I enjoyed the books and the movies, some of the similarities irked me when I first read them, but they quickly become Rowlings and not carbon copies. The one thing you didn't mention was the dementors they, screamed ringwraith to me immediately and still bug me to some extent, but the difference is the Dementors actually work for the good guys they just get abused and used inproperly. What bothered me was the black hooded screaming ghost that stalks the heroes early on and throughout the series that was too similar and distracting on film. The movies are not bad, but the inconsistencies with magic use and the "jedi wizards"was annoying, much preferred the book version of magic use. I don't like it near as much as LOTR, heck it probably doesnt make my top ten of books or movies. What Tolkien had was the benefit of time and back story. He wrote not for money or deadlines but for the love of the world he escaped to. Rowling used it as a coping mechanism and to express herself, and above all for money. Once they caught on the books and her writing style became rushed and erratic and muddled.

On Eragon, I thought the first two were quite boring, but the last two were better - if very, very, very predictable.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

This.

Hi, can we please refrain from excessive quoting followed by "this"? The site policy is to discourage pointless posts of "+1" and "this", etc, please see discussion here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23626&start=40

Same goes with excessive quoting, you really only need a snippet, not the whole thing. I mention it here because this is possibly one of the worst offending threads in that regard

[channel distant airport voice]Thank you for your cooperation![/channel]

And, btw Telchar, that green text is...hideous... I can't even read it.

I had to highlight it to read it...

Doesn't work so well on the iPad

I'm not really a Harry Potter fan but I dont think she ripped off Tolkien. Most fantasy stories have very similar elements in them and both novels have very different vibes attached to them.

On the other hand Eragon is an absolute rip off of the Star Wars story.

Sorry. I can't find my usual red tone...

And I agree with Sticky Fingersss on both accounts.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

If you want to talk about rip offs pretty much the whole of Middle earth can be considered a rip off of the Prose Edda, even down to literally lifting the names of characters. Harry Potter does suck though

_________________
...There's a way.

I pointed that one out a couple pages back too. I wouldn't go so far as to say "whole of Middle Earth" but a lot of very specific details. But it's how the re-imaging of the 'borrowed' parts are assembled and presented that needs to be measured. Not just for JRRT and JKR but all writers/film makers/game designers that we seek enjoyment and entertainment from. It's hard to have fully new ideas, but it's important that they make the older ideas their own in interesting and creative ways.

BTW, love the name and avatar.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Funny, this thread is a microcosm of the OP...some of us are repeating what someone else said, but saying it a little differently.

Maybe Tolkien should have quoted the entire Edda, and then added "this"

No, the Edda is not written half as interestingly as LotR :p.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

As has been said, mainly by whafrog, I'm sure Snorri Struluson, Egil Skalgrimsson and many others would have been quite peeved that Tolkein didn't even adapt much of the work, he just did a good old copy paste job. The entire of Thorin's Company including Gandalf are just copies of the few named Dark Elves (Dwarves) in those works.

As much as I don't like Harry Potter, a Tolkien fan would be a hippocrite to say its similar, even if some parts are, as many others have said, the similarities is nowhere near those of Medieval Icelandic works.

Nice to know some others here have an interest in Norse Mythology.

_________________
Sun is by sea-men always hoped for,
when they fare away over the fishes' bath,
until the brine-stallion they bring to land.
OERP

http://www.cleanfunnypics.com/wp-conten ... DAZ0_c.png
Lol, this kinda sums it all up.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

I disagree because I do not find Sam or Ron to be annoying. Some of the best characters in both.

Also, cartoons looked really bad imo.

_________________
"I am the Flying Spagetti Monster. Thou shall have no other monsters before me"
-FSM.

Why is it cheeky of them to prefer Potter to Rings?

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

I agree. Also, I think Rowling's side characters - Dumbledore, Snape and Hermione in particular - are very good and well written.



Because in literary value - not the thing that matters, I know - LotR is far, far, far better. In amusement value, well, I much prefer LotR, but Potter isn't bad either.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

Here's a question: how do you determine if something has literary value or not?

That is a very open ended question, but basically anything that brings something new to the table while being a well written and structured piece of work can be considered of literary value. Animal Farm has literary value because of how it transforms communism and capitalism into one big metaphor that anyone of any age can read and understand, but on the other hand, alot of Shakespeare's plays hold almost no literary value because of how biased and inaccurate (historically) they are, despite the fact they are very well written.

Commonly accepted standards are:

- The amount of "round" as opposed to "flat" characters
- The purpose of the work: merely to amuse or also to have some deeper meaning.
- The amount of intertextuality (ie. connections with other works) used.
- Etc.

I won't say I agree on all of them, but generally something that is fun not because it's a nice story for a single read, but because of beautiful language, symbolism, etc., is literature to me.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings