Lord of the Rings vs. Harry Potter (merged multiple times)hlg [Archive] - Page 2

Wonko The Sane

09-07-2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Baggins
Ahh, it has come time again to reply to this silly and very inane thread. Folks Harry Potter, in the opinion of a respected, 33-year English teacher, had a deplorable lack of good literature in it and was not written in away that could very well hold the interest of smarter people. After all it is written for children is it not? So why do adults like it, (maybe our world has become so dummed down that children's books capture adults interests?) I'm not accusing anyone of being duimd because personally I have meddled a little into HP and found it a little bit captivating myself, but not enough to read past the first chapter of the second book mind you.
So I guess what I'm saying is, why should people with obviosly good brains waste there time on books written for compltely different and Younger indidvuals? Those are just my thoughts on the HP scandal.;)

Aravorn

Actually Aravorn, just because the book is geared towards children doesn't make it dumb. It might not be "good" literature in the sense that Lord of the Rings is, but it's very much like C.S. Lewis's work, and (and J.K Rowling even adopts the two initial-surname format) It's a book for children, that adults can enjoy too. Everybody needs fantasy and escapism, and sometimes it's so much more fun to read about a fantasy that's simple, not too complicated, not filled TOO much with adult themes, because it can take us back to our innocence and childhood. The books are well-written. And I actually know an adult who HATE Harry Potter until they read them, and had to admit that they're easy to get into, and that the writing is quite good. J.K. Rowling may not be on the same level as Tolkien, but she IS a talented author who is able to paint such a vivid picture that you can get drawn into her novels.
They're not "dumb" literature, or books only for dumb people and children. My father has a Mensa-worthy Genius level IQ and he LOVES Harry Potter. Maybe you have it backwards, maybe only people who's brains and minds are open to the next level, people with enough higher intelligence to do as children do and let themselves open to imagination and fantasy.
It's actually those with lesser minds and intellects who lose the ability to lose themselves in make believe, and simple fantasy when they get older. NOT the smart ones. The smarter ones are the ones who still retain the knowledge of the value of release from reality, and the importance of things which, to others, might seem childish or stupid.

Helcaraxë

09-25-2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Actually Aravorn, just because the book is geared towards children doesn't make it dumb. It might not be "good" literature in the sense that Lord of the Rings is, but it's very much like C.S. Lewis's work, and (and J.K Rowling even adopts the two initial-surname format) It's a book for children, that adults can enjoy too. Everybody needs fantasy and escapism, and sometimes it's so much more fun to read about a fantasy that's simple, not too complicated, not filled TOO much with adult themes, because it can take us back to our innocence and childhood. The books are well-written. And I actually know an adult who HATE Harry Potter until they read them, and had to admit that they're easy to get into, and that the writing is quite good. J.K. Rowling may not be on the same level as Tolkien, but she IS a talented author who is able to paint such a vivid picture that you can get drawn into her novels.
They're not "dumb" literature, or books only for dumb people and children. My father has a Mensa-worthy Genius level IQ and he LOVES Harry Potter. Maybe you have it backwards, maybe only people who's brains and minds are open to the next level, people with enough higher intelligence to do as children do and let themselves open to imagination and fantasy.
It's actually those with lesser minds and intellects who lose the ability to lose themselves in make believe, and simple fantasy when they get older. NOT the smart ones. The smarter ones are the ones who still retain the knowledge of the value of release from reality, and the importance of things which, to others, might seem childish or stupid.

Both of you are wrong. The only dumb people are those who make blanket generalizations saying that only stupid people or only smart people have certain preferences about escapist literature. I myself do not think HP is particularly well-written, but I enjoy the outlet of escape that all fantasy provides. Wonks, people who don't enjoy escapist literature aren't necessarily of lesser intellect. That is a completely groundless stereotype. Don't judge people's IQ by their preferences.
And Aravorn, even if you don't like HP, there is absolutely no call to be rude, and call this thread "inane and silly." We are trying to have a serious discussion about how HP compares to LotR, so if you don't have anything polite to say, say nothing at all.

--MB

Beleg

09-26-2003, 09:13 AM

Offcourse it is the best work of art ever written! LOTR is **** infront of it, HP is just godly. Tolkien should be sued for writing a book like LOTR, comparing lOTR with HP is a disgrace to HP. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Kahmûl

10-12-2003, 06:28 PM

I think it's o.k but of course Tolkien's work is far better.

spirit

10-13-2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Kahmul
I think it's o.k but of course Tolkien's work is far better. cant argue with that

Angelica

10-28-2003, 10:03 PM

I love Harry Potter. And I dont see why it should be compared to Lord of the Rings. THese are two different things!!!! Harry Potter is written for larger audience - that will include little kids as well as adults, so of course it has to be an easier read. I mean if I was 10 I would never read LOR because I wouldn't understand it.

Plus the main characters are soo different.......

But anyway. I think they are both great. :)

spirit

11-04-2003, 02:42 PM

Plus the main characters are soo different.......

not soo different. maybe in complicity wise... (spelling??)

Ice Man

11-06-2003, 04:16 PM

I got tired of Harry Potter after the Prisoner of Azkaban. I find it too childish. One day I'll eventually finish reading the entire collection, but don't ask me when.

celebdraug

11-26-2003, 12:42 PM

I chose It's So-So, but LOTR is A LOT better.

Finglas

12-11-2003, 02:50 AM

harry potter and lord of the rings are too different to compare. one is meant for purely entertainment, easy reading, and an overall younger audience. lord of the rings is suppose to make you think a LOT more. your suppose to look deeply and predict, along with paying attention to those small details that make all the difference. there is no point in comparing the two because OBVIOUSLY lord of the rings is better.

sorry, i had to get that out of my system.

IMonkey

12-15-2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Beleg
Offcourse it is the best work of art ever written! LOTR is **** infront of it, HP is just godly. Tolkien should be sued for writing a book like LOTR, comparing lOTR with HP is a disgrace to HP. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Shut up. You oviously haven't read LotR. HP is ok but it didn't capture my imagineation as much as LotR.

Gandalf White

12-19-2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by IMonkey
Shut up. You oviously haven't read LotR. HP is ok but it didn't capture my imagineation as much as LotR. Whoa! Calm down IMonkey!

Beleg loves Lord of the Rings. He was being sarcastic!

And I still haven't read HP, so I still can't comment.

Jesse

01-03-2004, 06:40 PM

I used to like Harry Potter. For some reason, I can't get interested in it. Harry Potter is so childish. Sure I like the storyline, but the books/movies? NO WAY! HP has gone corrupt over the past 3 books. Lord of the Rings is much easier to read & much more fun. I am now Anti-Harry Potter. :mad: :mad:

Wonko The Sane

01-09-2004, 03:48 AM

As far as complexity of characters go, and the way good and evil are portrayed LotR and HP are similar.

But they are VASTLY different types of books, and they should NOT be compared.

I wonder when this forum will start accepting things for what they are...and stop hating them for what they could be, but aren't.

If you have a child that falls woefully short of your expectations, you wanted him to be a Neuro-surgeon, all he ever wanted was to be a Librarian, do you love your child for the person he's become REGARDLESS of the failed expectations?
Or do you hold a grudge against him for not wanting "more" for himself?

Any good parent would love their child anyway.

And it's in this way that I look at HP. Some people hate it because in comparison to LotR, it's bunk. Well, stop comparing it and take it at face value and maybe you'll like it!
People that don't like it based on its own merits: fine.
People that don't like it based on its comparison to other things: NOT fine with me.

Same goes for the movies actually. They're NOT Tolkien's vision, they're PJ's, and as HIS adaptation of what HE thinks the movie should be, they're BRILLIANT.
Maybe compared to Tolkien's vision they fall WOEFULLY short. True. But just stop expecting them to be Tolkien's exact vision, and take them for what they are.

You'll enjoy life a lot more if you accept the things you cannot change, and judge things, people, and situations based solely on their individual merits.

Starflower

01-09-2004, 11:21 AM

in response to those people wo seem to think that because Harry Potter is calssified as 'reading for young people' it means it is childish and should no be read - let alone enjoyed- by any self-respecting 'grown-up'. Well, I am one of those silly grown-up people who happen to enjoy the world of Harry Potter. I find the books refreshing, enjoyable and well written.The world of Harry Potter is quite far removed from the world of LoTR, but that does not make them bad books. My reasons for enjoying Tolkien are different from my reasons for enjoying Harry Potter, I see no reason why I should or could not enjoy them both .

