Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 101

Thread: Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings

  1. #76
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by mal4mac View Post
    I just about agree with this. But I'd say, living in Brit. land, that it promulgates "sad, cliched distortions of upper-middle class British things" rather than simply "typically British things". We don't all go to naff public schools, and none of us travel by steam train, and we aren't all obsessed with daft sports with rules beyond understanding...
    No, but even the little things - that game they play on brooms, Quidditch or however you spell it - it's simply a play on rugby (mixed perhaps with tinges of Soccer/football) culture. The outlook is very British, but I think the interesting thing is the presence of girls on the teams. Which I think isn't as deep as I am making it, but asks questions like "why are all the very physical positions on the team taken by men, and agile positions taken by females?" Still though the outlook on a sort of sporting culture is very British.

    Likewise, I think there are some suggestions of British pub culture, though, none really worked upon too greatly - still though, yes, I would have to agree, the class system is really biased - the whole house system that divides the school clearly has class-related implications.

  2. #77
    Pièce de Résistance Scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Tweet @ScherLitNet
    Posts
    23,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I hope that was a rhetorical question.
    What is a rhetorical question?

    ~
    "It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
    ~


  3. #78
    escape reality rimbaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    940
    Blog Entries
    7
    well I haven't read the LOTR series, but I have read The HP series, and I must say i really liked the last 2 books, I think they are very different from the other five. I especially liked the character development in Tom Riddle and Severus Snape, as well as Dumbledore
    Touched by Genius. Cursed by Madness. Blinded by Love.

  4. #79
    Registered User PhoenixPassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Posts
    3
    I love both series equally. I cannot possibly compare the two series because they are distinct in their own ways. They have made their mark on literature in unique ways. The societies they represent are eras apart. LotR is an epic fantasy that has been an inspiration for decades, and will be inspiration for years to come, for many generations of authors. I believe Harry Potter will have this influence as well for a different category of authors.

  5. #80
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPassion View Post
    I love both series equally. I cannot possibly compare the two series because they are distinct in their own ways. They have made their mark on literature in unique ways. The societies they represent are eras apart. LotR is an epic fantasy that has been an inspiration for decades, and will be inspiration for years to come, for many generations of authors. I believe Harry Potter will have this influence as well for a different category of authors.
    Meh, I think there is a lot of Emperor's New Clothes going on, and some people are just too afraid to comment that they don't like either - Britain may have voted the Rings the best novel, but ultimately, I doubt many of the people who voted for it have read it, much less anything else.

  6. #81
    Registered User mona amon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,502
    I doubt many of the people who voted for it have read it
    I think that could be true. Quite a few of them probably voted for the book after seeing, and loving, the movies.

    But as for the Emperor's New Clothes part, isn't it more fashionable on a literature forum to say you don't like them (especially Harry Potter)?
    Exit, pursued by a bear.

  7. #82
    Liberate Babyguile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    570
    I find this insulting.

    It's like comparing Joe Satriani to Fred Durst (guitarists).

    Satriani was the innovator, he created a new way of playing and founded a whole new realm of art for the guitar. Durst lives of Satriani, note for note, most likely unconsiously (not the case with Rowling).

    The Lord Of The Rings is literature. Serious, serious literature that has something to say. Harry Potter is just a fantasy book. It lives by the cliches created by Tolkien, word for word.
    'Anger's my meat; I sup upon myself,
    And so shall starve with feeding.'
    Volumnia in Coriolanus

  8. #83
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
    I find this insulting.

    It's like comparing Joe Satriani to Fred Durst (guitarists).

    Satriani was the innovator, he created a new way of playing and founded a whole new realm of art for the guitar. Durst lives of Satriani, note for note, most likely unconsiously (not the case with Rowling).

    The Lord Of The Rings is literature. Serious, serious literature that has something to say. Harry Potter is just a fantasy book. It lives by the cliches created by Tolkien, word for word.
    Glad you think so. The fact that Tolkien created a world means nothing in terms of attesting to the quality of a book. You will need to elaborate further as exactly a) makes the Rings serious literature, and b) what exactly it has to say before I think anyone is convinced of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by mona amon View Post
    I think that could be true. Quite a few of them probably voted for the book after seeing, and loving, the movies.

    But as for the Emperor's New Clothes part, isn't it more fashionable on a literature forum to say you don't like them (especially Harry Potter)?
    Perhaps on a literary forum, but that is because of the huge threads they take up - in truth though, if they weren't mentioned, I doubt anybody would really care one way or another.

  9. #84
    Bibliophile Drkshadow03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    My heart lives in New York.
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
    I find this insulting.

    It's like comparing Joe Satriani to Fred Durst (guitarists).

    Satriani was the innovator, he created a new way of playing and founded a whole new realm of art for the guitar. Durst lives of Satriani, note for note, most likely unconsiously (not the case with Rowling).

    The Lord Of The Rings is literature. Serious, serious literature that has something to say. Harry Potter is just a fantasy book. It lives by the cliches created by Tolkien, word for word.
    You're actually insulted? Why are J. R. R. Tolkien reincarnated? Fred Durst is nothing like Satriani. It's not just a matter of talent (granted Durst is abysmal), but one of different styles too. Durst didn't steal from Satriani; he isn't talented enough to copy him. You'd actually need to have some talent with a guitar to copy Satriani's shredding abilities.


    Likewise, Happy Potter is a copy of Tolkien word for word?! So if I open up the first book of HP and the first page of LOTR, they will say exactly the same thing? HP is nothing like LOTR. I already addressed some of those differences here in this essay.
    "You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus

    https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
    Feed the Hungry!

  10. #85
    Liberate Babyguile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by JBI View Post
    Glad you think so. The fact that Tolkien created a world means nothing in terms of attesting to the quality of a book. You will need to elaborate further as exactly a) makes the Rings serious literature, and b) what exactly it has to say before I think anyone is convinced of anything.
    You failed to understand the point I clearly made. You've exhausted the bolded point enough in this thread I think.

    The world Tolkien created, which is remarkable in many ways by its own merits (believe this), was just a vehicle for what he wanted to say. What Rowling and all (99% of American fantasy writers) other fantasy authors after him did, was paint with the same colours as Tolkien, but not with the depth. Tolkien created the cliches, yes, but they weren't cliches back then. He wasn't following a set formula in order to get published and acheive mere popularity like these newer authors do.

    It's very simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drkshadow03 View Post
    You're actually insulted? Why are J. R. R. Tolkien reincarnated? Fred Durst is nothing like Satriani. It's not just a matter of talent (granted Durst is abysmal), but one of different styles too. Durst didn't steal from Satriani; he isn't talented enough to copy him. You'd actually need to have some talent with a guitar to copy Satriani's shredding abilities.


    Likewise, Happy Potter is a copy of Tolkien word for word?! So if I open up the first book of HP and the first page of LOTR, they will say exactly the same thing? HP is nothing like LOTR. I already addressed some of those differences here in this essay.
    This is silly and semi-facetious.
    'Anger's my meat; I sup upon myself,
    And so shall starve with feeding.'
    Volumnia in Coriolanus

  11. #86
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
    You failed to understand the point I clearly made. You've exhausted the bolded point enough in this thread I think.

    The world Tolkien created, which is remarkable in many ways by its own merits (believe this), was just a vehicle for what he wanted to say. What Rowling and all (99% of American fantasy writers) other fantasy authors after him did, was paint with the same colours as Tolkien, but not with the depth. Tolkien created the cliches, yes, but they weren't cliches back then. He wasn't following a set formula in order to get published and acheive mere popularity like these newer authors do.

    It's very simple.
    What did he create? Look at his long bibliography - he just relocated things, he didn't create very much. Elves aren't his invention, and neither are Goblins - trolls, dragons, giants, even tree spirits are not his invention. Wizards surely aren't, and there have been little people for as long as there have been people, probably. Certainly the languages were an "invention", if we take grafting living or evolved languages into new forms - but even so, to what extent can we call that art?

