Lotr v harry potter.

[ChemSiddiqui]

Hey everyone,

 

I wanted to share some thought I had about the 2 of arguable the most famous novels(or fantasy fiction) written in English literature. The Lord of the Rings (J.J.R.Tokein) and Harry potter (J.K.Rowling) and to organise a poll for the readers favourite novel.

 

There are some of the things I couldnt help but notice in harry potter which are very similar to LOTR;

 

1. The Dark Lord;

sauron and voldermort were destroyed a long time ago and are seen coming back in their respective novel . The idea is very similar.

 

2.Chosen One;

 

Harry Potter is the chosen one in harry potter and frodo is chosen one as a ring-bearer in lotr. again the idea is very similar.

 

3. The black riders and Dementor;

 

another similarity between the two.

 

4. Frodo and harry's suffering;

 

both suffer a lot along the way of destroying the evils of dark lord.

 

5. Gandalf and Dumbledore;

 

Both nice and decent personalities, both wizards of great strength and both very wise.

 

now i am not saying anything that might seem obvious to you by my thread, but you cant deny that from what similarties there are harry potter is not exactly an original novel with original ideas from the author. As for which i would vote to be the best of the 2 novels, it clear Lord of the Rings.

[Dudde]

5. Gandalf and Dumbledore;

 

Both nice and decent personalities, both wizards of great strength and both very wise.

 

Weren't they also played by the same guy in the movies? He was pretty much the coolest part...though I liked the Potter movies FAR more than I like being bored by LotR movies. Interesting as I've read the Lord of the Rings series twice in its entirety.

 

Not sure if many people would pay attention to this genre in this forum though..

Edited March 29, 2009 by swansont
fix quote tag

[Sayonara]

No. Sir Ian McKellan played Gandalf.

 

Dumbledore was played by Richard Harris, then by Michael Gambon after Harris died.

[padren]

I'll throw another similarity:

 

Both "underdogs" in that one is a hobbit in the world of big sword wielding warriors, the other is a kid just learning magic at a school. So they both fit the "unlikely hero" paradigm as well.

[Pangloss]

You folks know about Joseph Campbell and The Hero of a Thousand Faces, right? Not that Tolkein followed Campbell, of course, but it does explain why so many of these stories seem so similar.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

 

I hit my Game Design students with the concept every term and their mouths just drop open. Ah, to be young again, and innocent in the ways of the world. (grin) If you ever get a chance to see the famous Bill Moyers interview of Campbell, don't miss it.

 

Caught McKellan on PBS the other night doing a new Lear. He played him as kind of a cross between his Gandalf and his Magneto, which seemed appropriate given the material. Must've been fun for the other actors to play off of.

[bascule]

I wanted to share some thought I had about the 2 of arguable the most famous novels(or fantasy fiction) written in English literature.

 

2 of the most famous novels? Both are series and really require they be absorbed in their totality. I'd argue they're nowhere close to the most famous novels written in English. Lord of the Rings, as a series, is perhaps arguable. Harry Potter is children's literature and not really worth considering alongside Lord of the Rings, let alone something like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow.

[Pangloss]

2 of the most famous novels? Both are series and really require they be absorbed in their totality. I'd argue they're nowhere close to the most famous novels written in English. Lord of the Rings, as a series, is perhaps arguable. Harry Potter is children's literature and not really worth considering alongside Lord of the Rings, let alone something like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow.

 

I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye on Harry Potter, but having given it some thought since our last discussion, I actually agree with your point here that it's not an appropriate comparison. It's not really fair to J.K. Rowling, actually -- it's a great accomplishment, just of a different sort. She has produced arguably the best children's fantasy book series ever written, worthy of comparison with the works of C.S. Lewis (Narnia), Madeleine L'Engle (A Wrinkle in Time), Edward Ormondroyd (David and the Phoenix), L. Frank Baum (The Wizard of Oz) and many others.

 

I would also say that it's unique in the way it transcends a specific age group (or at least the manner in which it does so, aging a year with each book). Which actually makes it difficult to classify in the traditional "children's" genre, but of course it has to be viewed that way since the initial target age is only 11 years.

 

And if it offers something to adults as well, that's hardly unique to good children's literature. Many of the best works for young people offer a great deal for adults.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Pangloss

[ChemSiddiqui]

2 of the most famous novels? Both are series and really require they be absorbed in their totality. I'd argue they're nowhere close to the most famous novels written in English. Lord of the Rings, as a series, is perhaps arguable. Harry Potter is children's literature and not really worth considering alongside Lord of the Rings, let alone something like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow.

 

hmm i think i agree you with you there. But, limiting to the particualr genre that is fantasy/fiction at least you can argue that they are 2 of the most famous english(i.e. by british people) novels. Yes, there came out as a series but I reckon they were a single volume split into many to make money if you take my meaning!

[Sisyphus]

 

And if it offers something to adults as well, that's hardly unique to good children's literature. Many of the best works for young people offer a great deal for adults.