Wonko The Sane

01-09-2004, 11:44 AM

Starflower

01-09-2004, 11:50 AM

Elfhelm25

01-09-2004, 02:01 PM

LOTR and HP are equally my favorite books.
And this is why.
They are both entertaining. They get people to read and use their imaginations.
LOTR and HP are not the same books. If I want the detailed enjoyment of LOTR, then I read LOTR. If I want a humourous, fairly light-hearted but ultimately entertaining story, I read HP.
I also don't understand why people feel the need to compare the two all the time. They are not the same. There are similaraties, as with many fantasy-style books, but I don't agree that HP is a cheap imitation of LOTR.
As most people like LOTR, as they must since they are on this site, there are a lot of biases.
I think HP are quality books. It's a really great story. I wasn't interested at all in HP until a couple of years ago when I was waiting in the library and the book was right beside me. I got hooked. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is an amazing and well written book. It captured my attention from start to finish.
Point being, they are both really great stories. I mean as a whole. And they are great books in different ways, but I don't think one is necessarly better than another. Just a bit different. Well, this is starting to sound a lot like what everyone else is saying, so I'll leave it at that! :)

Wonko The Sane

01-10-2004, 03:39 PM

:) thank you Wonks

I am not ashamed to reveal that part of my bed-time routine after an especially gruelling day at work is to put on a tape recording of the HP & the Philosopher's Stone and fall asleep listening to it :)

I like to read it to Snaga...and he to me...but SHHH...if that gets out it'll ruin his Orcish image! ;)

celebdraug

01-16-2004, 02:29 PM

I like to read it to Snaga...and he to me...but SHHH...if that gets out it'll ruin his Orcish image! ;) lol!

but it is an entertaining book when you want to read but not think! :p

Barliman Butterbur

01-16-2004, 02:57 PM

It is clear that JK owes a lot to JRR! One of these days (if I ever have that much time to fritter away) I'll start reading HP with an eye out for elements that she lifted from LOTR. They are there in abundance! I find the Potter books (and movies!) great fun nonetheless!

Lotho

celebdraug

01-16-2004, 03:33 PM

But they could have still dont better with the graphics in the movie!

AND A CUTER HARRY POTTER WOULD BE MUCH NICER!!!!! :mad:

Snaga

01-16-2004, 09:09 PM

I like to read it to Snaga...and he to me...but SHHH...if that gets out it'll ruin his Orcish image! ;)*seeks legal advice for defamation of character*

Paul

04-06-2004, 02:27 PM

Personaly i like lotr because of the history and depth, me being a huge history buuf i love the silmariilion and the histories of ME alot. But Harry Potter is almost a compleatly different genre, it has more stuff that a preeteen or 13-14-15 year old can relate to and it has no background like lotr so its hard to get into long debates and discussions about it.(all of which i love.) but to give it credit it did get a bunch of lazy kids to read. and enjoy it so both have great qualities in the end but i think the books apeal to different people. :D

Ireth Telrúnya

04-06-2004, 03:07 PM

I think LotR is soo much better than some Harry Potter...it's just children's literature to me.

Lord of Ry'leh

04-12-2004, 03:37 PM

While I prefer Lord of the Rings, I don't see anything wrong with Harry Potter. They are a book series that I encourage all young people to read. However, I really don't think the two should be compared; the same way I don't think Lord of the Rings and Narnia should be compared except on the basis that they were both written by people who happened to be good friends.

They do have this in common -- they were both written by amateur authors. That is where it ends for me, as both of the series are aimed at completely different audiences. Harry Potter was quite obviously written for young adults, while Lord of the Rings really wasn't written for anybody except Tolkien himself. Genre differences are immense. Harry Potter is a very modern story, while Lord of the Rings seeks to emulate and incorporate elements of Anglo-Saxon literature.

I don't think Harry Potter was really meant to be taken seriously. The books may have some dark elements, but they are still light hearted by comparison to some other novels. It's simply another story for children to cherish, and I don't care what anyone says about promoting the 'Dark Arts'. That's complete rubbish. Elementary schools should encourage Harry Potter books, as they make for a fantastic introduction into a greater world of literature.

Turin

04-12-2004, 09:16 PM

I picked up a harry potter book in a store a while back(about 2 years ago), after reading a few pages I put it down. Its just another typical "magician's student" kinda book, theres nothing that great about it. I heard that J.K. Rowling was going to write an yet another book, when she was asked why, she responded "I don't have all the money in the world... yet." :D

Ol'gaffer

04-12-2004, 09:46 PM

I love the Harry Potter books, the world, to me is easier to connect with than the almost boorish and far fetched world of Tolkien. The charecters grow with each book, and while some of the 'bad' guys in the first books aren't exactly the best, they also change later on.

The language is vivid and the storytelling flows nicely.

Tolkien is a great writer, but I don't see a reason to start calling either better than one another. Both are great books, and one could say that the Potter books are the Lord of the Rings for the new generation.

Melian_the_Maya

04-13-2004, 01:16 PM

Although I am a little bit late for the vote, I'd still like to give my opinion on this matter, since I have read both the Harry Potter books - and that means all five of them so far - and most of Tolkien's books.

Harry Potter

Harry Potter is meant for a young category of readers, but does not discourage older readers - for instance I was 17 when I read the first one, my mother was an undisclosed but quite high age when she read them. I enjoyed reading them, however, although they are not what you would name profound. The message is striaght forward enough for a child to see and the characters begin by being a little uni-dimensional, but the narrative is light hearted and funny and the characters do develop across the five books. They are not "dark" books and if, like my sister, you are going to read them beginning with the age of 11 and read every year one of them, as you develop, you will find them much lighter than the Elven massacres or such in Tolkien and much lighter indeed than many other books.

Since I am not a boy and neither my father, nor my brother have read the books themselves, I can't say anything about the stories from that point of view, but from my own point of view and I think in general from a female's point of view, the books are indeed very appealing and interesting. It even provides some insight in the minds of children and, as I read the books later than I was meant to, it was like a return to adolescence and I liked them very much.

I am sorry for those who stopped reading/flicking through the books before the fifth one came along, because many of the cliches which appear to be cliches in the first books are revealed in a new light, which makes them more interesting and more plausible. I think the author waited for the children to be a little older before introducing them to a slightly more complicated scenario.

J. R. R. Tolkien

Without a doubt, the best writer (style-wise speaking) that I have ever read. He is very accomplished and develops along with his books. I like the way he sets the atmosphere to the books, the way he reveals his plots and most of all I like the completeness of this alternate reality that he offers. His style is somewhat romantic and his characters are sometimes fully fledged and realistic and sometimes they are simply symbols. It is arguable of course, but IMO Aragorn, Gandalf, Morgoth, Sauron and some other characters with quite a part to play in his books are merely symbols and they are not extremely plausible. However, the style of Tolkien's writing is superior and his technique is very good and that makes up for these things.

I come from a culture where Tolkien is non-existent, or well, has been inexistent until two years ago and I only read Tolkien because I moved to the Netherlands some 3 years ago. For somebody like me, who has read both Harry Potter and most of Tolkien's work in around 3 years, it is easier to appreciate both authors at the same time and make a comparison from the point of view of which I enjoyed more (which IMO is the only point at which they can be compared in the first place). I read LoTR before the Silmarillion and if you do so, Sauron appears a quite clichéd master of evil, if you like, since we don't know the bit about the Maiar and such, so there are two sides to the coin. Some might think Lord Voldemort is just the average all evil guy, some - particularly those that have read books 4 and 5 might not. Some might think Sauron is just the pure evil guy in most books - incorrect if you read at least the Silmarillion and LoTR. It matters only what you like at the particular time in your life when you read them. My mother for instance detests LoTR...

SO there it is: my verdict is they are all very good in their own way. I have read LoTR and the Silmarillion an equal number of times (15) as Harry Potter 4 and 5...

Eledhwen

04-13-2004, 01:29 PM

You can only call Sauron Cliche'd because Tolkien invented the cliche! Because he is never described or seen; he becomes a lurking nightmare. There's even a dark uneasiness about the mentions of him in The Hobbit as The Necromancer.

I recently tried to read Harry Potter book one. Maybe it's because I'm an adult, but after half a book, I found it not pick-upable.

Melian_the_Maya

04-13-2004, 03:26 PM

Don't think it's because you are an adult, after all so is my mom and so am I (technically, though judging by my behaviour, hmmm...). It might just be that you don't like this type of stories.

I did not mean Sauron is style-wise clichéd. The way he is portrayed is original and I never said otherwise. I meant he is somewhat clichéd because of what he represents (if you take LoTR separately I mean) and that is pure evil - much like Voldemort, really, once you get to know him.

33Peregrin

04-16-2004, 11:00 PM

I have read all of the Harry Potter books 6 times (save the 5th one, which I have read twice), and I have read The Lord of the Rings... 6 times.
I love both of them, but I prefer Tolkien, all the way.
I only read HP because everyone told me how good it was. I loved it, and I love all the books. The 5th book is my least favorite, and it also happens to be the only one I read after LOTR. I was never obsessed with Harry Potter (If obsessed is the right word). I liked it a lot, but it wasn't the world to me.

