Lord of the Rings vs. Harry Potter

[HobbitFriend]

So many times Harry Potter has been compared and contrasted to The Lord of the Rings. Some people say they're mainly the same! Others quite disagree....

What are your thoughts and opinions on this subject?

I, personally, am one of the people who find them to be quite different. My main argument is this: LotR has that deep, moral lesson behind it about using one's own good to conquer evil, and it strongly states that evil cannot be overcome by its own crafts. HP totally contradicts that idea and uses some of the same crafts as evil (Voldermort) to defeat him.

Now, i'm sure there are many Harry Potter fans who would disagree with me, but go ahead! I love a great discussion! :cool:

[Ereinion]

I love the HP books,and i find them to be full of action and surprises,but i also believe that there is no more than 5 original ideas there. HP similarity to LOTR can't be coincedential - here are some examples:
Aragog-Aragorn, Buterbeer - Butterbur, Nevil Longbottom whose interested in herbology - Longbottom leaf, Potter - Baggins (it even sounds alike),the giant spiders are in both COS and The Hobbit, and lets not forget The Dark Lord himself - who'se alive and hiding somewhere (may i suggest The Dark Forest? or perhaps Mirkwood?)

[Bonos-Girl]

I love both sets of books....but i dont think you can compare them fairly really....HP is more geared towards kids and stuff whereas LOTR uses more complex language and is sometimes therfore hard to read.

[Undomiel]

I agree with Ereinion that JK Rowling has obviously taken ideas from LOTR, but it's mainly names and characters rather than actualy plot details. For example the dementors sound uncannily like the Ringwraiths and in LOTR the people of Gondor do not name Sauron in a similar fashion to the wizards. However for me the similarities so not follow much further. I love the HP books though not the films i have to say, but they are a lot less developped when compared to LOTR. They aren't fantastically written but somehow the whole story comes together to be a great one. In comparison LOTR is far more mature with far greater detail and a higher quality of writing. I'm not trying to diss HP, i really love the books, cant wait for the next one in fact, but all the same i think LOTR is a far more mature and envelopping read. I feel drawn into the world of LOTR, whereas i'm slightly more indifferent about HP although i enjoy them very much, they dont hold the same fascination.

[HobbitFriend]

I did notice things such as the "Longbottom" similarity and such... and i do believe that Rowling took ideas from LotR (although, i don't see the similariy between Potter and Baggins -- but that doesn't have to do with anything)... And i really do think that Rowling is a great writer. She can really get the reader into her books. The part that i don't like, or find rather contradicting is the message behind the two books. And i've already stated one of the reasons before. LotR just has so many good values, and messages, such as mercy: when Frodo lets Saruman live even though he has every reason to let him die. You don't really find much of those strong values in HP...

[Woodland Gal]

yea i noticed the longbottom thing too lol, neville longbottom and long bottom pipe weed or somthing lol...and shelob ..aragog

[Bonos-Girl]

i really noticed the not naming of the main enemy and the similarities between the wrai5ths and dememntors. aragog sounds kinda like aragorn as well....

[Woodland Gal]

yea i got those little things as well...o well

[BeardofPants]

Interesting, because as far as I know (and I could be wrong) JK Rowling hadn't read LOTR when she wrote Harry Potter.

[Ereinion]

lol Offcourse she would say it.....It's her alibi.....

[YayBoromir!]

I don't mean to offend anyone here but I don't like HP at all...it just gets on my nerves for some reason. LoTR rules! I have also noticed the similarity of some of the names, but I don't think it is fair to accuse JK Rowling of copying as LoTR has been such an influence on all literature of that genre since it was written.

[Aravail]

yes i agree with all the ppl above who said that there are definitly some similarities, but i do think that JK Rowling read LOTR. they couldnt just be coinicidental, could they? i like LOTR a little more than HP b/c i think its geared towards older ppl, but i STILL cant wait to get my copy of HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX on saturday :grin::grin:

[Evenstar]

Originally posted by Bonos-Girl
I love both sets of books....but i dont think you can compare them fairly really....HP is more geared towards kids and stuff whereas LOTR uses more complex language and is sometimes therfore hard to read.
I think the hobbit was meant to be a kid's book, tho I don't think LotR was.

I'm sure JKrowling didn't copy lotr, but I expect ideas came into her head that would not have been there if she hadn't read LotR. I prefer LotR to Harry Potter, although I read HP first. I also think the films are way better in LotR. But I will still be up at 12 midnight getting my copy of order of the phoenix on Saturday! lol

and YB you are not offending anyone! everyones entitled to their opinion. :)

[Undomiel]

LOTR will always win for me for the reasons i wrote above and also because in general i prefer the story. They're different when it comes to plot and i much prefer the LOTR plot. However, i am eagerly anticipating Saturday when i get my hands on the newest edition:grin: That will be pretty great i reckon. All these rumours about a cantral character dying :( i wounder who it is??? (If anyone knows DONT tell me!!! I want to be kept in suspense!!!)

[HobbitFriend]

Originally posted by Evenstar
and YB you are not offending anyone! everyones entitled to their opinion. :) definately :thumbs:
And really, she can't have that many similarities to LotR if she never read the books, come on now :rolleyes: But that doesn't mean she copied it (No, actually LotR is much better in my opinion ;) ). She might have gotten her basic ideas from it for HP, but she seems to have gone a different way with it.

[Estell]

She went a totally different way. I love both books and have written hundred-some page fanfics for each (yes, I admit it, I'm obsessed!) I will always have a fondness for HP because it was my first creative writing. I read Goblet of Fire and ended up finishing the series myself about a year ago. SHE TAKES TOO LONG!!! We (my friend and I) plagiarized Star Wars and gave him a hidden twin (hidden by Sirius, who else?) Yes, well, LOTR is just deeper. It's like comparing a rain puddle to the Baranduin river. ;-);)

[Aravail]

i got the fifth HP book this morning (:grin::grin::grin:) and im comig along bc im on chapter 11 and i cant wait to see who dies.... yes, lotr i deeper, like u said, Estell ;)

[Estell]

I made my friend read me the first chapter of #5 over the phone, and tell me what happens in the first few. I love Sirius' mother! roflmao As the bane of my own mother's existence, I can identify.:p

[Ereinion]

Sirius has a MOTHER?!?!?!?!?!?!? And the talk about her?!?!?!?!?

Cooool!!!!!

[Undomiel]

I finished the 5th book yesterday!!!! It was soooo good!!!1 I thoroughly enjoyed it. Although now i am suffering from HP withdrawal symptoms and i dont know what to do with my spare time!!!!

[Bonos-Girl]

re-read it...thats what i would do if i didn't have 6 pieces of coursework due next week (and i'm not exaggerating either!)

[HobbitFriend]

we're wandering a bit off topic here... :p has anyone discovered anything further to add to the discussion on the differences and similarities between The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter? :battle:

[Undomiel]

Well if anything, after the 5th book i would say that any similarites are fast disappearing not that i saw many plot similarities to start with i have to say. They have their merits both and LOTR particularly i feel. But they really are very different books, and i dont see any real way in which they can truly be compared. The subject matter when viewed critically just isnt the same even if people insist on placing them both in the fantsy genre.

PS BG-i've now finished exams so i have plenty of time on my hands. Glad to be rid of any form of work whatsoever.

[Periantari Andruil]

In terms of values, you can definitely extract more ideas and themes from LOTR...
granted, i like LOTR more, but i have read most of the HP series and enjoy it as well, but I definitely think that the two books cannot be compared...(though they have some simlarities)

JK Rowling specifically geared her writing for children, while JRR Tolkien thought that he was, but LOTR is definitely much more darker than the Hobbit and perhaps the first 3 books of HP
In addition to being more darker, it does have themes and messages in forms of their characters. The Professor has characters all embody or emulate some quality it seems... I remember reading somewhere that Frodo is kind of like a Christ-like figure and the the Ring can be thought of as a cross or something.....

Tolkien had many critics who thought of his work as allegorical which he insistently said wasn't, but Rowling's books are pure enjoyable fiction that truly doesn't have anything allegorical about it...

i can see some simlarities such as the main characters (Frodo and Harry) being an orphans and facing a Dark Lord, and someone mentioned the part of the dementators being similar to Ring-wraiths.....
but obviously being in the genre of fantasy, there are going to be overlaps in villains and the fight between good and evil.

I think LOTR is definitely a much more sophisticated read. The amount of detail Tolkien puts into his work is uncanny..he made up his own world with his own geography, people, language and history! Rowling's world is much more modern ... witches and wizards are the focus of the story and they have only a small vocabulary among them in which they conversed (only when saying a spell, for example)... and it doesn't seem as fantastical or relating to a fantasy world as Middle-Earth is....

Rowling also deals more with the feelings of adolescence... Harry Potter is in school and while dealing with his wizard powers, he also has to deal with school in which students in high school or middle school can relate to...

