Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are hailed by many as two of the greatest works of literature of our time. Now that our series is complete, let's explore the similarities and differences of the two series and what makes them so appealing to readers.

The original thread on this topic can be found here.

In LOTR, Frodo's personal quest failed. He not only could not destroy the ring; he tried to claim it for his own. In the end, the larger quest succeeded only because of Gollum's even greater obsession with the ring. Tolkien chose a morally ambiguous ending for his story: good triumphs through the bad act of an evil character after good has been put in jeopardy through the bad act of a good character. I prefer this subtle irony to the more simplistic black-white morality we are forcefed by Rowling. Tolkien's refusal to tie up loose ends in a superficial, easy manner is one reason why LOTR is a classic for the ages, while Harry Potter remains an entertaining series of books.

Yes Minerva = I do think Professor Tolkien presented us with a rather unique ending for the hero - made even more complex by the fact that Frodo is not rejected as a failure or as evil by his comrades in the fellowship at his return.

I think too that Tolkien despised allegorical morality tales - he expressed his disappointment to Lewis over the heavy handed use of allegory in the Narnia series. So he gives us an ending that refuses to allow Frodo to become a stand in for Christ.

I am not going to play the critics role and predict what merit HP will have in the future - but I do think a part of the HP books current appeal is that their setting is contemporary - I wonder if they will appear dated when that setting is no longer "contemporary" but not yet ancient enough to have the appeal of ancient times?? The LOTR trology - set in the pre historical past of Middle Earth - cannot become "dated" --

LOTR was viewed by Tolkien as a deeply Catholic work despite its evident lack of overt Christianity. From what I've read he set it before the spread of Christianity in England specifically to avoid the inevitable reference. He wanted to avoid any possible trappings of allegory. It was only in the editing that he viewed the work as Catholic. But really what was genius was that anyone from any religious or moral perspective could read and enjoy the story and reflect what it meant from their own world view. He viewed it as Catholic because he was. Catholicism and Christianity certainly holds no exclusive claim on morality. Frodo's journey is far more human, despite being the most likely to succeed in carrying the ring. It is too great a burden even for the purest of heart. Tolkien makes more of a statement about how difficult the lure of power is for all really.

I think too that LOTR is far more adult, not in content but in complexity. My children read it though when they were young, so perhaps I am wrong on this account. Time will tell with HP, I certainly think it stands as good a chance as anything recently published to stand the test of time. I love it for many reasons, but I don't think it is quite in the same calibre as LOTR.

I don't think it was all that ambiguous. The reason the evil character was able to cover the failure of the good character is that Frodo pitied Gollum at the Emym Muil and decided not to kill him; even Sam had a chance to kill him, just outside the Sammath Naur, and didn't do it; so, the act of the evil character saving the Quest was allowed by the mercy of the good characters.

I like the difference between the two heros (or perhaps their mentors) better. When Frodo asked Gandalf the "why me" question, Gandalf told him "you may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess;" Dumbledore kept telling Harry that he was special.

I keep seeing that apparent quote being bandied about here, and it was my understanding that this was possibly taken from a radio interview. Does anyone have a contextual cite for this quote, as it seems to make much more sense if he were to have said this using the lower-case "c", meaning, "of broad or liberal scope, wide-ranging" or similar, rather than with the upper-case "C", meaning "of or belonging to the Catholic Church". Can anyone explain how LOTR is supposed to be specifically "Catholic", meaning "of the Catholic Church", in lieu of a contextual cite?

One of the things I find fascinating about Tolkien the man - is his religious faith. He was born only 60 years after Catholic emancipation in the UK - an emancipation resisted so strongly that there were riots and the Scots threatened to quit the Union over it. Even now one will periodically see remarks in the press etc that it is okay to be Catholic in England as long as one is discrete about it - so here is this man - at Oxford - who lives in a seriously anti Catholic society - and works in an environment where he surely would have been a religious minority. It seems to me - in such an environment - one would either become a lapsed Catholic and gravitate over to the anglo- catholic branch of Anglicanism - or become very steadfast in one's faith. It is clear he chose the later from his remarks. So I would think that matters of his faith would surely inform his work - but I say again - he hated allegory - and I suspect that his remark - which I believe was made to a Jesuit friend - was about catholic with a capital "C:" - but that it is Catholic in the sense of his view of the human condition and the journey each soul takes - not a item for item sort of allegory such as lembas symbolizes the eucharist etc. Obviously - there have been dozens of books over the years saying that lembas does symbolize the eucharist etc - LOL - it is very hard for me to imagine that Tolkien deliberately used such symbolism - given his arguements with his dear friend CS Lewis over what Tolkien saw as heavy handed allegory in Narnia.

