Harry Potter and The Stolen Plot...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The terror that is GaGa.

Now you've gone and done it!

*awaits the apocalypse*

[Galadriel55]

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]

And Aragog is an exact copy of Shelob.

Only not so evil . . .

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Only not so evil . . .

HP - LotR for kids?

[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.

[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!