When my dad told me that he was going to take my brother and me to see LOTR, I asked him if we could see HP instead. I did not know what LOTR was! But when I saw FOTR, I went straight home and reread The Hobbit. Two days later, the day after Christmas, I bought a copy of LOTR, and I was reading it, for the very first time.
It would have to be the better one, that makes me do that. My room is LOTR, not HP. I will read LOTR for certain every year. I draw hobbits on my papers, not wizards (or at least not HP wizards).

So Tolkien is better for me. Much better, though I don't have an explanation as to why. Except for that I like LOTR better, the story, the characters, and everything.

aguthasil

04-29-2004, 11:16 PM

I think Lord Of the Rings is way better than all the Harry Potter Books by far! I'm not saying that Harry Potter aren't good books, I just think that Lord of the Rings is better. I've read all the books (both LOTR and Harry Potter) and I have enjoyed reading Lord of the Rings better.

Raven

06-13-2004, 01:35 PM

Hi I'm new and I want to know if you think that Harry Potter could ever be as good as LOTR.

I say no but what about the rest of you.

33Peregrin

06-13-2004, 10:49 PM

No.

I was a big fan of HP before I ever even thought about LOTR. Then I read LOTR, and have pretty much forgotten about Harry Potter. HP is wonderful, but it does not compare to LOTR.

Samwise_hero

08-23-2004, 01:55 AM

LOTR has a lot more adventure to it in a way. i mean i am a HP fan but Tolkien has my heart forever.

Hobbit-queen

08-23-2004, 03:14 AM

DEFINATLY LORD OF THE RINGS!!!!!!!

Hey, I love to read Harry Potter and everything but it is no comparison to LotRs.
I hate those Harry Potter fans who think they are better and Harry Potter came first and all that jazz. My friend is one of those people. We are always arguing which is better, LotRs or Harry Potter. All I have to say is that Tolkien is a genious! A true genious! Yes I am a crazy Lord of the Rings fan, and I love to read the books and watch the movies. I might be too big of a fan.....
I'm always bragging on how The Return of the King won 11 Acadamy Awards and is the best darn thing on the whole planet!!!!! Did Harry Potter do that?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. This is kind of long but, I have to tell it like it is.
My "Friend" is in love with Daniel Radcliffe, the actor that plays Harry Potter.
To contrast that, I'm in love with Elijah Wood. Go Frodo!!!
I won't get into that now, but we always argue on who is better. Of course everyone here knows that Lord of the Rings totally Rocks!!!!

Always,
Hobbit-queen
:o

e.Blackstar

09-03-2004, 06:52 PM

Never. I like HP fine, its there, whatever, but NOTHING can measure up to Tolkien and his masterpiece(s).

Turin

09-04-2004, 01:23 AM

Hi I'm new and I want to know if you think that Harry Potter could ever be as good as LOTR.

Funny you should post this in a place called THE TOLKIEN FORUM! :p
LotR is a classic, and is considered by many to be the greatest book ever written. so, no hp could never be as good as LotR.
Btw, welcome to the forum! :D

rohobbits

09-04-2004, 05:16 PM

well it is a tough one for me. Me personaly i like harry potter better because
the books are much easier to understand. But this is coming from a 14 year old
who is still young. The lord of the rings books to me are really boring because
they drone on about stuff that is just not interesting.
The movies on the other hand are really good, because they are full of action
and suspence.
the harry potter books are really good because she catches every little detail
and it is very exiting.
the movies are really good too. but just not as good as lotr.
as the harry potter movies progress they will get better because i like the
fourth and fifth book the best.
please give me your opinion on who you think is better

thanks!

e.Blackstar

09-04-2004, 07:20 PM

I really don't understand the depths of the proffessed dislike for Ms. Rowling's delightful series, nor why people feel the need to constantly compare them to LOTR. If I see one more of these ridiculous "LOTR vs. Harry Potter" threads, I'll...I'll...I'll post another message similar to this one, but perhaps longer and a bit more irritated.

That'll learn them. ;)

Yeah...I love LOTR way better, but HP isn't bad in its own regard. they are hard to compare, because they are very different plots and themes and things of that nature...but they are both great books/seriess by British (huzzah!) authors, and thus they both should get some respect. I am not a fanatic of HP, but I have read all of the books up to date and sen the first two movies. (don't own any...)

rohobbits

09-04-2004, 09:09 PM

excuse me. I don't understand people. what is so wrong with harry potter.
those are the best books that I have ever read.
well I'm sorry but you are totally unreasonable. Just write back to
me and tell me what is so wrong with it.

:( why!!!!!!!!

reem

09-04-2004, 10:03 PM

Nay, my friend, they will not find anything wrong with it. They can't. The HP books are fun, lively, interesting, imaginative, and a really good read. If any object to them it's because of an over-fanatical dedication to one book, no more and no less.
reem

reem

09-04-2004, 10:11 PM

I agree with what everyone said:) LOTR is much more refined.
reem

Ol'gaffer

09-06-2004, 03:32 PM

On the record: Nothing beats LotR and Tolkiens works.

Off the record: Harry Potter is showing some serious competition as a book, if not compared to the world or the languages and all the fluff on the side, Potter is becoming with each book, a more enjoyable read than LotR.

rohobbits

09-22-2004, 04:20 AM

my heart grows weary with sadness that nobody on this
site is more in love with hp than lotrs.
yeah yeah i know all those people who say that tolkien is a genous at
his work and that his books will never surpass(did I say that right)
hp. well for me i am probably the only one who thinks so.
It is just something about the way she writes it and how good it is just to
read the books 5 times in a row and not stopping.
Call me crazy but it is better. i don't favor lotrs as much as harry potter but
he still has some pretty good work.

and no one say that jk copied him because there are lots of
other books like that about wizards and such.
ex.- scions of shanara. those are books abouts wizards,
sure there not big and everything and no one really reads them but still
there books about wizards.

sorry i am being a little weird. you can fight me all you want but
i won't give in.
ask my best friend on the sight, hobbit-queen

someone get me some help quick or I will go insane
rohobbits

reem

09-22-2004, 11:36 AM

Lol:p No, rohobbits, you're not insane; JK Rowling does write better, but Tolkien's creativity is the stuff of legends:) I must admit, as much as I am in awe of his creations, he has a frustrating tendency of lingering on winded, never-ending discriptions of things like landscape. Rowling's work doesn't suffer from this:) Once you start you won't find a single moment of monotony.
reem

spirit

09-22-2004, 11:43 AM

NO!

Nothing can beat LotR!

(And I still believe that she copied the whole idea from Tolkien making a few silly changes)

Astaldo

09-22-2004, 11:53 AM

We can discuss a lot of days if JKR copied Prof. Tolkien but the point is this: Harry Potter is not even better form The Hobbit which is wrongly considered to be a book for children by some people. How can we compare a masterpiece with a book as Harry Potter. Be serious.

Eledhwen

09-22-2004, 12:09 PM

Funny you should post this in a place called THE TOLKIEN FORUM! :p Yes, I'm afraid this forum has a built-in bias; but I will try to be fair!

I have read all the HP books and seen all the films. I have also read LotR and seen all the films.

One thing I will point out is that JK Rowling isn't finished yet - there are at least two more books to come. However....

Harry Potter is a story written for children, which adults hungry for a really good fairytale have also latched onto (let's face it - most fantasy novels are little more than a mimickry of the original and best, and science fiction just isn't the same thing). It has all the elements of good storytelling: rivalry (good and bad), suspense, mystery and ... magic. Hogwarts is a place in the 'Perilous Realm', and Harry Potter is a fairy story, and a bloomin' good one too.

Lord of the Rings was written as a sequel to a childrens story 'The Hobbit'. Tolkien had to be persuaded to write it, as he saw The Hobbit as a single entity. Indeed, the Riddles in the Dark chapter of The Hobbit had to be re-written to accommodate a sequel (which is why 1st Editions of The Hobbit are so valuable). And what a sequel! As Tolkien himself said, the greater epic world that he had created in The Silmarillion could just be glimpsed in the distance in The Hobbit, but in LotR a great journey into the world of the great and good - into faerie as well as worldly kingdoms - was undertaken. The mission? A fool's hope! I was delighted, after I had read LotR the first time, to read the Silmarillion and find out more about the deep history of the land in which the story was set. Reading LotR again afterwards was very rewarding. Elendil and Isildur, Galadriel and Celeborn, the Blessed Realm, Beren and Luthien, all sketched to a greater or lesser extent in LotR had their own epic tales; and that's what makes LotR great.

