not read the books and your sources may or may not have done so, either (I don't know if they have or not; many criticisms I've run into saying that HP Occultic have been uninformed. I'm not challenging the integrity of your sources, just letting you know that some are more reliable than others). I would encourage you to read just the first book and to see what is in it. If you still don't like it--for whatever reason!--that's fine, but you will have a lot more credibility in your arguments just from the fact that you have read Harry Potter. PS Nothing in Harry Potter has to do with cults. Please note that there is a big difference between a cult and the Occult, as defined in one of my earlier posts.[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ][ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ][ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]

*Varda*

07-26-2002, 01:23 AM

Mornie, you still don't know for a fact Rowling studied the Occult. I'd heard of everything mentioned in her books, which i wouldn't presume to be the Occult. You say you watched a video, did it address both sides, and facts etc? And I've found no quote or anything where Rowling says she studied the Occult.I must admit, I do see in a way what you're worried about. I just don't see what religion has to do with Harry Potter, and I don't see why Harry Potter is any worse than LotR. If you would read the books, your answer would have more credibility and respect. You're using second hand information and single scenes where you don't know the context, setting, what happens before and after and what Harry chooses to do - those are all important to what happens.Anyway, can we not read a simple book without having to worry about all these moral issues? It is extremely unlikely that anyone is particularly affected by HP - kids are smarter than we give them credit for. Personally I think some of the scenes in LotR are more disturrbing mainly because of the way and style in which they're written. Rowling doesn't really seem to have the ability to make it real and bring you into the world of HP as much as Tolkien. This in itself makes scenes like the blood less real and I know it's fiction - It's made clear it's wrong and that you should never do it.

Melephelwen

07-26-2002, 08:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> kids are smarter than we give them credit for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Varda is so absolutely right about that. For example, I still don't consider my 11-year old brother as more than a little fool, but actually he read HP 7 times, got halfway through LotR and he's working on Star Wars. I didn't read any of those until I was 13. (Mainly because HP came out when I was 12, but that's another side of it.) And we're not quite fair by calling HP a 'children's book'. I don't dought that it was adressed to kids older than 10. I've read that Rowling wouldn't read her books for her own daughter until the girl was 8 or 10. I think it was 10 but I don't remember precisely. And Mornie: this is not just to be of an opposite opinion than you, but never, never, use secondhand sources as arguments if you haven't read about the subject yourself! (ex. HP) It makes you look stupid. If you ever do that, then make sure to clear out that it's only your opinion, because you really don't know it. I always do it when I discuss something and nobody's called me stupid so far. Anyway we're not getting anywhere - Mornie is not going to convince anybody, and Varda and Emni aren't neither (except me). No matter how good the arguments might be. My suggestion is to quit the topic

Emni Windrunner

07-30-2002, 11:06 AM

Okay, a little something that has nothing to do with defending HP.Hello? I didn't kill anyone from shock, did I? Just checking. I was reading back over some of the earlier posts on this thread, and I have a couple of questions: 1. How is the giant squid in HP copying the Watcher in the Water in FOTR? Just wondering, because about the only thing they have in common is that they have a lot of tentacles... 2. If Ron is a knockoff of Sam Gamgee...who is Hermione a copy of? Not really vital, just random synaptic firings in my brain. 3. Not a question, just a point: The Basilisk in HP Book 2 is based on an old Roman mythological thingimajigger called (I think) the King Snake or something like that, and its gaze could kill someone or turn him to stone. The Basilisk from the Chamber of Secrets is in no way based on Smaug or any other of the dragons. Norbert, on the other hand, might be.

thinavarial

07-30-2002, 10:33 PM

oh my god who ever started this post is so immature how can u compare 2 great storys ..its liek saying which would u have air or water u cant live without either but some ppl dont like harry potter b/c its about a lil boy look at frodo hes like smaller then harry and hes a lil wimp but i still like him and rowling plagerising ? cant 2 ppl have similar ideas and she didnot eve ncopy him theyre totally differnet if u dont like it then dont f***** read it but i think u really should since HP s very very good ....... and i loved LOtr but it was a bit boring and rowling writing style is way better but i respect and admire both writers ...so instead of wasting ur time on something so stupid go read the book and find out 4 urself if its good or bad

Alkanoonion

07-31-2002, 06:22 AM

Did this topic not die? BTW thinavarial, Welcome to the Barrow Downs.[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Alkanoonion ]

Emni Windrunner

07-31-2002, 10:59 AM

At the risk of sounding like a smart-aleck, things that "die" at the Barrow-Downs aren't exactly dead. After all, a newbie here is "Newly Deceased". This topic's got 100 posts on it now, which would make it far beyond just dead.

Naaramare

07-31-2002, 11:19 AM

Not touching the rest of this argument other than to say that Emni, your knowledge shines out of its setting. You and I would obviously have differences of opinion on some points.But I warn you: no matter how brilliant your logic, the people you're arguing will miss it. Entirely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 3. Not a question, just a point: The Basilisk in HP Book 2 is based on an old Roman mythological thingimajigger called (I think) the King Snake or something like that, and its gaze could kill someone or turn him to stone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Egyptian and Greek, yes. Basilisks. ^^ If I remember correctly--and I might not in this case--said to guard tombs of great kinds and turn to stone graverobbers.

Emni Windrunner

07-31-2002, 12:20 PM

You can call me a rabble-rouser if you want to, but the truth is I don't necessarily care if you agree with me or not. I delight in intelligent debate in which both sides do an excellent job of supporting their stances. I don't thrive on winning; I thrive on exchange of ideas.

NazgulNumberTen

07-31-2002, 12:22 PM

winning is the icing on the cake.

Naaramare

07-31-2002, 12:26 PM

=P I was complimenting you, Enmi. ^~ In point of fact I agree with everything you've said on this topic, but the fashion in which you said it indicates to me that we'd disagree on other topics that I won't pursue here, due to extreme OTness. I was just warning you that this argument's already been done to death here, and nothing new on the part of the people you're arguing with ever comes to light. If you wish to continue, by all means, do so. ^^

RiderOfRohan

07-31-2002, 12:32 PM

Lotr Is SOOO much bette than Harry Potter. END OF DISCUSION!!!

Emni Windrunner

07-31-2002, 12:33 PM

Sorry, Naamare, I didn't mean to sound insulted. I got the compliment--thank you! Actually, I don't always argue from the OT; I usually prefer to argue from the NT, in fact, but the OT seemed to work better for the direction I was going in this debate. It is worth pointing out, though, that in Acts 15 (NT), they still stipulated against the drinking and eating of blood because of the sanctity of life. Still, as you say, this topic has been pretty much done to death. Nevertheless, as a rabble-rouser (and a proud one, at that!), if someone wants to keep it going, I'll give 'em someone to debate with. [ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]

Tel'

08-14-2002, 06:08 PM

I HATE Harry Potter . It can't be call fantasy ,it is a fairy tale. There are many episods wich are stolen from the LOTR.For example mirror , doesn't it remind the Galadriels mirror?

marinaconnolly2002

08-14-2002, 06:36 PM

Mellon! Harry Potter and LOTR aren't comparable.HP is a great story in its own right but hardly an epic and all-engrossing world like Tolkiens'.Still,I enjoyed reading JK Rowlings books as i do any fantasy tales. Tolkien has the ability to transorm us into a world TOTALLY and wish we were there or wish it were true. I have adopted Tolkien's work as my bible and find his work flawless which is more than can be said about the movie adaption! Yet Peter Jackson did a fine job of recreating Middle Earth and is commended as he has had to cram as much possible into a brief time while not losing less loyal viewers.We all wish for an unabridged version of the books ;one that would satisfy fanatics; and would hopefully run for 6 hours or more. Maybe then we would realise our visions of the Barrow Downs,Tom Bombadil, Goldberry and other key scenes missing from the meagre 3 hour presentation. While I'm here, do you have any ideas for me for a Middle Earth party I'm hosting next month?null

Lothlória

08-14-2002, 08:03 PM

LOTR wins! Harry Potter: nice. Though, if you see the base of these two movies... in the case of Harry Potter they improved the not too exciting story by great pictures and some computer effects. The "problem" with LOTR is: you just can`t put such a great book into a movie without receiving a film that has definitely lost sth. Shorter said: I loved the books and I liked the film, though you actionall can`t put both onto the same level. Too many things got lost (they let out even Tom Bombadil!!). Charakters remain kind of empty and s.o. who watches the movie without having read the books could have difficulties to distinguish between the persons and to follow the plot. I mean: is there anyone who liked the film better than the books? I would be really interested in his/her sight of the things. G`night!

marinaconnolly2002

08-14-2002, 08:18 PM

Yep no one could agree that movie is better than books.I do agree that characters are shallow and non readers would view it as just another story/movie.You have to know the backgrounds of caracters to benefit from film.For instance;who really gave a toss when Gandalf fell in Moria and were they left wondering if he was dead?Doubt it when trailers show him alive and well in sequel! Boromir wasnt featured enough and non readers wouldnt care that he is gone.Think its fantastic for world viewers to see aussie actors like David Wenham and Miranda Otto really puts us on the map...

Eleventy1-tipsy-hobbits

08-14-2002, 10:26 PM

I've only read the PS and found it light and ejoyable but chose not the see the film until its release on DVD. And anyway, all my money at the time was going on Lotr!! After seeing it on DVD can I just say, Harry needed a serious dose of Fairy dust sprinkled on him. More animation would be the go. I did enjoy the other characters though. But my personal preference is still LOTR! Mornie; Tolkein writes about all those things you find disagreeable in HP, ie possession (ringwraiths), shape changing (Beorn) Frodo talks about spells and incantations in the Barrow-downs scene, or don't these count! Gimli even refers to Galadrial as a Sorceress. It's all a matter of perspective is it not, as Gimli found out later! HP may be fulled with witches and wizards good and bad, trolls and dragons or whatever, but the morals are just as profound, and easy to discover to the 10yr old thats reading it ... and yes such things as loyalty among friends, compassion, decency. As to the thought that if HP is in schools why not the Bible ... well 'shrug' The supreme court defind HP as a religion or witchcraft as a religion? Either way to try getting the Bible back into the school system via that argument, would seem to me to open up a whole hugh unwanted can of worms.OOOPS! THE 10YR OLD AND THE 90YR OLD! [ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Eleventy1-tipsy-hobbits ]

Melephelwen

08-15-2002, 07:18 AM

I don't want to bring this topic back alive (again, again) but I just need to answer to this, and then I'll leave the thread for good (in case anybody wants to know ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There are many episods wich are stolen from the LOTR.For example mirror , doesn't it remind the Galadriels mirror? - Tel'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhm, no. The Mirror in HP (I persume you are referrring to the mirror, which showes the dreams?) It only shows people's deepest, most desperate dreams/wishes. A very private thing, actually, but that's not the point. Galadriel's Mirror shows "shows things that were, and things that are, and things that yet may be." It can also show what people wish to see, but as I understood the book, Galadriel would have to force the mirror. Anyway, I don't think you read the thread, 'cause it is stated there several times, that you cannot compare things in that way. If you talk about "plagiarising"(sp?) Tolkien did it as much as Rowling. And both books/series are written (and published) so it doesn't really matter. And to all of you, I sort of disagree that HP should be that bad and 'childish'. I started a reread two days ago, and though it might be a bit easy in the language compared to LotR, it's not bad at all!! Just my opinion, and I'm honored that you read this!

Emni Windrunner

08-15-2002, 12:00 PM

The Mirror of Erised has exactly two things in common with Galadriel's Mirror: 1. They are both supernatural, and 2. They are both mirrors. Other than that, they are quite different. Galadriel's Mirror is a tool of sorts; the Mirror of Erised had no apparent useful purpose until Dumbledore used it to protect the Philosopher's Stone.[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]

Aroaraniel

08-15-2002, 12:32 PM

I belong to lots of message boards including the one at HarryPotter.com...and I've come to this conclusion---Lord of the Ring fans (for whatever reason) seem to be much more learned and well...generally not as annoying as Harry Potter fans. The only reason I still go there, is because of the friends I made there, who are very much like you people. And it took me a long time to find those people believe me. I find it wierd that books compared over and over again, and pretty much the two most popularfantasy (or whatever you'd like to call them) story epic appeal to a complete different genres of people...although they are completely different, they are somewhat similar...I don't know if you just got what I was trying to say, but its...difficult to explain hehe!But that's besides the point, isn't it? I find LOTR more confusing, but generally more a good read and all around entertaining. Harry Potter...is one of those books you re-read because you're bored one day...but thats just my opinion. And well the movies don't compare. The Harry Potter movie sucked compared to Lord of the Rings, although I own both of them hehe!!

Naaramare

08-15-2002, 01:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> For example mirror , doesn't it remind the Galadriels mirror? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To paraphrase a quote from Tolkien (who ran up against something similar in comparison of LotR to a much older story, the Ring of the Niblung) "Both stories contain a mirror, and there the resemblance ends."

Emni Windrunner

08-17-2002, 11:00 AM

I guess I just got lucky. All of the Harry Potter fans I know also happen to be LOTR fans, so I can't really compare the maturity level of one to the other. However, my friends who are more into HP than LOTR are still mature and thoughtful people, though you'd never find them posting on message boards (I'm the only one of any of us who does that )

Tel'

08-17-2002, 05:59 PM

I am really ashamed with my words about the mirror. I am sorry. But still I have a good(maybe not very) reason to don't like HP:try to wathch it 10 hours without brake, and say whay do you think about it.I am sorry again.

Erulasto

08-22-2002, 07:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gandalf - Dumbledore Nazgûl - Dementors Spiders of Mirkwood - Spiders of Forbid. Forest Black Breath - Dementor's Breath (just my name for the ripoff) Sam Gamgee - Ron Weasley Basilisk - Probably got the idea of a serpent from Smaug Sauron - Voldemort Orcs/Goblins/ Uruks - Goblins of Gringotts Watcher in the Water - Giant Squid<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>let's continue this, shall we...Merlin - Gandalf - Dumbledore Grim Reaper - Nazgûl - Dementors human arachnophobia - Spiders of Mirkwood - Spiders of Forbid. Forest any folk myth - Black Breath - Dementor's Breath (just my name for the ripoff) World's First Clumsy Person With A Heart Of Gold - Sam Gamgee - Ron Weasley Dinosaur bones - Basilisk - Probably got the idea of a serpent from Smaug A Villain - Sauron - Voldemort Ugly Monsters - Orcs/Goblins/ Uruks - Goblins of Gringotts Sea Monsters - Watcher in the Water - Giant Squiddon't you think that it's a bit daft accusing someone of plagiarizing age-old cliches? not that that's all there is to what you listed, but that seems to be the only facets you are comparing. why not compare Lord of the Flies to Tom Sawyer, after all, both are books about adolescents.

Craban

08-23-2002, 02:22 PM

Obviously there's some anti-HP video making the rounds of some church groups, and some people choose to believe it because it makes them feel good to do so for some reason and will stubbornly stick to it no matter how many intelligent and thoughtful posts, philosophical and theological discourses, and well-researched facts you throw at them. And some people just don't like Harry Potter because they identify too much with the Dursleys.There wouldn't even be any reason to compare the two at all if they both hadn't been adapted into mega-blockbuster movies released around the same time, purely by chance. LOTR = mythopoeic heroic fantasy told in a style that's a hybrid between "epic" and "novelistic," set in a mythic landscape and far remote Age of Legends. HP = contemporary fantasy story in which a magical subculture overlaps the mundane world, told in modern conversational language, with child/teenage protagonists. I enjoy them both very much, on different levels and for different reasons. I don't think they're very similar or have much to do with each other.But, because I can't resist: for the record, I *am* a Wiccan, have been for 14 years. I've read all four HP books more than once, and there is NO evidence that JK Rowling knows jack about Wicca, or cares. All her ample magic references come from history (note the fact that Nicholas Flamel was a real Renaissance alchemist), mythology and pop culture, and her symbolism and themes could be read to be as much Christian as anything else (no surprise, because it is after all the dominant culture in the UK and is the source of many cultural references readily understood in English-speaking society, duh.)Now, Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon--THAT'S a book drenched in Wiccan values and symbolism. It was even a recent (made-for-TV) movie too. And told in a style far more like to LOTR, although its story is Arthurian. Why aren't people railing about that all over this board? My best guess is because it's not popular enough that the Symbolism Police have heard of it.

NazgulNumberTen

08-23-2002, 02:28 PM

harry potter sucks. plan and simple. it has none of the depth, felling, or thought in lotr. it is inferrior fantasy.

Rohirrim Lass

08-26-2002, 03:34 PM

I don't know that I'd lay it out quite that way. I mean, I liked HP just fine. But it is inferior fantasy, one way or another.

elanor_niphredil

08-29-2002, 02:17 PM

DID NOBODY NOTICE THE CAVE TROLL?

elanor_niphredil

08-29-2002, 02:20 PM

i think that if I was 10, I would like Harry Potter just fine. but once you have read LOtr, there is no going back!

dragongirlG

08-29-2002, 08:35 PM

Please make thoughtful and eloquent posts. Yes, I am talking to you.

Emni Windrunner

09-11-2002, 07:53 PM

I don't know how we could help but notice the cave troll. It kind of skewered Frodo (or tried to). What does that have to do with any of this?As for not going back to HP once having read LOTR...well, I did. I still do. I go back and forth between the two pretty often. I don't consider one inferior to the other in terms of fantasy, because they're so different (not referring to archetypal characters or the so-called ripoffs--only a few of which I accept as possiblilities) in premise and intended audience. Both pull me in and both entertain. Granted, LOTR is a bit deeper content-wise, but Tolkien was going for more depth than Rowling is.

Anastasia

09-12-2002, 10:06 AM

OK, I don't know if anyone has said this already, but harry potter has: 1. An evil bad guy that was "killed" but his spirit lived on and he was gaining strength and returning to his new body....ummm remind you of anyone?2.This evil bad guy has alot of followers and spies...3. some of which pretend to be goodetc. etc.I would have thought that JKR read the books as a kid/teenager/adult and some ideas inadvertently got copied... maybe without her realising it.

*Varda*

09-12-2002, 11:42 AM

I really wish people would read the previous posts before endlessly repeating what others have said, and not understanding why the whole copying thing is rubbish.

thinavarial

09-13-2002, 02:09 PM

ok u mite not like HP god u dont need to make a big deal of ....its ur opinion and noone can change it ......i love LOTR AND HP!!! and JKR didnot copy tolkien! if u think she did then so did tolkien.... he didnt invent elves or dwarves or spiders ....... he just gave them a place to live ...... and about voldemort dyin and comin back ....its a evil person they never die!( they do after couple of times) i mean how can ne one even think she copied him cant 2 ppl have SIMILER IDEAS!! just liek u and another person mite have same opinions about the same stuff oh is that copyin then.!-well thats all i wanted ot say -and if u have a reply to my post u can IM me at hpchic007(AIM)

DarkRose

09-13-2002, 08:20 PM

I agree with Varda. All of what you all are saying has already been stated multiple times. There is no point to restate it. Not to be rude, but I am just tired of seeing the same points being said over and over again.

Emni Windrunner

09-20-2002, 03:39 PM

Ooh, here's something nobody's brought up yet: There are multiple ways to defeat Voldemort (not necessarily destroy him) that in no way involve confiscating or destroying a piece of jewelry--or any other item, for that matter--that contains his essence and/or power. If Rowling goes that direction, maybe, MAYBE we can talk. But people who scream about how she ripped off LOTR are barking up the wrong tree. King Solomon said it best: "There is nothing new under the sun." (And I'll bet someone else said it before he did. )

TolkienGurl

09-20-2002, 05:55 PM

LOTR is way better than Harry Potter from an adults point of view. But Potter isn't that bad. They're not just some stupid kids books with no plot like some people believe. I've read then several times (15 yrs. old)and I really like them. Sure its aim is at a younger generation, but at least it is getting kids to read! For some kids Harry Potter is the first book they picked up, and now they can't stop reading. That's a good thing!!

thinavarial

09-20-2002, 05:56 PM

hey Emni Windrunner thanks 4 putting that post up! jsut like this one person sed "tolkien didnot invent dragons,dwarves,elves,or trees or the see or a ring, he jsut made a world to put them in""he is the colonzier of dreams". thats all i wanted to say and ppl stop fighting over who copied who.. they are both very talented writes and we need to respect that i love lord of hte rings as much as i love harry potter.but i cant MAKE ppl see my point but just dotn critisize the writers .

Craban

09-20-2002, 11:53 PM

Yo, Tolkien and Rowling are both drawing on a lot of the same primary sources: Norse mythology, Greek and Roman mythology, Old English epics, Latin, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. Neither of them invented: Little People, wizards, witches, magic wands, invisibility spells, undead demonic figures, dragons, etcetera: all those ideas are thousands of years old. Other than that, I'd say there's really no similarities at all. Only if those are the only two fantasy series you've ever read (and you've never read the primary sources) would you think so.Harry Potter: Enid Blyton boarding school stories + Bewitched. + modern, conversational style + JK Rowling's imagination.LOTR: Ring of the Niebelung + Poetic Edda + Irish Sagas + Brothers Grimm + 19th century idea of high epic style + JRR Tolkien's imagination.Don't see the point of getting so uptight about some dumbarse rivalry, really. It's not like you have to choose between them.

Isilya

09-21-2002, 09:04 AM

HP is just a light-hearted fantasy fiction, though not anymore, from what I've heard. Ms. Rowling didn't mean to make it sound like LOTR, I hope, she just wanted to write a book that people could read without having to completely understand the past history and the languages, that's all. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for LOTR, but I enjoy reading and watching HP too, especially with Oliver Wood in it, yummy.....

Zackary1232

09-21-2002, 10:33 AM

Lord of the Rings is way better than Harry Potter

Emni Windrunner

09-23-2002, 10:23 AM

I do not understand the fascination with Oliver Wood...

Kalevala

09-23-2002, 01:15 PM

Me neither. If I knew a guy who has no other interests in life than quidditch (or, say, football in real life) I'd probably find such person very boring. And I don't think the actor's particularly good looking either. No, I really don't care about that fellow.

mark12_30

09-23-2002, 01:22 PM

Who's Oliver Wood?

Isilya

09-23-2002, 02:44 PM

Haw can you say that you don't know or like Oliver Wood!!! Oliver Wood is the very yummy looking Quidditch captain for Gryffindor at Hogwarts. Besides, I'm not in love with the fact that he's obsessed with quidditch, I'm obsessed with how fine he is, and it's better than being obsessed with someone that attracts both women AND men alike *cough*Legolas*cough*!! Mark12_30: Go to Sean Biggerstaff's (the actor who plays him) website. Go to the pictures. Then you'll see what I mean. Melt!! <A HREF="http://www.seanbiggerstaff.com" TARGET=_blank>Sean Biggerstaff- Official Website</A>[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Isilya ]

*Varda*

09-23-2002, 02:52 PM

WHAT! *Varda looks appalled* A site with Glasgow slang that doesn't include the term 'ned'!!! *sighs* Oh well....Sean is hot anyway, I guess, suppose I just like the fact that he went to my school, even though I never knew him.

Lady_Espel

09-24-2002, 01:08 PM

I quite like Harry Potter, but its not 100% fantasy. I think that the fourth book was the worst so maybe thats how the books are goin. I hope not. But compared to LOTR, well, you can't compare them. LOTR is completely different, it is complete fantasy, whereas HP isn't. Plus, LOTR is quite a bit more mature, even if HP does appeal to adults to. As for the movies, well, maybe if they'd of used more of actual book, HP might of been better. But it wasn't and the acting skills of Daniel Radcliff didnt help. Wow, that's longer than my english essay. I come off a bit vicious about HP don't I? But I do like it, really.

Emni Windrunner

09-25-2002, 04:50 PM

He's...yummy. Do you want to date him, or eat him?!

Isilya

09-25-2002, 05:16 PM

Sorry, that's just a little saying of mine. If I think a guy is good looking, I say he's yummy. Blame it on my being Canadian. Great Big Sea is the greatest Canadian band ever!!

Emni Windrunner

09-26-2002, 03:56 PM

Okay. I won't say I get it, but I see the application you're using.I think Oliver Wood's cool as a character; I just think he needs to ease up and realize there's more to life than quidditch and winning the Quidditch Cup. He's funny, though, for precisely the reason that he won't ease up. As for his looks...well, my roommates and I think he looks like a less bad-boy version of Hayden Christianson, but beyond that, I haven't really thought much of him. Blame it on my being Nallennian.

busybee

09-26-2002, 04:13 PM

I personally like H potter but i have to agree some of the ideas are really similar.Like the Nazgul & the Death eaters from HP.also that there is one object that f the DARK LORD gets he will become all powerful AGAIN that idea is very alike and i'm sure there are others i haven't noticed

Isilya

09-26-2002, 04:35 PM

Welcome to the Downs, busybee!!

InklingElf

09-27-2002, 01:04 PM

I agree with Lady_Espel -there can be no comparing with Tolkien's pure fantasy

Isilya

09-27-2002, 02:37 PM

It's what I said before. HP is merely light-hearted fantasy.

Lady_Espel

10-01-2002, 01:22 PM

I didn't mean it rudely, i suppose.

Emni Windrunner

10-10-2002, 12:31 PM

I just wanted to thank a bunch of you, especially Mornie and MallornLeaf, for unknowingly helping me out with my Speech class. Because I spent a lot of this summer thinking about why HP isn't Satanic, I now have a fully researched and thought-out topic for my persuasive speech next week. Thanks for keeping me on my toes on why I think as I do, and thanks a ton for helping me come up with a topic for a speech I really wasn't looking forward to!PS No, it's not a speech to persuade the audience that Harry Potter isn't Satanic. It's actually just a speech challenging the audience to read one of the HP books before arguing either for or against it. 6-7 minutes isn't nearly enough for the accomplishment of the former goal, even if I was so crazy as to set it for myself. ~EW~

TealDude3

10-17-2002, 03:04 PM

It depends on the person. Harry Potter, I believe, is for a younger audience. The task of reading LOTR, to a younger person, is a very big challange. And the movies. LOTR nearly got an R-rating and Harry Potter is PG. In my opinion, LOTR is a lot more epic than Harry Potter.

*Varda*

10-17-2002, 03:45 PM

*wonders why people keep on reviving this thread*Seriously, why? All you do is repeat the same old stuff!Let's leave this thread in the bin.Varda

dragoneyes

10-20-2002, 11:16 AM

*bins thread*

ColletteTook

10-23-2002, 07:17 PM

I wouldnt actually completely diss the Harry Potter series. Rowling is a noble CHILDRENS writer and thats probably why the majority of you find it distasteful. I have read what there is of the Harry Potter series, and found them okay books to solve boredom on a rainy afternoon, but they are in the most part a book for a younger child. I dont see any comparison whatsoever between the Lord of the Rings series and the Harry Potter series. Lord of the RIngs is more in-depth and takes a bit of a more mature mind to understand it, after all, dear old Tolkien wrote it like it WAS history, and Rowling wrote all nice little bedtime stories full of magic and imagination. But Tolkien writes as though the magic and imagination in his story IS real.Hehe...what a musing thought...imagine reading a little kid the seige of Gondor before tucking them in to bed...or the chapter of Mount Doom.....hehe yeah definetly not a bedtime story...

Helkasir

10-23-2002, 08:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> harry potter sucks. plan and simple. it has none of the depth, felling, or thought in lotr. it is inferrior fantasy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"Inferior" is hardly the word. Inferior is such a mislable that it's disgusting. There are many divisions within the fantasy genre. The names I'm going to give aren't standard by any means, but it's the description that's important:Pure Fantasy -- Fantasy that is entirely based within a single world different from our own. (e.g., The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien, The Wheel of Teem By Robert Jordan)First World Fantasy -- Fantasy that is based on our own world with a distorted, fantastic viewpoint. (e.g., Harry Potter by Rowling)Second World Fantasy -- Fantasy that contains two worlds, the first akin to First World Fantasy, the second akin to Pure Fantasy. (e.g., The Chronicles of Narnia by Lewis)Fairy Tales -- Originally oral, subsequentially written tales that tend to be short with distinctly good and evil characters. (e.g. Cinderella written by Perrault)Nonsense Fantasy -- Fantasy that takes place within a dream or dreamlike world where the laws of common sense do not apply. (e.g. Alice in Wonderland by Carroll, the Xanth seires by Piers Anthony)I'm sure there are a handful of others too, so this is an abbreviated list. All I can say is that if we consider Alice in Wonderland fantasy, which it is, than HP makes it there as well.

Arwen Imladris

10-24-2002, 02:16 PM

Sorry if this has already been said, I kinda didn't read the whole thread .I think that Tolkien was sort of the starting point of fantasy. Most of the fantasy storys that were written after that were related to LOTR. However, HP is in no way a cheap copy of it. The genre may have started with LOTR but others will finish it. I would say that HP is moer comparable to the hobbit than LOTR. It is ment as a kid story, we cannot judge it as an adult story.

*Varda*

10-24-2002, 02:21 PM

I have to agree with Helkasir's general opinion of fantasy - it's a huge genre and it can cover so much. While some may believe that HP is inferior fantasy, it is still fantasy. The books are also aimed at two completely different age groups. Harry Potter isn't really intended for adults, although many enjoy reading it.I find LOTR better, but it doesn't mean HP isn't good to read on a rainy day.

dunadan_aragorn

02-21-2003, 03:18 PM

(Runs up)I HATE HARRY POTTER!!!!!!!!! I HOPE HE DIES IN THE NEXT BOOK!!!! Thaank you. (walks away)

dunadan_aragorn

02-21-2003, 03:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Hehe...what a musing thought...imagine reading a little kid the seige of Gondor before tucking them in to bed...or the chapter of Mount Doom.....hehe yeah definetly not a bedtime story... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The first time I ever heard Lord of the Rings was when my dad read me a chapter every night.

InklingElf

02-21-2003, 03:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>*wonders why people keep on reviving this thread* Seriously, why? All you do is repeat the same old stuff!Let's leave this thread in the bin.Varda<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep. This topic has been answered by many other threads and forums other than the BD. It is plain and simple. HP books aren't mythopetic like Tolkien's books are. They are set in the 21st century world, and they don't have references of Pagan magick like Rowling's does.If you would like me to expound on this topic more, tell me. I would be glad to do so.BTW:I even forgot this thread existed until I checked my mail just now. Heh- Oh well.

Cibbwin

02-22-2003, 02:37 AM

I can't belive I'm still arguing in this thread, but I'm known for my opinionated way of thinking. So, here we go:I've seen alot of posts from someone (not naming any names) about some of us being afraid of Christianity, or whatever that was about. All I can say is, why can't you be happy knowing you'll go to your paradise after death and we will be happy just turning into grass? I mean, I don't want to say this, but why can't so many Christains get the fact that they're will ALWAYS be other religions? Why can't you co-exist with them? Why must you try to convert us?And on the Harry Potter/Bible thing: In NO WAY does Harry Potter teach anything about religion. Like I've said before, the only reference to ANY religion is in book 3, when the kids are studying demons known as Red Caps: The only way to defeat them is to recite a verse from the bible. The books don't teach anything about occult or anything like that. YES, the spells, ingredients and creatures come from mythology and religions, but they come from a million sources! Druidic wands, Persian clairvoyance, in NO way does it teach kids to follow a religion! The bible does.Okay, I'm shutting up, this thread IS getting ridiculous. I just need to say what I need to say. And I'll also say that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are two 100% different works of art. Harry Potter is more for kids to relate to. Lord of the Rings is a classic romantic fantasy, and BOTH will have a place in my heart. And I'd also like to say that in no way do I hate Christianity just because I'm pagan. Wiccans teach acceptance of every religion.

Cibbwin

02-22-2003, 02:40 AM

I'm sorry, but I'm just getting mad, one more thing I need to say. Pagan magick is in no way evil or an abomination. It's because people have this vision of pagans worshipping the classic devil, or sacrificing babies and cats. I'd like to say that I practice reverence to the Earth, because it's the only thing we've got left, and I don't even BELIVE in the devil. We do our rituals in peace, in nature, we have no want to kill your pets or kids. If you want more input, just email me.

Firondoiel

02-22-2003, 10:41 AM

I just read this thread and I want to respnd to some stuff. I'm letting you know right now that I'm a Christian and don't approve of HP. There have been issues raised about Sauron's magic in LOTR. Tolkien clearly points out that that power is wrong and evil.(and by the way Sauron's power is not withcraft. As you know he's a Maia which is a heavenly being and he always had those powers but he chose to use them for evil.) Gandalf, Galadriel, and others recoil from using the dark power even though it would give them the power to rule Middle Earth while Tolkien shows the consequences of Boromir and Saruman who give in to the lust for that power. While HP has kids going to school to learn withcraft. An evil power the come from the devil. It has several examples of the Occult and some of you have argued that the books have shown them to be wrong, but why expose yourself or your child to it??? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for Harry Potter in school, If it gets the kids to read what is the big problem? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe because there have been several kids that have started to learn witchcraft or at least take an interest in it. The follow is a quote from a girl about the HP books. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"I was eager to get to Hogwarts first because I like what they learned there and I want to be a witch.Gioia Bishop, age 10. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To all you Christians who read HP In Leviticus 19:26 we are instructed, “Do not practice divination or sorcery.” There are several warnings in the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, making it clear that we are to avoid witchcraft. So if God is instructing us to avoid occult practices, how can we justify using it to entertain ourselves?

thinavarial

02-22-2003, 02:25 PM

i love harry potter before and after i have read LOTr .....PPL these are books if u dotn like them dont read them dont make sucha fuss ...if u think its against your religion (ex.chrtistians or w/e) DONT READ THEM!!!!!!!its really simple an about Rowling copying Tolkien thats B.S***!!!!!! there is nothin new under sun!!!!!!tolkien has gandalf in lotr did he copy merlin jsut b/c there both old have a white beard an are wizards????NOOOO if you dont have any reasonable evidence that jk rowling is copying JRRT STOPPPP makeing such a HUge deal about it if she did i think she would be in court right now !!!!!! HP is just not for lil kids just b/c its main character is one it attracts readers from ends of the spectrum..in my opinion Harry is braver then frodo. I love BOTH HArry potter AND LOTR equally.... TO MAKE IT SHORT IF U DONT LIKE THE BOOK DONT READ IT !!Im just wastin my time writing b/c i have nothin else to do an to defend HP. If ya ever wanna talk about this somemore IM me-hpchic007

InklingElf

02-22-2003, 02:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why can't you co-exist with them? Why must you try to convert us?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> :Ahem: Firstly, No. No one's trying to convert you. You can turn into grass if you would like but I don't think andyone's trying to convert you (at least I don't)... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>in NO way does it teach kids to follow a religion! The bible does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure? You said yourself it had sources from "a million sources"-pagan magick and all the references you mentioned.And I agree with you Cibbwin, this thread is getting riduculous, and likewise I don't really agree with Wiccans, but in respect I don't want to "hate-on-you" either. ---------------------------------------------I am a Christian and I just want to revert back to what Firondoiel just quoted from the Bible: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>To all you Christians who read HP In Leviticus 19:26 we are instructed, “Do not practice divination or sorcery.” There are several warnings in the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, making it clear that we are to avoid witchcraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I strongly agree, but look-it says it applies to Christians, which reinforces what I just said: We are not trying to convert you. --------------------------------------------- Please know my replies mean no offense to anyone. I respect you, and as a fellow human being, i know I can expect the same from you as well.

Aerandir Carnesir

02-22-2003, 03:28 PM

Thanks InklingElf. I completely agree with you. Although the Bible does say that we should bring others to Christ, we are not trying to force anything down your throats. IT'S YOUR CHOICE! Speaking for all true Christians, it clearly states in the Bible that witchcraft IS a sin and that all it's practices and rituals are of Satan. But, lets stay on the subject. Harry Potter does slightly offend me, being a Christian myself and all, but that's because those kids just annoy me off the woo-ha. J.K. Rowling did take stuff from Tolkein,(living trees, giant spiders, and since that one guy from the HP movie died, Ian McKellan I guess is taking his place.) but what good fantasy writer since 1937 hasn't? I personally don't care if Rowling uses some ideas from Tolkien, just as long as she doesn't plagerise. I'm not going to read HP anyway, so why should it matter to me? Tolkein set the standards for all fantasy writing in the 20th and 21st centuries, and I'm sure he wouldn't care too much if writers used some of his ideas in their own ways.

Goldberry

02-22-2003, 03:32 PM

I am not Christian, but I am not against Christianity or any religion. I have read the Harry Potter books, and I think they are good books. They are interesting and the writing is great. But if you don't want to read them, just don't read them. That's ok. You don't need to preach to people who do want to read them about why we shouldn't read them. This is a Lord of the Rings website, not a website about religion. Leave the religion out of it, please.

thinavarial

02-22-2003, 03:45 PM

~~~~~~This is a Lord of the Rings website, not a website about religion. Leave the religion out of it, please.~~~~~~~ Goldberry i completely agree w/u. IM not Christian and i dont mean to offend any religion w/my other replies. But if u read any fantasy books they all question religion.but your not reading the book b/c of its religion you are reading it b/c it interests you. Witchcraft is against my religion too but that doesnot stop me from reading Harry Potter and for everyone out there wh oare discrimanating HP, read the book before u choose to not like it..---in other words lets leave religion out of books unless the books are bout religion.

Iarwain

02-22-2003, 07:14 PM

Sorry everyone, but I'm just in a thread bombing kind of mood, and this thread is truly hopeless for several obvious reasons:A. It attracts far too much attention, thus preventing a single, defined discussion to take place.B. It is drawn far too near to the discussion of morality, an empassioned debate, but one far too "personal" for the rules of this forum. Criticisms are bound to be made, taken the wrong way, and then become the base of ultimately unfruitful arguments.C. Everyone knows that the Harry Potter versus Lord of the Rings debate is unwinable because Harry Potter is far more childish and post-modern, and deals with a completely different set of ideals than Lord of the Rings, which is a WWI veteran/Oxford Don's attempts at creating a complete mythology for pre-eleventh century Britan. (very drawn out, I know) Waiting for Arguments, IarwainP.S. By no means should anyone take the above post as a criticism to the posters or the author of this topic, it was a worthy idea and has had a good deal of sucess.[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]