Magical Middle Earth

[Isowen]

far too many people try to compare lotr with harry potter. There are a few similarities.
There's that voldemort guy, hes like Sauron in a way
in the first book, theres a stone, in lotr theres a ring, they both have to be hidden from the dark lord.
Theres harry potter, hes young and little, not unlike Frodo.
Well, you get my point, anyway. What I want to know and ask you all is; Could middle-earth be MORE magical than it already is?

[Sleepy Ranger]

Quoting from David Colbert's The Magical World of the Lord of the Rings

Far too many people try to compare J.R.R Tolkien and J.K Rowling, just because both of them tell stories about imaginary worlds inhabited by wizards. Not much about their stories is similar. Harry Potter lives in a world full of magic: spells, wands, potions and flying broomsticks. In Tolkien's world, the wizards (and others) perform very little magic. In fact, Tolkien denies that magic is important in his world.

Theres a whole chapter on this and it ultimately says that there can be no more magic in ME, and that its not exactly magic in the first place. If you'd ike I'll give you some interesting parts of that chapter. But as far as I'm concerned LoTR needed no more magic than it already possesed.

[Gelmir]

What! How can you compare LotR to Harry snotter? For one, LotR has a reason for why it's there, HP doesn't, and LotR is actually interesting, and not for babies who can say, I read really long book, me clever! It makes me so Mad, I want to eat somebody's head off!

[Morsul the Dark]

Well perhaps HP is more children oriented than LOTR but I know plenty of teenagers (myself included(just look at my avvie)) that are fond of it...and there was magic in LOTR even if it was minor Gandalf uses his staff to light dark places

[Isowen]

Gelmir, I apologize, I wasn't exactly agreeing with the comparison, so don't yell! It's fine, I hate it when people compare lotr to harry potter, though you must admit, there are SOME similarities, however small they are.
And I must get that book. Thankyou sleepy ranger, it sounds good.

[Gelmir]

I sorry, I got worked up, I just think Hp is kinda Irritating. You're free to go! LOL, any hoo, carry on carry on. No harm done, right . I hope, you don't hate me, I'll stop before I get over excited.

[Voralphion]

Theres harry potter, hes young and little, not unlike Frodo

Actually quite unlike Frodo, Frodo was fifty and so wasn't young the fact he was small was due to his race, not due to the fact he is juvenile like Harry Potter.

[Kransha]

Hoom, hoom, hoom. My first post outside of the RPG Forums in a while...well...

I believe, au technicale, Harry Potter is 'more 'magical'' (that's double single quotation marks, for those of you not following me). Based on my younger brother and some of his friend's encouragement, I read the series in seven days (pretty good, non? Re-reading LotR every year has made me a fast reader). It was a nice, adventurous, interesting sort of tale, but nothing I loved. Something I merely enjoyed, and have left it behind since. In fact, I was surprised it was endorsed by my brother because he usually condemns non-Tolkien fantasy as a rip-off, in whatever way he can find. Knowledgable lad, but a bit prejudicial (he'll probably read this someday, but it wouldn't matter, since I've told him before).

Point being: 'Magic' per se is more rampant in HP. Wizards, spellcasters, hippogriffs, dementors, and the like, are more magical. The reason lies in the fact that, despite Tolkien being fantastic, fantasy, as it were, it is also strangely realistic, with a sort of pseudo-historical, epic quality that draws us in and makes us think it might be more real than imagined. No matter how much we love HP, or at least me, (actually, I don't love it, but that's irrelevant), it is magic, farfetched, illusory. Waving wands and chanting magic words is still a stereotype, no matter how much J.K.Rowling has enriched it. Tolkien wrote these things down before they were common, before they were fantasy, and created a world for us to fall into, rather than one that 'already exists' but is 'seperated from us' (I'd rather be a man than a muggle anyday).

In many ways, the Harry Potter franchise is illuminating, but, it's creatures are fantastic, it's methods more friendly towards the younger set. Yes, Balrogs and Dragons fall into the same category, but they have some incredible depth to them that is more than Rowing's description can do for her bestiary. In the world of Harry Potter, Dementors are semi-evil guards who can drain the lives of their victims, often residents of a large prison (correct me if I'm wrong). There is some eeriness there, but the Nazgul outdo them. Once men, the Ringwraiths fell into shadow, were consumed by it. Now they are the pinnacle of Sauron's evil, his power, and weild the same 'kiss' as the Dementors, in the form of there deadly, wraith-turning-into Morgul blades. I am not quite obsessed with HP, but I know this much.

In conclusion (and hoping this is not off topic), the magic of Tolkien is almost real, tangible, and spiritual, while the spiritual magic of HP is all but illusory, kind of like a fantasy placebo, but that would be insulting to Rowling, who I respect. Magic comes in many forms, and the magic of Tolkien's Middle-Earth is enough for me.

[Isowen]

well, we certainly have a lot of magic don't we? Gelmir, that's ok, I know what you mean and I don't hate you.
And isn't fifty sort of young in hobbit-years, I am not exactly what you would call learned but I was trying to excavate any possible similarities, and not be particularly accurate.

[Gelmir]

Well, fifty is not young or old it's.. More middle aged, well for a Hobbit (if wrong, I'll understand if you shout). It's thirty odd when you become of age, or is it twenty odd, smur*. I'm never quite sure these days, ah well!SO I say, no, fifty isn't young, well, that's opinion. you?




Smur means this: It doesn't matter, nope, it doesn't matter.
I don't know, I just like to say it, oh and by the way it's pronouced this way: Smur, that's how, it's spelt the same it's pronouced.

[Encaitare]

The reason there are so many similarities between HP and LotR is because Tolkien did everything. You can find echoes of LotR in most fantasy works simply due to the fact that Tolkien has influenced so many writers. I can understand comparing them to an extent, but they're just so different that I hate it when hardcore HP fans bash LotR for no apparant reason. The people at the Downs are so much more friendly than the people at the Internet Movie Database boards!

And Gelmir, a hobbit comes of age at 33, so 50 is not old, but it's not a particularly dapper age to be either

[ohtatyaro]

Besides, IMO, firstly we have do define 'magic'. I mean, they are different 'magics' in HP and LoTR, I don't think they (magics) can be compared at all

[Isowen]

Yey! finally someone who agrees with me on this!

[Lady Gamgee]

I for one do not like Harry Potter. And to compare the 2 in the slightest way is an injustice to LOTR. With HP, it's just like a bunch of kids playing around and having fun with magic. LOTR on the other hand, can make you think it's real, like there really is a ME with Hobbits and Elves and such. I watched the 1st 2 HP movies, and needless to say, I was highly disappointed, even though I thought Haggard was pretty cool ... that's his name, right?? Anyhow, Tolkien knows how to grab & hold you with his work, and PJ helped bring it all to life.

[Lhundulinwen]

I read hp before LOTR. (Notice the capitalizations...) I like hp still, but after LOTR... well, after reading that book that is your absolute favorite, the one that changes your life, nothing else can compare. LOTR and hp both deal with good and evil, but LOTR, to me, deals with it in a much more complex way. hp is a book directed at children (but children are not its only audience) and therefore has more frivolous, fanciful, magical parts. LOTR does not have many if any 'childish' scenes. The Hobbit, on the other hand, is directed at children too. The goal of the Hobbit is much lighter than LOTR, and seems to me more magical. (Think of Bert (that was his name, right?) the giant compared to the giants in LOTR) LOTR is much deeper and complex and deals with issues in layers, while hp's morals are laid out and more obvious. I will buy the next 2 hp books, but nothing will ever (EVER) top LOTR. But that's just me...

[Laitoste]

Okay, first of all, I really do enjoy Harry Potter. They are excellently written, amusing books (the fifth one makes me so mad at the characters that I often find myself walking away to calm down! Tell me that's not well written.). But, I think they cater to different audiences. After I had read Harry Potter and LotR, I thought, "Hey, this is really cool! The Wizard of Oz is fantasy for little kids, Harry Potter is for older kids, and The Lord of the Rings is for teenages and adults!" Not to say that people can't read them whenever they want, of course.

Finally, I don't think that Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings are comparable. They are about completely different subjects. They have different types of characters, different plots, and different settings. There may be a few similarities (Wormtongue-->Wormtail?), and the themes are similar, but for the most part, they're completely different.

[Isowen]

I do like the hp books, but they tend to get boring, but lets keep it about Tolkien. I really wanted to know what your OPINIONS were, rather than if you think LOTR could be compared to hp.
Sorry, I just thought that we were straying off track a little, soooo lets get back to Tolkien please.

Lhundulinwen, very well said thankyou and I agree muchly (is that a word?!?!)
Laitoste, also well said etc. And good point about Wormtail and Wormtongue.
keep it coming........

[Silmiel of Imladris]

I am going to get it for this, but I stop caring. Actually as I see it Hp and Lotr can be compared in some ways and here they are. Each author spent a lot of time studying mythology for there creations. Every creator in both Lotr and HP can be found some were in mythology. For example elves were believed to live on this earth once but they accended to a higher plane aka go into the west and dissapeared forever. In HP Nicholas Fammel was an actual alchemist who lived from 1330 to 1418. Did he turn lead into gold? No one knows except that he died very very rich. So Tolkien didn't just make stuff up and Rowling didn't just make stuff up and that is why I love them both so much for they expand on a history we already have.

[Encaitare]

Interesting, Silmiel, I didn't know that Nicholas Flamel was a real person! My respect for JK Rowling just increased a notch.

Back to the original question: "Could Middle-earth be more magical than it already is?" Well, as someone said already, there are different types of magic. There's the HP-style, wave your wand and say a couple of magic words and get instant results type of magic, and then there's the magic of Gandalf's intagible inner power, and there's the magical power of Saruman's voice... etc etc.

As I see it, the magic of Harry Potter is more fanciful. The magic of the Lord of the Rings is more subtle but so much more powerful. I mean, come on. Gandalf would so own Dumbledore in a fight. Or he could pull his Denethor moves and just bludgeon Dumbledore to death (Such a massive departure from the book but amusing all the same )

[Isowen]

hmmmmm good point, I am thinking you are right Encaitare, both types of magic (in lotr and hp) are very interesting and we cannot determine which is more realistic, for I don't believe anyone can say, or I am horribly mistaken. Which I usually am.