Harry Potter -- Far Superior to LOTR?

[Skeptic]

I didn't mean to imply Tolkein was a plagiarist -- he would be the first to admit he "stole" the idea from Wagner. We all know just getting "a great idea for a story" from some other place is not just not plagiarism, it's almost required. But I think the "school of magic" done in such detail is Rowling's creation. Of course that it is possible others had similar ideas before.

 

[Skeptic]

I think it's worth noting that most of your arguments do not apply as much to The Hobbit. I'd like to see someone compare that to HP.

I don't think you can compare them as their scope and purpose is so different. The Hobbit is much shorter and simpler in structure -- as it is meant to be.

I'm sure it helped. But, it's not a necessity.

Certainly not. She was quite good at describing what male characters feel like, too. But portrayal of women is a weakness in fantasy literature in general, and she is one of the better ones at it.

P.S.

Asimov and Heinlein -- to move to SF for a minute -- both couldn't portray a realistic female character to save their lives. But Asimov at least knew this and deliberately (almost) always avoided female characters (and Dr. Susan Calvin doesn't count -- she is female only technically, deliberately so, to emphasize her robot-like coldness). (The late) Heinlein, on the other hand... ugh.

(And, by the way, the book is better than the movie, especially the ending, which was botched in the movie.)

They usually are, though there are exceptions.

 

[erlando]

I didn't mean to imply TolkeinTolkien was a plagiarist

ftfy

 

[Skeptic]

You're kidding, right? Tolkien invented an entire world with a complete history just to give context to the language he'd created!

I agree with quite a lot of your points, but here I strongly disagree.

Creating entire worlds in fiction is quite easy. Ever second-rate science-fiction hack creates galatic empires by the score. It is far harder to create a believable small world, like an imaginary village, school, or even room, than to create an imaginary universe.

The point is to make the world "live" with the details -- to create a sense of the world being real -- and while I certainly agree Tolkein was very good at this, he used many tropes (artificial languages, etc.) that, to me, don't work as well now, as an adult, as they worked for me when I was 14.

Yes, reading the LOTR for the first time was a great experience for me -- I was 14. It truly created a "world of wonder". Reading it again in my 30s was a big disappointment -- not because I know the ending, but because the tropes which so fascinated me at 14 now seem to me rather childish.

This of course is not Tolkein's fault in one very important sense -- he was deliberately writing a juvenile. But the point is, I am reading HP as an adult for the first time, and enjoying it much more despite the fact that it is a juvenile. No, it doesn't fascinate me to the degree it fascinated so many youngsters, but it also doesn't have (to my mind) the annoying trops in LOTR.

Totally incorrect. Nothing in Tolkien's writings comes from Wagner's Ring.

Apart from the dragon guarding the all-powerful ring that corrupts the wearer and the helmet that makes one invisible... for starters...

 

[Ocelot]

But I think the "school of magic" done in such detail is Rowling's creation. Of course that it is possible others had similar ideas before.

Not just possible but already demonstrated. I'm sure that Rowling has had many original ideas but the theme of a child discoveing that they have magical powers and then growing up in a school that teaches them to master this art is so far from being original that it's like claiming that twilight invented vampires struggling against their monstrous nature.

Seriously read these
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorstWitch
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle5txdk0a4
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrooshamGrange

Or take a look at a whole host of others from the same source

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WizardingSchool

 

[DallasDad]

Creating entire worlds in fiction is quite easy.

This is a joke, right?

...And while I certainly agree Tolkein was very good at this, he used many tropes (artificial languages, etc.)...

It's only a trope because he invented it and every author since has copied him.

...He was deliberately writing a juvenile.

I call troll.

 

[Skeptic]

This is a joke, right?

No it's not -- every second-rate hack creates magical fantasy or SF worlds in their books. The problem is to make itbelievable and engaging.

 

[RobDegraves]

No it's not -- every second-rate hack creates magical fantasy or SF worlds in their books. The problem is to make itbelievable and engaging.

So... you missed the part where everyone tells you that your tastes are not an arbitrary measure of quality right?

This is becoming more and more troll like.

Which is funny when you think about it... you know.. lotr... trolls...