I find Tolkien's notion that myth and fantasy teach us more about reality than science to also be fascinating -

The quote is taken from Letter 142 to Robert Murray SJ:

ETA: I didn't see cobhome's explanation while I was searching for the quote in context. I have been reading his letters and he was indeed as cobhome states devoutly Catholic. I think cobhome has an interesting understanding of his unique situation being Catholic at Oxford. He seems to attribute much to his mother's conversion and being raised under the guardianship of devout Catholics as well. It seems there was some awareness of symbolism that resulted from his Catholic worldview in the editing process, like he says it was unconscious at first. He sees the beauty of Galadriel as inspired by Mary but no other real correlation. He is really remarkable in his dedication to myth, he seems to dislike science and rationality as much as he dislikes allegory. His letters are really fascinating.

Luna'sC, does this exchange of letters include Robert Murray's communiques to JRRT as well? I'm interested in full context here -- the full context of the conversation.

It includes a synopsis of Murray's letter that Tolkien appears to be responding to. Murray had read galley-proofs of LotR and had at Tolkien's instigation sent comments and criticism. He wrote that the book left him with a strong sense of the order of Grace and compared the image of Galadriel to the Virgin Mary. He doubted whether critics would be able to make much of the book since, "they will not have a pigeon-hole neatly labeled for it." Tolkien agreed and seemed concerned about critical and public reaction saying, "I have exposed my heart to be shot at." Much of the letter is a friendly exchange that has less to do with LOTR. I think you get a sense of Tolkien's Catholic connection to LOTR through several letters.

.
I have always thought Tolkien - the older Tolkien - looked like he could have been Gandalf!- so - we can be sure JKR does not look like Dumbledore.

Thanks for your post Luna - very interesting. I quoted above because I think part - if not the most important- element of LOTR is that it has been scoured of any trace of contemporary life - so that all is left is this powerful tale of the struggle to do right - the setting of the story in pre history - the absence of religious symbolism that is overtly attached to any particular faith - the absence of any overt political agenda -leaves us with only the elements of good and evil - and how people cope with this. When a book has a creed or ideology attached to it - as in republican /democrat - liberal/conservative/secular/religious et.al. - people from both sides of those fences argue out their differences over the story - which obscures the message of the story. In LOTR the themes of struggle to defeat evil ( even within ourselves) take the fore - and the power of the story and its themes is not obscured by such debates. Anyone of any belief system can read the story and claim it for their own - which - brings us as a people to a deeper understanding of our common humanity irrespsective of one's belief system. LOTR is a very ambitious work - and is amazingly successful in its ambitions.

It is obvious though that no artist can seperate who they are from what they create.

We are after all - speaking of LOTR and HP - I would say also - that the way myth is treated in LOTR is different than in HP. Tolkien sees myth as emerging from deep human instincts about what we fear - what we value. Hence his belief that myth tells us more about ourselves than science. In creating an english language myth - he believed he was doing a service for the english speaking people - since they lacked a great myth (Beowulf being norse in origin and the Mabinoggian being celtic). He saw myth as having a unifying power for people and also serving the purpose of teaching us that which we already - in our deepest selves - knew. The presence of myth in HP seems not to be for such a purpose and seems to be used in some cases - as a reflection of JKR's sense of humor, a way to tell us more about a character and also as a clue to her own beliefs. She did not I think - attempt to create a myth.

The use of rational versus irrational - and Tolkien's rejection of the "rational" is confusing I think to many people - an example - I posted that Harry was irrational - and people interpreted that as meaning I thought Harry was crazy. This is a common misunderstanding of the terms and just shows how much the "irrational" has been devalued and the "rational" valued. Contemporary science is based on empiricism - a rational system of how we can know so of course Tolkien rejected that. In Tolien's use of those words - they both refer to a way of knowing - what is valid information. Rational believes only that which we can see touch feel measure is knowable - the only legitimate source of knowing. Irrational refers to a system which excepts other sources of knowing - revelation - prophecy - intuition - conscience - instinct. Contemporary western society is "rational" hence our suspicion of things like faith - prophecy etc. The ancient celts were irrational. And of course - in both LOTR and HP - we see the irrational being perceived as a valid source of info - Harry acts on instinct - ergo - he is irrational. It is interesting - and I think supports Tolkien's beliefs about the power of myth - that both of these two books which value the "irrationaL" have been so resonant to people who are supposedly "rational".