Frodo and the Fellowship is in a war against the Dark Lord ... and is in constant danger...there is no Dumbledore to protect them...


but bottomline, i think the two books are both great fantasy books, but one is definitely geared more towards children (HP), and the other to a broader audience, therefore the language in which it is written, characters and places introduced are beyond comparison partly because of the types of people each author was trying to reach.... although Tolkien started his intention on trying to achieve a sequel to the Hobbit, he created something grander in scale and drew his story from his mythology of Middle-Earth --the Silmarillion...(which is an even greater work by itself) =)

[HobbitFriend]

well said, Andruil! :thumbs:

I definately believe that they are both very different. The similarities at the beginning may indicate that both Tolkien and Rowling started off on the same idea: a fantasy story of good vs. evil, but you can clearly see that they both went their separate ways. You said how many critics like to call LotR an allegory, and you're right that Tolkien plainly stated he never intended it to be one. He did say, however, that it is "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." you can see many of the Christian underlays here: http://www.warofthering.net/forums/vbulletin225/upload/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4234
In HP, Rowling has a lot of witchcraft in there. Witches are usually looked upon or portrayed as evil, but in HP, she makes them seem good. Now, more and more people are becoming witches and getting into witchcraft, wicca and magick. Those usually are the people who get really into the books.... beyond the books... I mean look at Lord of the Rings: the idea for Dungeons and Dragons came from it, and Tolkien, being a Christian himself would probably have disapproved of it (no offense meant to anyone who play it). But seriously, i mean you really can't say that neither The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter or any really good and well-written book for that matter, have no deeper background. A great story is usually one that the author pours his or her whole self into... Therefore, Tolkien being a Catholic would have some of his beliefs in The Lord of the Rings, and Rowling obviously has some knowledge about witches if she writes about them (not making any assumptions that she is one herself though... don't trout me... ;) ).

But just because you read The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter doesn't mean that you're going to go right out and become a Christian or a Witch.... :trout: i'm just saying that i believe there is something more behind well-written, well-formed, and wonderful stories. I do like The Lord of the Rings better than Harry Potter, and like the messages more, but Rowling really is an outstanding writer. And I believe that it's their deep knowledge of what they write and of their own lives that gives their stories that extra "spice"... it's what makes them so good... makes us relate. :thumbs:

[Gilraen]

I had written a long list of things that Rowling had "stolen" from Lord of the Rings, but I've lost it and anyway I have given up accusing her of stealing things, not just because Tolkien influences almost all modern fantasy, but because Rowling seems to like taking our myths and grounding them in reality in Harry's world, probably one of the reasons people are so drawn to her work.

I agree that it is very hard to compare the two series. Harry Potter is definately directed more at children while Lord of the Rings is more sophisticated, more difficult to read, more of an epic rather than a series of children's books. And Lord of the Rings seems more like history than fantasy, like something that actually happened in a forgotten past.

Harry Potter is an easier read because of language and because it draws you in quickly and is set in a school, which is an environment most people are familiar with. And the plot of the book is a simple black and white good vs. evil story. When Voldemort is finally destroyed, good will triumph over evil.

Lord of the Rings is more difficult to get into and it uses language which seems somehow older, but I definately prefer it and the old language adds to the story.
The Lord of the Rings is all about temptation and the evil within ourselves. Instead of taking the easy way out and slapping the "evil" label on some undesirable character, Tolkien had his characters struggle with the power of the ring.
Tolkien incorporates values like friendship and loyalty and honor and forgiveness into the story- Rowling has friendship covered but I really wish Gandalf would just walk into Harry Potter's world and give his speech about not dealing out death and judgement because I think the characters need to hear it. And the saddest betrayal in the trilogy was not done by a villain (like Pettigrew) but by the hero (when Frodo betrays Gollum), which makes it sadder and shows how ugly betrayal really is but also why people do it.
The wisdom in Lord of the Rings is not confined to one heart-to-heart in the headmaster's office at the end of each book, but spread out and coming sometimes from unlikely places.
The Lord of the Rings definately seems to have a deeper meaning, and Tolkien portrays not only evil and treachery and temptation, but perfectly captures the glory of man as it probably never existed in real life. And there is something comforting about a place where there are loyal friends, kings, heroes, wise elves, and people can be their best.

[Bonos-Girl]

if you go to mugglenet.com there's a page on there about parellels with other things and ther's loadsa LOTR ones....

[HobbitFriend]

well said, Gilraen! :hooray: I strongly agree with you :thumbs:

[Saruman]

Who knows... maybe Wormtail will end up slitting Voldemort's throat! lol
Of course, after the events and explanation towards the end of book 5, we know that that can't happen.

[Galadriel]

I believe that its hard to compare Harry Potter with LOTR. The books are very different. I know a lot people have already stated that there may be some similarities between the two. I have read both and enjoy both a lot. I think both are very different though. I find HP a much easier read. I think that it is geared more for people of all ages where LOTR is more geared for Adults. I know people as young as 5 reading HP and then people as old as my grandma reading it. LOTR is a much more sophicated read. You have to be committed to read LOTR.
I read the HP books before I read LOTR. I always loved the HP books becasue I loved the world of wizards and witches and how good always won over evil. I also loved how it was an easy read so you didn't have to think about the story too much. When I started to read LOTR I was confused and bored with it at first. I had to see the movie before I even finished the book just to kind of understand the story and I know I am not the only one that feels this way. Some of my fellow classmate loved HP but felt very confused while reading LOTR. Many said that there were too many characters and settings. To be able to understand LOTR you have to be able to think about the whole story about the charcter development and about the relationships between everyone. I believe that many people now are just figuring out what a great book LOTR is becasue of the movies.
To compare the similarities between HP and LOTR I can't think of any really. Yes there might be some names that sound the same and the whole good verus evil thing but other than that there is none. LOTR has some much more depth and character develpment and detail to it compared to HP. I find that I pick up the HP books all the time and reread my favorite chapters and even the books but not LOTR. I find that I can't just read one chapter from LOTR I have to read the whole book and I usually don't have time to do that. Both HP and LOTR are great books and should be read by everyone.

[HobbitFriend]

good points Galadriel :thumbs: But i have to say that i do go back and read my favorite chapters from LotR... ie. The Bridge of Khazad Dum, The Palantir, The Stairs of Cirith Ungol, etc... it never bores me :) But you're right.... HP is an easier read.

did everyone see this article on JRR Tolkien vs. JK Rowling (http://www.thisislondon.com/entertainment/books/articles/5638816?source=Metro)? I found the link on WotR's main page ;) worth a look at... it's short :thumbs:

[Mirkgirl]

Yeah... there;s a thread discussing this article in news as well
http://warofthering.net/forums/vbulletin225/upload/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4669

[Aranel of Mirkwood]

I did notice a few things, such as the longbottom leaf and the giant spiders and the fact that the hero is a small person who if not for some certain reason would never be famous

[Aravail]

in both books, they end up having the same kinds of adventures though (the troll, spiders) but yes, HP is alot eaiser to read; no "ere" or "nay" in those books lol

[Onilalle]

Personally, I don't think you can compare the books. Bear in mind; both books were written in totally different times and totally different decades- by two totally different writers of different ages and different genders. They appeal to different types of readers of different generations, as well. Ok, they may hold a few similarities, but both books are about something (dare i say it again) Different!!!
LOTR has that sort of 'medieval' edge to it, while HP is set around the present day. Both books are brilliant, in brilliantly different ways! ;)

~Oni~

[Vorneniel]

even so... we all know which is the best overall lol

[Mánalinya]

This is a very interesting question, and not an easy one, I must say. There have been several very good points made already. I’m just going to share a few of my own thoughts here.

I believe it is very hard to accurately compare LotR and HP. They are so different in many ways, such as the times that they take place, the audience to which they are geared for, and the style in which they are written.

I absolutely LOVE Tolkien’s rather archaic-ish style, especially when the characters speak. The dialogue is actually quite poetic.
I also love the detail that he put into it all: the fact that he actually created his own world, with peoples, languages, and a history for it all, makes it such a deep, rich experience, that I have never yet found its equal. And I don’t believe I ever will.

Then there’s J.K. Rowling. Personally, I think she’s a brilliant writer. There’s something about her style that I find very addicting. Compared to Tolkien’s “medieval style”, her’s is so fresh, clean, and vibrant.
I also find it a little easier to identify with her characters. Maybe it’s just because their “world” is so much closer to ours, but I find their thoughts and feelings easier to relate to (which is not to say that Tolkien’s characters are not believable, because they are. I think Tolkien has some of the best characters I’ve ever come across). It could also be because Rowling has younger characters, ones who are more my generation ;).

But aside from all that, I believe that there are far more similarities at the heart of both stories than we realize. Yes, there is the classic theme of good vs. evil, but what about the theme of the importance of choice? I don’t think you can deny that that is a very important concept to both:
In LotR, it’s all about choices such as Frodo’s choice to take the Ring, or Aragorn’s choice to embrace his destiny, rather than run from it, Sam’s choice to stick with Frodo to the end, and even Faramir’s choice to let Frodo go. We have Gandalf telling Frodo that all we can do is decide what to do with the time that is given to us. Some of the decisions may seem more important than others, but when you consider the possible consequences of them not choosing as they did, the story would be unrecognizable (I won’t go into all the possibilities now, but seriously, think about it sometime).
With Harry Potter, we have Dumbledore giving a similar quote, “It is our choices, far more than our abilities, that show who we truly are.” Throughout all five books (and most likely in the books to come) it is pointed out how important the choices are, from Harry choosing that he didn’t want to be in Slytherin, to him choosing to remain loyal to Dumbledore, in the face of danger and doubt.

Also, themes such as friendship, loyalty, temptation, and responsibility are strong in both stories, even though the presentation may be very different. Both are actually rather deep books, I think. I don’t believe Harry Potter is light reading, though it may be “easier” than LotR. There’s so much beneath the surface of each, it just requires some digging.

One of the main differences that I see between the two stories has to do with another hidden message. There’s one that I have found in HP that bothers me: the message that “the end justifies the means”. I’ve probably said it before, but I’ll say it again, because I feel very strongly about this idea. I do not like how Harry breaks rules, disobeys instructions, lies, and cheats, but never gets in trouble because in the end “it all turns out okay.” I just have a hard time understanding what makes the “good guys” good, when they often stoop to the same levels as the “bad guys” (not that I’m saying Harry’s bad; I’d just like to see him get punished when he deserves it).
I like how in LotR, the characters (for the most part: everyone makes mistakes, which is fine, as long as you learn from them ;)) remain true to their tasks, using such tools as their friendships, loyalty, honesty and integrity. They fight back, yes, but they don’t decide to play dirty. That's not always an easy thing to do, and I admire it.

Okay, I think I’ve rambled on long enough. Here’s my conclusion: all in all, I still think LotR is the best, and it always will be. There’s not really any room for debate about that, in my opinion.. But Harry Potter is not to be belittled. I honestly believe that J.K. Rowling has a masterpiece in those books. I think, though, instead of comparing them all the time, we should just read them, and enjoy them on their own, for what they are. Nothing is ever as enjoyable when you’re trying to measure it up with something else. They are both wonderful, enjoyable, lovable stories, and that’s all there is to it.

~Linya :)

[Cuiel Rilwen]

First, I feel the same way as you Linya, when comparing the two stories/ writers. I also agree that the issue on "the end justifies the means" sends out bad signals. I do understand why Rawlings makes him do what he does, because he's grown up without rolemodels and has always had to deside what is right for himself...a hard habit to break I'm sure. Tho his surroundings react to his disobediance in a way that is not always the better...for him...cuz it does not teach him anything....and for anyone else cuz it makes them see what he gets away with. BUT..somehow I think that is part of her plan. Maybe Harry is in for a surprise? Rawlings IS a good writer, and even if not comparable to Tolkien she is good at building up characters and scenarios. And she hasn't been around that long. It's an unjust comparison me thinks.

I truly love these books and I return to them repetedly...that goes for both Rawlings and Tolkien! I have seldom found a story that I can relate to like this over a long passage of time, say years, ofcourse because we grow and change...and thank God for that! Tolkien have been a part of my life since the age of 14, and I suspect his works will continue to be so for ever! Harry Potter may not intrigue me at the same level...yet...even if Rawlings has a great deal of background material too. But hey...she's still young! I think she will stay with me for a long, long time! :)

[Onilalle]

Very good points here, people! ;)
I personally think LOTR is really the most believable one... it's (literally) in a whole world of its own. Then again so is HP. But I think the LOTR storyline is much more interesting, myself. HP is great and i'm a huge fan, but it really is (whether you like this or not) the same sort of plot happening every year: Harry grows up a bit, then gets into trouble at school, then there's the showdown at the end with one of Voldemort's minions or so to speak... I know there is something different happening every year... but along the same sort of bases. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but... well you get what I mean. Nevertheless, HP is a fantastic book and I treasure its unique style and magical theme.
In conclusion though, I'd have to say I'd go for LOTR as the best one... it has so many intriguing elements like the different races; elves, dwarves, hobbits, etc. and the ages, the throne inheritances and the family trees, that are actually really believeable cos it makes you think of it as a kind of history or a real world.
So, original is best... in this case anyway!

[Periantari Andruil]

lol we're talking in an LotR forum here...of cousre we would be biased ;) lol :p
Joking aside, I think everyone here has had some great points that have been shared. Wonderful posts, Linya, Cuiel, and Oni! :thumbs:
Great point about the "ends justifies the means."
i never really thought about Harry constantly breaking rules and such to find out things and about how he always getse honored at then end...
Linya said it best here:


“ I’ve probably said it before, but I’ll say it again, because I feel very strongly about this idea. I do not like how Harry breaks rules, disobeys instructions, lies, and cheats, but never gets in trouble because in the end “it all turns out okay.” I just have a hard time understanding what makes the “good guys” good, when they often stoop to the same levels as the “bad guys” (not that I’m saying Harry’s bad; I’d just like to see him get punished when he deserves it).

That's a very interesting notion and I wonder why Rowling seemed to be very unfair in the 5th book where Harry is always punished by awful Umbridge. :mmmm:

Linya pointed a lot of similarities in between the books, but what makes LotR more "classic" is the sense of the fact that its popularity has lived through time...yet obviously it can't be sure that HP won't also "live through the test of time."

but it is hard to compare (as said time and time again), i feel..for HP is more geared to children and Tolkien...i don't know who he geared his masterpiece at but it's true that many themes are shared and to me, i find both very entertaining and very worth reading :thumbs:

[Mirkgirl]

Tolkien's rather universal... you can find whatever you need in that book :)

Rowling's rather universal in another aspect... children find a better magical version of their world in there, adults find a better magical version of their lost childhood ;)

I don't see why you're moaning about the rulebreaking thing... a famous-before-able-to-speak (pre)teen wizard following the rules would make a rather unbelievable book... plus the moral of a school always was is and will be break the ****ing (scuse my french ;)) rules. While the chivalry morals (um not quite the best term prolly) Tolkien is mostly pushing are suited for the book and are based on the idea that you are the good guy, you can't do bad in order to get good. Altho I find it better for childrens role models I hate to have to admit that Rowlings might be a bit more useful in life heh

I have said it before and I'll say it again... I draw the similtarities line by 1. they're both books 2. they're both filmed lately 3. they fit it two remote corners of one large genre

[Mánalinya]

I understand why Harry does some of the things he does, considering his background. It would indeed be rather unrealistic to expect any different from him. However, I don’t think that means that everyone else has to encourage him in that direction.
There are rules for a reason, and I think they should be enforced. If they’re not, then what is the point in having rules to begin with? Just because the general mindset is that it’s okay to break the rules, doesn’t mean you have to follow mindlessly along.

And anyway, talking more specifically of Harry and his “special freedoms”: if any other student (aside from Ron and Hermione, because they’re his best friends, and usually disobey rules by his lead) did the stuff that Harry did, they would be in such big trouble. There would be no excuses for them.
I know it’s the same in real life, that people often avert their eyes for the people who are on top, but that doesn’t make it any less wrong.

I really don’t even have much of a problem with Harry breaking such rules. But he needs to see that there are consequences for his choices, and then learn from his mistakes. It’s not going to be any benefit to him – I’ll even go so far as to say it will be a detriment – now or in the future, for everyone to keep turning a blind eye towards his actions.

I know J.K. Rowling is in complete control of her world, and her story. I just wonder why she felt it so necessary to take it down this route. Don't get me wrong, I still think she’s brilliant; I’m just not to sure about this particular detail. I’m sure she has her reasons, though, whatever they may be, and that it will all work out in the end. But I can’t help but hope that she has a certain lesson she’ll teach Harry somewhere in the future :).

~Linya

[Cuiel Rilwen]

That's what I think too...that she playing up to something in that department that WILL teach him a lesson...and somehow I think it will be a brutal one. :mmmm:

[Mirkgirl]

mmm I'm not really all that certain that it's wrong. Being special one deserves special freedoms if you ask me. There's nothing wrong with it. Socialistic crap that everyone's equal might be a nice dream but the reality is that the rules depend on the player and they should.

[Badger Brandybuck]

I believe the only reason that people compare hp and lotr (other than the media's determination to compare everything :angry: ) Is that they are both really the first fantasys of their kind. When lotr was written, it was (and still is) concidered one of the first and greatest fantasy books ever written, and many many writers use worlds such as tolkien created for their own books. Now, fifty some odd years or so later, hp is the most popular children's book ever written with a fantasy theme. Both made great inpacts on their time, and if movies were as popular then as they are now, lotr would probably have a movie mad of it within 3 years of its release.

Another thing in the audience they are attempting to attract. Hp was the first fantasy book I ever read (I think I was about 12 at the time), and I would escape into that world. (Yay for overactive imaginations!) When I got older and realized that there were other fantasy books, I eventually ended up reading the lotr trilogy, the hobbit, and other books by tolkien. These (and others) became my inspiration for writing and art, as the worlds they represent are much more interresting.

Rowlings isnt the only author who ever used lotr as a reference for their work, and will no dobut be the last. After all, tolkien's races were made by him, but have been adapted to use in many other books (ex: He was one of the first to use Elves that are not 2 feet tall and make toys).

There really is no grounds for character comparison. Both of the book are excellent and can be enjoyed for different reasons. Weather I'm re-reading Hp or Lotr depends on my mood.

[SamwiseAtHeart]

I remember before I had read the trilogy and before FOTR came out on video, I had read the HP books and I didn't really get the coparison, I knew that there were differances in the language and stuff, I didn't read the trilogy because the language was hard and I was still fairly young. I notice many diferances and some similarites too in all I like both series

[Lady Luthien]

Here’s my conclusion: all in all, I still think LotR is the best, and it always will be. There’s not really any room for debate about that, in my opinion.. But Harry Potter is not to be belittled. I honestly believe that J.K. Rowling has a masterpiece in those books. I think, though, instead of comparing them all the time, we should just read them, and enjoy them on their own, for what they are. Nothing is ever as enjoyable when you’re trying to measure it up with something else. They are both wonderful, enjoyable, lovable stories, and that’s all there is to it.
~Linya :)
I completely agree, Manalinya! I hate to think of belittling Harry Potter just because it doesn't, in most people's opinions, match up to one of the greatest literary masterpieces of all time! I mean what book will? I really don't think any other one can or will. Tolkien had so many talents put together that are rarely found in a single person: a talent and love for languages, poetry, (obviously writing lol), geography(his maps), a love for fantasy, medieval knowledge, and extraordinary character development skills. I think all comparing Harry Potter to LoTR will do is belittle Harry Potter, and there's no need for that. It's a fascinating and cleverly written tale, but clearly on a whole different level than LoTR, which is clearly more heavy and dramatic, while Harry Potter is more light-hearted, more suited for children. So basically, I don't think they should be compared. Just read the books and enjoy them: I find it hard not to measure everything I read to Tolkien, but if you do, you will enjoy it less. It's rare to find a book of this quality that can create an entire world for your mind to wander, but that doesn't mean that just because another book doesn't you won't enjoy it or it's quality is less. It's just...different.

[Heart-of-a-Hobbit]

perhaps HP are good children's books...but I do not like them at all! this is my opinion...LotR is tons better and even children can read it. I've got some really strong words about this topic and I won't put everything here as I might get this topic shut down with all I've got to say, and I don't want to do that. But, LotR is much better (for a lot of reasons) than HP.

[White Lady of Rohan]

I agree that Lord of the rings are better books than Harry Potter. But with young children my first choice to read aloud would be Harry Potter.

[Heart-of-a-Hobbit]

perhaps...but I know of a couple of families who have read LotR all the way through to their children since they were very little. and the kids understood most of it! that's what I'll do with my kids...I'll read them CoN first, then LotR.

[Lothiriel]

I can't comment on the book contents of Harry Potter as I have never read them, though I have seen all three movies and I thought they were very good. I first learnt of them through my mother, who while staying with my brother in Australia and at a loose end, picked up one of my nephew's books, which just happened to be The The Philosopher's Stone. She was hooked, she loved it and has since read every one in the series published so far. This say's to me that JK Rowlings books appeal (though written for children) to all ages. She has read LotR's and loves it also, but she feels that neither is comparable to the other and that they stand on their own as works of fiction.

Hoah, I seem to recall you writing to me that your parents did not approve of Harry Potter, and therefore neither did you, which lead me to conclude that you have neither read the books or seen the movies...

[Eldarin Princess]

I was a huge HP fan before being introduced to LotR. It was my aunt, bless her, who actually got me to love LotR. She sat me down at night and we watched FotR. She did it to prove to me, in her opinion, that LotR is better than HP. And since she did that, I've been a LotR lover. We saw TTT in the theater a few days later. When I got home, I bought the books from the bookstore and read them all within a month.

HP to me is more a kiddy geared series. While I still read it, LotR is my ultimate favorite. LotR has more themes and issues that are real than HP. It tells a story about how the real world works.

[Melian]

I haven't read the HP books either, but I do like the movies. Especially the last one. I really don't think that it is fair to compare them. They are totally different, one is geared to children and the other to adults. You may say that they are both fantasy, but that is like saying "Babe" and "Animal Farm" are both books about livestock. lol

[Blind-Guard]

I love both LOTR and Harry Potter. I don't see why anyone needs to bash one of them. I have been reading HP and LOTR although I have to say that I find HP a bit more fun to read, not that difficult. I'm dutch so my old style inglish is not that great. I've got the Potter books in dutch and the lasyt one in english as well. Rowlings writing is a lot more understandable. But I've enjoyed them both and love the movies.

[Mouth Of Sauron]

I love both books.

Harry Potter because I can just pick it up and it is a childrens book, so it is a light read. :p

Lord Of the Rings because it is the best book for depth, back story and has some amazing descriptions and characters. :rolleyes:

If someone said what films are better, LOTR wins hands tied down. (Is that the right expression?)

[Melathwen]

I think it's just 'hands down' :grin:

I totally agree, I think that they're both very different, and I can't really choose which I like best overall. It depends on what mood I'm in as to which book is most appealing at a certain time, and each has its moments ;) Although I think that if I had to choose between them forever, like, not being able to read one of them again, I'd pick LotR. It is, after all, a more adult book, and suits more moods than HP :grin:

[The Scottish Elf]

You can't compare them! I know they're both fantasy, but that's about where the similarity ends. Just as there are many LotR child fans, there are far more HP adult fans. LotR is a literary masterpiece, but in a way, so is HP. It's encouraged so many children who dislike reading to actually do so, and although the language is much easier to read, you can also look deeper into the books as well (look at the Harry Potter thread in Other Books, but please don't post there about this argument). There's good points about both books, but personally, I find it easier and more enjoyable to read Harry Potter. Harry Potter's never going to reach the same level as LotR, but that's because it's not meant to - JKR's writing to entertain, provoke thoughts and encourage children (and even adults) to read more. I love both.

[Elijah's Girl]

I like em both! I love Harry Potter books and I love LotR movies.Some ppl say JKR copied Mr.Tolkien like with the word "Longbottom"!Which is bogus to me. I agree it is really hard to compare them...they are both about fantsay so I like em! lol

[Bane of Lunazra]

i love both of the series and think that both Tolkien and JKR are astounding writers that in one way or another altered literature. the styles of writing are much different as are the content and plot lines of the books, so its difficult to conmpare them that way. plus, u have to be in the mood to read one or the other. i totally swear by both lol . i wouldnt mind living in either world either :grin: :cool: - BoL

[The Scottish Elf]

Well said, BoL! I completely agree :grin:

[Bane of Lunazra]

yay - i'm delighted ;) :cool: - you guys should check out my new thread on which house you "belong" to and tell me what u think - mwah - BoL

[The Scottish Elf]

Yeh, it's great BoL! (can't wait to see what house i'll be....i don't know)

Definately, head over there if you like Harry Potter!

[Mirkgirl]

[/shameless plug] okay?

Now back to the topic... as Ive already said before the only similarities between LotR and HP are 1)they take two far corners in the vast genre of fantasy 2) they both have lots of fans and 3) the movies based on them went out around the same time 4) she was deffo inspired by tolkien for some parts in the book, by which I am NOT accusing her of plagiarism

HP could have never given me what LotR did, but however it's an entertaining light read (book 5 excluded, it was painful strain to read). HP is our world with magic. LotR is our world brought on an altogether another level.

[Bane of Lunazra]

i totally agree except for me i think of harry potter as a boredom book as in ill read it leisurely if i have nothing else to do - LOTR - you have to be in the mood and get into it or its not the same- might just be me. tht and idk about you, but i cant envision myself as one of the characters in the actual fellowship unlike in harry potter where you almost feel closer to the characters -

[Arwen Evenstar]

I like both, but LOTR better by far. I think Rowling copied some of Tolkien's ideas, and characters like Gandalf and Dumbledore are pretty much alike.

[Stormcrow]

I think not.

I cannot decide between the two. They are equal in my opinion. Simple as that.

[Peppyy]

They are about equal, but I love LOTR a bit more. Maybe because of HBP, it wasn't written as good as it could've been. And Rowling has some traces of LOTR in books, but which newer fantasy book doesn't?
P.S. Croatian translation of HPB came out 2 days ago! :)

[Stormcrow]

:grin:

I honestly think HP had nothing to do with LOTR. I don't even think J.K had read the books beforehand. As of the immense similarity between Gandalf and Dumbledore, how else would you depict the headmaster? I know that is how I would have wrote his character. But my opinion still stands, they are both equal to me. lol

[Andy]

Majoru bump but I'm not sure if I posted here a while back.

