LOTR vs Harry Potter

[Daniel Telcontar]

Sorry for continuing but I couldn't let it go:<BR>Mornie says that in HP they suck the blood of an animal, like in satanic rituals. But it also says that it is of a unicorn, a beautiful creature, and that whoever does it is cursed, living a terrible life. So the books strongly says NOT to suck animal blood, because it's wrong. There are many good morals in HP, that kids can learn from. <BR>Tolkien also has morals, and he also used things that weren't created by himself (e.g. dragons, elves, goblins, trolls, wraiths). As I see it, that is the only comparison between the books.<P>PS. Can't you guys stop writing in color, it gets annoying and tends to reduce how serious your posts seem to be.

[Alkanoonion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PS. Can't you guys stop writing in color, it gets annoying and tends to reduce how serious your posts seem to be<P>Daniel Telcontar<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thats the best reply I have seen on this topic so far. (the off topic part)

[*Varda*]

Alkanoonion, I agree with you that this topic is going round in circles. I'm getting some serious deja vu from the last Harry Potter thread, but it was hard not to put my opinion across. If anything, the one thing I've noticed in this thread is that the pro-HPer's seem to have more evidence for their views and use quotes from LotR and HP, whereas the people so against it can't come up with any evidence for their views, partly because the majority of them haven't read HP.<P>'Magic and Occultic practices are wrong' they say. Fair enough, but they seem to forget Gandalf used magic too (I put some quotes in a previous reply). It was just a different setting and different context. Galadriel had magic too. Where exactly do you draw the line? And in HP when the magic is bad it's made absolutely clear. Kids aren't stupid.<P>And I completely agree with Daniel Telcontar about the different coloured fonts. I've been guilty of this in the past, but not to the extent where there's about 5 different colours in one post. It reduces the seriousness of your opinion.

[Mornie Alantie]

I have not seen a single bit of evidence from the hp supporters, all I get is Hp does not have the Occult. Also one of the reasons the same subject is brought up hundreds of times is I haven't seen a good straight answer. The "Magic" in HP and LOTR are totally different. Gandalf never uses magic to murder someone in the LOTR. In fact he is told to use it the least as possible. And if Rowling did not use the Occult in her work, what did she use? And why would Harry Potter go to a school for Witchcraft and Wizardry?

[Daniel Telcontar]

For the umpteen time: ROWLING'S MAGIC WORDS ARE LATIN!! It has been stated so a hundred times, and it is a fact!!! And whenever killing/controlling/torturing spells are mentioned, it is also mentioned how bad and wrong they are. If you think that Rowling's books are immoral because there are spells used to kill in it, then I say Silmarillion is immoral because Melkor tortures elves to make orcs!! Someone might get the idea of taking a cat and make it into a toad!!<P>You state that Gandalf does not use magic to murder, but he does. In the Hobbit he kills the goblins, and in Moria he destroys the bridge, killing the Balrog. You might say it is different because they are beings of evil, but in HP the only ones to kill are evil beings, beings that you cannot be sympathetic with, Voldemort, Wormtounge and the Dementors. Not Harry Potter, Dumbledore or any of the good guys. LOTR actually teaches that it is alright to kill if those you kill are evil, whereas in HP Dumbledore explains that life is something precious that can only be taken, not given, which is why we should never kill.<p>[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Daniel Telcontar ]

[*Varda*]

