Potter & Tolkien discussion

Forostar

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
Alright guys, start laughing (or crying):

I have never read a Harry Potter book and I have never seen a Harry Potter movie.

Perhaps, deep down inside I don't like the hype of the series because I automatically compare that success with Tolkien works and films. OK, Tolkien can also be seen as a hype, but there's so much depth in his books. IMO of course.

I still think I will see some of those films one day, but not soon.
 
Comparing Potter to Tolkien is really not a good comparison.  In the end, and it GRATES on my nerves to say it, but I believe Potter is a greater phenomena than Tolkien.  Tolkien was almost a cult following, but Potter taught millions of kids to love to read.
 
Forostar said:
Alright guys, start laughing (or crying):

I have never read a Harry Potter book and I have never seen a Harry Potter movie.

Perhaps, deep down inside I don't like the hype of the series because I automatically compare that success with Tolkien works and films. OK, Tolkien can also be seen as a hype, but there's so much depth in his books. IMO of course.

I still think I will see some of those films one day, but not soon.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair I only got caught by it because the first book came around when I was about 8, so I was the prime age for reading them. They are not deep books but they are well written and they will always be recommended to everyone.
Also, I dislike Tolkien's works and never really got into the almost stereotypical fantasy-theme he essentially popularised (the idea of a world with orks, elves, etc - influencing many, many other films, books, games, etc). I don't mind a bit of that kind of thing, like with Potter, but I've never been hugely interested in the genre.
Though I still enjoy deep(er) books than Harry Potter, just not Tolkien's.
 
Forostar said:
Alright guys, start laughing (or crying):

I have never read a Harry Potter book and I have never seen a Harry Potter movie.

Perhaps, deep down inside I don't like the hype of the series because I automatically compare that success with Tolkien works and films. OK, Tolkien can also be seen as a hype, but there's so much depth in his books. IMO of course.

I still think I will see some of those films one day, but not soon.
Click to expand...

Foro... I salute you, keep up the good work and like myself, stay away from such crap. We are a dying breed my friend, but united we will persevere.
 
Hehe! *shakes hands with Onhell*

I actually got into Tolkien in the eighties, aeons before that hype that came along with the films. I only discovered it because some classmates of mine (roleplay-nerds just like me) told me about it. So this has also nostalgic meaning. The Lord of the Rings trilogy came out in the fifties of the last century and probably still is the one but most often read book series, after the bible. Harry Potter is popular because the books are still new. I am convinced that the Tolkien books are still known hundred years after they were first published. But I am not sure if the Potter works will have that same impact. That's what a real hype is about. Like disco, it comes and goes.

Ardius, I am not hugely interested in that genre, but later I read works by Weiss & Hickman, Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin. I just enjoyed reading this stuff immensely. The world presented was so new, exciting and well described. I almost literally dived into it. I have a big imagination so perhaps that's why I was so much into it. Potter is more "realistic" right? Connections with earth etc?

Anyway, you guys grew up with Potter, I grew up with Tolkien, like many before and after me. I'm old. :)

Still it could be nice to both like these books and films.
 
*I* grew up with Tolkien.  And Potter isn't crap, Onhell, and calling it that really shows an ignorance I hadn't expected from you.  They're some of the most important fiction books of the last 100 years, simply because they caused a revolution in a generation.  Beyond that, I happen to think they are marvelously constructed.
 
Forostar said:
Ardius, I am not hugely interested in that genre, but later I read works by Weiss & Hickman, Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin. I just enjoyed reading this stuff immensely. The world presented was so new, exciting and well described. I almost literally dived into it. I have a big imagination so perhaps that's why I was so much into it. Potter is more "realistic" right? Connections with earth etc?

Anyway, you guys grew up with Potter, I grew up with Tolkien, like many before and after me. I'm old. :)

Still it could be nice to both like these books and films.
Click to expand...

I merely meant that it usually takes more than the theme of the genre for books/films/whatever to capture my interest, I did attempt to read Tolkien but just wasn't interested. The films are a snoozefest for me, the usual "epic" films with the vast use of CGI and the usual orchestra stuff, and one liners and so on. Eye-rolling stuff, the books seemed a lot better but I just don't like them.

Potter isn't really "realistic" (how realistic can fiction be? :p ), as LC said they aren't really comparable, different styles and the only connection is the fantasy fiction theme. They are well written though, and its amusing that they are seen as a younger generation-fad, as I saw the LotR films as that, at least in terms of popularity among my generation - most hadn't read the books at all. At least with the Potter films/books, its grown from family audiences passing it on rather than it being popular to like it (though obviously that happens anyway and obviously I don't mean LotR is either).
 
Ardius said:
I merely meant that it usually takes more than the theme of the genre for books/films/whatever to capture my interest
Click to expand...

Indeed it does, mate: taste!  :D

That was a joke, seriously! *runs*
 
You know Foro I could use your methods of persuasion and try to talk you into liking the Potter books (just reading them wouldn't be enough*),  but I'm simply going to say this.  I understand your reservations about the whole hype (I do that myself sometimes),  but if you decide to get to know what the Harry Potter series are about,  don't watch the movies.  More than likely they'll leave a bad impression,  since they are pretty much kid crap.  The books themselves on the other hand are,  as others said,  very well written,  and I personally think they do have a lot of depth.  I disagree with Ardius though,  I loved the last books.  The whole darkening theme was brilliant and the series were intended to go that way right from the start (at least Rowling intended to,  maybe someone might not have expected it).

*This is not intended to be hostile,  just a reminder that sometimes you try a little too hard to persuade someone else about your opinions  ;).
 
LooseCannon said:
*I* grew up with Tolkien.  And Potter isn't crap, Onhell, and calling it that really shows an ignorance I hadn't expected from you. 
Click to expand...

*Ahem* They're crap. Revolution or not, they're crap. Are they well written? No doubt, that only makes them well written crap, but crap none the less. I could go on. That they got kids to read, great. I started reading Garfield comics, moved on to Crichton novels and now almost exclusively read classic lit or academic books. Am I going to call Garfield amazing and great because it got me interested in reading overall? No. Garfield, like most comics, is crap. So next time you call me ignorant make sure that I am (like SMX calling me out in the Greenday thread...)
 
First of all, I read both the Harry Potter series and LotR from the ages of 10 to 12, and then read other works of Tolkien and finished off the Potter series as the books came out, which is before either film series started. I have always read since I was young, it was just something that I was brought up with, so neither of them inspired me to read. When I first read LotR, I thought it was quite good, but drawn out, and at the end of my second read, it didn't do much for me. I wouldn't read the books again at this stage, because I know that I would enjoy them even less than before, and I don't want to ruin whatever fond memories I have of it. The Potter series however, I would read again. It has been two years since I finished the last book in the series, and I haven't read any again, however they are very well constructed, quite easy to read, and immerse you in the story a lot more than Tolkien's works. Reading The Silmarilion (or however its spelled) was possibly the most dragged out experience I've had while not having to read some piece of crap for school, really bad, as was the History Of Middle Earth 1. I didn't make it more than a few chapters into the second part before I left it.

Basically, the attitude that the Harry Potter books are crap without ever reading or giving them a chance is really retarded, and regardless of influence on literature as a whole, or causing kids to read or anything like that, I'd take the Potter books any day.

Just to tie it into the movie thread as that was very off topic, I saw and really enjoyed The Half Blood Prince myself. It was without a doubt the best movie in the series so far, and the actors playing the main kid characters are finally getting quite good. The special effects were nicely done, and the teen romantic bits were great for some comedy.
 
Onhell said:
*Ahem* They're crap. Revolution or not, they're crap. Are they well written? No doubt, that only makes them well written crap, but crap none the less. I could go on. That they got kids to read, great. I started reading Garfield comics, moved on to Crichton novels and now almost exclusively read classic lit or academic books. Am I going to call Garfield amazing and great because it got me interested in reading overall? No. Garfield, like most comics, is crap. So next time you call me ignorant make sure that I am (like SMX calling me out in the Greenday thread...)
Click to expand...

I don't think you are right at all.  You can dislike the books all you want, but let me find you crap: Twilight.  From a English lit point of view, the Harry Potter books are beautifully constructed.  You can go through book one and find the references she uses time and time again as it goes on, the basic building blocks of the series.  Checkov's Gun, over and over, flawlessly.  Things that become relevant in the sixth book that are mentioned in passing first in the second.  It's quite amazing to see the little links she uses.

Calling a book or book series crap suggests it has little redeeming value.  You don't have to like Potter, but its value to the English language is huge.  It's the big thing.  It didn't start a genre like Tolkien did, but it is the epitome of young teen fantasy, and will be for some time.  I have a hockey analogy if you like  :p
 
Oh, I agree. Again, I recognize that it is well written, it did wonders for a new generation of readers, etc. But to me, the story in itself is well... I've stated it. It is difficult to get into a series when one dislikes it's main character. I really dislike the fact that it propagates the idea that no matter how crappy things are for you, a magic owl, your fairy god mother, divine intervention... whatever, is going to make things better for you without you lifting a freaking finger.

Twilight is crap through and throught though.
 
Yes, Twilight is crap.

The thing with Harry Potter is that, if you read it through, you see that the kid actually earns most of his survival and good fortune in the end.  There is a certain aspect to the fantasy (the idea of a wizard coming to take him away from a poor childhood), but it's actually rooted in a lot of anguish and horror.  I dunno, I think the mastery of it comes out the more you read.
 
SneakySneaky said:
I disagree with Ardius though,  I loved the last books.  The whole darkening theme was brilliant and the series were intended to go that way right from the start (at least Rowling intended to,  maybe someone might not have expected it).
Click to expand...

I realise that was how the series was intended to go, I just didn't read the books for that originally. Not that I think she should have written them any other way, because its great she didn't keep the characters static. I just found them a little dull to be honest.

And yes Twilight is  :down: very glad I decided to avoid seeing it in the cinema, I feel for my friends who didn't.
 
Hunlord has very personal opinions about the works of Tolkien, so have I. I think the Silmarillion was very good.
The beginning is a bit harder to get through but it pays off when you want to follow the path of all those different folks.

Everyone his own opinion.

SneakySneaky said:
*This is not intended to be hostile,  just a reminder that sometimes you try a little too hard to persuade someone else about your opinions  ;).
Click to expand...

That's funny. I wasn't trying to persuade anyone. I merely have strong ideas about it, but I never intended that others have to read Tolkien. If it was interpretated this way: do it. ;-P

Did you guys notice these aspects while reading?

---
Fans of author J. R. R. Tolkien have drawn attention to the similarities between his novel The Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter series; specifically Tolkien's Wormtongue and Rowling's Wormtail, Tolkien's Shelob and Rowling's Aragog, Rowling's Dementors and Tolkien's Nazgûl, the Whomping Willow and Old Man Willow and similarities between both authors' antagonists, Tolkien's Dark Lord Sauron and Rowling's Lord Voldemort (both of whom are sometimes within their respective continuities unnamed due to intense fear surrounding their names; both often referred to as 'The Dark Lord'; and both of whom are, during the time when the main action takes place, seeking to recover their lost power after having been considered dead or at least no longer a threat). Several reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows noted that the locket used as a horcrux by Voldemort bore comparison to Tolkien's One Ring, as it negatively affects the personality of the wearer. Rowling maintains that she hadn't read The Hobbit until after she completed the first Harry Potter novel (though she had read The Lord of the Rings as a teenager) and that any similarities between her books and Tolkien's are "fairly superficial. Tolkien created a whole new mythology, which I would never claim to have done. On the other hand, I think I have better jokes." Tolkienian scholar Tom Shippey has maintained that no "modern writer of epic fantasy has managed to escape the mark of Tolkien, no matter how hard many of them have tried".
---
 
Yep, of course there's similarities.  I dare someone to find a fantasy novel where you cannot compare between the two.

'sides, most of those similarities are much ado about nothing.
 
Today I had a good talk with a collegue of mine and even though he admitted that there were quite some similarities (from different authors but indeed also a lot from one and the same as well) he didn't seem to be bothered about it much. He says the books read fast and are difficult to put away.
 
Well, there's really only so many concepts in fantasy.  And you want to play to some of the stereotypes, because that reinforces certain beliefs.  Plus, a lot of authors pull their concepts from the same sources...mythology, older legends, traditional meanings.  You see it in everything.  And there's nothing wrong with that - doing as much fantasy as I do, I have noticed how hard it is to avoid repeating yourself.
 
Forostar said:
That's funny. I wasn't trying to persuade anyone. I merely have strong ideas about it, but I never intended that others have to read Tolkien. If it was interpretated this way: do it. ;-P

Did you guys notice these aspects while reading?
Click to expand...
You misunderstood.  I wasn't referring to this particular discussion,  but rather for other topics in which you have that tendency.  I didn't detect any of that when you talked about Tolkien. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top