The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/index.php)
-   Novices and Newcomers (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Harry Potter and The Stolen Plot... (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2720)

Nerwen 08-28-2010 07:28 PM
Oh, hello, "tumil"!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumil (Post 637786)
Goodness me, this is an old thread!

Maybe one day I'll figure out what I was trying to say about sleeping dragons!
Just that the Latin motto on the Hogwarts crest (Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus) is probably inspired by "Never laugh at live dragons".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumil
I'm sure JK Rowling put these snippets in to pay homage to the great man.
Which is an important distinction– authors can put in those kind of minor references as a tribute. If the line appeared as dialogue in a quest fantasy starring a little person, that might qualify as theft.

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

Inziladun 08-28-2010 09:48 PM
This is indeed an interesting thread.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumil (Post 637786)
Tolkien rarely if ever says what his characters are feeling, we get to know them through their words and deeds. Rowling, in common with most modern authors, explicitly shows what Harry is feeling, a very different approach.
That's a good observation. Rowling certainly does spend a lot time explaining thoughts and motivations. But, to be fair, she really only does it with Harry.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumil (Post 637786)
For me, there's room for both on my shelf, but it's the Tolkien that I'd save from a house fire by a long way!
A nice summary! Rowling doesn't have the narrative or linguistic chops to stand with Tolkien at the end of the day (I'd never have spent ten years hanging around a J.K.Rowling forum!), but the HP books are pleasant enough for what they are.

Galadriel 08-29-2010 01:31 AM
Oh wow this thing is older than an Egyptian coffin. I frankly feel Rowling DID rip off a few things, but not exactly the entire plot. Also, I don't find Dobby and Gollum all that similar. But Old Man Willow and than strange Whomping Willow are too alike for my liking :p Not to mention Gandalf and Dumbledore.
Then again, most contemporary fantasy authors have, either consciously or unconsciously, ripped something off LotR.

Ibrîniðilpathânezel 08-29-2010 02:06 PM
For myself, HP and the works of Tolkien were different in one very profound way: Rowling was telling a story. Tolkien was attempting to create a mythology. The depth of thought and work that goes into the latter runs far deeper, IMHO — and it was something I appreciated even when I first read LotR at age 11, back in the mid 1960s. I still appreciate it today. HP didn't work for me the first time I read the word "muggle." But to explain all the whys and wherefores would take more energy than I have at the moment (and possibly take years and cost millions of lives :D).

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

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

All IMHO, as ever.

Lalaith 09-05-2010 02:53 PM
The Downs have become more literate over the years, that's for sure. Some of the spelling, punctuation and syntax back there...*shudder*

alatar 09-05-2010 07:21 PM
By the by, note that I am not accusing Rowlings of anything sinister or untoward. I just happened to be reading 'Stone' and noticed that Harry woke up to a bedside Wizard that was able to fill us all in on the last scene.

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

wilwarin538 09-13-2010 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen (Post 637781)
It's a long time since I read any of the HP books, but according to various internet sources I just checked it, it's his index finger. Which is extremely strange considering he was at liberty to pick any finger to sacrifice.
I recently watched the 6th film, and they made it his right hand ring finger for the movie. I found that quite funny. And it is strange he'd pick that finger, losing a pinky makes far more sense. ;)

Morsul the Dark 09-13-2010 05:08 PM
Everyone seems to draw the link between Dumbledore and Gandalf.

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

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

Galadriel 09-21-2010 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalaith (Post 638586)
The Downs have become more literate over the years, that's for sure. Some of the spelling, punctuation and syntax back there...*shudder*
That, I am afraid, just reminds me of bad fan fiction T_T

alatar 12-17-2010 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve (Post 48412)
What about this
Faramir in TTT named Sauron as The one who we do not name and in HP they call whats his name the one who should not be named, and also how many times do it give refrence to Sauron changing shape to fit his needs, IE werewolf, and this is used by that bag guy in Hp also
I too found it interesting that both Rowling and Tolkien use the 'he whom we do not name' nomenclature for the bad guy.