    We don't need to accept Tolkien's world making, and setting as anything special - the fact that he invented a style that many mediocre authors have mimicked doesn't attest to anything - the book Madame Chrysanthème by Pierre Loti, for instance, was adapted numerous times, had immense influence, and even laid the foundation for what is now the most preformed opera in the US, Madama Butterfly - is it a good novel? Hardly. IT sold well though, and its orientalist projection of Japan dominated for quite a long time, and even has, to an extent survived until this day, in various forms.

    The point I will make, is that creating a fake world isn't art - what you do inside the world is the artistic part, and how you portray it - so, ultimately, bad prose, no matter how well drawn the setting of a story is, is still bad prose.

  12. #87
    Liberate Babyguile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by JBI View Post
    What did he create? Look at his long bibliography - he just relocated things, he didn't create very much. Elves aren't his invention, and neither are Goblins - trolls, dragons, giants, even tree spirits are not his invention. Wizards surely aren't, and there have been little people for as long as there have been people, probably. Certainly the languages were an "invention", if we take grafting living or evolved languages into new forms - but even so, to what extent can we call that art?

    We don't need to accept Tolkien's world making, and setting as anything special - the fact that he invented a style that many mediocre authors have mimicked doesn't attest to anything - the book Madame Chrysanthème by Pierre Loti, for instance, was adapted numerous times, had immense influence, and even laid the foundation for what is now the most preformed opera in the US, Madama Butterfly - is it a good novel? Hardly. IT sold well though, and its orientalist projection of Japan dominated for quite a long time, and even has, to an extent survived until this day, in various forms.

    The point I will make, is that creating a fake world isn't art - what you do inside the world is the artistic part, and how you portray it - so, ultimately, bad prose, no matter how well drawn the setting of a story is, is still bad prose.
    You are still pre-occupied with Middle-earth. My post stated that this was only a vehicle. Just like the streets of industrialised London were a vehicle for countless great Victorian novels. And even as I feel I can defend the originality of Tolkien in this respect, I really do want you to stop this pre-occupation with his world.

    Now, it's not important whether you view his world as genious or grossly over-rated, we should be discussing his literary merit. His voice, his talents, his craft, the metaphors and (dare I say it) the allegories. If you have read LOTR and not picked up on these and identified LOTR as being above all those that went after it, then you must have read them with pre-concieved notions and bias, and that's a shame.
    Last edited by Babyguile; 10-07-2009 at 01:58 PM.
    'Anger's my meat; I sup upon myself,
    And so shall starve with feeding.'
    Volumnia in Coriolanus

  13. #88
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
    You are still pre-occupied with Middle-earth. My post stated that this was only a vehicle. Just like the streets of industrialised London were a vehicle for countless great Victorian novels. And even as I feel I can defend the originality of Tolkien in this respect, I really do want you to stop this pre-occupation with his world.

    Now, it's not important whether you view his world as genious or grossly over-rated, we should be discussing his literary merit. His voice, his talents, his craft, the metaphors and (dare I say it) the allegories. If you have read LOTR and not picked up on these and identified LOTR as being above all those that went after it, then you must have read them with pre-concieved notions and bias, and that's a shame.
    Alright, his boring prose, one dimensional characters, not-so-interesting plot, and mediocre, often backward morals - which shall we discuss first? Certainly, if we are to talk metaphor, what better place to start then his god-awful poetry?


    Literary merit implies that there is something worth merit there - what is it? You do a great job of accusing me, yet, as far as I can tell, you merely tell me to stop talking about subjects that come up, and focus on his "literary merit". I have quoted bits of terrible prose (perhaps on another thread, this one is lengthy and I don't feel like rereading it totally), and have discussed character and other aspects of fiction on the text itself, yet somehow you are the one accusing me of failing to realize his literary merit. Lets be frank, tell me what you think is good about the book, and what you think we should discuss, rather than attacking me for not saying what you want me to say, that Tolkien is a genius, and his followers are all toss - quite frankly, Tolkien, when it came to writing fiction, was hardly a genius, and, for the most part, his followers are all toss.

    You pretend like you are the only one who can read Tolkien, well then, you preach his merit, show it to me. Give me something that displays this merit - if the setting is only vehicle, than give me something, anything that shows what is beyond the setting is worthy of merit. So far, you have done a good job attacking my posts, meanwhile you have said absolutely nothing.

    Perhaps maybe if you said something besides criticized what others would say, people would take you more seriously, as it is, if you reply in the same fashion to this post, I'll simply ignore you as a troll, since you clearly have no desire to support your arguments, but seem the first to criticize others'.

  14. #89
    Liberate Babyguile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    570
    I knew this would be your next line of attack: to ask me to effectively teach you about his work. There has long been scholars on Tolkien, they are writing some fascinating things all the time. Read them, and be convinced.

    I am not about to teach you anything, you have read the books with cynicism and perhaps annoyance at the praise they get, with much the same mind-set that you approached Martin's work with I would guess, though you didn't even read them did you? I'd like to know if you finished LOTR before you began this dogmatic campaign against it. And so I don't feel it's my place to teach you anything about a book that has been around for over half a century and has recieved more public accolades and scholary attention than any other book of its type.

    Yes, Tolkien's poetry is horrendous and I always skip it besides some whimsical songs from the Hobbit which I fins brilliant, but if it's any consolation he was a good painter And please, stop trying to pigeon hole me over an internet forum, it is a very silly thing to do.
    Last edited by Babyguile; 10-07-2009 at 05:45 PM.
    'Anger's my meat; I sup upon myself,
    And so shall starve with feeding.'
    Volumnia in Coriolanus

  15. #90
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,358
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
    I knew this would be your next line of attack: to ask me to effectively teach you about his work. There has long been scholars on Tolkien, they are writing some fascinating things all the time. Read them, and be convinced.

    I am not about to teach you anything, you have read the books with cynicism and perhaps annoyance at the praise they get, with much the same mind-set that you approached Martin's work with I would guess, though you didn't even read them did you? I'd like to know if you finished LOTR before you began this dogmatic campaign against it. And so I don't feel it's my place to teach you anything about a book that has been around for over half a century and has recieved more public accolades and scholary attention than any other book of its type.

    Yes, Tolkien's poetry is horrendous and I always skip it besides some whimsical songs from the Hobbit which I fins brilliant, but if it's any consolation he was a good painter And please, stop trying to pigeon hole me over an internet forum, it is a very silly thing to do.
    Good, and since you have said that you don't wish to "teach" anybody anything, we can dismiss your arguments as something which you "don't want to make."

    There has been as much, if not more scholarship bashing Tolkien as there has supporting it. Don't think I'm ignorant, unread, or flat out base. So far, I have showed, and supported my opinion, whereas you have merely criticized me, meanwhile hiding behind a veil of "go out there and read something, you ignorant bully." Lets be honest, one wouldn't be too hard pressed to think some poster is a tad bit hypocritical no? Accusing someone of not discussing "other aspects", but when the question is reverted, hiding behind absolutely nothing.

    I'm not trying to pigeon whole anybody, I think I already have.

    And, just for kicks - I read the books first at age 9, when I didn't even know how popular the texts were - the movies were a few years later - I'll be honest though, I got through the Hobit, but on my first read I got trapped somewhere in the second Volume of The Rings. Quit assuming things, and quit calling me biased when quite simply, one could merely invert the statement and suggest that you yourself are biased and read the book looking for "good", avoiding all the "bad", and boring as a way of trying to fit in with a public opinion of said text - one could say that, but who would be rude enough to call you a biased, mediocre reader?
    Last edited by JBI; 10-07-2009 at 09:57 PM.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pants game
    By nome1486 in forum Forum Games
    Replies: 678
    Last Post: 09-28-2016, 03:16 PM
  2. Harry Potter
    By jessw in forum General Literature
    Replies: 550
    Last Post: 12-03-2011, 12:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •