Stolen Dumbledore

[Boromir88]

Very true Imladris, that has been an argument in the recent degades, that nothing is completely original. No story, novel, movie, is completely original, there's atleast one part that is taken from a previous work. Which is why I don't like the word "stealing."

If you want to put it as J.K. Rowling "stole," then you must say Tolkien "stole" from Beowulf, and other Anglo-Norman mythologies. It's a natural thing for authors, directors, painters...etc to do is to use things from previous experiences. There are two ways to explain why authors (or whoever) take from other authors. Either one they use what is called intertextuality, which is purposefully using a previous author's work to draw attention to it, or provide a point. The other is simply that the author (or director...etc) read/saw something previously and were influenced by it in either a positive (or negative) way and unconsciously wrote it into their story.

[VanimaEdhel]

Boy, this topic seems to be going in one big circle. If I may add my opinion on the matter...

It seems to me that the ideas that you address - the ones where Rowling and Tolkien seem to overlap - are concepts that make great fantasy. And, to be completely honest, I don't think we can accuse Ms. Rowling of anything close to "copying" - it could just be that she had a good enough mind to come up with ideas, whether influenced by outside sources or not, that were much like Tolkien's ideas.

And in any fantasy novel you read, you see overlaps with other fantasy novels. Typically, they draw back to old mythology. However, I own that two-book set by the Comic Relief charity that Rowling wrote that contains Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Now, if you look through Fantastic Beasts, upon first glance, it looks like it should be filled with old creatures of mythology. And yes, they mention the griffin, the hippogriff, the basilisk, the centaur, and the unicorn (among others). But then, there are these creatures: the ashwinder, the bundimun, the billywig, the crup, and the grindylow (again, among others). Some of these are unlike creatures I've ever seen in fantasy. And actually, Quidditch Through the Ages is a very amusing read. Ms. Rowling created not only the sport, but also the history, the teams and a great number of the players.

Yes, so, due to these books, I definitely more than I should about various parts of the world of Hogwarts. But also, people always belittle Rowling's writing style. Meanwhile, I love how she writes - she is writing to convey an entirely different world from Tolkien, so obviously her words would be different. Also, as someone who is roughly the age she is writing about, I completely understand everything her characters go through - the books, written mostly from Harry's point of view, voice things exactly as I would voice them in my own head. So often, adults have problems writing from the point of view of an adolescent - either making them too mature or too immature. She creates characters exactly at the stages I was in when I was their age. They think and act in a very similar way. Of course she wouldn't use such eloquent words as Tolkien: that's not how Harry Potter would voice his thoughts.

At the same time, there is an undercurrent of irony and sarcasm throughout all of her story - from the funniest of moments to the most terrible - that I just find so enjoyable. It's as though part of Rowling is always saying, "This isn't a real world" - it's basically a world derived from this sarcasm. She mocks in the most innocent of ways how people treat each other, how prejudice forms, the gullibility of the public, one's own self-image and concept of self-worth, and even the genre of fantasy. And I find that gentle mockery to be very enjoyable, myself.

And if you disagree, I have my wand, I now know "Sectumsempra", and I'm not afraid to use it.

[Lalwendë]

It is 'what you do with it' that counts, and although JK Rowling has made no secret of her plunder of old myths and folktales, she has used these in her own way to populate the world she has created with fascinating creatures. When Tolkien created The Hobbit he too used old myths and folktales, creatures such as trolls, goblins and dragons, all such things that are guaranteed to have young readers' imaginations running wild and their eyes popping out of their heads as they hear these tales. Creatures like this are important in children's stories as they fire the imagination, with a little wonder and also a little fear. I'm sure this has been the case right back into history - my own mother always remembers the line "we dare not go a-hunting for fear of little men" from Goblin Market, and gets a shiver just as she did when she was young.

What I do like is that JK Rowling has used not just the established mythological creatures but those from folklore, creatures like Boggarts, and possibly in danger of dying out as he only stories about them are passed on through word of mouth. Initially I was sceptical about this, but now I can see that some children after reading the books might want to go on and find out more - this is quite likely, as I wonder how many of us went on to 'find out more' after reading Tolkien.

I have to say that her depiction of the employees of the Ministry of Magic is superb satire on civil servants, from the security guard taking the weighing of the wands to be the most serious of matters to the backstabbing and office politics.

