Harry Potter and The Stolen Plot...

[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.

[Galadriel55]

I don't like comparing Gandalf to Dumbledore. Even though they have a similar "mentor" task/role and do many similar things (uch as sacrifice themselves), and even look somewhat alike - but to me they are completely different characters.

One thing that contributes to that opinion is that Gandalf is initially good, wise, etc, and Dumbledore is quite the opposite until he sees the error of his ways. I am not saying that either one is better, but I can't say that comming in to the world with wisdom and missing becoming a Voldemort by a milimeter is not the same thing.

Moreover, although both like a good laugh, Dumbledore overdoes it a bit. Gandalf always has a wise word in his pocket, even for the fattest of hobbits. Dumbledore is sometimes a bit... nuts. I cannot see Gandalf saying half the things Dumbledore said, or did. Gandalf wouldn't accept Dumbledore's position in the first place, but that's something beside the point. Dumbledore sometimes gets plain silly. It's possible that this rift is there because of the different perspectives: teenagers vs sometimes immature, though grown up hobbits.

Gandalf has a much more serious personality, but with less hidden twists and turns (just ask Rita Skeeter).

Originally Posted by Zil

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.

I would disagree. Dumbledore still had that hidden streak of greed/selfishness in him. Gandalf did not have it from the start. I see his motivation for defeating Voldemort as a partially personal one. Then, about the "tools", Gandalf told Frodo exactly what he was going for, whereas Dumbledore kept a lot quiet. In fact, he kept secret from Harry the most impotant part - that Harry carries a piece of Voldemort's soul with him.

You could argue that this makes Dumbledore a much interesting character to analyse. I think that he's just different. Too different to say better or worse.

Originally Posted by alatar

and sees the Headmaster only thinking of the Potter as a pawn to be used/thrown away in a larger game.

Gandalf sees himself as one of the pieces too - perhaps not a pawn, but something like a bishop.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I would disagree. Dumbledore still had that hidden streak of greed/selfishness in him. Gandalf did not have it from the start. I see his motivation for defeating Voldemort as a partially personal one. Then, about the "tools", Gandalf told Frodo exactly what he was going for, whereas Dumbledore kept a lot quiet. In fact, he kept secret from Harry the most impotant part - that Harry carries a piece of Voldemort's soul with him.

When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Gandalf sees himself as one of the pieces too - perhaps not a pawn, but something like a bishop.

Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron. Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.

But on the other other other (?) hand, you could say that he only does it because it personally affects him. He doesn't work for the whole world of GOOD, he works for himself.

And on the yet another hand, one could say that Gandalf is a pretty boring character compared to the multi-sided Dumbledore. Not my own opinion either, but it could be.

And on the hand that I didn't mention yet, one could argue that Dumbledore is not a "proper" mentor.

And the only question left is how many octopi is it needed to give enough hands.

Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron.

But at the same time he's the opposite. He's still one of the chess pieces, even if it is the queen and not a pawn. He is both above and within the game.

Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.

And that he did, disregarding his sense of rightness more than once.


I think I'm just agruing for the sake or arguing here, because really I agree with you.