Harry Potter and The Stolen Plot...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

[Galadriel55]

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

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]

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.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by xMellrynxMaidenx

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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!?!

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]

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.

Hurray! It's my 500th post!

[alatar]

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.

[Galadriel55]

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

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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

True that 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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

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]

Depth is relative.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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