Mornie, does it not occur to you that there is good magic in Harry Potter as well? And does it also not occur to you that very likely both Sauron and Saruman used evil magic to hurt others? As for no evidence you have shown nothing to prove HP has occultic practices. You're saying your opinion and trying to present it as fact. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Then Sauron shifted shape, from wolf to serpent, and from monster to his own accustomed form <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Silmarillion, Of Beren and Luthien<P>Is that not considered evil magic? Shapeshifting?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Her will strove with him for a while, but he put forth his power, and having learned who she was he constrained her to gaze into his eyes, and he laid a spell of utter darkness and forgetfulness upon her, so that she could remember nothing that had ever befallen her, nor her own name, nor the name of any other thing, and for many days she could neither hear, nor see, nor stir by her own will. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Silmarillion, Of Turin Turambar<P>Because that's such a nice thing to do to somebody...that's not evil at all! j/k That leads her to marrying her brother...worse than you'd find in HP.<P>To be perfectly honest Mornie, the 'evil' things you're whittering on about in HP aren't really much compared to the things that happen throughout LotR and the Silmarillion. The quotes I found were probably some of the milder ones as I haven't read it all yet. <P>Why is such magic unacceptable in Harry Potter and not LotR?<P>Oh, and Mornie, if you say we have shown no evidence and that all we say is that HP doesn't have occultic practices you're clearly not reading the posts we write. As for your 'occultic' practices and Rowling studying them, I've heard of everything you mentioned and I've never been interested in Occultic practices. It's general knowledge.<p>[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: *Varda* ]

[Ravenna]

I've read and watched both, and liked them in very different ways. HP was primarily aimed at children and there's nothing in it I am bothered about my kids reading, its mostly mythology. LOTR is more original in subject and context. As to corrupting our kids, as I say often to my two, 'it's NOT real, it's only a book/film, people do things in there that you can't or shouldn't do in real life'. If we act like it's real the kids might too, if we don't they won't. I honestly don't feel there is all that much to compare between the two as they are so very different. Anyway most fantasy books I've read have superficial similarities, after all, details may differ, but basic plots follow very similar lines whatever you read. As to the accusations of Occult practices, I've read a few books with that stuff in (yuck), and I think I can safely say that HP is nothing like them.

GOOD GOD!!! how can you even ask a a like that?!?!?!?! lotr is by far the better of the two. now dont get me wrong, i like harry potter (rather large fan of it myself), but you REALLY cant compare the two, you just cant...harry IS good, but it doesnt have the depth that lotr does, if you understand what i mean...ummm....yeah, thats all.

[Emni Windrunner]

I find it very interesting, Mornie, that you know these isolated scenes without having read the books or seen the movie. In my Biblical exegesis class, we call that proof-texting, and it's not a good practice. You can edge yourself into a really difficult place by throwing out an isolated statement or scene without knowing, considering, and taking into account the context of that statement or scene.<BR>Consider for a moment that evil tends to take on a uniform appearance after a certain point. I'm not talking about an isolated sin, like lying, but rather the devotion to and practice of evil. At the root of any true portrayal of evil, a true narrator will eventually have to deal with the fact that evil comes from demonic sources. A denial of this would be a denial of the very Judeo-Christian values you're defending. Devotion to the demonic, as exemplified by the villains in both LOTR and HP, starts with a desire to destroy or to co-opt what has been created by good, and continues with someone acting on that desire.<BR>In <B>The Silmarillion</B>, Melkor Morgoth acted on that desire by destroying all of the good things that the Valar created, and by twisting and corrupting (since he could not destroy or completely re-create) what Iluvitar created, e.g. the Elves.<BR>Rowling uses the same principle and goes a different, but wholly legitimate, direction with it. God commands throughout the Pentateuch that, since life is contained in blood and life is sacred, blood is not to be drunk or eaten. God commands that since human life is sacred, human life is not to be taken by another human because it would profane the Image of God. God commands that we are to have nothing to do with spiritism because it opens us to the influence of demons, who are opposed to God and will lead us in opposition to Him.<BR>In the first case, the only person who consumes any blood, human or animal (and he does both), in HP is Voldemort, who, as I've said more times than I can count, is about as lovable as Sauron. Furthermore, when he consumes unicorn blood, he brings a curse on himself for it, and the scene in which it takes place is so frightening and so dark that no one in their right minds would take it into their head that it's a positive thing. And when Voldemort drinks Harry's blood, that scene makes the one with the unicorn look downright warm and fuzzy! Rowling makes it clear that this practice is evil, and that evil is undesirable.<BR>In the second case, the only people who actually take human life in the HP books are villains, and the ones who aren't Voldemort himself are almost as unsavory as he is. There are two characters (Sirius Black and Harry) who consider murdering, but Sirius (at least in my opinion) isn't a good guy, either, and Harry thinks better of it long before he actually tries to pull the trigger. Furthermore, Rowling pulls no punches here; she makes it clear that the hatred driving Harry's desire for revenge is a poison and it is unequivocally wrong. Based on the context of the confrontation (the end of Book 3), I think a case could be made for saying that Rowling considers murder unjustifiable in any context. Confronted with the man who all but killed his parents and nearly got him killed at least once, Harry is still not justified in killing him.<BR>And finally, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Ginny Weasley's tampering with things that shouldn't be messed with put her in a very bad narrative light. She, like many people who tamper with the supernatural (in the REAL world), started out innocently enough, writing to someone she thought to be harmless and friendly. You could compare Tom Riddle's diary to any number of gateways to demonic activity that are out there--Ouija boards, for example. The fact that she started out innocently did not save her, and in fact probably further endangered her. She opened herself up to Voldemort's influence, and in that way unleashed a whole world of trouble, both for herself and for her classmates. Ginny is not portrayed as a villain, but she does come across as a victim of her own naivete and wilfullness--both very bad traits when dealing with Voldemort (just as they're detrimental when dealing with demons). "Tom" did not have her best interests at heart; he was using her, just as demons use people as hosts and tools. I think that the climax of Book 2 is one of the best arguments out there for being wary of what spiritual influences we knowingly or unknowingly open ourselves up to. Whether Rowling specifically intended to convey that message, I don't know; I haven't talked to her or seen any quotes on the subject. What I do know, however, is that the things that many people scream about as being evil and reasons not to read the book, are good reasons <B>to</B> read and discuss the book, <B>because</B> they deal with the very real subject of the existence and activity of evil.<BR>Anyone who does a serious treatment of the subject of evil will have to take into consideration the Occult. Why? Because the Occult is the embodiment of evil in its most unadulterated form. Tolkien pulled no punches, and neither does Rowling. So far, they are equal in that regard. Literarily, there are obviously differences, but that's a whole other can of worms.

[Melephelwen]

Wow Emni, that was the best I've seen on this topic so far! *looks very impressed* You have my full support!!!

[Emni Windrunner]

*blushes*<P>Thanks. I honestly don't know where half of the stuff I said came from...but now that I've had some sleep, it all still makes sense. I should post during the wee hours more often.

i used to like harry potter, only because everyone else did.but the movie ruined it completly!

here are 2 little Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings connections: 1) Howard Shore, who composed the music for LOTR also composed music for Mrs. Doubtfire, which was directed by Chris Columbus, the director of HP 2) Chris Columbus wrote The Goonies, which stars Sean Astin, who is Sam in LOTR. just a couple cool connections I thought you might like to hear ciao <BR>~Rose Chubb from Tookbank~

[Mornie Alantie]

Possesion is a form of cult. So is Drinking the blood of animals and humans. These are in Harry Potter. No matter how Rowling approached them, saying they are bad or whatever, that is not why she put them in her books. They were in there to give the bad guys a more evil presence. These are real forms of satanism and they are not there to teach kids anything, just make the books a little more thrilling.<P>The drinking of the Unicorns blood gave Voldemorte a curse. In real witchcraft, if you hurt anyone or if you do things like that to animals, they say you will be punished/cursed. <P>I did not know this and other stuff about the cult/witchcraft till I watch a video on the connection of HP and Witchcraft/occult. Christian experts on Occultic and witchcraft who looked into HP and did a video on it. Most likely the average person doesn't know to much about the occult. I can see that here cause people still denie that HP has the occult in it. Rowling might not have just known about it and happened to put a lot of it in her books.<P>I have noticed certain things with shapechanging in LOTR that has made me a little edgy. Yet Tolkien did not center his books on Withcraft and wizardry as did Rowling(such as Harry going to Hogwarts school for witchcraft and wizardry, and defeating the bad guy by witchcraft and wizardry). Also Tolkien was a bornagain Christian and he and C.S. Lewis constantly kept eachother in check. It was not put in there with the intention of it relating to The craft or the occult.<P>I know that the Spells in HP are in Latin, that is not my point. My point is the backround of the spells. Dont they even give the words for the spell Voldemorte used on Harry's parents? I can see a small kid running around screaming that at people not realizing the reason of the words.<P>Also Harry's mother put some kind of protection blessing on Harry. If you looked into it, it has a great deal to do with the godesses in witchcraft.<P>Tolkien never gave great emphises to the evil things the bad guys did, in the books, all you know is that Saruman makes the Uruk Hia by Orcs and men. He doesn't explain how it happened and what evil went into it. In the Hobbit it says that there was a flash and two goblins lay dead. It doesn't even say what Gandalf did to them. Tolkiens "Magic" is so diffenrent from the witchcraft and occult in Harry Potter.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> the scene in which it takes place is so frightening and so dark that no one in their right minds would take it into their head that it's a positive thing. And when Voldemort drinks Harry's blood, that scene makes the one with the unicorn look downright warm and fuzzy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>what is this doing in a childrens book. It all has to do with the Occult. No mater how bad Rowling posed it to be. Like I said Tolkien would Rarely descibe how the Bad guy stuff happens. He doesn't descibe to us how Morgorth twisted the elves. All he said is that he did it.

[Emni Windrunner]

Okay, I have a few things to say in reply to your post, Mornie.<P>Firstly, the books are meant to be read with children, not just by children. They were marketed to all ages, not just children. And, being blunt, Book 4 is different from the others in that it is where the face of evil is bared to the reader and the characters; even if I'd let my kids read the first three unsupervised (which I wouldn't, because I'm into the involved parenting thing), they wouldn't go near the fourth one without me. If you would read HP, Mornie, you would be able to tell that much of the narrative is directed to a more mature audience than, say, ten year-olds. Rowling is not necessarily responsible for how her book is marketed.<P>Secondly, Harry does <B>not</B> use magic to defeat Voldemort! In Book 1, he is saved by luck (more on that in a minute, since you brought it up indirectly); in Book 2, he's saved by his wits and his nobility of character; in Book 3, he's saved by the cowardice of the villain (Wormtail, not Voldemort); in Book 4, he barely escapes, and that's by sheer luck, too! In only one of those cases did magic have something to do with it, and that was purely accidental since neither he nor Voldemort knew about the Priori Incantatem.<P>As for the "blessing" you spoke of Mornie--the one placed on Harry by his mother--that did not happen as you seem to think it did, and it most certainly was <B>not</B> magical. Harry's mother died to save him when he was an infant. Because of her sacrifice, he had some protection from Voldemort. It was not a magical protection, but it was a supernatural one; you might call it spiritual protection. That is not to say that her spirit is protecting her--it's not at all implied that that's the case; rather, the sacrifice itself protects him. Lily Potter is not a goddess figure. She is a real woman, a normal woman, and a loving mother. If she ever comes across as larger-than-life, it's because Harry never really knew her and he's idealizing her, which any kid will do for a parent he or she never knew.<P>Finally, in answer to your question about why Harry goes to a school for witchcraft and wizardry...Well, if you have abilities that could give you power in the ordinary world, you could be very dangerous if you weren't trained; any of us could. The point here is that people not trained are potential loose cannons, and people not trained to use abilities responsibly may well use them to dominate others without those abilities. It's the same rationale the Jedi Knights used in Star Wars for the training of everyone with Force-sensitivity. Harry's not in school to learn how to worship the devil or how to rule the world with magic; indeed, he's there to learn that it is not for him to rule the world, and how to defend himself against the devil (hence the required class Defense Against the Dark Arts that he must take all seven years he's at Hogwarts).<P>You have some valid concerns, Mornie. The only problem is that they are secondhand because you have not read the books and your sources may or may not have done so, either (I don't know if they have or not; many criticisms I've run into saying that HP Occultic have been uninformed. I'm not challenging the integrity of your sources, just letting you know that some are more reliable than others). I would encourage you to read just the first book and to see what is in it. If you still don't like it--for whatever reason!--that's fine, but you will have a lot more credibility in your arguments just from the fact that you <B>have</B> read Harry Potter.<P><BR>PS Nothing in Harry Potter has to do with cults. Please note that there is a big difference between <B>a cult</B> and <B>the Occult</B>, as defined in one of my earlier posts.<P>[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]<P>[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]<p>[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]

[*Varda*]

Mornie, you still don't know for a fact Rowling studied the Occult. I'd heard of everything mentioned in her books, which i wouldn't presume to be the Occult. You say you watched a video, did it address both sides, and facts etc? And I've found no quote or anything where Rowling says she studied the Occult.<P>I must admit, I do see in a way what you're worried about. I just don't see what religion has to do with Harry Potter, and I don't see why Harry Potter is any worse than LotR. <P>If you would read the books, your answer would have more credibility and respect. You're using second hand information and single scenes where you don't know the context, setting, what happens before and after and what Harry chooses to do - those are all important to what happens.<P>Anyway, can we not read a simple book without having to worry about all these moral issues? It is extremely unlikely that anyone is particularly affected by HP - kids are smarter than we give them credit for. <P>Personally I think some of the scenes in LotR are more disturrbing mainly because of the way and style in which they're written. Rowling doesn't really seem to have the ability to make it real and bring you into the world of HP as much as Tolkien. This in itself makes scenes like the blood less real and I know it's fiction - It's made clear it's wrong and that you should never do it.

[Melephelwen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> kids are smarter than we give them credit for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Varda is so absolutely right about that. For example, I still don't consider my 11-year old brother as more than a little fool, but actually he read HP 7 times, got halfway through LotR and he's working on Star Wars. I didn't read any of those until I was 13. (Mainly because HP came out when I was 12, but that's another side of it.)<BR>And we're not quite fair by calling HP a 'children's book'. I don't dought that it was adressed to kids older than 10. I've read that Rowling wouldn't read her books for her own daughter until the girl was 8 or 10. I think it was 10 but I don't remember precisely.<BR>And Mornie: this is not just to be of an opposite opinion than you, but never, <I>never,</I> use secondhand sources as arguments if you haven't read about the subject yourself! (ex. HP) It makes you look stupid. If you ever do that, then make sure to clear out that it's only your opinion, because you really don't know it. I always do it when I discuss something and nobody's called me stupid so far.<BR>Anyway we're not getting anywhere - Mornie is not going to convince anybody, and Varda and Emni aren't neither (except me). No matter how good the arguments might be. My suggestion is to quit the topic

[Emni Windrunner]

Okay, a little something that has nothing to do with defending HP.<P>Hello? I didn't kill anyone from shock, did I? Just checking. <P>I was reading back over some of the earlier posts on this thread, and I have a couple of questions:<BR>1. How is the giant squid in HP copying the Watcher in the Water in FOTR? Just wondering, because about the only thing they have in common is that they have a lot of tentacles...<BR>2. If Ron is a knockoff of Sam Gamgee...who is Hermione a copy of? Not really vital, just random synaptic firings in my brain.<BR>3. Not a question, just a point: The Basilisk in HP Book 2 is based on an old Roman mythological thingimajigger called (I think) the King Snake or something like that, and its gaze could kill someone or turn him to stone. The Basilisk from the Chamber of Secrets is in no way based on Smaug or any other of the dragons. Norbert, on the other hand, might be.

oh my god who ever started this post is so immature how can u compare 2 great storys ..its liek saying which would u have air or water u cant live without either but some ppl dont like harry potter b/c its about a lil boy look at frodo hes like smaller then harry and hes a lil wimp but i still like him and rowling plagerising ? cant 2 ppl have similar ideas and she didnot eve ncopy him theyre totally differnet if u dont like it then dont f***** read it but i think u really should since HP s very very good ....... and i loved LOtr but it was a bit boring and rowling writing style is way better but i respect and admire both writers ...so instead of wasting ur time on something so stupid go read the book and find out 4 urself if its good or bad

[Alkanoonion]

Did this topic not die? <BR>BTW thinavarial, Welcome to the Barrow Downs.<p>[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Alkanoonion ]

[Emni Windrunner]

At the risk of sounding like a smart-aleck, things that "die" at the Barrow-Downs aren't exactly dead. After all, a newbie here is "Newly Deceased". This topic's got 100 posts on it now, which would make it far beyond just dead.

[Naaramare]

Not touching the rest of this argument other than to say that Emni, your knowledge shines out of its setting. You and I would obviously have differences of opinion on some points.<P>But I warn you: no matter how brilliant your logic, the people you're arguing will miss it. Entirely.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 3. Not a question, just a point: The Basilisk in HP Book 2 is based on an old Roman mythological thingimajigger called (I think) the King Snake or something like that, and its gaze could kill someone or turn him to stone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Egyptian and Greek, yes. Basilisks. ^^ If I remember correctly--and I might not in this case--said to guard tombs of great kinds and turn to stone graverobbers.

[Emni Windrunner]

You can call me a rabble-rouser if you want to, but the truth is I don't necessarily care if you agree with me or not. I delight in intelligent debate in which both sides do an excellent job of supporting their stances. I don't thrive on winning; I thrive on exchange of ideas.

[NazgulNumberTen]

winning is the icing on the cake.

[Naaramare]

=P I was complimenting you, Enmi. ^~ In point of fact I agree with everything you've said on this topic, but the fashion in which you said it indicates to me that we'd disagree on other topics that I won't pursue here, due to extreme OTness. <P>I was just warning you that this argument's already been done to death here, and nothing new on the part of the people you're arguing with ever comes to light. If you wish to continue, by all means, do so. ^^

[RiderOfRohan]

Lotr Is SOOO much bette than Harry Potter.<BR>END OF DISCUSION!!!

[Emni Windrunner]

Sorry, Naamare, I didn't mean to sound insulted. I got the compliment--thank you!<BR>Actually, I don't always argue from the OT; I usually prefer to argue from the NT, in fact, but the OT seemed to work better for the direction I was going in this debate. It is worth pointing out, though, that in Acts 15 (NT), they still stipulated against the drinking and eating of blood because of the sanctity of life.<BR>Still, as you say, this topic has been pretty much done to death. Nevertheless, as a rabble-rouser (and a proud one, at that!), if someone wants to keep it going, I'll give 'em someone to debate with. <p>[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]

I HATE Harry Potter . It can't be call fantasy ,it is a fairy tale. There are many episods wich are stolen from the LOTR.For example mirror , doesn't it remind the Galadriels mirror?

Mellon! Harry Potter and LOTR aren't comparable.HP is a great story in its own right but hardly an epic and all-engrossing world like Tolkiens'.Still,I enjoyed reading JK Rowlings books as i do any fantasy tales. Tolkien has the ability to transorm us into a world TOTALLY and wish we were there or wish it were true. I have adopted Tolkien's work as my bible and find his work flawless which is more than can be said about the movie adaption! Yet Peter Jackson did a fine job of recreating Middle Earth and is commended as he has had to cram as much possible into a brief time while not losing less loyal viewers.We all wish for an unabridged version of the books ;one that would satisfy fanatics; and would hopefully run for 6 hours or more. Maybe then we would realise our visions of the Barrow Downs,Tom Bombadil, Goldberry and other key scenes missing from the meagre 3 hour presentation. While I'm here, do you have any ideas for me for a Middle Earth party I'm hosting next month?<I>null</I>

LOTR wins! Harry Potter: nice.<BR>Though, if you see the base of these two movies... in the case of Harry Potter they improved the not too exciting story by great pictures and some computer effects.<BR>The "problem" with LOTR is: you just can`t put such a great book into a movie without receiving a film that has definitely lost sth. Shorter said: I loved the books and I liked the film, though you actionall can`t put both onto the same level. Too many things got lost (they let out even Tom Bombadil!!). Charakters remain kind of empty and s.o. who watches the movie without having read the books could have difficulties to distinguish between the persons and to follow the plot.<BR> I mean: is there anyone who liked the film better than the books? I would be really interested in his/her sight of the things. G`night!

Yep no one could agree that movie is better than books.I do agree that characters are shallow and non readers would view it as just another story/movie.You have to know the backgrounds of caracters to benefit from film.For instance;who really gave a toss when Gandalf fell in Moria and were they left wondering if he was dead?Doubt it when trailers show him alive and well in sequel! Boromir wasnt featured enough and non readers wouldnt care that he is gone.Think its fantastic for world viewers to see aussie actors like David Wenham and Miranda Otto really puts us on the map...

I've only read the PS and found it light and ejoyable but chose not the see the film until its release on DVD. And anyway, all my money at the time was going on Lotr!! <BR>After seeing it on DVD can I just say, Harry needed a serious dose of Fairy dust sprinkled on him. More animation would be the go. I did enjoy the other characters though.<BR>But my personal preference is still LOTR!<BR>Mornie; Tolkein writes about all those things you find disagreeable in HP, ie possession (ringwraiths), shape changing (Beorn) Frodo talks about spells and incantations in the Barrow-downs scene, or don't these count! Gimli even refers to Galadrial as a Sorceress. It's all a matter of perspective is it not, as Gimli found out later! <BR>HP may be fulled with witches and wizards good and bad, trolls and dragons or whatever, but the morals are just as profound, and easy to discover to the 10yr old thats reading it ... and yes such things as loyalty among friends, compassion, decency.<BR>As to the thought that if HP is in schools why not the Bible ... well 'shrug'<BR>The supreme court defind HP as a religion<BR> or witchcraft as a religion? Either way to try getting the Bible back into the school system via that argument, would seem to me to open up a whole hugh unwanted can of worms.<P>OOOPS! THE 10YR OLD AND THE 90YR OLD! <p>[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Eleventy1-tipsy-hobbits ]

[Melephelwen]

I don't want to bring this topic back alive (again, again) but I just need to answer to this, and then I'll leave the thread for good (in case anybody wants to know )<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> There are many episods wich are stolen from the LOTR.For example mirror , doesn't it remind the Galadriels mirror? - Tel'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Uhm, no. The Mirror in HP (I persume you are referrring to the mirror, which showes the dreams?) It only shows people's deepest, most desperate dreams/wishes. A very private thing, actually, but that's not the point. Galadriel's Mirror shows "shows things that were, and things that are, and things that yet may be." It <I>can</I> also show what people wish to see, but as I understood the book, Galadriel would have to force the mirror. Anyway, I don't think you read the thread, 'cause it is stated there several times, that you cannot compare things in that way. If you talk about "plagiarising"(sp?) Tolkien did it as much as Rowling. And both books/series are written (and published) so it doesn't really matter.<BR>And to all of you, I sort of disagree that HP should be that bad and 'childish'. I started a reread two days ago, and though it might be a bit easy in the language compared to LotR, it's not bad at all!!<BR>Just my opinion, and I'm honored that you read this!

[Emni Windrunner]

The Mirror of Erised has exactly two things in common with Galadriel's Mirror:<BR>1. They are both supernatural, and<BR>2. They are both mirrors.<BR>Other than that, they are quite different. Galadriel's Mirror is a tool of sorts; the Mirror of Erised had no apparent useful purpose until Dumbledore used it to protect the Philosopher's Stone.<p>[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Emni Windrunner ]

[Aroaraniel]

I belong to lots of message boards including the one at HarryPotter.com...and I've come to this conclusion---Lord of the Ring fans (for whatever reason) seem to be much more learned and well...generally not as annoying as Harry Potter fans. The only reason I still go there, is because of the friends I made there, who are very much like you people. And it took me a long time to find those people believe me. I find it wierd that books compared over and over again, and pretty much the two most popularfantasy (or whatever you'd like to call them) story epic appeal to a complete different genres of people...although they are completely different, they are somewhat similar...I don't know if you just got what I was trying to say, but its...difficult to explain hehe!<P>But that's besides the point, isn't it? I find LOTR more confusing, but generally more a good read and all around entertaining. Harry Potter...is one of those books you re-read because you're bored one day...but thats just my opinion. And well the movies don't compare. The Harry Potter movie sucked compared to Lord of the Rings, although I own both of them hehe!!

[Naaramare]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> For example mirror , doesn't it remind the Galadriels mirror? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To paraphrase a quote from Tolkien (who ran up against something similar in comparison of LotR to a much older story, the Ring of the Niblung) "Both stories contain a mirror, and there the resemblance ends."

[Emni Windrunner]

I guess I just got lucky. All of the Harry Potter fans I know also happen to be LOTR fans, so I can't really compare the maturity level of one to the other. However, my friends who are <I>more</I> into HP than LOTR are still mature and thoughtful people, though you'd never find them posting on message boards (I'm the only one of any of us who does that )

I am really ashamed with my words about the mirror. I am sorry. But still I have a good(maybe not very) reason to don't like HP:try to wathch it 10 hours without brake, and say whay do you think about it.I am sorry again.

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>let's continue this, shall we...<P>Merlin - Gandalf - Dumbledore<BR>Grim Reaper - Nazgûl - Dementors<BR>human arachnophobia - Spiders of Mirkwood - Spiders of Forbid. Forest<BR>any folk myth - Black Breath - Dementor's Breath (just my name for the ripoff)<BR>World's First Clumsy Person With A Heart Of Gold - Sam Gamgee - Ron Weasley<BR>Dinosaur bones - Basilisk - Probably got the idea of a serpent from Smaug<BR>A Villain - Sauron - Voldemort<BR>Ugly Monsters - Orcs/Goblins/ Uruks - Goblins of Gringotts<BR>Sea Monsters - Watcher in the Water - Giant Squid<P>don't you think that it's a bit daft accusing someone of plagiarizing age-old cliches? not that that's all there is to what you listed, but that seems to be the only facets you are comparing. why not compare Lord of the Flies to Tom Sawyer, after all, both are books about adolescents.

[Craban]

Obviously there's some anti-HP video making the rounds of some church groups, and some people choose to believe it because it makes them feel good to do so for some reason and will stubbornly stick to it no matter how many intelligent and thoughtful posts, philosophical and theological discourses, and well-researched facts you throw at them. And some people just don't like Harry Potter because they identify too much with the Dursleys.<P>There wouldn't even be any reason to compare the two at all if they both hadn't been adapted into mega-blockbuster movies released around the same time, purely by chance. LOTR = mythopoeic heroic fantasy told in a style that's a hybrid between "epic" and "novelistic," set in a mythic landscape and far remote Age of Legends. HP = contemporary fantasy story in which a magical subculture overlaps the mundane world, told in modern conversational language, with child/teenage protagonists. I enjoy them both very much, on different levels and for different reasons. I don't think they're very similar or have much to do with each other.<P>But, because I can't resist: for the record, I *am* a Wiccan, have been for 14 years. I've read all four HP books more than once, and there is NO evidence that JK Rowling knows <I>jack</I> about Wicca, or cares. All her ample magic references come from history (note the fact that Nicholas Flamel was a real Renaissance alchemist), mythology and pop culture, and her symbolism and themes could be read to be as much Christian as anything else (no surprise, because it is after all the dominant culture in the UK and is the source of many cultural references readily understood in English-speaking society, duh.)<P>Now, Marion Zimmer Bradley's <I>The Mists of Avalon</I>--THAT'S a book drenched in Wiccan values and symbolism. It was even a recent (made-for-TV) movie too. And told in a style far more like to LOTR, although its story is Arthurian. Why aren't people railing about that all over this board? My best guess is because it's not popular enough that the Symbolism Police have heard of it.