That's "Trekkies".

There's no magic in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf's "magic" is equivalent to an archangel's powers. So, unless you think that (depending on your religion) God's servants use "magic", Tolkien is the only author who didn't use "magic" in his stories.

And, guys, lay off on the "stolen plot" thing....Tolkien created modern fantasy, so it's natural that every other modern fantasy story has Tolkien-istic elements in it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Sorry. Far be it from me to offend the sensibilities of those brave enough to dress as klingons in public!

I read a book where the author uses 'Sirdan' and 'The Blue Havens'. Silly.
I can't remember what it's called.

Agree Manwe. Tolkien never really had "magic" like Rowlings did. Hers was visible, Tolkien's was hidden, but you knew it was there.

I was watching HP yesterday, and NOT enjoying it, but I noticed that the scene in the forest with Quirell is exactly like the scene at Weathertop! Harry runs away from a cloaket thing about to kill him, and trips over and falls! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] Freaky!

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: LePetitChoux ]

Quite frankly how can there NOT be similarites that people will pick up on from LOTR and HP , JK Rowling would have been inspired by Tolkien (as were probably most fantasty writers recently). Harry Potter is a paving way for younger kids up to LOTR , its like a stepping stone. A very cliche point I know , it's probably been said i know but i just had to make the point.

• Warning this is a non tolkien related post please don't delete it!

I heard this funny talking about this Harry Potter script that had been illegally posted on the internet. Well I heard this guy in the background say,"Yea and you know what a few years ago there was this book that gave away the entire plot!" [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Pssst! C'mon over here, I got some secret inside info on the Lord of the Rings movies. Here be spoilers, don't read if you don't want to know!

Gandalf comes back from the dead!

Frodo claims the ring, but Gollum bites his finger off to get it back, and falls into Mount Doom!

Oh, yeah -- Aragorn and Arwen get married, and Aragorn becomes king!

Strangely similar to a trilogy that was published back in the late 50's....

Wow Thenamir! Are you serious? Gandalf comes back from the dead!? Wow! Just kidding. I love spoiling the movies for those who haven't read the books yet. Its great fun. I always say, read the book before its a movie. Otherwise you will get lost in the book looking for events that either never occur or are in the wrong order. Hmmm, I wonder how many people had the movies ruined because of that little clip of sarcasm.... Hopefully not a lot. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Well, I totally agree with you. I also think that HP is not as "deep" as LOTR and Tolkien's books and that make them very different. (I think HP is not that "deep" because it is a children's book.)But at the same time simelar because I think Rowling was inspired by Tolkien.

I've read that many find Wormtail and Wormtounge very simelar indeed, because they are both traitors and the because of the name.....I agree here too. I see this as one of those inspirations Rowling got from Tolkien.

Hate to say this, but Tolkien's Wormtongue was not the first. There was a 10th century Norse saga hero, Gunnlaugr Ormstunga (ie Wormtongue) he a poet at the court of the Norwegian king and well known for his cunning. Tolkien as an expert of that period would certainly have known about him...

Not sayiing Tolkien is a plagiarist, but he was inspired by a certain period of literature and history, and he makes use of time-honoured literary devices, just as Rowling does. I think the parallels drawn between the two authors are mostly quite spurious ones, due to the fact that they both happened to be made into movies at the same time.

Did anyone see the special on JK Rowling on PBS? It was last weekend I think. She did take alot of her stuff from legend. They(PBS) put alot of effort into looking into the story. Tolkien was not mentioned once. A Gray Lady was mentioned, and all and the possible connections. If you read HP you can see a few parrallels to LOTR but I realy could care less weather or not she was inspired by Tolkien. I like both authors and so there you have it. They both get the same respect, sometimes I will sit down and forget about homework till the book is done and others I just read when I have a spare momnet to breath in.

But all that is said in this thread is most likely debated else where. I don't think that Rowling should be compaired to Tolkien, I read both of them and come to the conclusion that they are similer yes, but still very diferant. So don't go out trying to find something that isn't there.

Wormtail and Wormtounge; Wormtail was a little discusting idot that pretened to be a rat for years. He was hiding from the inistry of magic, because he had killed some people and pinned it on Sirus Black. When he came out of this raty shape he was nothing but Voldemort's pet, it seems.He ended up sacraficing more than he planned for. Wormtounge was a bit more free thinking, he did what he was told, but he wasn't as snivliing as Wormtail. ( But when you tink about it I need to read the book again , it is all a haze) ....... More could be said but I will stop here.