 

[Giz]

No it's not -- every second-rate hack creates magical fantasy or SF worlds in their books. The problem is to make itbelievable and engaging.

Indeed.

And I am about to commit the ultimate heresy - criticising Tolkein's world building!

Every sc-fi story involves world building. Tolkein's acheivment was the complexity of his world. Unfortunately, it is unbelievable (whether on socio-economic/political, technological or just historic/technological grounds). Human beings in Tolkein's world must be nothing like the Humans of our world, or Middle Earth would be wildly different.

His is a technocratic exercise in world building:
1) Need a language - check
2) Need a family tree - check
3) Need to make sure that this all links in convincingly with the rest of the world and seems humanly plausible - oops!




Also - from a literary point of view, a lot of the Middle Earth background he wrote outside of the LOTR books is kinda beside the point. It isn't used in the narrative and is therefore the opposite of Chekov's gun - just daydreams of the author fulfilling no useful purpose (and therefore unworthy of being lauded).

 

[Dinwar]

Others have said much of what I'm saying, but I thought I'd throw my hat in the wrong.

First, let me say that I liked the Harry Potter series. For what it was, it was a good series of books. I'm just more versed in Tolkien's works (been reading them longer), so I'm naturally going to come at this from the perspective of pointing out flaws in the comparison dealing with LOTR.

Second, let me just say that I don't think you can compare the two, beacuse the Potter series is based on ground LOTR helped to break, if not flat-out broke first. It's like asking which is better at running, the first horse ever to evolve or a horse that evolved to run? Of COURSE the later books are going to seem better--authors have worked very, very hard to make them so over the past 50 or 60 years.

3). The combination of "real-life" problems (growing up, first kiss, etc.) with the fantasy is done very skillfully in the "Potter" books, and naturally has absolutely no equivalent in LOTR. Similarly the relationship between magicians and non-magicians.

The problems in LOTR were real-life problems, just not MODERN real-life problems. This isn't Potter being better than LOTR, it's just a matter of setting.

4). The idea of a school for magic is pure genius, but, more to the point -- makes the increasing power of the magic as the stories evolve seem logical. In LOTR it is never really clear why the all-powerful Gandalf doesn't do much more much sooner.

This is simply wrong. The reason the "all-powerful" Gandalf (he wasn't, even later in the books) doesn't do much more much sooner is because he COULDN'T. Illuvator sent him back after he fell to the balrog. You're asking a character to shoot someone before he even has a gun in his hand.

7). Suspense is kept in a much more sophisticated way in the "Potter" books, especially in the richer secondary characters, whose "side" is sometimes not clear. The reasons for complicated characters' development (Snape, Hagrid, etc.) revealed gradually and make sense. In LOTR there is little chracter development at all.

Again, simply not true. I get the sense that you don't know what LOTR was trying to do, or what it was based on.

8). Comic relief done very well; Rowling has an excellent sense of balance between "serious" chapters and "funny" chapters (and how to tie them all together). Almost none exists in LOTR.

First, this is subjective. I found a few parts kinda funny (the whole "You breath so loudly we could have shot you in the dark" bit, the swan boats, things like that); obviously you didn't. Also, comic relief isn't necessary.

9). The characters mature believably also in the physical sense of entering adulthood, not just in having more powerful magic.

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with LOTR? The characters in LOTR start off as adults. Well, by the time anything significant happens, anyway.

10). On the whole and in general, Rowling has a much better imagination than Tolkein. It's the easiest thing in the world to imagine an all-powerful lord of darkness whose eternal minions will overcome the world with all-powerful magic until the one hero saves them. But to imagine the numerous small details, the little daily magical spells, the annoying or funny magical creatures in a way Rowling does -- that fits into the story, however, that takes a lot more.

No. I'm sorry, but no. Tolkien is widely regarded as being remarkable specifically for his attention to details. If you look through the LOTR books you'd be hard-pressed to find any contradictions. Very few exist between The Hobbit and LOTR. And Rowling's backstory has none of the depth that Tolkien's did. Rowling made stuff up as she went along, and it's pretty obvious at times (in fact, Sluggy Freelance openly mocked the fact that it seemd Rowling added new wizard traditions for each book, which were never previously referenced). She tied it together pretty well, and I by no means am saying this is bad. I'm just saying that while she had better attention to detail for the characters, it was at the cost of her attention to detail for the world itself. And that illustrates why LOTR and Harry Potter are really incomperable works, at least in the way you're trying to compare them: they're completely different sub-genres, with completely different goals and must be judged by completely different standards.