Why this today? I've been reading the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE SYSTEM OF NATURE; or, THE LAWS of the MORAL AND PHYSICAL WORLD.
Translated from the original French of M. DE MIRABAUD, Vol. II, circa 1820.
It was in the lap of ignorance, in the season of alarm, in the bosom of calamity, that mankind ever formed his first notions of the Divinity. From hence it is obvious that his ideas on this subject are to be suspected, that his notions are in a great measure false, that they are always afflicting. Indeed, upon whatever part of our sphere we cast our eyes, whether it be upon the frozen climates of the north, upon the parching regions of the south, or under the more temperate zones, we every where behold the people when assailed by misfortunes, have either made to themselves national gods, or else have adopted those which have been given them by their conquerors; before these beings, either of their own creation or adoption, they have tremblingly prostrated themselves in the hour of calamity, soliciting relief; have ignorantly attributed to blocks of stone, or to men like themselves, those natural effects which were above their comprehension; the inhabitants of many nations, not contented with the national gods, made each to himself one or more gods, which he supposed presided exclusively over his own household, from whom he supposed he derived his own peculiar happiness, to whom he attributed all his domestic misfortunes. The idea of these powerful agents, these supposed distributors of good and evil, was always associated with that of terror; their name was never pronounced without recalling to man's wind either his own particular calamities or those of his fathers. In many places man trembles at this day, because his progenitors have trembled for thousands of years past. The thought of his gods always awakened in man the most afflicting ideas. If he recurred to the source of his actual fears, to the commencement of those melancholy impressions that stamp themselves in his mind when their name is announced, he would find it in the conflagrations, in the revolutions, in those extended disasters, that have at various times destroyed large portions of the human race; that overwhelmed with dismay those miserable beings who escaped the destruction of the earth; these in transmitting to posterity, the tradition of such afflicting events, have also transmitted to him their fears; have delivered down to their successors, those gloomy ideas which their bewildered imaginations, coupled with their barbarous ignorance of natural causes, had formed to them of the anger of their irritated gods, to which their alarm falsely attributed these sweeping disasters. (emphasis mine)
As we can see above, not naming something was a way of hiding from destructive forces. Faramir, I assume, did not name Sauron as it might have been thought to bring the attention of the Eye. Inhabitants of Harry Potter's world do not say Voldemort's name as, I assume, it may bring evil.

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

Inziladun 12-17-2010 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar (Post 644878)
Is there a word that, today in RL, you do not speak as you feel that, by naming it, you bring about misfortune?
The terror that is GaGa. ;)

Morthoron 12-17-2010 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun (Post 644879)
The terror that is GaGa. ;)
Now you've gone and done it!

*awaits the apocalypse*

Galadriel55 12-17-2010 03:11 PM
Aside from the similarities already mentioned, there is one that really jumped out at me when I read HP1. That random centaur, Firenze, who saves Harry in the Forbidden Forest plays exactly Gildor's role. Even the dialogue is similar. Then, you can't destory Sauron without destroying the Ring, in which he put a good chunk of his power; you can't destroy Voldemort without destroying the Horcruxes, which contain his soul. Btw, I heard that some JRRT fan sued Rowling for this one :). And Aragog is an exact copy of Shelob.

Aiwendil 12-17-2010 03:20 PM
Quote:
And Aragog is an exact copy of Shelob.
Only not so evil . . .

alatar 12-17-2010 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwendil (Post 644883)
Only not so evil . . .
HP - LotR for kids? ;)

Galadriel55 12-17-2010 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar (Post 644884)
HP - LotR for kids? ;)
Sort of. I like LOTR WAAAY better. In LOTR feelings=emotions, in HP, feelings=facts. simple enough for kids, but very boring for people like e. What surprises me about HP, though, is that I know many "almost-adults" completely nuts about it. :rolleyes:

Galadriel55 12-17-2010 06:32 PM
Also, HP is action action action. Most of the "interesting parts" are the ones with action, and when there isn't that much of it, the book just sounds soooo boring and tedious. On the other hand, when you read LOTR, even though action is involved, its by far not the most important thing. The book isn't based on action, but JRRT used some action to illustrate some ideas. And the parts without any action are just as good, and carry just as many (if not more) messages.

xMellrynxMaidenx 12-18-2010 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55 (Post 644887)
Also, HP is action action action. Most of the "interesting parts" are the ones with action, and when there isn't that much of it, the book just sounds soooo boring and tedious. On the other hand, when you read LOTR, even though action is involved, its by far not the most important thing. The book isn't based on action, but JRRT used some action to illustrate some ideas. And the parts without any action are just as good, and carry just as many (if not more) messages.
I would have to disagree. HP isn't just "action, action, action," it's composed of other things as well. Feelings=facts? Hardly, there's emotion in there too, there's TONS of it. You have to read book 1-7 to see it all though. I quite enjoy the lore of the HP world as much as I do LotR's. What's "interesting" to you, won't be to someone else, so opinions will vary on "the 'interesting parts' are the ones with action". I love the wizarding world of Harry Potter and have since I was a child. I'll admit there are things in it that are similar IE the Whomping Willow and Old Man Willow, the Nazgul and Dementors, Wormtongue and Wormtail,Shelob/Aragog and the effects the locket of Regulus Black had on the wearer (even then the effects were different, the locket made people feel angry, while the One Ring made them feel...greed, perhaps?).

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

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

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

Galadriel55 12-18-2010 08:12 PM
I've read all the HP books, and still I insist that there are a lot of similarities. But yes, Mellyrn's right about the fact that they are different. Their ideas are different, but there are many physical similarities. What do you think of this comproise? ;)

xMellrynxMaidenx 12-18-2010 08:24 PM
I think it seems fair enough ;)

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

xMellrynxMaidenx 12-18-2010 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar (Post 644878)

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

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

Galadriel55 12-18-2010 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMellrynxMaidenx (Post 644951)
no matter what you'll have some of us who will still love the series despite the similarities and then there's some that won't like it. Just a matter of preference, really. The same goes for any series, really.
(bolding mine)

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

alatar 12-20-2010 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55 (Post 644885)
Sort of. I like LOTR WAAAY better. In LOTR feelings=emotions, in HP, feelings=facts. simple enough for kids, but very boring for people like e. What surprises me about HP, though, is that I know many "almost-adults" completely nuts about it.
Almost adults!?! :D

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

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

But LotR will still be my favorite.

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

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

Galadriel55 12-22-2010 10:40 AM
For lack of a better word I said "almost adults", meaning people around their 20s. Their too old to be teenagers, but too young to be adults.
I was probably a bit harsh when I said that feelings=facts in HP; they are close to, though, in my opinion. HP just doesn't leave that kind of message that Tolkien does. For example, sometimes when I wanna refrain myself from doing something bad, I say "don't be a Celegorm" (since he annoys me the most), but I never say something like "don't be a Kreacher". The books simpy have a very different effect on me. HP is addicting but not as deep as Tolkien's books. Its just like... once you read Tolkien, it's part of you; HP remains a book. Its's just not as strong.
And again, this is my opinion; you might say otherwise. :p

Hurray! It's my 500th post!

alatar 01-10-2011 09:06 AM
I'm halfway through "The Deathly Hallows," and it's even more obvious that HP and LotR have very little in common.
  • Dumbledore is not Gandalf. Gandalf only exits the stage for a short time, and returns after Moria to lead the forces of good.
  • Harry is not Frodo. Even though Elijah Wood (in the movies) makes Frodo appear younger, Frodo is middle aged. Harry, on the other hand, is just 17 (at the oldest) and is at times as silly as teenagers come (sorry to all you teens; note that we all go through that stage, even me).
  • Frodo had a goal. He knows that he has to get the ring to the fire, and so heads towards Mordor as best as he can. Harry knows that he's to find and destroy the horcruxes, and defeat Voldemort, not isn't sure how, or where any are, or much of anything. Harry and Hermione spend some of the first half of the book, simply wandering around at random (to avoid being found) while awaiting for something to happen that may allow them to make progress towards their goal.
  • Ron isn't Sam. And neither Hermione nor Ron are Gollum.
  • Harry et al have a tent. :D