[ July 09, 2003: Message edited by: Annalaliath ]

Well, there are indeed remarkable similarities between the two series but as for the story itself, there's not much. Tolkien is for much mature readers whereas Rowling has this charm to attract all people at any age. however, there is no point denying that she's also a Tolkien reader. Rowling was able to create a world not so unlike the real one and Tolkien had his own way in designing what we know as Arda

what ever it is I don't likeHarry Potter because al it is is coping of LOTr and that ain't alowed in my book so I don't want to have anything to do with Harry Potter! By the way has anyone sen POTC

Another similarity is the saying

"him we do not name"

I aggree with the other posts that there are many similarities but both are totally different books. I personally prefer LOTR but HP is a good read as well, a bit more easy going

But you have to admit that the Dark Lords are very different. One keeps coming back while the other comes back and is defeated. Although, if you count Melkor then there is another. The Dark Lords in LOTR come back for a time but not over and over and over again like Voldemort.(funny my mom calls Wal- mart, Val-demort, I wonder why?) He is the chief nemesis in almost all the HP books, the new one has about 2 the Ministry of Magic and Him Who Must Not be Names....... But any way he keeps coming back and tries to kill Harry every time. Sauron and Melkor come back so that they can control Arda and all that is in it, perverting the beauty and stifling the inhabitants. This debate can go on for ever!

wouldn't it be angels=maiar&archangels=valar

What do you mean Sauron only came back once?

I don't read HP, and don't want to. I know as little about it as is possible. But I do have something to contribute to this thread:

If an author write better than his contemporaries, they will term him a plagiarist; if as well, a pretender; but, if worse, he may stand some chance of commendation as a genius of some promise, from whom much may be expected, by a due attention to their good counsel and advice.
Colton

Now you're all sensible Tolkienites. Think about that quote, and stop criticizing writing in this manner. If the author writes badly, or writes that with which you do not agree, as he/she very well may, then you have grounds to complain, but stop this "stolen plot" nonsense!

~Kate's~

Why do people always have to bring up harry potter?? this is an LOR site if i'm not mistaken. I've never read the books or seen the movies and i don't intend to because it is not my cup of tea, i'm fine with the whole potter thing as lomg as people do not mention that it is better than LOR, because i must say that i do not feel that it is. The lady author was writting children's books although they were meant for "everyone" then some character is supposed to die in the phoenix that info she purposely leaked out to get more book sales by crazed kids and adults alike. Tolkien wasn't really interested in what other people thought because he had originally just wrote the histories and stories for his own leisure as many people do in their spare time; scribbling down parts of stories that pop into their heads or are parts of oringinal stories, for tolkien was fascinatied by words at a very young age thanks to his mother and he had a greater purpose to make a history like tale for his home country of Britain because it had no original story of it's own. But i also must admit that it is hard to find original material for a story these days, but author's are supposed to be imaginitive, so she should have tried to make her story have less conections then it has. If she was paying homage to tolkien does she write it somewhere in her books that she does? or has she ever admitted to it? Or has she taken those ideas to be her own? I do not want to start a war or words this is just my opinion and i am not dissing potter although i have no like for him. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Palantir/Philosopher's Stone

I think Rowling only 'borrowed' ideas from Tolkien and changed them a bit, so it would be a little harsh saying she 'stole' ideas.

And, yes, tbis is a Tolkien site, but it wouldn't hurt to discuss the simaralities between LOTR and Harry Potter. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Best,

Tarien

Rowling has taken elements from all sorts of fantasy novels. Harry is a collection of general experience, from the classical dragon to the unheard of boggart (sp?). It really doesn't seem that she specifically borrowed from Tolkien any more than she did from Dickens. That's all.

Iarwain

Yes, Rowling certainly used her vivid imagination and used classic fairy-tale myths and transformed them into something original.

But may I disagree with you, Iarwain (politely). I do think Rowling has somehow 'borrowed' soem of Tolkien's ideas and turned them into her own perception. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Best.

Tarien

I can see some similarities...but then who can't with the majority of fantasy? Both JKR JRRT have drawn on myth and legend to create their stories. But I don't compare the two. I look on LOTR as adult fiction and HP as childrens though the latest was much darker.

I guess though I am an Avid LOTR fan (and yes I like it more than HP) I wanted to point out a few of the parallels I have drawn.

For starters my sig below. while studying at Oxford University, JRRT came in touch with the poem "the Crist of Cynewulf". Tolkien was especially fascinated by the cryptic couplet: Eálá Earendel engla beorhtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended - "Hail Earendel, brightest of angels, over Middle Earth sent to men ". This poem positively inspired him. To state the sil charcter derived from this isn't really necessary! Strong links to norse and Irish myth can be found. Just look at the Tuatha Dé Danann: Imortal, beyond the beauty of man, came in white ships-need I say more. Le Morte D'Arthur has already been mentioned but I have come across a character in there called Balin. Oh and a bit of trivia a bilbo is an iron bar used to secure prisoners shackles!

I remember their being a reference to Rangers in C.S.Lewis' Silver Chair...

Basically I love LOTR both books and their basis in myth only makes them more enjoyabe giving them a tight anchor in your subconcious. But one thing I do not see JRRT as a racist facist! Attacking the authors personally is just a childish tactic. Both had a dream they shared, both dreams mean different things to different people. Thats the beauty of the human mind not everyone sees the same thing the same way [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Oh I heard of Boggarts before they turn milk sour stuff like that [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]Helpful aren't they!

If you start to hate HP and JKR because she used old mythology, Greek and some old ghost stories and such, then you have to put Tolkien down just to be fair. They both were inspired by legend and history, and JKR was probably also inspired by JRRT.

What I am trying to say is before you cast the first stone, do your homework. It is not a nice thing to say that someone is a plagiarist. If you don't like it like I don't like Romance or most mystery, I am not talking to you. But those who are flaming JKR should rethink and read her books, and then do some research and then if the evidence points to plagiarism, go for it. But from the spot where I sit, having read all the books, I see nothing to be upset about.

And yes Bogarts are evil little fairies. All fairies are according to my Field guide to Irish fairies.

Like she will reaturn them.

Well, she can't exactly return them, because her books have been published and everything, so I guess all we can do is list all the similarities between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.

BTW: Don't any of you think C.S Lewis's work and Tolkien's are somwhat similar? Just a thought.

Nobodys ideas are completely original. Just like Tolkien took his ideas from Beowulf etc Rowling probably found her ideas from lots of different sources. There are bound to be similarities, because it's the fantasy genre and lots of things relate to each other. For instance, some people say that Gandalf and Dumbledore are similar. They are just traditional images of wizards that so many people have used. Rowling is playing off the stereotypical image of wizards and witches. Except for Gandalf, Tokien doesn't. he created a totally different place from the world that Rowling created. Of course, you could argue that she copied the lesser known 'Worst Witch' books. But I think that the Harry Potter books and Lord of the Rings are very different and I like them both.
Sorry if I repeted anyones points, but I don't have time to read the whole entire topic. Just thought I'd chip in my 2 cents!

HOW TRUE!

When I mentioned Wormtounge and Wormatail, I meant that the names were very simelar. And that they both are "bad guys". I know that thye have different stories and stuff...

Personally, and please do not stone me to death for this, I loathe the Harry Potter series. The writing, while it has gotten better since the juvenile and awkward composition of the book, has never seemed anywhere near up to par with the great fantasy classics (Lord of the Rings, Out of the Silent Planet, etc.).

That being said, I do not think it can be compared with Professor Tolkien's works, and, although it may have derived some of its ideas and names from those of Lord of the Rings, what fantasy novel in the last 4 decades hasn't? Furthermore, Harry Potter is a children's book. It was designed to appeal to and has an obvious target audience of children, from the cover of the book to the characters on its pages. The Lord of the Rings was never meant to cater to children (except, that is, when it was first conceived as a sequel to the hobbit). The writing is moodier, more mature and more linguistically sound, and the characters are vastly different (except for Dumbledore, who I believe is the only real direct rip-off of Lord of the Rings). I do not really think any logical comparisons can be drawn between them other than they are both works of fantasy, and basic ideas and character traits are expressed (in different ways, mind you) in both series.

I agree with you, that's all I've got to say.....for now anyway... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Adding to my last post, I didn't say that Rowling didn't borrow from Dickens. In fact, we can (forcefully) compare Potter to Oliver Twist and David Copperfield. Perhaps that's going too far. Oh well, goodbye.

Iarwain

It's taken years, but I'd finally put down my animosity towards the Harry Potter series. I've liked the movies, and the Lego video game looks cute, but the books...well...there's an ugly history there that I'd rather not revisit.