Maybe one day, JK Rowling will write the equivalent of a 'Silmarillion' for Harry Potter, but I doubt it. Tolkien began that work in the trenches of the first world war, and was still writing it when he died.

And the languages - not some pig-latin incantations, but entire languages, with roots and derivations included, together with the history that caused the changes. I doubt anyone will ever write anything so great again, and if they do, surely there will be echoes of JRR Tolkien in the work they produce - the first and the benchmark for all that has followed and all that is still to come.

Harry Potter's a thumping good fairy story, but my vote goes to Lord of the Rings.

Ol'gaffer

09-22-2004, 03:51 PM

(And I still believe that she copied the whole idea from Tolkien making a few silly changes)

One could also argue that Tolkien copied his stories from numerous other sources and made a few silly changes as well.

Eledhwen

09-25-2004, 02:01 PM

One could also argue that Tolkien copied his stories from numerous other sources and made a few silly changes as well.I think Tolkien would accept that, to a point; the evidence is there in the names he borrowed, and similarities between The Hobbit and Beowulf etc; but taken as a whole, Tolkien's work is largely accepted to have been so original as to be considered the foundational work from which the fantasy genre has sprung.

As I believe Ol'gaffer's post is hinting at; it would be unfair to say Rowling's books are cribbed from Tolkien. The world she created is a fairyland, but the magic in it is not the sort practised by the elves. Luthien, a half maia, had a deeper, stronger magic not seen in other elves, but such craft did not appear in Lord of the Rings, where elven magic was more rooted in nature. The mirror of Galadriel and the Palantiri were the most obviously 'magical' items, but even these cast no spells, but were aids to vision. This meant that in Lord of the Rings, different solutions had to be sought than those in Harry Potter, making for a completely different story form.

There are many stories using a 'Dark Lord' - 'He who must not be named'; but I see little to compare Voldemort with Sauron, other than the fact that they are both evil. Voldemort is much more interractive with his foes, and if we view Harry as a sort of Frodo we can see the difference. Sauron is an unseen malevolence and is, in my perception, much more scary.

Astaldo

09-25-2004, 08:43 PM

Sauron is an unseen malevolence and is, in my perception, much more scary.
And much more stronger I would say. Even the strongest person in Middle-earth could beat him. Not a little boy like HP. How could possibly a (how old was Harry 11?) boy beat the "Dark Lord" who everybody afraids of?

Hobbit-queen

09-29-2004, 03:38 AM

An eleven year old defeating a dark lord......possible in Rowling's world.

I really don't see how it all fits in, but it makes a fun story to read. The Harry Potter books are fun to read. At least for me, probably because I'm 14 and I have a taste for books about people my age. (Harry, Ron, and Hermionie)
I read them again this past summer. They are more modernized than the Lord of the Rings Triligy. Harry Potter is fine, but Lord of the Rings beats it by a million miles. The Lord of the Rings is an amazing story. Tolkien had a lot of wonderful ideas brewing around in his head. I plan to write a novel or two myself once I get the free time. Tolkien has inspired me to write wonderful tales that people everywhere will enjoy. Is anyone here a writer?
I love to read a good book and The Lord of the Rings makes me the happiest Hobbit alive!

Always,
Hobbit-queen

Astaldo

09-29-2004, 09:32 AM

The Harry Potter books are good but just for reading. They do not offer anything else. On the contrary Prof. Tolkien's books can easily be studied to a university (I would like to participate in a class like this ;) ). If JKR is clever she can write books about the past of some characters like the four wizards who founded Hogwards or about Dumbledor but I doubt of it. In any occasion her works cannot be compared to these of Prof. Tolkien.

Eledhwen

10-06-2004, 12:44 AM

If JKR is clever she can write books about the past of some characters like the four wizards who founded Hogwarts or about Dumbledore .Oh, she most definitely is clever! She can also write a very good story. If she began now, with the aid of modern technology, she might be able to concoct a Silmarillionesque (yuk!) history for Hogwarts etc by the time she collects her old age pension; but would it work? Tolkien wrote the history first, so the Lord of the Rings sits atop a rich history. JKR would have to backpedal and write a history that fitted the 'modern' story.

Astaldo

10-06-2004, 04:29 PM

The thing that she can make write many stories and make great success

Ithilwen

11-21-2004, 04:44 AM

lotr all the way. i do have a calendar of harry potter in my room, but i like lotr way better. there's more emotion in lotr, the actors are not our own age, and they aren't teenagers. for all those harry potter fans oput there, i really think harry potter rocks, but lotr is king in my life. partly because of faramir( actually mostly,no, excuse me, totally).

Corvis

04-09-2005, 09:54 PM

I absolutely hate it when people compare Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings. I mean there is no comparison what so ever. Harry Potter is a story for children and that alone, LOTR is more that just a story. It’s a world of magic where you can have your wildest dreams brought to life. Not just children but people of all ages, nationalities, and ethnic groups have come together to enjoy this magnificent piece of writing for decades by this true author. What I’m trying to say is Tolkien is an actual writer an author, he has more books than just the Lord of the Rings and of Middle-earth in general J.K. Rowling is just a story teller and all she has to show is Harry Potter and that will probably the only thing she will ever have to show for herself. Another important point is that Tolkien had more than just the LOTR in his life, Rowling doesn’t. Tolkien was a professor at Oxford University and he even fought in World War I for goodness’s sake. What was Rowling doing before Harry Potter? Oh yeah she was being disowned by her family! Finally, how much recognition has the Harry Potter movies gotten? Zero, zilch, goose egg, nothing. The LOTR trilogy has won 17 academy awards combined, and the Return of the King holds the record for most academy awards ever won, eleven! To sum it all up I’ll just say that the Lord of the Rings is in a whole other league than Harry Potter. So I don’t see any room for discussion on comparing the two.

Corvis

04-09-2005, 09:58 PM

The Harry Potter books are good and I have read them but when it comes to Lord of the Rings, come on LOTR kicks Harry Potter's butt. Plus Rowling's world doesn't have much depth to it.

ASLAN THE GREAT

04-09-2005, 11:13 PM

they are to vey good books set's but if i whould have to pivk bewtten them i whould have to say LOTR.....

Eledhwen

04-13-2005, 10:44 PM

Rowling's world doesn't have much depth to it.Difficult to achieve when you have to fit the contemporary Muggle universe in as well. Look at the trouble they have with the Quiddich World Cup! :p

Corvis

04-17-2005, 09:30 PM

Difficult to achieve when you have to fit the contemporary Muggle universe in as well. Look at the trouble they have with the Quiddich World Cup! :p

Do you mean with the Death Eaters?

Also she doesn't have to have the wizard world be involved with the muggle world she can just put any magic related area away and isolated from Muggles. Like Hogwarts really.

Turgon

04-18-2005, 02:07 AM

Well to paraphrase Barliman: Apples and oranges, folks, apples and oranges. Just finished reading The Order of the Phoenix myself, having picked up the first Harry Potter book in a hospital bookshop back in February. Boredom don't you know? It can make us do the most extra-ordinary things... Much praise for Rowling - I enjoyed every one of her books. Of course I much prefer LoTR, but if somebody were to come up to me and tell me they prefer young Potter, who am I to argue?

As for Eledhwen's question as to whether or not Rowling could undertake a Potteresque Silmarillion, probably not... but then perhaps we are comparing the wrong books? What we could be looking at here is Rowling's Hobbit - perhaps there is something looming on the horizon for Harry when he finally puts Hogwarts behind him? Something in a more serious vein? I guess we will just have to wait and see... :)

Eledhwen

04-19-2005, 12:12 PM

Do you mean with the Death Eaters?

Also she doesn't have to have the wizard world be involved with the muggle world she can just put any magic related area away and isolated from Muggles. Like Hogwarts really.No, not Death Eaters (though they are a problem within the story) - I mean finding a venue and a means of getting there that muggles won't find suspiciously magical (book 4) - all that mucking around with portkeys.

Corvis

04-20-2005, 06:34 PM

I see Eledhwen. Good point.

ingolmo

04-27-2005, 11:28 AM

You're tearing me apart. I cannot tell really. Rowling's books might be able to be arguably called the books of the twenty-first century, but Tolkien's are arguably the best books of the twentieth century. If I must decide, I say that Rowling's story and plot are better (arguably). But still, Tolkien's books have much more depth and lore. It is a full saga. But still, I can't tell.

***COMPLETELY BEFUDDLED AND BEWILDERED*** :confused:

Corvis, you might have forgotten a point in this thread. The comparison is between LotR and Harry Potter, not between the respective lives of Tolkien and Rowling. And, I think we're talking about the books in both the series, not the movies. The movies are just a stupid pictorial representation of the books, for people who are too idiotic to read the books. I don't think you should compare the two by their movies.