Finally, I think it's telling that you're even doing this. You yourself have accepted that LOTR is the bar--that is the standard for greatness. Harry Potter, simply put, isn't. Not even in your own mind.

Creating entire worlds in fiction is quite easy.

While this may be true, creating interesting, consistent worlds is nearly impossible. Tolkien did it. The guy who wrote The Chronicles of Amber did it for the first five books. Douglas Adams more lampshaded this one. I'm sure there are others, but they're going to be a very small number. The point isn't that Tolkien created a world. It's that he did it well, in ways which Rowling hasn't. This isn't a bad thing on Rowling's part--she didn't NEED to.

Yes, reading the LOTR for the first time was a great experience for me -- I was 14. It truly created a "world of wonder". Reading it again in my 30s was a big disappointment -- not because I know the ending, but because the tropes which so fascinated me at 14 now seem to me rather childish.

I once read a review of The Maltese Falcon by someone who'd never seen it before. They were shocked at all the tropes and cliches in the movie. Until, that is, they realized that this was the movie that made them cliches--so many people were trying to make their move THIS movie without understanding what made the movie great that modern entertainment was awash in those attempts, long after the origine was nearly forgotten (seriously, how many kids even know what the movie is about?). It's similar with LOTR. Tolkien didn't write a trope-filled cliche of a book--he wrote the book that everyone else is copying, and its that copying that makes aspects of the book cliches. The book itself is the original (well, the introduction, anyway).

Anyone care to place bets on whether, in 50 years, we'll be talking about how Harry Potter is full of tropes and cliches? How many people do you think will base their works off Potter?

 

[MetalSeagull]

Rowling made stuff up as she went along, and it's pretty obvious at times (in fact, Sluggy Freelance openly mocked the fact that it seemd Rowling added new wizard traditions for each book, which were never previously referenced). She tied it together pretty well, and I by no means am saying this is bad. I'm just saying that while she had better attention to detail for the characters, it was at the cost of her attention to detail for the world itself.

I definitely agree here.

Also, Harry seemed to blunder his way to success too often. In fact, in my mind, he seemed hopelessly inept and I wondered more than once why Hermione wasn't the heroine. She at least achieved things through her own efforts.

Also the lack of an overarching plot in place from the beginning seemed especially noticeable in the sixth book, as the enormity of what was left to be accomplished was made clear, with only one more book to wrap it all up.


This make-it-up-as-you-go-along quality that reminds me more of The Dark Tower series than LOTR.


Tolkien: Created a world and told a story that fit within it
Rowling: Told a story and created a world to fit around it

Which one is better is personal taste, but I find the Tolkien's consistency more satisfying.

 

[Dinwar]

Also, Harry seemed to blunder his way to success too often. In fact, in my mind, he seemed hopelessly inept and I wondered more than once why Hermione wasn't the heroine. She at least achieved things through her own efforts.

The legacy of the Greeks. Harry was, for all his flaws, the most rounded of the characters--skilled in athletics (instinctively, with little effort, but still) and pretty good in school. Hermione was intelligent, but not athletic. Ron was neither--he was a foil in the first books, the Jonny Everyman of the wizard world.

The fact that Rowling put Potter in a school makes some of the "make it up as you go" quality make sense--as we go through school we learn new things. That's the whole point. But something like other schools of magic not even being mentioned in passing for years? None of the professors mentioned ANYTHING about "Oh yes, my collegue in Russia asked to burrow that book last month"?

I think Rowling had a few ideas in line. She certainly put certain foreshadowing in--the green light at the start of Book 1 shows the Unforgivable Curses, for examle. But the details were sketchy. And that's okay--in this type of book the characters are vastly more important than the setting. If you're going to have inconsistencies, either have them in the setting or be able to explain them (teenagers are morons; some inconsistencies are to be expected). But yeah, it's going to take some real effort to convince me that Rowling was anywhere near as internally consistent as Tolkien.

 

[epepke]

Harry Potter and LOTR are not really comparable.