 

It's cliched but very true what they say, that good children's literature appeals to the child in the adult and the adult in the child. I think the Harry Potter books succeed much more in the former than the latter, but I've long since given up arguing about it.

[Dudde]

I hit my Game Design students with the concept every term and their mouths just drop open

 

Nice, I used to be a game design student!

 

I can agree kinda with Pangloss above, J.K Rowling has apparently done something hugely successful if people are comparing her to Lord of the Rings - of course I think it's a lot easier to get your books known and in the world now than it was 100+ years ago

[GutZ]

Berserk has ruined all ability to enjoy fantasy stories. I don't find either one of them that entertaining.. They both lack an interesting story. There no deepth to them, LOTR is essential walking with interesting characters, Harry potter is essential going to school and solving mysteries, that seem to happen every time he goes, with interesting characters.

 

Berserk is an Anime. but the story is so well done. I am pretty sure anyone who has seen it would agree with me, The character are probably not on the same level of development as LOTR and HP, but the story is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. It doesn't do that Character intro 30 mins, happy 30 mins, Oh no! problem, 30, 10 sadness, 40 battle, 10 sadness, 10 happy.

 

I dont like how every ending is happy. It pisses me off that a movie like I am legend (a good movie) is unpopular because the dog dies and he dies. When I ask people why they disliked it, they give that reason. how can you void a whole movie over one scene like that? Wasn't that the sole pupose of the movie, the tittle was obvious that the man would die. How could you not see that coming....errr

 

Sorry for the rant, honestly not one single movie has sparked my interest ever since I've seen berserk, because that's the standard I hold for all movies, and I haven't seen anything come close to it.

 

Movies being created today are more for making money than a good story. No one is willing to take a risk to make a really interesting film or story.

 

/rant

[bascule]

I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye on Harry Potter, but having given it some thought since our last discussion, I actually agree with your point here that it's not an appropriate comparison. It's not really fair to J.K. Rowling, actually -- it's a great accomplishment, just of a different sort. She has produced arguably the best children's fantasy book series ever written, worthy of comparison with the works of C.S. Lewis (Narnia), Madeleine L'Engle (A Wrinkle in Time), Edward Ormondroyd (David and the Phoenix), L. Frank Baum (The Wizard of Oz) and many others.

 

Yes, and a good comparison to Tolkien would be the Hobbit, which is intended to be a children's book. Lord of the Rings was intended for adults.

 

hmm i think i agree you with you there. But, limiting to the particualr genre that is fantasy/fiction at least you can argue that they are 2 of the most famous english(i.e. by british people) novels.

 

My apologies, by "English" I thought you meant books written in the English language, not books by UK authors.

[ChemSiddiqui]

 

 

My apologies, by "English" I thought you meant books written in the English language, not books by UK authors.

 

no problem:-)!.

[Mr Skeptic]

Compared to Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter's world was extremely shallow. You do magic by speaking in Latin? Magical creatures and plants and people, completely unheard of by most of the world? Magicians unable to understand the simplest of machines (yet have a train)? And all these new things, hardly described, except for the magician society. In LotR, the world is carefully crafted, consistent, and detailed, and the magic mysterious and unexplained as it should be, and societies described in detail. Said another way, LotR requires a little suspension of disbelief, but Harry Potter requires continuous suspension of disbelief (for the magic world and then each inconsistency within it, and the continuous insertion of magical plants and animals).

[Sayonara]

You do magic by speaking in Latin?

Not Latin by a long shot, but Rowling's awful attempts to make nonsense magic words sound credible by butchering Latin words with vaguely appropriate meanings.

 

Expelliarmus!

[Pangloss]

Nice, I used to be a game design student!

 

Cool. I teach mainly the senior programming students, but I have a long-standing interest in the history of storytelling and classical studies, and asked if I could teach the freshman storytelling classes, even though we have people with English and history PhDs on campus, and was lucky enough to talk my way into it. IMO game design students have an even bigger reason than most to learn as much as they can about human history and sociology, and it's a blast to teach those two classes. I'm also developing a "special topics" class on the history of warfare, emphasizing tactics and strategies for game design.

 

 

Berserk is an Anime. but the story is so well done. I am pretty sure anyone who has seen it would agree with me, The character are probably not on the same level of development as LOTR and HP, but the story is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. It doesn't do that Character intro 30 mins, happy 30 mins, Oh no! problem, 30, 10 sadness, 40 battle, 10 sadness, 10 happy.

 

I don't know that particular one, but I've become something of an anime gourmand in recent years (literally -- I'm sure I've gained weight from all the extra time spent sitting on the couch!) and have checked out many of the more popular titles, ranging from Watanabe to Kon to Miyazaki (the usual suspects). I think the Japanese are doing some of the most creative storytelling on the planet right now, and it's still far too unrecognized in the States because of the social taboo against "cartoons". But it doesn't really matter -- your observations are largely accurate about the down side of Hollywood, IMO, but cream still rises to the top in the entertainment business, as much or more than in any other human endeavor. (My two bits anyway.)

 

 

Yes, and a good comparison to Tolkien would be the Hobbit, which is intended to be a children's book. Lord of the Rings was intended for adults.