Oh yeah, Idril, you'll find the Harry Potter forums on

http://www.harrypotter.com

-Inoglmo

Corvis

04-27-2005, 06:47 PM

True ingolmo. I reread my post and my first half was to the point of this thread but I gues I got a little carried away towards the end. I'll take my author and movie comparison somewhere else, but the first three Harry potter books were published in the 20th Century (1997 to be exact). So Rowlings books are in the running for books of the 20th century against LOTR. But I still think LOTR is sooooooo much better than Harry Potter, but that doesn't mean I don't like the books. I've read them and loved them. So I'm definnetly a fan of Rowlings books. I mean heck I'm even a member on a Harry Potter forum.

ingolmo

04-28-2005, 10:38 AM

And another mistake in your post Corvis (not that I'm trying to offend you by pointing out your mistakes). JK Rowling was never disowned by her family. I don't know where you got that information, but it's not correct. You can check out JK Rowling's website (http://www.jkrowling.com) to read Rowling's biography. And oh yeah, Rowling's been a writer since she was six. Again check JK Rowling's website. And thanks a lot for your confession, Corvis. You surely got carried away at the end there in your post, and some things you said were a bit insulting to Rowling.
By the way, I have decided that LotR and HP are equals in my mind. ;)
-Ingolmo

ingolmo

04-29-2005, 11:00 AM

At least for me, probably because I'm 14 and I have a taste for books about people my age. (Harry, Ron, and Hermionie)

You're not 14, you're 15. And you were 15 when you posted that message.

Apart from that, WILL EVERYONE STOP COMPARING LORD OF THE RINGS AND HARRY POTTER?! Both the books have pros and cons, but comparing them seems too babyish, since they are two completely different things. :mad:
-Ingolmo

Eledhwen

04-29-2005, 02:46 PM

WILL EVERYONE STOP COMPARING LORD OF THE RINGS AND HARRY POTTER?! Did you read the title of this thread?

Corvis

05-02-2005, 06:32 PM

I read about her being disowned somewhere, maybe a newspaper. Guess it was all gossip.
And sorry to Rowling if she ever reads this thread.;)

ingolmo

05-03-2005, 06:59 AM

Definately gossip :mad:
Rowling should sue whoever wrote that.
-Ingolmo

Telëlambe

04-12-2007, 03:00 PM

Main character wise i See Harry more similar to Aragorn. There are other blatent similarities which don't take anything away from Rowling, i mean if it was just a copy- who would read them. Look at the Ring: Horcrux much? and then theres the whole invisibility thing. Dementors vs the wraiths, wormtail vs wormtongue Snape vs. Saruman (the loyalty thing) But then you have to remember HP doesn't have much of a quest involved.

HLGStrider

04-13-2007, 07:42 PM

I don't think Tolkien owns the idea of invisibility, so I wouldn't count that. Some things are just genre staples.

Noldor_returned

04-15-2007, 11:17 AM

I WONDER WHAT SIDE EVERYONE WILL GO ON

I'm sure everyone will choose LOTR so it will be a unfair match
lol have to agree with you there. I chose the obvious, but two people have voted for HP, and I was wondering why. As far as I'm concerned, LOTR is much better written.

Wolfshead

04-15-2007, 01:32 PM

lol have to agree with you there. I chose the obvious, but two people have voted for HP, and I was wondering why. As far as I'm concerned, LOTR is much better written.
War and Peace is much better written than The Da Vinci Code, yet I much prefer the latter to the former. Being well-written doesn't necessarily make a book good.

Barliman Butterbur

04-15-2007, 10:01 PM

War and Peace is much better written than The Da Vinci Code, yet I much prefer the latter to the former. Being well-written doesn't necessarily make a book good.

I know what you mean. But which would your rather read, 500 pages of great story with lousy spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax, or a so-so story made easy to read by proper use of written English? (Never mind, it's a silly question, but you get the idea.)

War and Peace is similar to LOTR in that it's a long involved story, and you really have to be willing to stretch yourself to read it. BUT — once you've made yourself willing to take the book (or any such book) on its own terms, then you've increased your enjoyability quotient, to say nothing of having achieved some personal growth and maturity. The masterpieces do not adjust themselves to us, we must grow up to them.

Barley

Eledhwen

04-16-2007, 12:18 AM

Right you are. Tolkien spoke of the need to take on a little more than could be comfortably chewed (my metaphor).

My children (the ones aged 10, 12 and 14) prefer Harry Potter. The obvious reasons, apart from any plot preferences, is that it was written two generations later than LotR and the writing contemporary and familiar (though little things, like the way mobile phones/calculators are ignored and computers are never accessed, give it the feel of our world a generation earlier).

However, I prefer The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter didn't disturb my world view the way LotR did; neither did it make me cry.

I would, however, point out that this poll is a little premature. There is another book yet to be published in the HP series, and the brilliance or otherwise of the capping of this story might change our views entirely.

Varokhâr

04-16-2007, 05:08 PM

Barliman Butterbur

04-16-2007, 05:29 PM

While Harry Potter is very entertaining and well-written in its own right, LOTR is like a holy book to me. Most certainly the Greatest Story Ever Told. It shook up my world also, as well as enriched it beyond description. Even though I've re-read it numerous times, it's the one book I'd choose were I given the choice of a single text to be marooned on an island with.

You can tell the worth of something when, even though it's as familiar to you as the back of your hand, you still find freshness and pleasure in it. LOTR will always be that to me.

THANK YOU for a most excellent post! As the geologist said, "My sediments exactly!" I've been reading it on and off for more than 40 years now, for exactly the reasons you've enumerated!

The pity is, that as good as "matters Tolkien" is, interest in it has died away (as we always knew it would), now that PJ LOTR Fever has abated. I think much that transpired during the mania wasn't much more than the latest fad for a lot of folks, especially the younger ones looking for the next "hot item." But folks such as we TTFers will continue to "bear the flame aloft" and see to it that the Good News of JRRT is brought to those lucky Tolkien Virgins who would appreciate it.

Barley

Varokhâr

04-16-2007, 06:18 PM

The pity is, that as good as "matters Tolkien" is, interest in it has died away (as we always knew it would), now that PJ LOTR Fever has abated. I think much that transpired during the mania wasn't much more than the latest fad for a lot of folks, especially the younger ones looking for the next "hot item." But folks such as we TTFers will continue to "bear the flame aloft" and see to it that the Good News of JRRT is brought to those lucky Tolkien Virgins who would appreciate it.

Absolutely, Brother Barley. We will labor to spread the Word tirelessly, and the gates of Mordor shall not prevail against us! :)

Yeah, with the kiddies gone, popular interest has died down. Yes, we knew it would come to this, but it's refreshing being able to seek out professed LOTR fans online and actually talking to people who are genuinely interested in Tolkien's legendarium. In real life, the same. A pleasant break from fangirls and fanboys, certainly. I was not upset at the trendiness of LOTR, of course, as trendiness can only help bring something to a wider mass of people and spark interest, perhaps, in a few hearts here and there who will turn out to become serious devotees. If PJ and NewLine can work things out, we'll see another trend in the future - and especially if someone gets it in his head to do the Sil. That'll spark new interest, to be sure.

It's all good, in the end. Now, to get my hands on that black-bound copy of LOTR I saw the other day, with the gold-gilded edges... :D

Barliman Butterbur

04-16-2007, 06:23 PM

...with the kiddies gone, popular interest has died down. ...I was not upset at the trendiness of LOTR, of course, as trendiness can only help bring something to a wider mass of people and spark interest, perhaps, in a few hearts here and there who will turn out to become serious devotees.

So much in life is a numbers game. You scatter the seeds everywhere, and they take root where they will.

Barley:)

HLGStrider

04-19-2007, 12:48 AM

It's all good, in the end. Now, to get my hands on that black-bound copy of LOTR I saw the other day, with the gold-gilded edges... :D

We have that one at work. I have the red leather bound one at home, but I use my husband's copies because a one volume Lord of the Rings is simply hard to read. I know that's how Tolkien wanted it, but it makes for a very heavy book.

Actually, I didn't care for War and Peace. It took me six months to read because even though the writing was very good, I didn't really get attached to the story, so it became more like a poetry reading for me. I really didn't care what happened next. I just found the words soothing. The book I am reading now is "Once and Future King" which is basically the same way. I can read long classic books, but why does everyone use War and Peace as the example when classic literature comes up? It has NOTHING on the Brothers Karamozov. Is it just the length?

To me great literature has three components:
The words themselves (poetry in writing)
The plot
The characters.

Harry Potter for me has only one. The plot is intriguing, but (and I only got to book three and everyone tells me it looks up from there, so I could be wrong) I don't like any of the characters. The writing was ok, but I kept thinking my own writing was better so I began to feel better about getting published and then I got more rejection letters so now I'm sulking at J. K. Rowling for not writing like me (kidding . . . mostly).

Eledhwen

04-20-2007, 08:28 PM

Hi Elgee, I googled 'famous rejections' and there have been so many million seller rejections that the sound of corporate self-kickings should be audible as a low rumble. The topical rejection I found here (http://www.abebooks.com/docs/harry-potter/harry-potter-story.shtml):-

The first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, was published in 1997 by Bloomsbury after around a dozen other publishers had rejected the manuscript. Those dim-witted publishers probably feel rather like Decca – the record label that rejected The Beatles. Imagine being the person who tossed the manuscript into the garbage bin – “Wizards, spells, broomsticks, English boarding schools… Darling, it just won’t work.”

Keep writing, Elgee, and nil illegitimi carborundum (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Noli_illegitimi_carborundum).

Oh, and there's this one too! (http://www.tolkientrail.com/tolkienbio.shtml)

When asked by the publisher for another hobbit-story, (Tolkien) submitted The Silmarillion, but it was rejected as unpublishable. He then started work on what later became The Lord of the Rings. He regularly read portions of it to the Inklings, an informal Oxford club that included C.S. Lewis. The first draft was finally completed in 1947, and and the final draft was completed in 1949. Tolkien estimated that it had taken him 14 years to write. When he finally submitted it to the publisher in 1950, it was rejected, much to his embarrassment. However, Raynor Unwin learned about it a year or two later, and wanted it published although he thought it would mean a loss for the publishing company.

Wolfshead

04-21-2007, 01:53 AM

I know what you mean. But which would your rather read, 500 pages of great story with lousy spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax, or a so-so story made easy to read by proper use of written English? (Never mind, it's a silly question, but you get the idea.)
I'd rather read the 500 pages of great story, to be honest... I assume from that you would rather go with the so-so story?
Hi Elgee, I googled 'famous rejections' and there have been so many million seller rejections that the sound of corporate self-kickings should be audible as a low rumble.
The late, great David Gemmell was also rejected roundly when he started out. He received one letter saying "You mention in your resume that you are working as a lorry driver's mate for Pepsi Cola. This is an occupation not without merit. Good luck with it."

Barliman Butterbur

04-21-2007, 05:20 AM

...I assume from that you would rather go with the so-so story?

Nope, neither one. There's too much good stuff out there to have to read anything poor.

Barley

Eledhwen

04-21-2007, 09:47 AM

The late, great David Gemmell was also rejected roundly when he started out. He received one letter saying "You mention in your resume that you are working as a lorry driver's mate for Pepsi Cola. This is an occupation not without merit. Good luck with it."Witty but cruel. I hope the remark came home to roost on the sender.

The question of whether one would rather read bad, written well or good, written badly, isn't clear cut. The truth is that no-one is perfect (Tolkien admitted that 'dwarves' was a gap in his knowledge of plurals); and if there is a loose thread in the story, the critics will dig their thumbs into it and cry "see!".

The truth is, though I have read many of the books claiming to be Tolkien's peer, I have not found a match for his ability to take me along on the journey with him and really experience the story; and I have come to realise I probably never shall. However, good though Tolkien is, I need to read fresh stories. So Hobbits must on times give way to Harry et al.

If anyone wants to really study Harry Potter, may I suggest www.hogwartsprofessor.com. It started out as a pastor's riposte at the loony garlic-waving Christians who condemned the books out of hand; but has since generated, in its boards, really meaty essays; some so intellectual that I have to swot up just so I know what they're on about. Most, however, are very enlightening and have enriched my understanding of literature generally.

Barliman Butterbur

04-22-2007, 03:39 PM

Regarding HP vs. JRR — I have always read both books simply for the entertainment value. Some academic study has been fun, but I would never even approach the depth of understanding that our own Gothmog has. When it comes to Potter, it's a lot of fun to read, but there certainly isn't any depth to it that merits my serious study. I could be wrong, but I — just don't care! :p

Gimme entertainment! Let me forget about this world of woe for a while! :eek:

Barley

Noldor_returned

04-23-2007, 11:42 AM

I know what you mean. HP just isn't anywhere near as deep or complex as lotr, so it's hard to get really involved in it, especially to the same level.

Eledhwen

04-23-2007, 12:33 PM

The reason I sit reading the long, academic essays on www.hogwartsprofessor.com is that I would really like to get my head around the concept of literary alchemy. The essayists have convinced me that HP is a masterpiece of that formula, so once I have enjoyed the books in their first bloom, I then have the opportunity of enjoying the hidden meanings, sources and patterns within the story. Maybe that makes me odd, but there you go!

Here is a list of some of the topics mooted on the site:

Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? (1)
Unlocking Harry Potter (31)
The Five Keys: Essential Patterns (4)
Literary Alchemy (8)
Narrative Misdirection (4)
Postmodern Polly (5)
Traditional Symbolism (3)
Memory (1)
C. S. Lewis (1)
Hog Pro Notes (6)
Plot Points (4)

Barliman Butterbur

04-23-2007, 12:39 PM

The reason I sit reading the long, academic essays on www.hogwartsprofessor.com is that I would really like to get my head around the concept of literary alchemy.

When you do, let us know — now you have my curiosity piqued. :)

Barley

Eledhwen

04-23-2007, 12:46 PM

It's basically literature around the alchemical elements of earth, air, fire, and water. The Fantastic Four is an obvious example; but there are cycles within the concept that I have yet to get my head around. Maybe I'll start a thread if the penny drops.

Barliman Butterbur

04-23-2007, 01:04 PM

Eledhwen

04-23-2007, 01:14 PM

I haven't passed enough OWLs (or maybe it needs NEWTs) for that!

Barliman Butterbur

04-23-2007, 07:51 PM

I haven't passed enough OWLs (or maybe it needs NEWTs) for that!

BTW, wasn't JKR getting a bit out of line when had Vernon vehently refer to "swotty little Nancy boys"? Isn't that an insult to gay people?

Barley

Eledhwen

04-23-2007, 10:25 PM

BTW, wasn't JKR getting a bit out of line when she had Vernon vehemently refer to "swotty little Nancy boys"? Isn't that an insult to gay people?

BarleyMy understanding of the phrase 'Nancy boy' is 'effeminate' rather than gay; so a swotty little Nancy boy would be both studious and effeminate*. To date, I don't think that particular group have got themselves organised into a pressure group in order to challenge society's attitude towards them.

* I just checked - the O.E.D. agrees with me.

Noldor_returned

04-24-2007, 12:25 PM

However, over ten years ago people didn't seem to care nearly as much as they do anymore.

Eledhwen

04-24-2007, 01:50 PM

However, over ten years ago people didn't seem to care nearly as much as they do anymore.Could you elaborate?

Noldor_returned

04-26-2007, 11:17 AM

These days it seems every man and his dog has something to complain about. "Oh, you must change from fairy penguin to little penguin because it is offensive." Since when did it matter? These days it must be equal rights, and if something has the slightest chance of being "discriminatory" it is banned. Ten years ago, when HP1 was wirtten, if somebody used the word nancy nobody sued the user for stacks. They got on with life. It doesn't affect how they live does it? Sure, I have no problem when people intend it, but changing the words to "Baa Baa Black Sheep" is ridiculous. I mean Baa Baa Coloured Sheep.

Barliman Butterbur

04-26-2007, 08:34 PM

...every man and his dog has something to complain about.

I've heard no doggy complaints.

Barley

Noldor_returned

04-27-2007, 09:45 AM

Not from the dogs, but from the scientists and animal lovers there are. Things along the lines of so many people are cruel to their pets because they ignore their barking at 2.30 am or something like that. Seriously. Everyone has something that they are missing out on...the right to be treated nicely in jail. WHY? YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG! PUT UP WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT!

Mayhaps I should make a rant. This is getting off topic...

Barliman Butterbur

04-27-2007, 04:39 PM

HLGStrider

04-27-2007, 08:08 PM

He's right. It is a bit off topic, though.

Eledhwen

04-27-2007, 10:06 PM

It will be interesting to see if, in a few years time, words from Harry Potter get asterisked out on bulletin boards like Tolkien's frequently used 'qüeer'.

Noldor_returned

04-28-2007, 01:46 AM

To Barley: Read rant in real life rantings yadyyada. If it doesn't explain it, PM me and I'll try better.

To Elgee: Yes. Change topic.

To Eledhwen: I think maybe words such as queer are fine, but phrases such as "queer smile" might have to be changed.