So I've started reading the series, comparing what I read to the movies, and to, of course, Lord of the Rings. What was striking to me (and possibly in a post somewhere in the billion within this thread) is how HP:The Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone ends much like FotR. Harry/Frodo wake up after facing the enemy, in a bed, with a wizard at his side recounting what happened just before our hero blacks out. I read the chapter with Harry lying in the Hogwart's hospital and couldn't help but see Frodo in Rivendell with Gandalf at his side.

Coincidence?

More than that, probably: Tolkien's influenced so much of later fantasy, so why not this? That's not quite the same as saying the plot was "stolen", though. I've read things that do copy The Lord of the Rings directly, and there's a difference.

Also, as this guy points out, you can draw comparisons between the HP novels and a lot of other things too.

That poster is being funny, of course, but in fact I do have a problem with the HP books being generally a bit derivative (rather than straight rip-offs of any one thing). It's not that Rowling uses elements that appear in other stories, it's that I've never found what she does with them all that interesting. That's just my personal reaction, of course. I know they caught a lot of kids'– and even adults'– imaginations.

Btw, as I've said elsewhere, it's always fun when someone unearths one of these prehistoric threads. The Downers of the First Age certainly had quite a lively debating style:

Srsly? UNI?!! NOES!!!111:eek:

Nope. As we all know, Tolkien never used any line remotely like that, anywhere.

What, Tolkien write a childrens' book? The very idea!

Oh.

Well, how can one possibly counter such a devastating argument as that?


*sigh* Darn it, I why didn't I join the Downs eight years ago? Everyone's so staid and literate these days!

Note: seriously, most of the thread is not like that at all.

Grima Wormtongue is called thus as no one, with the exception of the bewitched Theoden, likes his slithering ways and constant lying. Peter Pettigrew Wormtail, a rat in more ways than one, is named thus as...:confused:

One nick seems natural; the other forced.

And I'm not even going to mention anything about a certain person going into hiding after losing a finger. :o

Okay, that's a point. "Wormtail" is an obvious... er... reference, let us say. And as you say, it doesn't quite work.

Not sure about the missing finger. It may be simply that Rowling wanted to include the old tradition that a shapeshifter's injuries persist from one form to another, and just happened to pick "missing digit" as the telltale mutilation, when it could as easily have been a torn ear, or something.

So at least it's not just me.

Two fingers could have worked even better to fool the MoM of Pettigrew's death, but no, we need to leave nine...

Bet it was his Ring finger. :D

It's a long time since I read any of the HP books, but according to various internet sources I just checked it, it's his index finger. Which is extremely strange considering he was at liberty to pick any finger to sacrifice.

Anyway, the parallel is hardly unique. One of Lloyd Alexander's Prydein novels has an evil wizard named Morda who cuts off his own finger (the little finger, because he had a tad more common sense than Wormtail) pours his life-force into it to render himself immortal, and dies when it's destroyed.

So working out what's coincidence, what's imitation, and exactly who's copying who isn't that easy.

You clearly need to be more biased and conspiratorial. ;):D

Potter you Rotter
 

Goodness me, this is an old thread!

Maybe one day I'll figure out what I was trying to say about sleeping dragons!

HP versus LoTR is a bit of an unnecessary fight in my opinion. Both use traditional archetypical characters, eg Gandalf/Dumbledore/Merlin/Obi Wan Kenobi, and plots - orphan saves world from ultimate baddy, so its not that surprising that similarities emerge. Baddies - Nazgul and Dementors - are dark shadowy figures, but so are traditional ghosts, ghouls etc, and bright yellow figures just don't fit as bad-guys!

Maybe this is one of the reasons that both books are so accessible?

But the differences are marked as well, JRRT was far more interested in philology, landscape and history and the broad sweep of time and story in his sub-created world. Rowling grafts the fantasy on top of the familiar muggle world that we all know, and is more concerned with feelings and relationships. Tolkien rarely if ever says what his characters are feeling, we get to know them through their words and deeds. Rowling, in common with most modern authors, explicitly shows what Harry is feeling, a very different approach. She also draws on traditional boarding school stories (going right back to the Victorian 'Tom Brown's Schooldays') as much if not more than Fantasy.

For me, there's room for both on my shelf, but it's the Tolkien that I'd save from a house fire by a long way!