 

Compared to Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter's world was extremely shallow. You do magic by speaking in Latin? Magical creatures and plants and people, completely unheard of by most of the world? Magicians unable to understand the simplest of machines (yet have a train)? And all these new things, hardly described, except for the magician society. In LotR, the world is carefully crafted, consistent, and detailed, and the magic mysterious and unexplained as it should be, and societies described in detail. Said another way, LotR requires a little suspension of disbelief, but Harry Potter requires continuous suspension of disbelief

 

I think the two above quotes compliment each other and suggest one definable attribute of "youth fiction" -- lower degree of detail. In The Hobbit much of that detail did not yet exist -- Tolkein wrote it later in preparation for LOTR (and compiled and dumped it into The Silmarillion and the massive postscript in Return of the King). It's almost as if adults just need more detail in order to suspend disbelief. (Interesting... does this say more about adults or children?) (grin)

 

Gregory Maguire dramatically illustrates this point in his fascinating novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. Maguire does to Baum's Oz exactly what Tolkein did to Middle Earth for LOTR. He adds tremendous depth and detail to the tapestry of Oz, making it a more "serious" story, clearly aimed at adults instead of children.

 

Interestingly, I think Rowling is aware of this and actually ratchets up the detail as the series progresses (perhaps never to the adult level, though), as well as ramping up the seriousness of the consequences of the decisions made by the characters (this is a different subject, really, but arguably another definable attribute of youth fiction might be "less-serious consequences"). That ties in with the bit about Rowling's characters aging at the same rate as her readers -- by the end of the series all the children have become young adults, just like their readers. Kinda spooky. (Though I'm not sure it will play out over time -- good luck stopping an excited 11 year old from grabbing Book Two, now that they're all out!)

Edited March 29, 2009 by Pangloss

[Dudde]

Pangloss

and asked if I could teach the freshman storytelling classes, even though we have people with English and history PhDs on campus,

 

I think it's probably better that way - I don't really like traditional story-telling techniques provided by English teachers, although a Historian would be pretty helpful to have around to have a credible world - even if it was fantasy or Sci-Fi based.

 

Good call Gutz - I haven't seen that particular anime, but I'm really tired of the happy endings all the time. There was a (mostly) chick flick a few years back called atonement - I actually hated the movie all the way through until the end. It wasn't necessarily a sad ending, but the way it ended was totally cool, and I started liking the movie immensely. - I also agree with Pangloss however in that the Japanese are sort of masters of story telling right now - most of the coolest movies I've seen in a long time have been either anime, or Japanese.

 

However, I don't know about the world being shallow - I mean it is, but it's right on the spot for the intended audience I think. I'll admit to reading I think 6 of the books, the first 6, and personally I like Rowling's style of progressing the story - the way she develops characters is pretty cool, and adds a certain level of re-readability to the books.

[Daecon]

Not Latin by a long shot, but Rowling's awful attempts to make nonsense magic words sound credible by butchering Latin words with vaguely appropriate meanings.

 

Expelliarmus!

Um... I don't think she meant them to be sincere. In fact I remember reading an interview where she said they were specifically Latin-sounding words, not actually Latin words.

 

Like "Avada Kadavra" was based on a combination of "Abracadabra" and "Cadaver" jumbled together.

[Pangloss]

It's also intended as humor for the older readers.

[Daecon]

I preferred the magic from Gargoyles, which were sentences rather than phrases, even if the grammar was poorly-researched.

 

Deflagrate muri tempi et intervalia!

[Sayonara]

Um... I don't think she meant them to be sincere. In fact I remember reading an interview where she said they were specifically Latin-sounding words, not actually Latin words.

 

Like "Avada Kadavra" was based on a combination of "Abracadabra" and "Cadaver" jumbled together.

 

Yes, I fully realise that was her intention. It's because she basically couldn't be bothered to invest too much work into that particular element of the world, even though spells are your wizardry bread-and-butter.

 

My point is that it's crapulent, and hardly on a literary par with writers such as Tolkein who developed entirely self-consistent written and spoken lingual systems for each of the races in their worlds.

[Daecon]

Perhaps the spells themselves weren't really an important enough part of the Harry Potter stories?

[Sayonara]

What, a story about solving magical problems with magical incantations, and fighting magical enemies with magical magic?

 

[Daecon]

Just think of all the fundie tantrums the books would have had to endure if she's made up something that could have been considered a consistent and independent lexicon rather than pseudo-Latin.

 

She should have made the spells in Tolkien's Elvish (or is it Elven?) instead.

[Sayonara]

What fundie tantrums? If anything there would have been fewer. That mad woman you have probably seen on Youtube proclaiming that Harry Potter is a tool of the devil is probably pig-shit thick enough to believe that the incantations in the books actually are Latin, and therefore somehow of Satanic origin.

 

And there is something about the way she interacts with other people in the clip which suggests to me that she might just be quite happy to spread that view about even though it is complete bull. Plenty of people like her around.

 

uOIYsGVyg8M