[Alcarillo]

Another similarity between Tolkien and Rowling is that they both show that a lust for immortality can cause evil. The Numenoreans became corrupted, chopping apart Nimloth and building a temple to Morgoth, where they sacrificed people. Voldemort, in the Harry Potter books, killed people in order to rip his soul into pieces to put into horcruxes. I don't think this means that Rowling stole from Tolkien, it just shows some similar themes.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Nor did Rowling. Many of her references are all but too obvious.

The werewolf named Remus (who, sadly, has no twin Romulus).

The werewolf Fenrir. Does that sound familiar?

Sirius Black who turns into a dog.

Don't forget the divination teacher, Sibyll Trelawney. The Sibyll(s?) was(were?) a prophetess(es?) of Apollo or something along those lines.

[Nimrodel_9]

I agree that Rowling "stole" from Tolkien and I imagine other writers works. That or she had a similar idea, and had never even thought that they were... ah... related, I guess you could say. Example: Tolkien's Nazgul, Rowling's Dementors, and Jordan's Fades. All wear black robes, and seem to have close to the same affect on people. I don't know about you, but if I were writing a story and I wanted a rather scary enemy, I would probably make them the same way. I have been tempted to do so before, but have felt that the idea is going to be a bit overused in the future.

Though I love Tolkien's works, I find HP and WoT amusing also. Even if they did "steal" from our favorite author. I have found that when I am writing, I come to a place where I think, That line in FotR would go great right here. Not because I am a theif. It is because of my great love for Tolkien. If ever I become a writer, I will be sure to state that many of my ideas came from Tolkien and that I owe everything to him for getting me interested in writing in the first place.

[Cailín]

I'm a fan of both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. I can't help but loving JKR's writing style and the way her characters and dialogue seem to be so completely natural.

As I read a lot of fantasy, I've noticed many modern fantasy books seem to be ripping off Tolkien in one way or another. It's just so that Tolkien set a standard for what epic fantasy should be like, and copying is always the safest way to success. However, I do not feel JKR's work to be such a rip-off. Though there are similar themes in both books, these are timeless themes taken directly from mythology and ancient stories and all good stories have those in common. The world that JKR creates is essentially very different from Tolkien's world, as is her style and general plot. While popular fantasy writers like Robert Jordan - and others: believe me, I have seen far worse than him - just seem to copy the story with different names, it appears to me Tolkien only mildly influenced JKR. Both have turned to mythology and folklore (admittedly, since this was Tolkien's field of expertise, he seems to be somewhat more knowledgeable concerning these) to create their world.

While JKR's references might be a little obvious sometimes, being an English student myself I have read Beowulf and other Anglo-Saxon poems and some famous dialogue from LotR are taken directly from these poems - Tolkien only rephrased them a little.

There are hardly any stories that are completely original anymore. Especially when you look at genre-fiction like fantasy and sci-fi. I see both Tolkien and JKR as writers who gave this genre a new impulse, though not necessarily as revolutional inventors.

[VanimaEdhel]

Again, I insert spoilers from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in here, so be forewarned.

Well, it goes back to what we said: Rowling's works sometimes connect to Tolkien's because there are certain things that "work" to create the best effect. Going back to our parallel between dementors and the Nazgul: if you were to choose a creature that was the epitome of nameless fear and suffering, what would they look like? They would probably be shrouded, for, as Dumbledore even said in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince:

There is nothing to be feared from a body, Harry, any more than there is anything to be feared from the darkness. Lord Voldemort, who of course secretly fears both, disagrees. But once again he reveals his own lack of wisdom. It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more.

So then we get the idea of tattered robes cloaking unknown evils - our fear of them is derived from the fact that we can't see their faces. The dementors only reveal their faces when they are about to apply the Kiss - when the victim will be beyond fear, when the unknown no longer matters, for the person is about to have his or her soul removed. This absence of soul prohibits them from feeling true fear, so it is no longer necessary to instill this terror.

And, if you think about it, the Nazgul and the dementors are entirely different in creation and purpose. The Nazgul were once human men, and their form is the result of corruption. They serve due to their own greediness. The dementors were always as they were - a separate species of creature. They are considered "humanesque" but nothing more. The dementors serve wizards only to their own ends - they have no allegiance instilled by threat or otherwise. They aid those they want to - they work for Azkaban when Voldemort has disappeared, but once he returns, they revert to supporting him. There is no force preventing them from either going to or coming from the "Dark" side.

So the physical similarity comes from the fear instilled by the physical form of the two beings, not in any other aspect really.

Rowling capitalizes on the ridiculous - the unbelievable - and says, "What if it were real?" I mean I sometimes read some of the things they say, such as:

From here on in, Harry, I may be as woefully wrong as Humphrey Belcher, who believed the time was ripe for a cheese cauldron.

and I think, "Dumbledore's kidding, right?" But Rowling takes such eccentric things - such things only found in a child's dreams - and brings them to life. I think that's why she has such a following of adults: she allows people to live the unbelievable in her works. Actually, I loved the moment in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix where they talk about the grades:

"Then you get P for 'Poor'" - Ron raised both his arms in mich celebration - "And D for 'Dreadful.'"

"And then T," George reminded him.

"T?" asked Hermione, looking appalled. "Even lower than a D? What on earth does that stand for?"

"'Troll,'" said George promptly.

Harry laughed, though he was not sure whether or not George was joking.

Harry has the reaction we all have - "They give a grade called 'Troll'?" He doesn't know whether the people are joking or not. Then, when we finally do get their O.W.L. grades, we see:
Pass Grades
O = Outstanding
E = Exceeds Expectations
A = Acceptable
Fail Grades
P = Poor
D = Dreadful
T = Troll

And come on: let's leave poor Albus Dumbledore alone - let him rest in peace. And for the record, Snape's not evil - all signs point to him killing Dumbledore on Dumbledore's own orders. *Nods*

[yavanna II]

Originally Posted by Imladris

Yet another prime example of how there really is nothing new under the sun.

Absolutely right. It would be a real genious if you could create something you haven't borrowed from anything, even if it's unintentional.

But I do have that grudge about JKR having the dementors look and feel like the Ringwraiths.... doesn't she have the wit to make her characters look a bitdifferent from others'?

And about quidditch? It's just soccer on brooms, it's not original.

[Cailín]

I disagree about Quidditch being soccer on brooms. The rules are extremely different (and extremely less strict, for that).

Also, I never pictured the Dementors like the Ringwraiths just from the books, really, it wasn't until I saw both movies that I noticed some odd similarities. Maybe it's the readers who are lacking to see the differences between them.

[Lyta_Underhill]

And, if you think about it, the Nazgul and the dementors are entirely different in creation and purpose. The Nazgul were once human men, and their form is the result of corruption. They serve due to their own greediness. The dementors were always as they were - a separate species of creature. They are considered "humanesque" but nothing more. The dementors serve wizards only to their own ends - they have no allegiance instilled by threat or otherwise.

I wonder if one could say "Expecto Patronum" and conjure up Gildor Inglorion? :P Didn't those Elves shine with an inner light much like a Patronus? Of course, what Patronus would come out looking like an Elf? But I believe you're right, VanimaEdhel--the Nazgul work through fear and are tied utterly to their master, whereas the Dementors work through despair and serve none but the one who can provide the most fodder for their endless hunger. I'd say the Dementors are more like Shelob in this respect.

As for the question of Dumbledore, I shall reserve judgment until more thought has passed through this sluggish brain. And, as Snape has always been my favorite HP character, I must say this last book has been, well, interesting. But I digress, and to make a final point, it seems that Tolkien is much more prone to drawing evil as a sickness to which characters fall inherently--Saruman, given the chance to redeem himself, rejects it, as does Wormtongue, Gollum, all the Orcs (seemingly bred to be bad!)--as Frodo tells Sam "Orcs have always behaved this way when they are not led." (may be misquoted but drawn from "The Land of Shadow" chapter in ROTK.). Shelob is utterly unlight, as was Ungoliant. These are elemental evils, beyond the political evil of Sauron, beyond the political evil of Voldemort, a darkness thrown up by the very Universal force of darkness, the Morgoth, and even beyond...

I didn't notice as much elemental evil in Harry Potter, but the Dementors would seem to fall in this category, being akin to the "dark places of the world" that seem to prevail much more prominently in Lord of the Rings. . I hope this little rant made sense, and maybe someone will get something from it, incomplete and unfocused as it may be!

Cheers!
Lyta (still a believer in Severus Snape, for what it may be worth...)

P.S. Please don't give this post the rating of "Troll!"

[Lalaith]

This thread has made me think a little about the very different way that Rowling and Tolkien use names, linguistically.
Rowling's use is playful, like an academic in-joke, as Feanor points out, with names like Sirius, Lupus, Fenrir and son on, often obviously referential to those who know their myths, their Latin and so on.

Tolkien uses names in a more poetic, almost onomatopoeic way. Sometimes he uses historical or cultural associations, but only in a general way (the Rohirrim have Anglosaxon names, the Dwarves have Nordic ones, the Brandybucks have Old Gothic ones) but mostly he seems to have just plucked them out of the air because they sounded beautiful (elves) or nasty (Orcs).

Now who is going to moan about similarities between Aragog and Aragorn?

[Ainaserkewen]

It seems much more popular these days for books and movies to want to reward their fans by throwing in those kind of names. In direct reference to what Lalaith said in the last post.

I can think of examples in the Matrix, Harry Potter etc. where names are used as inside jokes. Perhaps instead of "stealing" Dumbledor from Tolkien, Rowling, a supposedly learned writer, wanted to give us Fantasy fans a little laugh in the same way she kept using the word "snogging" consistantly in the 6th book but one of the Griffindor tower passwords was "Abstinence"...all these cultural references are great in my opinion and give her books a touch of class.

[VanimaEdhel]

I think that a lot of what I like about Rowling is derived from the aspect of "mystery" in her books. Though they are fantasy, they are also, no doubt, of the mystery genre. There is always an arc of the introduction of a problem, the emergence of a mystery related to this problem, and an elemental (if nothing else) solution to the problem at hand at the end. If you think about it, it's such a simple model. However, there's always at least two or three parts of the mystery I never even considered. The first time through the book, I reach the end and typically let out a large gasp. On the other hand, then I go back and read the book again almost immediately. I realize then that everything is there. Although I guessed that Snape was the Half-Blood Prince almost immediately.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to work out R.A.B. You know who I realized had the first and last initials R.B.? Regulus Black - Sirius Black's younger brother thought to be dead. I wonder if he is still alive in hiding somewhere or something. Or whether he started wiping out the Horcruxes towards the end of his life, and they caught up with him and killed him? We also don't know Borgin's first and middle initials...

Going back to the idea of evil: in Harry Potter, I feel that the idea of "pure evil" isn't so much present as the idea of "pure corruption." There's almost the theory that everyone starts out pure, but then they can choose actions. And there isn't "pure good" and "pure evil." For example, I consider Draco Malfoy to be a nasty little brat, but I don't think he's at a point where we can consider him to be true evil - we find him crying in the bathroom, saying that the Dark Lord told him he must do it soon or else he'll be killed. There's a part of Draco that's desparate to stay alive, desperate to please his dark family. However, there's still part of him that's a child - he can't kill Dumbledore, he wouldn't. Granted, I believe that Dumbledore didn't want to give him the shot and instructed Snape to do it as soon as he got there - not wanting one of his students to become a murderer. And when we find young Tom Riddle, he's got inclinations towards power and corruption, but it's all derived from fear - an emotion closely associated with an innocent personality. His deep terror of death and the unknown drove him to commit atrocities. However, Dumbledore doesn't seem to show hatred for the evils done by Voldemort - he seems to pity him.

The concept of "choice", as I alluded to earlier, is also key. Dumbledore said to Harry at the end of this novel that the prophecy means nothing essentially. It only means something because Voldemort believed it. However, if Voldemort had never heard it, it would have never come to fruition. Choice is still in everyone's hands - prophecy is just a possibility. It's whether the person chooses to follow through with it. There also always seems to be a cross-over of sorts - the "good" choosing evil while the "bad" choose goodness. For example, Peter Pettigrew goes to Voldemort out of fear (once again, returning to people's negative actions being derived from fear) while Snape comes over to the side of the Order of the Phoenix. The switch seems to be what sustains the conflict - in almost every book, we've had a character we've trusted prove untrustworthy and a character we didn't believe turning out to be a hero. I think it's coming to light again with Draco Malfoy and Neville Longbottom. Ultimately, I think Draco will be given the opportunity to come back to Hogwarts and rejoin society and Neville with be captured and tortured to find evidence of where Harry is. Unlike what happened before, Neville would rather die than tell the Death Eaters - he's strong despite his lack of ability. He'll die in the end, I believe, while Draco will ultimately be swayed to help Harry, perhaps by Snape even. This throw of balance towards the "good" side will result in Harry's victory.

