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

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.

DID NOBODY NOTICE THE CAVE TROLL?

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!<BR>

Please make <B>thoughtful</B> and <B>eloquent</B> posts. <P>Yes, I am talking to <I>you</I>.

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?<P>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.

OK, I don't know if anyone has said this already, but harry potter has:<BR>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?<P>2.This evil bad guy has alot of followers and spies...<P>3. some of which pretend to be good<P>etc. etc.<P>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.

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.

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)

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.

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, <B>MAYBE</B> 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. )

LOTR is way better than Harry Potter <I>from an adults point of view</I>. 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!!

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 .

Yo, Tolkien and Rowling are both drawing on a lot of the same <I>primary sources</I>: 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. <P>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.<P>Harry Potter: Enid Blyton boarding school stories + <I>Bewitched.</I> + modern, conversational style + JK Rowling's imagination.<P>LOTR: <I>Ring of the Niebelung</I> + Poetic Edda + Irish Sagas + Brothers Grimm + 19th century idea of high epic style + JRR Tolkien's imagination.<P>Don't see the point of getting so uptight about some dumbarse rivalry, really. It's not like you have to choose between them.

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.....

Lord of the Rings is way better than Harry Potter

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

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.

Who's Oliver Wood?

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*!!<BR>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!!<BR><A HREF="http://www.seanbiggerstaff.com" TARGET=_blank>Sean Biggerstaff- Official Website</A><p>[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Isilya ]

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.

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 <I>can't</I> 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.

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

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.<P><BR>Great Big Sea is the greatest Canadian band ever!!

Okay. I won't say I get it, but I see the application you're using.<P>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.

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

Welcome to the Downs, busybee!!

I agree with Lady_Espel -there can be no comparing with Tolkien's <B>pure</B> fantasy

It's what I said before. HP is <B>merely</B> light-hearted fantasy.

I didn't mean it rudely, i suppose.

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 <B>ton</B> for helping me come up with a topic for a speech I really wasn't looking forward to!<P>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.<BR>~EW~

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. <BR>And the movies. LOTR nearly got an R-rating and Harry Potter is PG.<BR>In my opinion, LOTR is a lot more epic than Harry Potter.

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

*bins thread*

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.<P>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...

<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:<P>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)<P>First World Fantasy -- Fantasy that is based on our own world with a distorted, fantastic viewpoint. (e.g., Harry Potter by Rowling)<P>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)<P>Fairy Tales -- Originally oral, subsequentially written tales that tend to be short with distinctly good and evil characters. (e.g. Cinderella written by Perrault)<P>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)<P>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.

Sorry if this has already been said, I kinda didn't read the <I>whole</I> thread .<P>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.

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. <P>The books are also aimed at two completely different age groups. Harry Potter isn't really intended for adults, although many enjoy reading it.<P>I find LOTR better, but it doesn't mean HP isn't good to read on a rainy day.

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

<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><BR>hey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The first time I ever heard Lord of the Rings was when my dad read me a chapter every night.