Eledhwen

04-28-2007, 02:52 PM

To Eledhwen: I think maybe words such as queer are fine, but phrases such as "queer smile" might have to be changed.When we start editing words out of literature because society has adopted those words to a new use, we lose valuable knowledge and history. If the book says 'queer smile'; I say leave it in and get over it, especially if the phrase was not offensive at the time it was written.

Barliman Butterbur

04-28-2007, 04:19 PM

When we start editing words out of literature because society has adopted those words to a new use, we lose valuable knowledge and history. If the book says 'queer smile'; I say leave it in and get over it, especially if the phrase was not offensive at the time it was written.

Absolutely! Same with "gay." "Gay" meant cheery, happy and lighthearted (and still does as far as I'm concerned) for centuries before its co-option by the gay community. However — I think it is an important right of any community, especially one prejudiced against, to refer to themselves using any words or terms that seem good to them.

Barley

Barliman Butterbur

04-29-2007, 08:34 PM

I just received this note from Hogwarts by special courier owl:

"As someone who has pre-ordered [from Amazon] "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," you are probably itching to get your hands on the first copy off the press. Great news -- we are going to make sure you receive your
copy(s) on the day of release, July 21, 2007, guaranteed, at no additional charge to you!"

Well, yippee skippee!!! :D :D :D

Barley

Wolfshead

04-30-2007, 04:49 AM

Barliman Butterbur

04-30-2007, 02:20 PM

That's what the big online stores do for any popular pre-ordered product.

Not by owl notification!

Barley

Noldor_returned

05-03-2007, 11:26 AM

Eledhwen, I quite agree with you. Gay is in the hobbit once or twice, and they still print copies of that without editing it. If they remove words for fear of offense, then that will be the death of literature. The only reason they would is if someone or a group tried to sue the author/publisher for using the word, in which case they are just trying to make a quick buck. An easy defence would be this is the wrong context it was this meaning: etc etc.

Eledhwen

05-06-2007, 01:28 AM

I remember when the 2nd LotR film was due for release there was a website villifying the film makers for capitalising on the demise of the World Trade Centre in the film's title. A spoof website quickly followed villifying the same for capitalising on the death of Elvis Presley in the third film title.

There's a lot of daftness about.

I look forward to encountering more of it. Life would be much less entertaining if there were no idiots in the world.

Edit: The TTT petition's gone, but is referred to in the paragraph 9/11 "controversy" here (http://www.answers.com/topic/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers)

Barliman Butterbur

05-06-2007, 03:23 AM

Life would be much less entertaining if there were no idiots in the world.

It depends on what position the idiot is in — like in a position of great power, for instance. Then it ain't entertaining at all.

Barley

Noldor_returned

05-06-2007, 10:51 AM

Oh yes...just look at George W Bush. One of the most powerful men in the world and he has whole pages dedicated to his stupid quotes.

Eledhwen

05-14-2007, 03:22 PM

It depends on what position the idiot is in — like in a position of great power, for instance. Then it ain't entertaining at all.

BarleyIt's more amusing when they're not in charge of your own country.

George W Bush.... has whole pages dedicated to his stupid quotes.George Bush didn't go to finishing school and wouldn't pass an 'old fashioned' history test; but don't underestimate his intelligence, or the agenda of his advisors.

History is splattered with wars that might never have started if people had been more alert. Hitler armed his country unhindered during the 1930s. Sauron rose to power again because no-one was paying attention. Voldemort had a year to recoup because the Ministry of Magic buried its head in the proverbial sand....

OK, not all the above is, strictly speaking, historical; but I'm trying to stick to the thread subject.:p :rolleyes:

Barliman Butterbur

05-14-2007, 03:54 PM

It's more amusing when they're not in charge of your own country.

..I'm trying to stick to the thread subject.:p :rolleyes:

And doing it brilliantly!:cool:

Barley

Eledhwen

05-17-2007, 01:30 AM

I'm trying to stick to the subjectAnd doing it brilliantly!:cool:

Barley(blushes and curtseys) Why, thank you, kind sir! And sticking to the thread heading, I wonder why we have to have a "versus" in it at all! I see no contest; and I believe the Professor and Ms Rowling would have got on famously had they met.

Barliman Butterbur

05-17-2007, 03:21 AM

..I believe the Professor and Ms Rowling would have got on famously had they met.

And perhaps had a torrid affair...;)

Barley

Ermundo

05-17-2007, 03:42 AM

And perhaps had a torrid affair...;)

Barley

Won't happen. You, my flamboyantly jocular friend, are forgetting that Tolkien's already married. Unless of course...;)

-Ermundo

Barliman Butterbur

05-17-2007, 03:50 AM

Won't happen. You, my flamboyantly jocular friend, are forgetting that Tolkien's already married. Unless of course...;)

-Ermundo

Ah, you forget the poor chap lost his wife to illness and spent the rest of his life in deep loneliness...

Barley

Ermundo

05-17-2007, 12:53 PM

Ah, you forget the poor chap lost his wife to illness and spent the rest of his life in deep loneliness...

Barley

About two years. After spending soooo much time with Edith, I doubt that there'd be any room left in Tolkien's heart for another love.

Noldor_returned

05-18-2007, 11:55 AM

Come on. Tolkien ain't a gold digger, and I don't think there would be enough interest in Rowling. His mind is superior, and after all, she writes for kids/teens. He wrote for teens/adults.

Wolfshead

05-19-2007, 01:54 PM

He wrote for teens/adults.
I disagree. What about the Hobbit? Had Tolkien met Rowling when they were of a similar age, who knows what could have happened? :rolleyes:

Ermundo

05-19-2007, 02:04 PM

I disagree. What about the Hobbit? Had Tolkien met Rowling when they were of a similar age, who knows what could have happened? :rolleyes:

Anything, really. Though probably not an affair, as I've been saying. It IS a possibility, but than again, anything is a possibility.

Barliman Butterbur

05-19-2007, 03:36 PM

...anything is a possibility.

You do realize, don't you, that "anything is a possibility" includes the possibility that not anything is a possibility... ;)

Barley

Ermundo

05-19-2007, 07:38 PM

You do realize, don't you, that "anything is a possibility" includes the possibility that not anything is a possibility... ;)

Barley

Anyone wanna help me out of this one? :p

All I can say, if such a case were to happen, is this. Our esteemed author, Mr. John Ronald Ruel Tolkien, father of high fantasy and inspiration of millions, lead an absolutely DULL life, right to the very end.

Noldor_returned

05-20-2007, 01:19 PM

I'll help you. We then come into Improbability of events, and if you've read Hitchhikers you'll know all about it, which of course you have and do.

Barliman Butterbur

05-20-2007, 05:16 PM

I'll help you. We then come into Improbability of events, and if you've read Hitchhikers you'll know all about it, which of course you have and do.

I haven't read it! How does this help in terms of dealing with the statement: "'Anything's possible' includes the possibility that not anything's possible."?

Barley

Majimaune

05-21-2007, 09:02 AM

I'll help you. We then come into Improbability of events, and if you've read Hitchhikers you'll know all about it, which of course you have and do.I have read it and it makes no sense to me in answering the statement.

Tolkien has inspired lots of people to become writers, his writing timeless whereas Harry Potter will date very quickly and I don't believe Rowling has made such an impression upon the people as Tolkien has. People don't rip off Rowling because there isn't anything you can do with it though. Where as Tolkien...just look at Paolini's poor excuse for a book.

Noldor_returned

05-22-2007, 08:21 AM

Right...maybe it was in one of the other books...anyway, "the possibility that not anything is a possibility... " can be caluclated with Improbability Factors. All events have a probability of occurring, and they therefore have an improbability of occurring. The Probability that not anything is possible is extremely low. So therefore there is a really high Improbability Factor. If you want to learn more read the Hitchhiker's series.

Majimaune

05-22-2007, 09:52 AM

I remember. Improbability is really Probability because if you don't know then you can't do.

Noldor_returned

05-22-2007, 01:08 PM

Kinda sorta. I don't really remember how it works specifically, but it's something like that. There's whole chapters on the stuff.

Barliman Butterbur

05-22-2007, 02:04 PM

You two are makin; me right proud! **thumbs behind braces, chest swells**:D

I'd recommend caution about the Improbability Factor however: take a look around at the things that don't change. The improbability that they will change is extremely high... ;)

Barley

Noldor_returned

05-23-2007, 12:04 AM

Barliman Butterbur

05-23-2007, 06:25 AM

Indeed, and need I say this may be the most confusing branch of science ever encountered?

And you are quite right. For instance, the background colour to TTF doesn't change (unless you go into the RPG section), and there is a high Improbability Factor of it not changing.