I think many people may prefer Harry Potter as they vocab used is generally a lot easier to get through than LoTR. I sometimes have to go back and re-read parts in most of Lotr. But, in Harry Potter, it is aimed at more younger audience and so the language is simplified.

Personally, I prefer Harry potter.

[Stormcrow]

Yes, but the stories are very equally written. The plot, the outcomes, the twists (although Harry Potter has more of these) are all very well done in both of the stories. I think Harry Potter is more of a mystery/adventure/magical/action/romance/fantasy thing and LOTR is more straight to the point about the ring and what must be done. But they are both equally well written. Both the authors are simple genius'.

[Periantari Andruil]

It's aimed at different audiences. HP was written originally for young audiences and thus there would be simpler vocabulary.
As for LotR, Tolkien had a very sophisticated knowledge of linguistics, being the philoLogist that he is and therefore would have a better, my lyrical way of saying things and describing things.

LotR is not as straightforward as one may think. It is a romance, a fantasy, a brilliant idea that has roots from the Kavaleva, Beowulf and other medieval tales that Tolkien derived from.

It is an amazing work that had taken 17 years to write...

I'm saying all this not to say that HP is less but it's the scale and scope of work that is different and i've read HP and it's enjoyable and such but find it less filling than that of LotR...
LotR is much more deep in meaning and ideas and scope and linguistic complicity and it's been popular ever since the 50s when it was just published so comparing these works of art is hard to do because they're different, although both are fantastical works that are written by amazing authors.

and no, i do not think LotR is as simple as just a "point of the RINg and being destroyed" type deal... HP has spanned almost 7 books so it is hard to compare 7 books to 1 work of art...

It's just hard to compare but i know which i prefer. ;)
:frodo: :sam: <3 <3 <3

[Stormcrow]

Well, what I meant by more focusing on the point of the ring being destroyed is that it is all about the ring, and the ring only along with small sub-plots in each of the sections of the work. Hence, the three books, or 'trilogy' as some may say. Whereas, HP focuses on different things in each book. However, HP does have one master plot as well, which is saving the wizarding world and destroying Voldemort, very much similar to LOTR and the ring issue. But, HP focuses more on different things than it does on the one thing, seeing as Voldemort continues to rise and fall, yet never be completely destroyed. What I mean is that there are 'break' periods in HP, whereas LOTR is always continuing with the quest of the ring being destroyed. I did not say "point of the ring and being destroyed" at all. I said "straight to the point about the ring and what must be done". What must be done, meaning the many spin-offs involved along the way. ;)

They are both equal to me, and always will be. However, each one gives me a different feel and each brings its own different element to me when I read them. True, LOTR is much more developed in history and lore, languages and what not. But J.K Rowling has used much more imagination, in terms of creating her own magical characters and giving them depth, creating wizarding sports, the hundreds of spells and their meanings, places, etc. Certain areas of such, Tolkein had done too, but not to the full extent of J.K. But, Tolkein did invent languages and realms, history and lore as well. Both of them are unique authors and that is why I feel that the two cannot be compared. They bring a different feel, environment and element to their own works and so I would never compare them. They are different. That is all it comes down to. That, and the matter of opinion and taste.

[Periantari Andruil]

Certain areas of such, Tolkein had done too, but not to the full extent of J.K. But, Tolkein did invent languages and realms, history and lore as well. Both of them are unique authors and that is why I feel that the two cannot be compared. They bring a different feel, environment and element to their own works and so I would never compare them. They are different. That is all it comes down to. That, and the matter of opinion and taste.

I totally agree, Stormcrow. :thumbs: They are very different but i can see where parallels can be drawn. THey cannot be compared in terms of scope and even comparing seven books to one book cannot be done for as you've said, JK has different plots in her different books.
They do have a different feel and environment indeed and that's why i find it hard to compare in terms of who's better than the other...
that's why i could not say which is "better" per se because they both exist for different purposes relating to the author's original purposes and their backgrounds are different and just...
i could say my opinion but it's true on an objective standpoint that they're boht very creatively done and wonderful works of literature on their own merits.

[Stormcrow]

Exactly, PA, exactly! ;) That is exactly it, my friend. :thumbs:

[Megara]

I love Lord of the Rings and i love Harry Potter just the same.

Lord of the Rings has an indepth scope because it covers up everything, its own lores, its own beginning, its own history, its own races. It is a well researched piece, and it covers fantasy from top to bottom. It is laden with themes and morals such as that of our own lives and history, and the timeless good against evil plot.

Harry Potter is well researched but not truely in depth. Even so, Rowling has demonstrated that it is definately worth reading through her own way, just as Tolkien did. It has its own plot of good against evil, and it has its own twists that makes it a compelling read. Personally, i think that Harry Potter is much more closer to our heart then LOTR, because it is practically fantasy in reality.

The similarities are uncanny but it is different in its own way. As I would like to believe that Harry Potter is somehow a continuation for LOTR, none can truely say that it is.

Seriously, has anyone ever wondered that Sauron, now wasted yet not gone can survive within Voldemort? And that his servents the Ringwraiths have wasted away into the soul-sucking fiends, Dementors? And somehow, somewhere deep, don't you just swear that LOTR is the ancient history of the wizaarding world, and that magic has its place now and forever?

Hahahax... Far-fetched though... The mind of a day-dreamer..

:elfeek: :rock:

[Stormcrow]

Seriously, has anyone ever wondered that Sauron, now wasted yet not gone can survive within Voldemort? And that his servents the Ringwraiths have wasted away into the soul-sucking fiends, Dementors? And somehow, somewhere deep, don't you just swear that LOTR is the ancient history of the wizaarding world, and that magic has its place now and forever?

Yeah, and J.K and Tolkein had this plot to continue his works within the title Harry Potter, after he had died.

lol Love the theories. :p

[Megara]

I love theories myself lol hahax
I have yet to see a fanfiction like that..
Does anybody know if there are fanfictions like that?

[Mirkgirl]

Im pretty certain Tolkien rolls in his grave and Im rolling in my chair too, so back to topic guys.

I dont think we can compare the two, tis a bit like comparing orange juice and old scotch... both might be tasty, but one is for the morning and the other for the evening.

As to research to compare tolkien poring over old documents to be learn old languages and Rowlings Viktor Krum(ov... no I wont stop with it) is a bit of a joke.

[Stormcrow]

Yes, I quite agree with you Mirky. I see no point in comparing them at all.

[Megara]

They are simply uncomparable..
XD

[Lynx]

Im pretty certain Tolkien rolls in his grave and Im rolling in my chair too, so back to topic guys.

I dont think we can compare the two, tis a bit like comparing orange juice and old scotch... both might be tasty, but one is for the morning and the other for the evening.

Agreed Mirkgirl, I simply cannot compare the two. IMHO I prefer Lord of the Rings - the languages, the characters, the world TOlkien created is so vast. There is something intrinsically different about LOTR. Also Tolkiens writing is quite different from Rowling's - he writes in an archaic tone, while Rowling writes in a modern one. Sorry, for me to even compare Tolkien's writing to HP borders close to blasphemy.

[Erucolindo]

*Barf* Please excuse me. but I smiply can't even begin to fathom comparing the two in the slightest. but that's only due to my intense loathing of most things Potter-ish. They belong in completely different categories, and in my opinion, one is FAR better than the other. And especially if we're speaking of the movies..nevermind the fact that it's a Potter movie..they're just not very good movies in general. Soooo, no comparison. I won't even try.

[Stormcrow]

*Barf* Please excuse me. but I smiply can't even begin to fathom comparing the two in the slightest. but that's only due to my intense loathing of most things Potter-ish. They belong in completely different categories, and in my opinion, one is FAR better than the other. And especially if we're speaking of the movies..nevermind the fact that it's a Potter movie..they're just not very good movies in general. Soooo, no comparison. I won't even try.

Well, fortunately, that is only your opinion. But a lot people here like both of them. ;)

[Erucolindo]

Ahem, I'm sorry if I sounded rude, or ignorant; I probably did. That wasn't my intention.

[Stormcrow]

I think was just representing all the Harry Potter fans out there, and I think I came back at you with a bit too much mace. When it comes to Harry Potter, I get a bit defensive. :blush:

[Mirkgirl]

this discussion is about the books. Well at least mostly

and everyones entitled to their opinion, as long as theyre respecting the right of others to have one too (which you are doing guys Im not telling you off)

I wonder what the two have to share really. Its different types of books and while there are people who love (or hate) both the majority is more attracted to one of em, which shows their own taste

Oh forget it my brains on freeze

[Stormcrow]

Well said, Mirky! :thumbs:

[Mithrandir]

They're not even close. I don't see how they can be alike...The closest they get to is that they're both written by british authors (Although Tolkien was born in South Africa). First of all, the stories are not alike. Second of all, Harry Potter is about a British kid that goes to a school of magic, the first couple of books were fine but the originality eventually wore off. Yah, I don't understand how they can be alike...

[Stormcrow]

Neither. They aren't alike at all. :)

[Mithwen]

I like both, but I think Lord of the Rings has a deeper meaning and point to it. Harry Potter is more just a fun read an interesting story to me.

[Aletheia]

While LotR holds a dearer spot in my heart, I do enjoy both. I just started the HP books after *just* seeing the first 3 movies (this was all under the demands of my Uni roomate, who insisted...so, I got her to read LotR & Im reading HP- good trade, huh?)

Anywho- I agree with those who have said they can't really be fairly compared. They're two completely different things! But, this said, most of the world is going to compare whether we like it or not simply based upon the fact that they're both hugely popular fantasy books-gone-movies. While I find LotR to have a deeper, more eternal sort of value to it, I am really enjoying the HP fandom as well. :)

[Stormcrow]

Yes, for serious HP fans, people come to understand and delve deeper into the world created by J.K Rowling. It really is deeper than most people think.

[ladyofthelight]

It is deeper than most expect, but I love LorR, whereas I only like HP

[BelovedCaptain]

I have never had any interest in Hp. the whole thing with wizards and witches never really caught my fancy. I know people have said LotR is like hp because Gandalf is a wizard, but the fact is, he rarely uses his powers and only when he really needs to. I don't see him as a wizard, I see him as an angel or a messenger. He is really supposed to be called an Istari. the whole wizard thing was made up by the men. To me, there is a major difference.
Another thing is, Harry Potter was never in my home. so that may be another reason why I never really got into it.

[Frodo's Pearl]

I say the same as BC, and plus, LotR is full of good morals. (It was written by a person of the same Faith as mine, Catholic,) and I've heard that many characters in Hp do things that aren't so good, like lying and such. And the Sorcery in Hp is, to me, a bad thing. So, Hp is something which I'm never going to get into.

[BelovedCaptain]

I totally agree with you, FP. My dad's a pastor, so he showed me the many differences between LotR and HP. He's a great judge of good books, and he never recommended HP, but he did introduce me to LotR. that's just the way it is for me, if Dad doesn't think it's good, then I have a pretty good feelin that it isn't. :grin:

[Frodo's Pearl]

There you go! :thumbs:

[Lady Galadriel]

I like both. I think that both cannot be compared. I enjoy Harry Potter mainly because of the humor.

Regarding the sorcery, many people in the christian faith group Harry Potter and LOTR in the same category. It just depends on their level of conservatism. Gandalf did not use a lot of sorcery or wizardry or whatever you want to call it, but its still there. And the Ring of Power obviously has some kind of demonic influence over who ever possesses it with rare exceptions.

I think everything has to be put in its place. I also think it depends on the reader. For example, my friend recommended a trilogy called the Bartimeus Trilogy and it had magic in it. That I didn't mind so much. But then in a few more pages, demons were introduced. That, I couldn't stand and I immediately returned the books to Barnes & Noble.

I'm not encouraging anyone to read Harry Potter. It has a lot more magic stuff in it, but it is also present in LOTR to some degree. I also understand that Tolkien did not like people to think his work was based on the Catholic faith with angels and all that stuff. And I further understand that's why he and CS Lewis did not agree on the Chronicles of Narnia where the Lion is supposedly representative of Jesus Christ.

[Frodo's Pearl]

The sorcery in LotR is there for a purpose: to show the reality of diabolic evil. To show that the world must encounter hardships and trials in order to have goodness and peace riegn. There are the good people in LotR, who must try to rid the world of this corruption, not use it for their own purposes. And of course, not all succeed. Some fall to corruption.
St. Michael cast Satan down into Inferno; Christ died to save the world from eternal death. So, people in Tolkien's world must fight to rid their world from evil as well, by using good, not by using the sorcery they are trying to fight.

[BelovedCaptain]

The big difference between Lotr and Hp about sorcery is this: the two main heroes and the King are NOT sorcerors and don't use magic or sorcery when they accomplish their deeds. It's all about showing that the smallest, humblest person can make a difference and can "change the course of the future." The true heroes ARE NOT the sorcerors, unlike HP characters who seem to become great AFTER they have become sorcerors.
As for the Ring, it's not a symbol of sorcery, It's a symbol of the human nature and of sin. Sin eats us up just like the Ring eats Gollum up. While we get addicted to drugs alchohol or sex, that's the same thing with the Ring. If it IS a symbol of sorcery, than sorcery is a bad thing, unlike HP, where sorcery is a GOOD thing.
As for Gandalf, I don't see him as a "wizard". He is a Maia, and that is kind of like a symbol of an angel. In fact, I believe that the Maia are the Middle-earth version of angels. They are messengers and are sent to help the Free Peoples. Angels are gifted with powers just like Gandalf's and angels come in the guise of anything. So Gandalf's spirit came in the guise of an old man. As for Saruman, he is like a fallen angel. Tolkien just gave them a staff and the name Wizard to keep to the fantasy feel and so it wouldn't be allegorical. Which worked. Still, the angel thing came out clear for me.
All in all, when I heard about the things in LotR, I wasn't worried about anything. But when I heard about HP, the warning flags went up.

[Frodo's Pearl]

Amen, you said it, BC. ;)

[BelovedCaptain]

But hey, even though we have our differences, we can all get along, eh? ;)
It's not like I can't stand people who love HP, I just can't agree with them on everything.

[Lady Galadriel]

DEFENDING THE LORD OF THE RINGS

Many professing Christians eagerly defend Rings because they have been conditioned to believe that the story is an allegory that portrays Christ. However, Tolkien himself assured us that he didn't intend to teach Biblical reality through his mythical fantasy. In a 1956 letter he wrote, "There is no 'allegory' -- moral, political, or contemporary -- in the work at all. It is a 'fairy-story' ... [written] for adults (The Letters of J. R. R Tolkien, page 232).


Occult Desensitization – If it happened to Tolkien and Lewis then it could happen to us. I have pointed out consistently for several years that the Harry Potter books were conditioning unsuspecting minds worldwide to accept the occult as normal. It isn’t that every reader of the Potter or Rings series is going to somehow automatically become a witch or sorcerer. The concern is that many will be endeared to these satanic ideas because of the psychological alliances they have made with the characters they’ve read about and cheered for through the pages of the books or on the silver screen.

If the mind lives for any substantial amount of time in the fantasy realm of the occult, sorcery and witchcraft, there is certainly a possibility that when facing the same occultism in real life that our human response will not be one that immediately opposes it. It is obvious that rather than rejecting the occult, what is happening is that entire generations are increasingly reacting in a positive fashion to its practices and practitioners. Smaller, yet more tragic are the numbers from this group who are not just favorably reading about Satan’s playground of sorcery and spells but are instead desirous to actually participate in it! Our response as Christians is to understand that the occult – the same practices promoted by Tolkien’s heroes – is repulsive in the site of God. He condemns such in no uncertain terms with the use of the word “abomination” three times in Deuteronomy 18:9-12. The Hebrew word here is the strongest condemnatory language used in the entire Bible on any issue! Dare we react in any other way? We had better call evil “evil” and never confuse it for “good.”



There is more. Here is a link to an essay on LOTR. http://www.ericbarger.com/lotr.c.c.2.htm

Keep an open mind. As much as I love of the Rings, as a BELIEVER IN CHRIST, I have had my moments when I wonder if I should enjoy it or not. Like the author said, there is "immortality of elves," "reincarnation" etc that is against biblical doctrine. Now, its either that you believe that LOTR is a fantasy world just like Harry Potter or not. Harry Potter is fantasy and it has good and evil just like LOTR. But wait, LOTR gets accepted by some christians because why now? It's easy to identify Harry Potter as the occult and to overlook the subtleties in LOTR isn't it? So which is it?

Meanwhile, like the apostle Paul said: All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient or edifies. And for the record, I don't think LOTR or Harry Potter are books for EVERYONE. I am FIRMLY GROUNDED IN THE WORD OF GOD AND I SEE IT AS JUST FANTASY. BUT I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THEM EVEN TO KIDS. Yes, lets forget all the drinking and smoking in LOTR...the pipeweed. And these are supposedly books for kids. Yes, lets call the spade the spade.

In fact, there are better lessons to learn, I find, in the classical writers. They quote the bible a lot and they apply a lot of morals to their writing. They show how sin destroys a person eventually and they also have a moral lesson to them. Why not read the classical writers then? Read Anna Karenina...even that talks a lot about the bible and the consequences of sin. Yet, there is no CHRIST LIKE figure in them because they acknowledge the true Christ.

[Lady Galadriel]

Now to Harry Potter
The big difference between Lotr and Hp about sorcery is this:

The two main heroes and the King are NOT sorcerors and don't use magic or sorcery when they accomplish their deeds. It's all about showing that the smallest, humblest person can make a difference and can "change the course of the future." The true heroes ARE NOT the sorcerors, unlike HP characters who seem to become great AFTER they have become sorcerors.

In the first place, do not speak about what you do not know. Harry Potter does not become great after he becomes a sorcerer. In fact, Harry Potter is sometimes a bubbling idiot when it comes to doing magic. He’s a kid who is in school and a lot of the magic he does seem to come by chance. In fact, after reading book 6, I wondered how in the world was Harry Potter going to defeat the evil wizard in book 7 because not only does he lack the skills, he was also very childish. First of all, Harry Potter is a kid whose parents were killed when he was 10 yrs old and ever since then was treated kinda like Cinderella by his evil aunt and her family. Throughout the Harry Potter books, there is the theme of good versus evil and strong bonds of friendship. You cannot speak about what you have no idea about. I think most readers gravitate to the books because of the incredibly bad luck Harry has had since birth til now and their desire to see him destroy the evil and live happy and normal. And the safest way to make you feel like it’s a fantasy world is that there is NO MENTION whatsoever of God or the Devil.

In Lotr, it does not matter whether it’s the main heroes or not practice wizardry, witchcraft, whatever. The fact is it’s in the book. A ring that makes you visible when you put it on your hand is downright witchcraft. Call it whatever you want, it’s some type of magic and its presence is there throughout the book.

BTW, I’ve often smiled to myself when I hear everyone talk about Frodo is Christlike. Everyone who says that OBVIOUSLY do not know who Christ is. Frodo succumbed to the temptation of the ring in the end. Did Christ succumb to temptation? Wasn’t Christ sinless? Didn’t Christ willingly take human flesh to reconcile a lost race to God? Didn’t Christ come here with a mission that wasn’t THRUST upon him? Did Christ rile against anyone? There are so many “did” that I could ask that places such a distance between Christ and Frodo. The Lion in Narya was more vividly a Christ depiction than Frodo.


As for the Ring, it's not a symbol of sorcery, It's a symbol of the human nature and of sin. Sin eats us up just like the Ring eats Gollum up. While we get addicted to drugs alchohol or sex, that's the same thing with the Ring. If it IS a symbol of sorcery, than sorcery is a bad thing, unlike HP, where sorcery is a GOOD thing.

Well, well, well…I am so happy you mentioned drugs and alcohol. It seems to me that there was a lot of pipeweed smoking going on and a whole lot of ale drinking. Okay, let’s pretend that it’s not present and it’s not sinful and let’s go straight to the ring. If the ring is a symbol of sin, it must take a lot of deep thought to come up with that. Do you think the average reader saw the ring as something sinful? Yes, they saw it as evil, but I’m not so sure they identified it with sin. But then, there was a whole lot of sinning in LOTR too. Lust, alchohol, smoking, murder, idolatry, reincarnation, stealing, evil spirits (barrow wrights), valar worship (in the bible angels always rebuked people who tried to worship them), etc.

As for Gandalf, I don't see him as a "wizard". He is a Maia, and that is kind of like a symbol of an angel. In fact, I believe that the Maia are the Middle-earth version of angels. They are messengers and are sent to help the Free Peoples. Angels are gifted with powers just like Gandalf's and angels come in the guise of anything. So Gandalf's spirit came in the guise of an old man. As for Saruman, he is like a fallen angel. Tolkien just gave them a staff and the name Wizard to keep to the fantasy feel and so it wouldn't be allegorical. Which worked. Still, the angel thing came out clear for me.

In the first place, Angels don’t live among men. In the bible, angels appeared to men several times, but they didn’t stay for long. Also, angels come to do a mission for god and does it by his command. Gandalf, I believe, was not in touch with the Valar like angels are in touch with God. Furthermore, show me the angel of the Living God who smokes pipeweed and drink ale. Do you understand how Holy God is? Do you really think his HOLY angels would participate in the defiling devices of men such as smoking and drinking? Did you read what Habukkuk said when the Holy Living God came down to him and he beheld his holiness and glory? "Woe is Me for I am UNDONE." I rest my case.

All in all, when I heard about the things in LotR, I wasn't worried about anything. But when I heard about HP, the warning flags went up.

Well, Eve wasn’t worried about the serpent either and easily fell into his trap. I have seen the effect LOTR has had on people. There is almost like an idolized worship of LOTR and its characters and even more so than Harry Potter. Do you know the thread, “you know you are obsessed when….?” Perfect example of how people idolize LOTR. I know, because I used to be one of them. And I knew I was doing it and I knew in my heart it was wrong and when I became a christian, I tried my best to have a love for LOTR that does not consume me. On the other hand, many, many, many people have a love for LOTR that consumes them…”thou shalt have no other god before me.”

Come on, don't give up, as humans, we love to justify. God forbid that I should try to justify LOTR and condemn Harry Potter. They both have their defiling themes. One more overt and the other more subtle. "As the wise book said, "Be sober, be vigilant...."

[Lady Galadriel]

Couple corrections:

First of all, Harry Potter is a kid whose parents were killed when he was 10 yrs old and ever since then was treated kinda like Cinderella by his evil aunt and her family.

His parents died when he was a baby.

. A ring that makes you visible when you put it on your hand is downright witchcraft.

Invisible

The Lion in Narya was more vividly a Christ depiction than Frodo.
Narnia

[Lady Galadriel]

Another correction: It was Isaiah who said: "Woe is me for I am undone." Habukkuk said, "my belly trembled, my lips quivered, and rottenness entered my bones..."

[BelovedCaptain]

All that you say is true, and I knew that the whole thing about Tolkien hating allegories. To sum it all up, the best fantasy story of the three for Christians would probably be Narnia. But it just seems that LotR seems less harmless to me than HP. I dunno, maybe it's because Tolkien himself could have been a Christian, or maybe it's because of what I think. But I really don't have that much against HP. I'm sure it's a good thriller and seems like a fun series to read. I'm just not interested. Where do you draw the line in this case, one wonders? It's just like whether you should watch certain movies or not, or certain music. All these things are hard to decide. I guess you just have to use your own discernment.

[Lady Galadriel]

In bible study last night I spoke to one of my christian friends about it. She is excellent with the word of God. And she said that if we are going to apply the word of God to things, we should apply it equally and not be arbitrary.

The thing is, LOTR has a much larger impact on people than Harry Potter has. To me, and I've been involved in LOTR websites for about 4 yrs now, it has created more idolators than Harry Potter. Nobody wants to acknowledge it but its so easy to fall into idolatry. I am always wary of it. God Hates it and I have to hate it and be careful about it. It plays always in my mind that the lord says: be ye holy because I am holy (be ye separte then).

When I read Harry Potter, I read it and don't remember it. But LOTR had such an effect on me and many others of my friends who are no longer here. They are still into LOTR big time but they are at a different site. First thing in the morning to last thing in the night, I used to be on this board. Yet, I knew in my heart that it was wrong, even when I wasn't a christian.

As to Tolkien, yes I heard he was Catholic. But I've met many catholics who aren't christians so personally it doesn't have an impact on me whether he was a catholic or not. Not to mention that their doctrine is very different from what I believe from the word of God as my authority.

And nowadays, I'm wary of everything. These are the days when men will pervert the knowledge of God so not everyone who says they are christians I take it as so. That goes back to the fruit of the spirit even though some christians do indeed live in the flesh. Anyway, the word of God warns against that. Paul said in Timothy that in these days some would have a form of godliness but deny the power of God.

I thought CS Lewis was a christian, and maybe he was, but for the first time someone has said that he said some controversial things in Mere Christian. That is kind of hard for me to believe since our church book store was selling it. I have to inquire about that because our church is bible believing and even the pastor admits that the bible should be our authority and not him.

[BelovedCaptain]

Yep. I know. You've really shed some good light into this. That doesn't mean I'm gonna start getting into HP, but you have a good argument. And as for Lewis and Tolkien, my dad, a pastor, believes that Lewis WAS a Christian. He even has the whole allegorical thing with Aslan in there. I've also read that Lewis led Tolkien to the Lord, so who knows if he was really born again or not?
Btw, what church do you go to?

[Lady Galadriel]

Yes, I agree about Lewis being a christian though I guess we won't really know until we get there. People say that it might be shocking in the end who makes it to heaven and who doesnt. Even to some men in the bible, I wonder if they made it there. Like say, Solomon who turned to false gods in the latter part of his life. I've asked the question but no one knows. Same thing with Aaron's sons who God struck dead.

Anyway, regarding Lewis and Tolkien, I understand that Tolkien made a comment about Narnia that kind of cooled the relationship between Lewis and him so I'm not so sure about him leading Tolkien to christ. We'll just have to wait and see.

We're bible believing and practicing non-demoninational Baptist. As a matter of fact, so much so, that its kinda irksome to see that women can't do anything in our church but sing, testify and play the piano. They can teach Sunday school but they cannot teach men. So the bible classes are separated. Okay, to put it shortly, they practice it like its laid out in Timothy and Corinthians. But that's the way God ordained it so we have to submit ourselves to his perfect way.

No indeed. I'm not encouraging you to read Harry Potter. I don't encourage stumbling blocks at all. :)

[BelovedCaptain]

Yeah, I can't wait to see who's there in heaven whether Lewis or Tolkien are there or not. Ya know, when I watch the behind the scenes of LotR or listen to the commentaries, I always feel so burdened for PJ and the cast. They all seem so nice, and I feel so burdened to share Christ with them. Wouldn't it be cool if, like, Elijah Wood, or Dominic Monaghan or Orlando Bloom or Viggo or David or any of them were born again? Ah, that would be sweet! ;)
I go to a Fundamental Baptist and my dad's the pastor. :grin: The same is with my church. The women don't teach the men, but they play piano, sing and teach kid classes. They also are in charge of like dinners and ladies meetings and stuff like that. And you're right, that's how the Bible says it should be. It doesn't really bother me, because the women in the church are so outgoing, that they lead the people even without teaching the men. How do people dress in your church? Is it stiffnecked or are people laid back?

[Frodo's Pearl]

Well, I feel that there's at least a little hope for Elijah Wood. He was Baptized and raised a Catholic, and I'm not really sure what his status is right now, but even if he's not practising, he DOES seem to be at least a little better of a person than many celebrities are nowadays. It's probably what rubbed off from his childhood. He seems to value good things like religion and virtue. So, I'm praying for him so that he'll see the light of the Faith. That's what I can do until if I can meet him in person... (BTW, I think this is so cool: Elijah is half-Polish and also has English, German and Irish heritage, exactly the same as myself!! I'm wondering if we're very distant cousins...)

Oh yeah, and when I met Sean Astin, (who seems to be a better one too), I gave him some literature on the Faith and he eagerly accepted it. I pray there's hope for him too. (And I've heard that David is a Catholic.)

[BelovedCaptain]

I've heard that about Daisy too. But the only thing is, about Sean and Elijah, is that they have bad mouths. They said f*** like how many times and lots of other words that I find offensive. I don't really know if David curses or not, but he's said oh my G** and that's offensive to me. But they seem like such nice people. I wish I could meet them and just have a nice chat with them.
That is soooo coool about you and lijah! If you are distant cousins, I will Freak! ;)

[Frodo's Pearl]

Oh, don't I know it. I know what you mean. Taking the name of our Lord God in vain is a sin, as well as cursing, and I wish these people would realize it. :( Oh well, I'm going to keep praying for them! :D

[Lady Galadriel]

Yeah, I can't wait to see who's there in heaven whether Lewis or Tolkien are there or not.

:) Well I'll just be happy to get there because this christian road is ROUGH to walk. I can't tell you how many times discouragement tries to sway me. (The Hymn, "What a Friend We Have In Jesus" comes in handy to strengthen. The words are simply marvelous). Anyway, I can't desert the walk and there's certainly no where else to turn. The only way that leads to life is through Jesus. After I've endured and overcome to the end, I'll be happy to go meet all who made it...all the SAINTS. What a marvelous thing to look forward to.

Ya know, when I watch the behind the scenes of LotR or listen to the commentaries, I always feel so burdened for PJ and the cast. They all seem so nice, and I feel so burdened to share Christ with them. Wouldn't it be cool if, like, Elijah Wood, or Dominic Monaghan or Orlando Bloom or Viggo or David or any of them were born again? Ah, that would be sweet! ;)

Well, I confess I have thought little about that. I think it would be difficult for celebs to become a christian and endure the walk. In the first place, they'd probably have to forfeit their career and a lot of them would probably have a problem with that.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven

One of the Baldwin guys said that he's a born again christian. I think it might be Stephen Baldwin.

Just think of it...the movies are getting more and more perverse nowadays. I hardly go to the movies anymore lest anything catches me by surprise.

I went to Peter Jackson's King Kong movie, and all through out it I was convicted. Yes, convicted. Why? Because they kept saying "Jesus Christ" in vain, throughout the movie. And I was so forcefully convicted that I was struggling all the time to walk out of the movie. I saw it on a Friday, and the Sunday, something happened to me that was so dramatic, spiritually, that I'm still catching my breath. I was a 4 month old christian at the time. But I'm glad that it happened because it taught me that I must grow in God's word continuously.


How do people dress in your church? Is it stiffnecked or are people laid back?

lol No. This is New York and more specifically, Manhattan. People wear all sorts of things. Even the minister's wife wear sleeveless at times. Some people wear jeans, some people wear suits, some people wear dressy dresses, but most women wear casual dresses in the summer.

[Frodo's Pearl]

Well, maybe if some celebs DID decide to convert, they WOULD have to give up their careers. But hey! What's more important, their fame or their salvation?

[BelovedCaptain]

That's right, FP. And I will still pray for them, for who knows when Christ shall come back? If they were converted, I would immediately invite them to my church if I could contact them. Oh well.
Hey! Here's sumthin funny. Me and my friend from our church were talking about the celebs and how cool it would be if they did hear the gospel. We joked about taking my dad to hollywood and witnessing to them. She especially wanted Dad to talk to Orli. ;)
You're in Manhattan, huh? cool! I've been there a few times. What's your church's name?? That's the same with our church. People just wear what they think is good. Some are kinda hillbillies, but some wear nicer clothes in the morning.
About movie theaters, people in our church were against them too, but dad says that what's the difference between going to a theater and renting a movie from the store? There's still previews although you CAN skip them if you rent them. Whatever you think is best is my view. It all depends on your discernment just like music and books.

[Lady Galadriel]

But hey! What's more important, their fame or their salvation?

That is so much easier said than done. Not everyone knows that truth either. Even when I tell my friends that nothing they do in life is as important as salvation, they hardly believe it or would hear it. The pleasure of sin still dominates their thinking and lifestyle. The lifestyle entices them and keeps them wedded to it. Yes, even regular people think it hard to give up the pleasures of sin for a season. Jesus said, "narrow is the way that leads to life and broad is the way that leads to destruction and many there are that follow it."

I live in NYC, in a place where many celebs live. People are so taken up with the lifestyle here. I used to be. There's something about the beat of the city that intoxicates. But of course, I was raised by christian values and always knew what the "real importance" in life was and thank God I turned to it before it was too late.

My point is, it would be great if many of the celebs become christians, but I think someone has to tell them about Jesus first. Not to mention that people find it offensive that they are sinners according to the bible. Everyone likes to believe that they are good. Even the CROSS, i understand is offensive to some. So, its not as plain as you think. First of all, their blindness about their sin has to be removed, then the heart has to be softened, and they have to be open to hearing, receiving and accepting the Word of God...that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

We joked about taking my dad to hollywood and witnessing to them.

Well, would you be surprised to hear that a lot of marvelous churches are in California? John Macarthur, who is one of the best bible preaching ministers out there, is based in California. I think Chuck Swindoll is too. And many, many more very good ministers. A lot of them are based in California.

What's your church's name?

Heritage Baptist Church

but dad says that what's the difference between going to a theater and renting a movie from the store? There's still previews although you CAN skip them if you rent them.

EXACTLY! You can skip scenes when you rent movies. But I don't really rent movies either. On tv, I mostly watch cartoons too, but i guess that's really because its summer right now. But still, I do watch a lot of cartoons and news. And I buy a lot of period pieces, not only for myself, but for my mother. She's a christian over 20 yrs now and loves to watch clean pictures.

[BelovedCaptain]

*sigh* Dont we all. :)
I just wish they could make more movies that are clean! The movies that Fox Family does are good, but they just don't put enough Christian values about God and Christ into them! :nono:

[Frodo's Pearl]

I get some movies that have objectionable stuff edited out of them from a certain website. Anyone here seen "Rudy"? It's unfortunatly got profane words in it, yet it is one of the most Catholic movies I have ever seen! (I don't know if the editing website has it or not.)

[Lady Galadriel]

*sigh* Dont we all. :)
I just wish they could make more movies that are clean! The movies that Fox Family does are good, but they just don't put enough Christian values about God and Christ into them! :nono:

Well, hopefully Fox Family remains clean. I see them advertising that they are the "new" Fox family now so I'm not so sure if they will continue to be conservative.

[Adunauriel]

Ok, it has been heavily discussed by the Mods and Admin, and we feel it's best to close this thread. It has become far too religious in nature, and not abut what this thread was intended for anymore. We are not trying to step on anyones religious beliefs, but feel that discussions of religion are best left out of the boards. Feel free to continue your discussion in PM's, but please refrain from taking over threads to discuss it in the future.

Adunauriel