If all discussion could be couched in a Tolkien myth the world be at least more civil, I think. He was really brilliant in his ability to strip a story to the bare bones and focus only on the story, the rest does take care of itself. I remember in grad school reading that Jesus was one of the finest examples of Eriksonian hypnosis because he rarely preached; instead relied on stories to relay his message. There is great truth in the barriers and defenses that are broken down when you are focused on a really good story. Tolkein removed all the trappings that cause barriers to go back up. He wasn't trying to teach about Catholicism or make a political statement, he had no other agenda but to tell a great story. That he accomplished this, allows the reader to gain some insight, reflect on the meaning of what has happened in the story and relate it in terms of their own world view, or they could just enjoy the story for the sake of the story.

I think JKR does a great job of telling a story but it is not myth as Tolkien described it. I think that she created this credible world that existed right under the noses of muggle society was the strength of her storytelling. You can also see where the modern setting creates conflicts as well. I think your explanation of rational and irrational in Tolkien terms is exactly what I have been reading. It is a step away from our very rational world and I suspect you are right that the attraction may lie in both authors valuing the irrational.

well yes - except of course for the orcs - not terribly civil the orcs.




well he did want very much to create an english mythology - but yes - we agree on this - the story is an unambiguous message - unweighted by peoples prejudices for or against a particular belief system. And of course - speaking as he was to an English audience - it would have been particularly important that this story was not overtly Catholic. Although I do not believe that necessarily influenced him.



Oh yes - I so agree that the contemporary setting gives the HP series so much of its appeal - especially since the wizarding society is not all together so contemporary - so you have the charm and novelty of dragons castles and peculiarly dressed wizards/witches - set against the contemporary setting. I find things like the notion of a train platform - in a very modern train station setting - that is magically enchanted to be so delightful - those sort of touches really make the series. I am not likely to ever end up in Tolkien's Rivendell - but I sure do wonder now when I enter a train station.

Yes, the orcs were a mess, forgot about them. You are also correct about the mythology for Britain, I think I meant that he wasn't preaching Christianity or anything else really, just focusing on the good vs evil element in the world he created. I did really think he tried to remove Catholicism as an element. I am guessing not solely for his British audience, though that is a valid point. It seems that he really wanted the story free of any distraction that pulled the reader out of the world within the story.

To some degree I think JKR succeeds here as well. I remember my son, who was probably 6 or 7 when we read SSPS, thinking he was definitely going to get a letter from Hogwarts. She did make it seem possible, as you suggested that there is another platform at our local train station. I think that she found the movie sets to be so like what she had pictured in her head for all those years was a testament to her ability to describe her magical world. Hogwarts in the movie was very much like I imagined it.

when the now 11 yr old started the series - she wanted to know if she could go to Hogwarts - and I did not want to destroy her sense of wonder about the story - but I didn't want to lie to her either - so I told her if we could find Hogwarts - she could go there. LOL - we're still looking. Is your son still waiting for his letter?

No, he's 13 now and has figured it's not coming. That was a very clever answer. I said well the chances are not too good since Dad and I are muggles. JKR had herself covered on that one. So I ended up saying if we a get a letter then we'll have to let you go. He had a phase where he thought he was the real batman too, so I figured I would just wait it out. I always wondered where he thought we kept the batcave though.

Quite a few years ago, I read The Hobbit to my grand daughter. As we read, she traced out the route of the journey on a map of Middle Earth in red ink. Today, at eleven, she is a voracious reader. When we started reading Harry Potter several years ago, my sister in law started sending her post cards and letters from Hogwarts, letters from Hermione and Dumbledore.

She never waited for a letter inviting her to Hogwarts. One day she told me that Dumbledore had been squashed by a troll and that while he was recovering, she had been asked to take over his job as Headmaster. One of the first things she did was to send a letter to "Fern-Larkin" a young Hobbit, inviting her to become the first Hobbit ever to attend Hogwarts. Then she changed the Hogwarts curriculum, requiring all students to take swimming and piano lessons. She has woven a wonderful web of alternate stories with new characters, blending in all her favorite books.

She's not ready yet to read LOTR--her choice, not mine. When she is, I am looking forward to what she does with it.

Keep reading to the kids!

wow - that is great - let us know what LOTR inspires her to do -

I used to put notes from the Brambly Hedge characters into the girls lunchboxes when they went to school - the teacher - told me I was making it more difficult for them to adapt to school by putting such notes in - she said I was reminding that "home" was more fun than school.

I find The Lord of the Rings to be a superior work to Harry Potter, though I greatly enjoy both. The wizarding world is probably the second most fully-realized world in literature after Middle-earth. The themes and the emotion in LOTR are stronger for me personally, but when it comes to just wanting something entertaining to read, I would probably take Harry Potter off the shelf. LOTR for me is a very special story, and it's something I only want to read once annually, but I could probably read a Harry Potter book anytime.

As for the films, I find the Lord of the Rings to be an absolute masterpiece in filmmaking, everything from the sheer emotional core to the cinematography, the production design to the acting. In my opinion, it surpasses the Harry Potter books and films. It takes advantage of that fact that is IS a film, something the first two Harry Potter films really didn't. LOTR may not have been a literal adaptation, not word for word, but it captured the spirit and the wonderful heart of the books, never cancelling the emotional quality out of anything. There are qualitative fans and quantitative fans (many purists), and I believe that qualitative fans understand their subject matter better. They understand the spirit of the story, what's it about, what it all means. The others want absolutely nothing changed, and they often focus so much on every detail that they lose sight of the larger picture.

The Harry Potter films, I feel, often lose the heart that the books have. Be artful all you want, but that doesn't make up for some of the wonderful character moments in the books. The films would be better if they tried to capture the feelings many of us readers felt when reading certain moments in the book; in other words, trying to match the emotions.

Having Harry Potter set in a modern world probably contributed to its appeal. I also think the wonderful in-depth characters, the quirky inventions, the sense of humor, and the touches of mystery added something as well. I never thought Jo's strongpoint was in emotional writing, but at least she attempts to add that in, and that is SO important to any writing. It is often a wonder how complexly Jo weaves in plotpoints to create mysteries and then solve them (I really missed a grand example of this in DH). I think the Harry Potter series will always be known as a cultural phenomenon, but not necessarily a groundbreaking literary series (perhaps for the massive fandom, but I don't think so for its actual content) because it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. It's still massively enjoyable, though.

Was Rereading Hp & the HBP and noticed a little simarlarity between where gollum lived with the one ring and where Voldemort kept his locket horocrux. An underground cave Subterrainian lake, island in the middle. Or is that just me!

It's not just you--nor is it just Rowling and Tolkien. Such descents into darkness and confrontation with the creature who lives there are common in literature, from Theseus and the Minotaur to Pinocchio and Monstro the Whale. JKR also used the pattern in Book One with Harry going into the Labyrinth to save the Stone and in Book Two to save Ginny. In the darkness within us all dwell both the greatest monsters and the most precious things.

Do you mind if I show this to my daughters, all five of whom have done route tracing through Middle Earth with me. I started with each of them at a very tender age, telling them as much of the story of LotR as I thought they were respectively ready to handle. As they grew older, we read the trilogy aloud at bedttime. We would read for hours! They laugh at me now, although four of them have now read The Hobbit and LotR cover to cover in their own right, and all have read all of Harry Potter!


I agree, starlesswinter. I think LotR is, in general, the superior work. However, despite at least 20 complete readings of LotR, I have never felt as passionately about the characters as I do Rowling's. Harry Potter characters have touched me on a more personal level. Maybe it's because JKR killed off a lot more people that I cared about than did Tolkien! LOL! Did I feel for Sam and Frodo? Yes! But for some reason, I love Harry, Ron and Hermione.

This comes from a guy who refused to read Harry Potter at first, because I believed it to be a cheap rip-off of LotR.

Strangely, I feel closer to the Harry Potter characters in the books than I do LOTR characters in the books. But it's the opposite with the films. The character development in the LOTR films is very strong, but with Harry Potter...not so much.

I agree about LOTR being the superior work.

I also have a great affection for JKR's characters. I think maybe it's because they are more accessible. It's a little easier to relate to an angsty teenage kid living in the same world we do (for most of the year at least), than to a 3000 year old elf, dwelling in the golden trees of Lothlorien.

Yes, I feel much the same. However, I finally came to feel strongly for Harry in the movie of Order of the Phoenix. Dan's acting has improved so much, while Emma's seems to have slipped backward.

I joked on another thread that I'd love to see Peter Jackson direct Deathly Hallows! Yes, I know he's from New Zealand! LOL!

I thoroughly enjoy Harry Potter and the world created by Jo Rowling. It's brilliant, and fun, and a great vehicle for so many of the points JKR wanted to make about free will and tolerance, and the nature of evil. But, as an academic/intellectual achievement, Tolkien's work is much superior, in my opinion. As others have noted, Tolkien's work wasn't published in the midst of the maelstrom of public adoration, and he put it forward when he was satisfied with it. He also had the luxury of being a tenured professor, rather than being a single mother who needed income when this all started.

My main surprise with Deathly Hallows was, however, with how quickly JKR brought it to market. I think the final installment felt rushed to its conclusion, whereas Lord of the Rings most certainly did not. Given that JKR is apparently among the richest of all Britains, there was no financial pressure to finish this work. That does not mean that she didn't feel pressure. I suspect there was a lot of "the horse returning to the barn" in the production of Deathly Hallows.

I've had some fairly serious health issues, all of which seem to have resolved favorably, but I admit to wanting desperately for JKR to finish the seventh book while I was around to read it! Now, I wish there had been so much more in the last book! Some fans, meaning Tom Bombadil, just can't be pleased!

Hope you're better now, Tom Bombadil

I definitely agree that the Harry Potter books are more character-centric than Lord of the Rings, although there are of course many memorable characters in LOTR. LOTR is written in much higher prose, with a wider and more complex plot and more characters, so it was inevitable that there would not be less time spent on the characters themselves and their feelings. If there had, LOTR would probably be another thousand pages long! JKR is also writing about recognisable, modern characters who have come from a similar background to us, at least in Harry's case, so we naturally can empathise with them more. It's also written across a period of time during which people grow up and their characters are defined, so we watch them getting older and get fonder of them as we spend more time with them.

On the other hand, JKR is writing for quite a difficult audience, of young people primarily, so she doesn't have the liberty to write as much as she wants using all the vocabulary, devices and issues she wantes to. JRRT, on the other hand, was free to write however much he wanted, and the fact that he wrote as much and in as much detail as he did is one of the things that makes LOTR the amazing fantasy masterpiece that it is. Oh, and incidentally, I love Pippin.

OK, I've just looked back on that and I have no idea what I was intending to say, but it made sense while I was typing it!

Glad also that your health issues have been resolved.

Yes the book did feel rushed to me. As much as I was looking forward to reading it, I could have waited for a better result.

Tolkien did not have to contend with publishers and fans clamoring for the next installment. He did not have internet fan sites to contend with either ( I suspect the fan sites also influenced some of DH).

The LOTR is the only book where I enjoyed the footnotes and appendices almost as much as the story. The LOTR world is more fully realized than HP's and certainly that contributes to the richness of LOTR. But there is an element of comparing apples to pears here as Tolkien had very different intentions in writing his story than (I suspect) JKR had.

I believe JKR has said she did not read LOTR and it seemed she was not that enthused about it. However, there are certainly many elements of HP that seem derived or inspired by elements of LOTR.

Very interesting discussion. I agree with the general themes of the recent posts: LOTR is the superior epic work, but the main characters in HP are more accessible/easier to relate to. Partly this is due to the contemporary "real world" setting. Another key is the fact that The Trio are adolescents, still "under construction" throughout the series. Perhaps the biggest factor, though, is the mere fact that LOTR is an epic myth, while HP is not.

Tolkien's main characters (Frodo, Sam, Aragorn and Gandalf) have to serve both his epic storyline and the requirements of myth. Their crises and their temptations must therefore be of a more generic nature, which limits their individuality just a bit.

He explores individual, internal character more fully in his "supporting cast", especially Gollum, Gimli, Merry and Pippin. The Smeagol/Gollum struggle is one of the few highlights of Frodo's and Sam's journey (much like Ron's departure and return in The Endless Camping Trip!). Gimli's journey from dour and cynical to enchanted and enchanting is truly magical, as the formerly taciturn dwarf develops the ability to spin words into gold and the sensibility to value that gold above any other treasure. Both Merry and Pippin (like Ron) begin the quest out of friendship, without a real understanding of what they are getting into. Each in their own individual way, they both have to confront their own lack of confidence, and the lack of confidence of others in them. The development of their characters is the most similar to HP and their characters are perhaps the easiest to relate to in LOTR.

More to say about books versus movies in both HP and LOTR but I have to run right now, so will try to post again later.

Also, the Lord of the Rings films, in my opinion, are far more emotional than Harry Potter. They take advantage of the fact that they are films, providing wonderful, moving, dramatic montages (based on a collection of things from the books) like "Where is the Horse and the Rider?" poem, the families being separated before battle, Arwen's vision of Aragorn's death (absolutely beautiful filmmaking and writing), Pippin singing over images of Faramir riding into battle (probably the best edited scene in the whole trilogy), etc... while also providing emotional climaxes rather than simply increasing the excitement and action. In my opinion, the films are stronger than both the HP films and books. I never thought emotion was Jo's greatest strength, but I really appreciate that she writes it in, and it's probably better than Tolkien writes it. I just happen to think that Peter Jackson took it to a great level. While Tolkien focuses mostly on the story plot, Jackson brought the characters' feelings to the front of the story to ride alongside the plot.

I don't think good characterization necessarily has to come from being able to relate to the character (I can't relate to Gollum, but his characterization is the strongest in LOTR, and I feel both pity and hatred for him). Like I said, when it comes to the books, I feel more for the Harry Potter characters. Harry Potter is more accessible and more loosely written, which makes it easier to read. While Tolkien isn't hard to understand or read like many older works, it is more difficult to read than Harry Potter. And reading LOTR is like an event for me. Once a year, every year, and that's special for me. The magic is still there. But I could pick up Harry Potter and read it anytime. Unfortunately I was disappointed with DH (though it was still enjoyable), and the magic of HP isn't as affecting for me anymore. Harry Potter is simply a very enjoyable read and is a great example of wonderful storytelling.

starlesswinter I agree that one doesn't have to "relate" to a character to feel their development in a meaningful way. I used that phrase about Merry and Pippin because their characters represent "every man" in LOTR. Actually, maybe I should say "every child", considering how they always want to know how much longer and when (and what!) they're going to eat!

Gollum, on the other hand, is completely fascinating without being "relatable" at all. Here's an instance where JRRT shows more than one dimension, while JKR does not, in a similar character. I never felt an ounce of pity for Pettigrew, not because he's any "worse" than Gollum, but because we never see any internal struggle in him. (Not that we have to - he's not important enough to have that struggle take place "on screen".)

I agree with most here that, in the films, LOTR delivers more in the way of emotional impact and character development than HP. The first two HP movies were too much of an homage to the books, while GOF in particular sacrificed character for special effects. My favorite of the movies is POA, where I think Alfonzo Cuaron did an excellent job in creating a darker emotional tone poem, while still serving the storyline. OoTP continued in that vein, though I think not quite as well. And, of course, later HP movies suffer a great deal from the loss of Richard Harris. I'm really worried about HBP, which is one of my favorite books. DD's role here is critical and I just don't feel that Michael Gambon will be credible.

Back to the books again: It's easy just to curl up with any one of the Potter books on a rainy Saturday afternoon. They're comfortable and instantly accessible, as well as being immensely enjoyable. I have to plan my excursions to Middle Earth though, because I know I'm going all the way from the Prologue to the Appendices before I'm done. What a great journey though!

What I think makes LOTR a far superior story is that it is much more believable. There were some fortunate incidents in that story too such as the orcs all killing each other in Cirith Ungol or Grishnakh carrying Merry and Pipin out of harms way; however, it is easier to cover those relatively rare occurences with suspension of disbelief than it is in the Harry Potter story.

Before Deathly Hallows, I would have wagered (and lost) a fair amount of money that Harry would re-think his plan to drop out of school for reasons that eventually occured to Ron. All they were doing on that extended camping trip was discussing the possible location of a horcurx, and if Harry and Hermione had not been on the wanted list they could have done that in the Gryffindor common room, covered by a Muffliato spell, or in Charms class where the frequently had the more important discussions.

But how can we believe that? Afer Voldemort was seen in the Ministry of Magic even The Daily Prophet admitted that Harry had been telling the truth, then, a year later, they try an even more outlandish smear campaign. Harry Potter implicated in the murder of Albus Dumbledore? Are they Serious? I doubt Crabbe of Goyle would have believed that even if they weren't involved in smuggling the Death Eaters in.

Perhaps the difference is what Xeno Lovegood said about childrens stories being told to amuse rather than instruct. But The Hobbit is a childrens story too and that is more believable than this one.

What I think makes LOTR a far superior story is that it is much more believable.

agree - excellent point - it isn't to my mind that the magical occurences in either story are unbelieveable - it is wheither or not things are likely to occur - and there are to my mind - more things unlikely to occur in HP than in LOTR. But again - Tolkien had a lot of time to comb through his story - in some respects - one wonders if DH especially - wasn't a bit rushed to satisfy the demand hence some of the implausible events.

I must say - after reading GoF with the then 10 yr old - she loved the story - but could not understand why Barty Crouch didn't just make Harry's cloak or one of his school books a port key and zip him off to Voldemort that way instead of all this fuss over the tri wizard tournament.

Tolkien's first several chapters of his trilogy were handed to an 8 year old child of a publisher of children's books - who immediately demanded more. Thus in the 1950s, this was the extent of review Tolkien experienced - A very different story for JKR!!

Harry Potter is set in the 1940s - present; while in LotR, Isildur defeats Sauron before the end of the 2nd Age of Middle Earth (Gollum keeps the Ring for half a millenium; Bilbo for 60 years; and Frodo for at least another 17-20?).

Both series are based upon the authors' experiences; however, Tolkien's losses in WWI (along with those of his friend C.S.Lewis) and along with his prominent position as Professor at Oxford build a tremendous argument in favor of his "Life's Work". The Potter series, developing from a completely different set of circumstances, in many ways far eclipses the Tolkien trilogy.