Galadriel55 01-10-2011 05:11 PM
Well, if Rowling really copied it to that extend, she'd be sued for copyright. :p
It's very hard to make a story that doesn't resemble even a little bit some other author's book. And sometimes you unintentionally "copy" things. Many a time I've caught myself rewriting a scene or using a quote from some book when doing creative writing in English class. If I really think about it, I can detect "Tolkien scenes/characters" in almost any book I've read. So, personally, I forgive JKR for stealing some ideas from JRRT. ;)

Galadriel 01-11-2011 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55 (Post 646504)
Well, if Rowling really copied it to that extend, she'd be sued for copyright.
True that :p But either way, I don't think she's ripped it off. I just think she's done a slightly clichéd fantasy: the search of a magical object, to be found by a 'chosen' person.

Galadriel 01-11-2011 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55 (Post 645108)
For lack of a better word I said "almost adults", meaning people around their 20s. Their too old to be teenagers, but too young to be adults.
I was probably a bit harsh when I said that feelings=facts in HP; they are close to, though, in my opinion. HP just doesn't leave that kind of message that Tolkien does. For example, sometimes when I wanna refrain myself from doing something bad, I say "don't be a Celegorm" (since he annoys me the most), but I never say something like "don't be a Kreacher". The books simpy have a very different effect on me. HP is addicting but not as deep as Tolkien's books. Its just like... once you read Tolkien, it's part of you; HP remains a book. Its's just not as strong.
And again, this is my opinion; you might say otherwise.
It is mostly opinion, but HP does seem to remain a children's book after all. The problem is that HP fans keep ON arguing that it is literature and it is possibly one of the most deep books ever written. That gets me annoyed.

Galadriel55 01-11-2011 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel (Post 646529)
It is mostly opinion, but HP does seem to remain a children's book after all. The problem is that HP fans keep ON arguing that it is literature and it is possibly one of the most deep books ever written. That gets me annoyed.
Deep books? Deep books?! That had me laughing my head off for about 10 minutes!
Apologies to all HP fans; I couldn't help it

alatar 01-11-2011 09:33 AM
Depth is relative.

Galadriel 01-12-2011 02:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55 (Post 646537)
Deep books? Deep books?! That had me laughing my head off for about 10 minutes!
Apologies to all HP fans; I couldn't help it
Believe it or not, my best friend didn't talk to me for two days because I said HP wasn't literature :eek:

Galadriel 01-12-2011 02:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMellrynxMaidenx (Post 644953)
Twilight.

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

Morthoron 01-12-2011 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar (Post 646334)
I'm halfway through "The Deathly Hallows," and it's even more obvious that HP and LotR have very little in common.
  • Dumbledore is not Gandalf. Gandalf only exits the stage for a short time, and returns after Moria to lead the forces of good.
  • Harry is not Frodo. Even though Elijah Wood (in the movies) makes Frodo appear younger, Frodo is middle aged. Harry, on the other hand, is just 17 (at the oldest) and is at times as silly as teenagers come (sorry to all you teens; note that we all go through that stage, even me).
  • Frodo had a goal. He knows that he has to get the ring to the fire, and so heads towards Mordor as best as he can. Harry knows that he's to find and destroy the horcruxes, and defeat Voldemort, not isn't sure how, or where any are, or much of anything. Harry and Hermione spend some of the first half of the book, simply wandering around at random (to avoid being found) while awaiting for something to happen that may allow them to make progress towards their goal.
  • Ron isn't Sam. And neither Hermione nor Ron are Gollum.
  • Harry et al have a tent. :D
Rowlings admitted to lifting the essence of the Dumbledore and Harry characters from T.H. White's The Once and Future King. I am utterly too lazy and disinterested in this discussion to actually find the interview, but her 2 characters do indeed bear a remarkable resemblance to White's Merlin and Wart, particularly from the first section of the book, The Sword in the Stone.

