LOTR vs Harry Potter
 

I believe that ROwling might have to taken some of her ideas from Tolkien`s work...don`t anyone think so...anyway i am not a fan of Potter boy. <P>"One ring to rule them all.One ring to find the.One ring to bring them...and in the darkness binds them.In the land of Mordor the Shadows lie."

I haven't read the book, haven't seen the movie, but there is no way that either are in the same class as Tolkien. The only other fantasy books I have ever read were the ones with the leper who wakes up in some other universe. Forget the name of the series, I think the author was Donaldson, but I do remember thinking that it was a pale ripoff of Tolkien. I am sure that most fantasy stuff written after 1954 owe a lot to JRR. I am not really into fantasy or sci-fi, per se. I <I>am</I> into good writing more than any genre. Tolkien's works are the only fantasy works that really captured me.<P>==============================<BR><I>Never laugh at live Dragons</I>

I doubt it. She wasn't even aware she was wrting fantasy until near the end of the Philosopher's Stone. <P>What parallels do you see? <P>She didn't create a whole world, but one that straddled the 'real' and her fantasy. Nor is it an epic, but the story of one kid, growing up in rather, um, odd circumstances. It's not a good against evil story, but a boyish romp which spends its time rolling around in silliness, books that bite, that sort of thing. There's a bad guy, sure but he's just there to drive the plot along.

Can`t agreee more than that but can`t anyone still wonder y gals are realy into it?<P>Antway anyone played LONE WOLf before?

yes, I really don't think Rowling copied JRR Tolkien at all, I mean Iv read all four Harry Potter books and all three of the LOTR series including the Hobbit, and Iv seen the Harry Potter movie(which really disapointed me, because the books were SO much better) and the LOTR movie aswell, and in my opinion, Rowling wasn't even close to JRR Tolkiens novel (well actually maybe in the fantasy sense, but that was as close as she got).

I thought the HP movie was pretty good until I saw LOTR. I have read all 4 HP books and I found them extremely <I>boring</I> compared to Fellowship of the ring. I guess it was because LOTR has more of a plot.

I would think that it would be a matter of depth. I suppose I will have to read the Potter books. If I am going to rip them apart, I may as well read them. If I see them in a second-hand shop, I may pick them up, if I can't find anything better. Harry Potter is something that I think I would've preferred when I was 10 years old, though.

Having read all the Harry Potter books I was very dissapointed with the film. I think there was too much hype and by the time the film actually came out we'd pretty much seen most of it on the trailers and in the papers etc.<P>Even so, I shall be pre-ordering the new book when its released in the summer !!<P>IMHO there is no real comparison between Tolkiens works and JK Rowlings

Glenathor, do read the Harry Potter books. They're not the LotR, but they are a treat - very absurd and funny. I usually avoid anything marketed so well as Harry Potter, but the daughter of a (respected) friend of mine was really into them, and he called them "brilliant." Really? I asked. Really.

The Potter series is geared towards children while Tolkien's books are geared toward a more adult audience, so of course LOTR is going to seem more mature and more appealing to you as an adult. As for Ms. Rowling, if she read any of Tolkien's work (I don't know if she did or not...), of course she was probably influenced by it, but I don't think that she meant the Potter series to be a blatant ripoff of LOTR. The only major similarities that I see between the Potter series and LOTR is that they're both of the fantasy genre and they both have wizards.

I don't think Rowling knowingly copied any authors, but similarities come through from several books. certain parallels can be drawn between characters from LOTR and the chronicles of Narnia, and to an extent the 'Worst Witch' books as well. Realistically though, Narnia and LOTR have influenced most fantasy books written after them, and they all of the above Rowling has probably read at some stage. The ideas she's used seem to be generally ingrained in most peoples minds when they think about wizards

I think that Rowling took some ideas from LOTR and Hobbit but I don't think that was copying Tolkiens works..

of course there are parallels, the Watcher of the water, and the giant squid, the dementors and the Nazgul, the Demetor's kiss, the balck brathow, but the plot, or setting is othing similar, so while there may be a few little things, she may not even have realized it! especially if she read them and really like them long ago, the picture would be in her mind for a new charcter or whatever. aslo, totally different, different class by far, comparing apples to oranges

I think it's useless to pit <I>Harry Potter</I> against the <I>LotR</I>. 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.<BR>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 <I>LotR</I> is a tastier treat. Unless of course you're Rhud, and that treat has caught in your throat. <p>[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

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!!<BR>And she can`t be compared to great writers like Tolkien.<BR>The movie on Potter boy is a major let down..don`t anyone think so?

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

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

Probably there's a lot of greek influence, as in ancient myths and legends.<P>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)<P>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).<P>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 <P>

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....

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?<BR>Anyway anyone here know when the game for LOTR will be coming up?

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?

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....<P>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!!

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.<P>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.

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:<BR>Poor lower class loyal Sam, is Frodos best frend = Potters poor loyal frend Ron<BR>Gandalf, very grand and wise = Albus dumbledore, grand and wise<BR>see my point! but otherwise rowling only used tolkiens works for ideas, the stories arent totally based on it.

You got a point, Ugluk...

<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><BR>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.

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!<P>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....<BR>(can you tell I'm bitter? )

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.

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!

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

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.<P>The one on the left is the original, the one on the right is the ripoff.<P>Gandalf - Dumbledore<BR>Nazgûl - Dementors<BR>Spiders of Mirkwood - Spiders of Forbid. Forest<BR>Black Breath - Dementor's Breath (just my name for the ripoff)<BR>Sam Gamgee - Ron Weasley<BR>Basilisk - Probably got the idea of a serpent from Smaug<BR>Sauron - Voldemort<BR>Orcs/Goblins/ Uruks - Goblins of Gringotts<BR>Watcher in the Water - Giant Squid<P><BR>And the list goes on...<P>[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: NicktheOrc ]<p>[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: NicktheOrc ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Before I read LotR I was a HP nut <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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! <BR>Here are a few explanations for the simularites:<P>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.<P>Nazgul/Dementors-Black cloaked creature tend to bring fear into the reader's mind. With something this evil, you know they will keep reading.<P>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.<P>Sam/Ron-All main characters have a sidekick!<P>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.<P>Sauron/Voldemort-All stories have a bad guy! You really can't have a story without one.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>Whew, that was a long post!<P>[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Brinniel ]<p>[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Brinniel ]

Can we PLEASE drop this subject already? There have already been several threads on the topic and basically it's just getting boring. <P>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 <B>All authors have influences</B> 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! <P>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!<P>~*Varda Elentari*~

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.

A note to those who insist Rowling copied Tolkien:<BR>Gandalf/Dumbledore: neither of the authors are the first to use a longbearded old man as a sage, who advices the main character.<P>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 <BR>experience.<P>Black Breath/Dementor's kiss: Black breath can be healed, dementor's kiss is instant and soulremoving.<P>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.<P>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.<P>Basilisk: A mythical monster which is very old, far older than Tolkien, who didn't invent Dragons, but stole them from the Chinese.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>I hope you see some reason in this, and maybe stop critizing Harry Potter as harsh as you do.<P>Sorry Briniel that I have the same arguments as you, I had not noticed your post before now.<p>[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Daniel Telcontar ]

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

I'm not going to do the lists again, but i'd like to add one thing to Daniel and Brinniel's points:<P>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.<BR>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.<P>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.

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.

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

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...<P>LOTR RULZ!!!!!<P>yay