It's just a theory, but it's also an example of how things seem to work in Rowling's book. It recalls an almost spiritual balance of the world - how things must be in order for continuation. Only a throw of balance can result in change.

[Elonve]

But i thought Dumbeldore was from welsh and it means bumblebee...

If you have ever tried writing fantasy you'd know its really hard. it is ineveateble that one takes elements form other things that you've read... come on guys give her some credit!!!! Plus it points out that JK 's muse is Tolkien and he is undoubtedly the master!
________
Penny stocks to watch

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Now who is going to moan about similarities between Aragog and Aragorn?

Not me! But Gog and Magog are British legendary giants, and if you take Gog and add the Ara- of Arachnid, you get Aragog...Spider Giant!

[Kath]

But Gog and Magog are British legendary giants, and if you take Gog and add the Ara- of Arachnid, you get Aragog...Spider Giant!

Ah maybe this will finally provide an explanation of Aragorns mad run up the stairs in TT! Ara - spider, gorn - runner?

[Thinlómien]

Aren't Gog and Magog from the Bible? I always thought so.

And as for lending the names, Diana Wynne Jones has a dwarf male called Galadriel in one of her books. That's quite offensing...

[Encaitare]

There's a Proudfoot mentioned in the new Harry Potter book. Cute little homage.

And in the second chapter of the same book [no spoilers]: the fox. As I was reading, I thought, 'If that fox suddenly displays sentience and wonders what the two witches are up to, I'm going to get really irritated...' Fortunately, it didn't.

[the guy who be short]

I missed the Proudfoot...

I get Longbottom and Wormtongue though.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

And in the second chapter of the same book [no spoilers]: the fox. As I was reading, I thought, 'If that fox suddenly displays sentience and wonders what the two witches are up to, I'm going to get really irritated...' Fortunately, it didn't.

No, it didn't. Conversely... it died. How depressingly interesting.

Greetings to you all, ladies and gentlemen!
I'm new to this forum, but I'd like to become a regular participant. This topic seems really fascinating to me. Similarities between Tolkien's books and the Harry Potter saga are very interesting, though in my opinion they don't make Ms. Rowling's books less original at all. But before expressing my opinions in more detail I'd like to ask a question. It's a bit off topic, I am afraid, but I've been looking virtually everywhere for an answer without any success and it haunts me.

Warning: my question contains a Harry Potter 6 spoiler!

Originally Posted by VanimaEdhel

I sometimes read some of the things they say, such as:

From here on in, Harry, I may be as woefully wrong as Humphrey Belcher, who believed the time was ripe for a cheese cauldron.

and I think, "Dumbledore's kidding, right?" But Rowling takes such eccentric things - such things only found in a child's dreams - and brings them to life.

What exactly is the sense of the joke? Is the cauldron meant for making cheese, or is it full of cheese, or what?
Thank you in advance!

[Encaitare]

I got the impression that the cauldron was made of cheese.

Welcome to the Downs, by the way!

[the guy who be short]

I see it as a pun on ripe cheese - and yes, the cauldron is made of cheese.

*Veers back on topic*

Hmm... could Nazgul mate? I ask because Dementors obviously good. Then again, being dead would hinder such physical processes, I presume.

Thank you ever so much, Encaitare and TGWBS!
A cauldron made of cheese... Yes, that would be a novelty indeed. But what a waste of cheese!

Concerning TGWBS's question: I don't think the Nazgul can procreate. At no point does Tolkien speak of Nazgulings.
Actually, we don't know if the Dementors can mate. We are just told that they multiply, but the nature of this process remains a mystery...

[the guy who be short]

Never mind. I just remembered all the Nazgul are Kings anyway. So that's settled.

[brim]

Originally Posted by Airerûthiel

No offence to JK Rowling but she steals loads of other people's ideas: parts of Dumbledore the character are very likely to have been taken from Gandalf in my opinion, and Aragog is so just Shelob but male! I think she got the Grim in book 3 from someone else as well but I can't quite remember what it is...

Regarding the grim, It was probibly based on the Barghest, a monstrous dog with huge teeth and claws from the area around northern England. It only appears at night. People believe that anyone who sees the dog clearly will die soon after the encounter. In Wales, they have the red-eyed Gwyllgi, the Dog of Darkness. There may also have been a reference to the grim in the wheel of time. I forget though. just makeing a point. that the idea wasn't origonal.

You don't have to be harsh about authors using previously used ideas I guess.