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

alatar 11-29-2011 09:03 PM
On the other hand...

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

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

Inziladun 11-30-2011 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar (Post 664243)
Read the Deathly Hallows, but the second installment of the movie is more in my mind. Snape, in a pensieve flashback, accuses Dumbledore of keeping Harry alive just long enough to be killed/sacrificed at the right moment, when Voldemort would be at his weakest. Snape, rightfully or no, states that Dumbledore does not care for Harry, and sees the Headmaster only thinking of the Potter as a pawn to be used/thrown away in a larger game.

Couldn't Gandalf be so accused, helping Frodo along the way to Mordor, knowing that most likely he would not survive the quest?
One could take the view that Gandalf was calculating and manipulative, and as Saruman said, holding his "tools" until their task was done, then dropping them.

Gandalf certainly thought along the lines of another wise individual, however.

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

Galadriel55 11-30-2011 05:22 PM
I don't like comparing Gandalf to Dumbledore. Even though they have a similar "mentor" task/role and do many similar things (uch as sacrifice themselves), and even look somewhat alike - but to me they are completely different characters.

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil
One could take the view that Gandalf was calculating and manipulative, and as Saruman said, holding his "tools" until their task was done, then dropping them.
I would disagree. Dumbledore still had that hidden streak of greed/selfishness in him. Gandalf did not have it from the start. I see his motivation for defeating Voldemort as a partially personal one. Then, about the "tools", Gandalf told Frodo exactly what he was going for, whereas Dumbledore kept a lot quiet. In fact, he kept secret from Harry the most impotant part - that Harry carries a piece of Voldemort's soul with him.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
and sees the Headmaster only thinking of the Potter as a pawn to be used/thrown away in a larger game.
Gandalf sees himself as one of the pieces too - perhaps not a pawn, but something like a bishop.

Inziladun 11-30-2011 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55 (Post 664263)
I would disagree. Dumbledore still had that hidden streak of greed/selfishness in him. Gandalf did not have it from the start. I see his motivation for defeating Voldemort as a partially personal one. Then, about the "tools", Gandalf told Frodo exactly what he was going for, whereas Dumbledore kept a lot quiet. In fact, he kept secret from Harry the most impotant part - that Harry carries a piece of Voldemort's soul with him.
When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55 (Post 664263)
Gandalf sees himself as one of the pieces too - perhaps not a pawn, but something like a bishop.
Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron. Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.

Galadriel55 11-30-2011 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun (Post 664271)
When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.
But on the other other other (?) hand, you could say that he only does it because it personally affects him. He doesn't work for the whole world of GOOD, he works for himself.

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

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

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

Quote:
Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron.
But at the same time he's the opposite. He's still one of the chess pieces, even if it is the queen and not a pawn. He is both above and within the game.

Quote:
Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.
And that he did, disregarding his sense of rightness more than once.


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

Pitchwife 12-01-2011 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by G55
And the only question left is how many octopi is it needed to give enough hands.
Octopodes.

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

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

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

Galadriel55 12-01-2011 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitchwife (Post 664330)
Octopodes.
Yes. That.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitch
*Speaking of which, does anybody else think that Rowling's choice of that chapter title might have to do with something else than Harry associating the intermediate afterlife with the station of that name? Especially as Harry has just sacrificed himself for his friends and, as we learn in the following chapter, thus earned them the same protection against Voldemort his mother gave him, in other words redeemed them from evil?
I never really thought about the name, but it's an interesting idea. I thought - and think - that the fact that it's a station is enough for a symbolic idea. It's not afterlife yet, but the point at which you choose to take the train, or to go back home (aka let go of your life, or continue living).

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:16 AM.
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.