I was thinking of such things as water ever being not wet; the shape of planets becoming cubical; paper melting, etc. One of the things about this universe is that some things are more stable/unstable than others. And the things that have a high incidence of stability are extremely unlikely to become unstable. And there's where you plug in the part about the possiblity of anything being possible includes the possibility that not anything is possible. And all you need is one constant case — time going backward, for instance.

Barley

Eledhwen

05-25-2007, 10:49 PM

My head hurts!!!

And given the interconnectedness of all things, I shall now sit and muse on the calamitous effects of this 'horse shoe nail' headache event on the world's weather patterns and the mysterious melting of three bound copies of Hansard.:p

Now, how do I tie this up with the thread subject? Ah! I know!! My favourite Douglas Adams book is the non-fiction "Last Chance To See (http://tdv.com/lastchance/)" which was published as paperback by Ballantine - same as LotR! Spooky or what? (OK, I admit not much improbability there!). The Harry Potter connection has to come from the link providing advice about snakes, which Harry would... er, ... obviously find useful.

Barliman Butterbur

06-09-2007, 11:17 PM

Incredible! Final Potter book to include DATE RAPE, says JK Rowling:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/j_k_rowling_hints_at_harry_potter

Barley

Snaga

06-09-2007, 11:53 PM

Hahahahaha!!!!!!! That's a great link Barley. :D:D:D

Ithrynluin

06-10-2007, 12:13 AM

"Giants are aggressive, er, sexually."

Well that's good to know! :D

A great link indeed.

Majimaune

06-10-2007, 06:37 AM

Well I am waiting for the thing to load. It is taking ages for some reason, it shouldn't take this long. *about five minutes later* It is still loading, I'm gonna check how much of my bandwidth I have used up once I am done here. Still not loaded. I'm gonna give it a miss. Maybe look it up on Youtube.

Eledhwen

06-10-2007, 07:28 AM

I've never heard of Onion News Network; I expect it's where 'Men in Black' monitor the news from. I'm going to JKR's official website; I'm fascinated to know whether she's heard of this spoof and what she's got to say about it.

Ithrynluin

06-10-2007, 12:18 PM

I hear she wasn't too thrilled about Harry Potter and the Secret Chamberpot of Azerbaijan;

You're a woman, Harry! :p

Barliman Butterbur

06-10-2007, 03:11 PM

I hear she wasn't too thrilled about Harry Potter and the Secret Chamberpot of Azerbaijan

Where'd you see THAT?

Barley

Ithrynluin

06-10-2007, 03:46 PM

Barley, you blasphemer, you haven't heard of French & Saunders, only the best comic duo this side of the pond? Well, if you ask me, at least.

Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9onI92OxBHYg)
Part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zjWGgWnd6Ec)
Part 3 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=mIapf3G-eSM)
Part 4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0xodve30qfA)

And on a related note, here's their FOTR spoof (http://youtube.com/watch?v=oCYbRUmzIb0)

Barliman Butterbur

06-10-2007, 06:56 PM

Barley, you blasphemer, you haven't heard of French & Saunders?

I guess I'm just an F&S virgin...

Barley

Eledhwen

06-10-2007, 07:28 PM

I guess I'm just an F&S virgin...

BarleyAlso, Dawn French played The Fat Lady in the later Harry Potters (Eledhwen cleverly keeps to the thread subject yet again!) and Jennifer Saunders was The Fairy Queen in Shrek 2 (though a bit difficult to recognise, I admit).

Eledhwen

07-23-2007, 11:44 AM

!*! BOOK 7 SPOILER !*! DEATHLY HALLOWS SPOILER !*! BOOK 7 SPOILER !*!

I was stunned by the parallels between Tolkien and Lewis in this last book. Gandalf-Dumbledore - both realising that if they took power (G with the Ring, D with the Ministry) it would go to their heads. Dumbledore proved to be much more 'right' than the books led us to believe, and also much more flawed. This was superb writing; it fixed him as a mortal with baggage, but great nonetheless. The underlying message of all three series: the Power of Sacrificial Love, and the blindness of the antagonist to that power, which ultimately leads to their downfall. In Tolkien, it's the little people - the overlooked - who save the day. In Lewis and Rowling, it's the children growing into their valour. Draco Malfoy is a Eustace character, but much more protracted. Snape seems to be a Grima Wormtongue; but unlike Grima is restored and his 'double agency' is reversed.

Gandalf, Aslan and Dumbledore all sacrifice themselves for the Little Ones. Dumbledore, being the only mortal amongst them, stays dead. But where LoTR and HP differ from Narnia, is in the self-sacrifice of the 'hero'. Frodo and Harry both pay the ultimate price for their quest. Frodo, sure of death, but rescued by the Eagles, and only ultimately finding peace via the Grey Havens; Harry, sure of death, but rescued because, apparently, a killing curse only does away with one soul - the weakest - in the victim's body (a pretty unusual state of affairs, so untested - like Aslan's deeper magic), leaving the second soul with a choice! Frodo, his work done, took the boat. Harry still had work to do, so eschewed the train from the heavenly Kings Cross and returned to face his adversary. And he had a 'Sam' too, in the form of Neville Longbottom. Neville, who could have been Harry if the prophecy had been interpreted differently, proved he was made of the same stuff when he did away with Nagini (presumably Gringott's vaults are no match for a sorting hat) - clearing the way for Harry to tell Voldemort what Sauron realised for himself when Frodo put on the ring - that his greatest folly was laid bare. And whereas Frodo's life was saved and Sauron's lost by Gollum's addiction to Sauron's Ring (an evil combination) which he fought off; Harry's life was saved by a direct attempt by Voldemore to kill him, which he likewise fought off. The attempt to kill destroyed the assailant in both cases, and brought about the downfall of the Dark Lord.

I could read this stuff 'til the cows come home (and I don't have any cows).

baragund

07-23-2007, 03:20 PM

Here is the book review of Deathly Hallows from The Washington Post. Some interesting comparisons are made with Tolkien, CS Lewis and others.

Nevertheless, it looks like it's a heck of a read. I'm looking forward to getting into it and seeing what all the hullabaloo is about...:)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072101025.html

Noldor_returned

07-24-2007, 02:21 PM

I can't believe you haven't already! Yes I see what you mean about the correlations. However this makes Tolkien superior as it is the original and Rowling is just a mimickry. Of course there are many differences which distinguish both and although Rowling wrote a longer series, it is still not as good as Tolkien. LOTR was the ultimate journey of hope, love and as stated the small hero triumphing. The desparation and despair were illustrated more successfully I believe.

Barliman Butterbur

07-24-2007, 04:26 PM

baragund

07-24-2007, 04:28 PM

I have to agree with you, NR. To make a correlation with food, a hamburger is to the Harry Potter books as fillet mignon is to Tolkien's works.

I'm not in a particular rush to read Deathly Hallows. I'm in the middle of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Series right now and when that's finished, I'll dive into it.

Eledhwen

08-02-2007, 04:30 PM

I'm in the middle of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Series right now.Ah, Hitchhikers!! I remember hearing it when it was a BBC radio series (do you know, D.A. offered the BBC the option to publish the book form and they turned him down, thinking it wouldn't translate into a read?!!!). Douglas Adams wrote (with Mike Carwardine) a wonderful documentary book called "Last Chance to See..." which I thoroughly recommend. On HP v LotR, I have to agree that Tolkien, as the architect of the art, cannot be compared.

To Barley: I hadn't heard of the July 17 Executive Order, so I just read it (isn't the internet wonderful?) and can surmise that if anyone in the US so much as put a dollar in a collecting tin to an organisation that opposed the Government's stance on Iraq, they could fall foul of that order. Scary! Has George Bush ever worked with Cornelius Fudge?

Tolkien experienced all the upheaval of the early 20th century - much of it at first hand. The Great War and its inevitable sequel (mentioned, in a way, in the Letters from Father Christmas); which I am sure had an enormous impact on his writing of "the long defeat". Rowling's work has a definite modern air (a bit too close to home for Barley), with ministry interference, paperazzi, the undermining of education and evil ignored (eg Rwanda in 1994) or appeased (eg Neville Chamberlain and the shameful Munich Agreement) or both (anyone since then who said they were against Communism).

Tolkien was also blessed in being amongst the Inklings at a very formative time in his opus magna. To have the criticism and encouragement of this group during the writing process (men of literary talent, who had also suffered being at the heart of a country at war and a crumbling empire) has provided grist for the Hollywood mill of great quality - maybe the greatest. Rowling, however, kept her work very close to her chest. I remember her saying she had told her husband of a particular death in the story; and he had said "Oh no!" - I think that's about all the plot revelation we ever got!

Anyway, I can see I'm rambling. I won't go back and edit, as I may start all over again, and I've got things to do; we're going camping on Saturday to The Lizard (Cornwall) for a week. Wish me sunshine!