Both authors are known linguists. Tolkien created 2 versions of "Elvish". Rowling has an uncanny feel for Latin (my guess - that it is much older than her years in France and teaching French). Religion: Tolkien, Roman Catholic; Rowling, Kirk of Scotland?

Better Read? Harry's right up Diagon Alley. Frodo's lost with Tom Bombadil. (You try saying either Lothlorien or thestral with an American Southern accent - imagine Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn using the flu network!!).

A Final Suggestion: Try reading Tolkien and JKR at the same time (late at night)! (Hagrid battling a Balrog in the Mines of Moria - Saruman leading an attack of 10,000 Uruk-Hai against the Chudley Cannons in Bristol!)

My understanding is that she's a Classicist, so I'd expect her to be knowledgeable in at least Latin, and she's got a fairly impressive knowledge of mythology of the Greeks and Romans. Her French may be knowledge she aquired alongside her later Latin studies. One of my classmates in High School took French before she switched to Latin, and she had an easy time transitioning from French to Latin. Since Latin is the mother language of French, it's reasonable to assume that her feel for French took a little adjusting but the vernacular wasn't as difficult to grasp with her Latin base. Romance Languages can be easy to go between as long as you know the root of the word in its mother language. Although, I'm probably just saying that because I'm one of those Latin people and teachers encourage learning a Romance Language alongside.

I'm trying to imagine that an alternitave scenario played out, how that would have affected the overall plot of GoF. The cloak might be harder to aquire, he'd have to have fairly like skills to pull off making one of his books a port key, and I wonder what his stealth is like after all these years, having been locked up. Hmmm.... do I see a possible AU fan fiction plot bunny?

On another note, borrowing from a post I made elsewhere:
I was looking around the Harry Potter thread on a Lord of the Rings message board, and there were people complaining that horcruxes are a rip off of the One Ring in Lord of the Rings. Now, granted these are two different artifacts, but there are a *few* similarities, but i don't think there are enough similarities to argue a cheap rip off. Comments?

That "horcrux" illusion is a dead ringer. But not too far from the Mark (of Rohan). What about this comparison?

"Parseltongue and the Language of Mordor"

Although Parseltonge is understood by very few, it is still heard when uttered. Harry did not realize he was speaking a different language. (Very embarrassing when that happens.) Yet his experiences speaking and hearing/understanding it show no intent of secrecy, incitement (at least on his part), or intentional misguidance.

The language of Mordor seems to be a form of Elvish; yet there are few who can read/understand(?) it. What languages do the orcs speak? Sauron speaks it through the ring and through the palantier. Saruman speaks it freely; and of course Gandalf has a full knowledge of it - as well as an ability to use it (not just speak it). Elrond and Gandalf both see the potential of this language to cause great ruin.

In Short (without the intervention of allegory): the words of both Parseltongue and Mordor may have the capacity to communicate very clear messages, while striking fear in others close enough to hear.

(Mordor = "mar"/"bitter" + "dor"/"generation")

Comments?

Just to clarify - neither Rowlings nor Tolkien were linguists. Tolkien was a philologist - specifically a specialist in anglo-saxon. there is a difference between liguistics and philology and it is clear his scholarly career as a philologist prepared him well to create the world of middle earth Philology is not just the study of language - it includes the study of history, literature,critical traditions of any language, myth, grammar and the interpretation of those who wrote in a language. It is about the origin of words.

Linguistics is the scientific study of language - it includes phonetics semantics etc.

JKR has a BA in French and classics. She is not a linguist. One would think a classics degree would require a fairly solid grounding in both Greek and Latin. It seems to me - her enjoyment of the ancient Roamsn is quite obvious.

Oh yeah - Hagird and Gimli do need to meet!!!



I agree there are some similarities but I would not describe it as a "rip off". The horacruxes are created to assure Voldemort immortality. The rings are created to assure - that one ring can rule them all. The horacrux does not rule anyone - I think the best you could say is that the horacrux is mildly derivative of the ring concept - just as the DE's are mildly derivative of the ringwraiths. Didn't JKR say she had not read the full trilogy??

Thank you for the clarification. It is much appreciated. - ELC

I agree with cobhome here, that the purpose of the ring and of the horacruxes are different, so they're magic items, yes, but not the same.

I like both authors but I lean more towards Tolkien. He has created a whole history where JKR has barely scratched the surface in her world. The Silmarillion, The Lost Tales etc keep adding to Tolkiens world the rich history of the Kings of Numenor the great timeline he gives us. JKR has left alot of things open ended and hopefully the encyclopedia will end all conjecture on alot of the tales i.e the Marauders, Family Histories etc. Hopefully given a certain amount of time JKR will resolve these issues for readers.

This theme is common throughout literature and particularly fantasy. It's also based on legend and folk tales. Sir James G. Frazier devotes a whole chapter to this external soul in his book The Golden Bough (1892).

As for Tolkien, he is by far the superior. Hands down. He invented Elvish, but he based Sindarin on one of the Welsh forms (probably P or Brythonic), and Quenya either on Q Celtic or Finnish.

I believe the professor based Quenya on a dying form of Finnish.

Sindarin is Welsh-based, because Tolkien always liked Welsh. Quenya is Finnish-based because, luckily for Tolkien, one of the first widely published Finnish grammar books in English made its appearance just around that time. At least, that's what my sources say.

Happy Hobbit day, btw.

I believe that the authors' experiences add a great deal to the thematic and illustrative nature of the books. Isn't Harry Potter much more frank, candid; relating very well to today's young (and older) readers? "Give it here," Harry called, "or I'll knock you off that broom!" (HP SS, p. 149) -- Way to go, Harry!

'I wish I had known all this before,' said Pippin. 'I had no notion of what I was doing.' 'Oh yes, you had,' said Gandalf. 'You knew you were behaving wrongly and foolishly; . . . No, the burned hand teaches best. After that advice about fire goes to the heart.' (LotR TT Ballantine Books 1994, Christopher R. Tolkien , et al, p. 226) -- Spare the rod, Gandalf?

That's not the way I read Gandalf's line, Ex Libres Cogito, I understood Gandalf to be stating that no matter how often you tell a child not to touch the stove, they will eventually do it. After feeling that pain the child will understand why you said no, and will heed your advice more readily... at least until the teenage years.

Isn't Gandalf saying there that there are some things which must be learned/taught on your own?

I appreciate your perspective, Boosh, and I am still fearful of those teenage years (although they approach so quickly!). But the character of Gandalf in LotR seems to assume a parental role; one that is perhaps accepted by most of the Fellowship (with exceptions from Boromir, and maybe Gimli). Why would this be the case?

In contrast, Harry's parents were murdered 16 (now 26?) years ago. Sirius by right should have become "father" (not just guardian). U.V. and A.P. want nothing to do with him. Where is the parental figure in the HP series?

Certainly Mr. & Mrs. Weasley have done much to fill that role. They are nurturing and protective. I still think Pr. DD has been an excelent role model for Harry, and a confidant. Even like a parent at times. I even think Pr. McG. (I keep forgetting how to spell her name correctly) is in a way "like a mother" to him.

Even still, I don't think Harry is meant to have a true parental figure in his life. And I believe that this is a significant theme in HP. Hobbiton and Rivendale have rules. Rohan is just as strict. -- yet somehow, the wisdom of Gandalf (like the care of a mother eagle) is by nature present (especially when needed most).

I would not call it a cheap rip off, but there is undeniably a huge similarity between the effect especially the locket in HP vs the ring in LOTR has on the wearer. Dragging people down and affecting their thoughts, making them jealous etc.

Generally, I agree with what many of you have already said above. LOTR is the more coherent story and is superior in many ways; however, the characters in HP come closer, they affect me in a more personal way.

Btw I'm watching the extended dvd-version of LOTR (seen parts 1 and 2 so far) and I like it even better with the extended scenes - more background and a bit more humour as contrast to all the grim war scenes.

JKR didn't rip this off from Tolkien. The concept of the external soul and magical objects that contain the soul is very, very old. Sir James George Frazer's The Golden Bough, published in 1890, makes that very plain. It's a motif that is found all over the world, in most cultures, both ancient and modern. (Frazer is kind of the predecessor to Joseph Campbell.)

There are also several stories before HP that utilize this concept. Lloyd Alexander's The Prydain Chronicles is but one of them.

Yes, Ari...could this be how Tolkien meant that LOTR was a very catholic work?

Well, and the Peverell Ring may have acted similarly on Dumbledore as well. He could not resist the temptation to put the darned thing on. Don't you think it likely that the ring worked its way into his subconcious, the same way the Locket affected everyone who wore it? I think someone on the Christian symbolism board made this point, and it is a good one. To extend the parallel further: like Frodo who succumbed to the temptation at the crucial moment and put the ring on, claiming it for his own, Dumbledore sustains an injury to the hand that wore the ring--AND like Frodo, lived under a sort of suspended death sentence from that time on. The manner of their "deaths" of course differ, but I think there really is a likeness.

Nor a rip-off of LOTR, certainly. JKR handles her story very differently. Both brilliant, and I love them both.