Harry Potter is, at its heart, and English public school story. That's the spine of the story, and many of the character interactions are classic in such stories. The genre is at least a century and a half old, but it represents the first time these stories have gathered a significant international audience. Rowling deserves some credit for adding magic to the mix (though she was not original in this, either) and also for speaking so well to the feelings of alienation that most children have and expressing it in relatively simple and recognizable language if you like it, and trite and hackneyed if you don't. (Harry Potter drinking game: open to a random page, and if someone says they are going to go stretch their legs, you drink.)

LOTR is what happens when a fairly gifted linguist mixes Northern mythology with a Catholic worldview.

 

[Lamuella]

I didn't mean to imply Tolkein was a plagiarist -- he would be the first to admit he "stole" the idea from Wagner. We all know just getting "a great idea for a story" from some other place is not just not plagiarism, it's almost required. But I think the "school of magic" done in such detail is Rowling's creation. Of course that it is possible others had similar ideas before.

The "school of magic" is probably the least original part of Harry Potter. As I said, The Worst Witch predates Harry Potter by more than 20 years. The wizard school in A Wizard Of Earthsea predates the first Harry Potter book by nearly 30 years. Unseen University in the Terry Pratchett books predates it by more than 10.

 

[3point14]

Having to make the comparison is like deciding which of My testicals I'd like chewed off by angry iguanas. I don't think either are any good.

Tolkien gets huge kudos for originality and kicking the whole thing off, as well as immense attention to detail, but he really, really needed an editor to say "Loook, Jay Ar Ar, I think perhaps we could cut a little of the descriptive stuff"

Rowling annoys me, simply because so many people don't know how derivitave it is. I get people with no background reading in the genre enthusing about how original it is when it's not at all original, they just don't know where it came from. Lamuella listed a load of influences, Rowling stitched them together in (in my view) not a fantastic way. The story is, I must admit, a good one (which is why they translate so well into movies) but I don't think the writing has a lot about it and (again) she really, really needed an editor with the bottle to say 'cut allll of this....'

 

[Lamuella]

basically, I think that Rowling peaked with the third Potter book. The first two were OK but nothing special, the third started to introduce a wider world and broader story arcs without the book itself being a 500 page death march. Coincidentally, the third film is also the best, although that might be down to it having the best director.

 

[drewid]

No Potter isn't original, but it is a good yarn. The craftsmanship of the writing improves through the series as well, though the extended camping tril in deathly hallows could have done with some fuerce editing.

LOTR has the air of a book that took fifteen years to write, which is a little surprising since Tolkien was a notorious non-plotter:

Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the corner of the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who was was than had Frodo. ... Most disquieting of all, Saruman had never been revealed to me, and I was as mystified as Frodo at Gandalf's failure to appear on September 22. JRRT in a letter to

 

[Lamuella]

No Potter isn't original, but it is a good yarn. The craftsmanship of the writing improves through the series as well, though the extended camping tril in deathly hallows could have done with some fuerce editing.

LOTR has the air of a book that took fifteen years to write, which is a little surprising since Tolkien was a notorious non-plotter:

that's a bit of a misleading quote. It wasn't that Tolkien was a non-plotter so much as that he was an emergent plotter: he would write, then re-write from scratch incorporating the details of the old draft. Saruman had existed in the book since an outline he wrote in 1940

 

[Darat]

....snip... Rowling made stuff up as she went along, and it's pretty obvious at times (in fact, Sluggy Freelance openly mocked the fact that it seemd Rowling added new wizard traditions for each book, which were never previously referenced). She tied it together pretty well, and I by no means am saying this is bad. I'm just saying that while she had better attention to detail for the characters, it was at the cost of her attention to detail for the world itself.

...snip...

I can't believe I am defending Rowling but I know for a fact (worked on several HP licensed products) that she had quite a bit of the world mapped out and knew what would be happening there before she wrote the next book and she could provide additional details of the world that she knew wouldn't contradict stuff later on in the series.

(Of course she made up a lot as she went along but all authors do.)

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I cannot watch LOTR all the way through and love HP but I will put my money behind LOTR being read/watched in 10+ years time, Harry Potter not so much

Beatrix Potter, anyone?