Is it just me, or did someone else notice?
Initially, after seeing "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone", and "The Fellowship of the Ring", I thought there are too many similarities between them to be coincidental.
After seeing "The Chamber of Secrets", and reading a bit about "The Prisoner of Azkaban", I saw "Lord of the Rings" trilogy again at home on DVD.
I thought that there was a lot of borrowing that J.K. Rowling did from J.R.R. Tolkien.
Let us see a list of similarities:
| Similarity | Lord of the Rings | Harry Potter |
|---|---|---|
| Villian | Sauron is the head of evil. He lost his power, and needs the ring to gain it all back | Voldemort is also a vanquished evil wizard. He needs the Sorcerer's Stone in order to gain his strength back |
| Unlikely Hero | Frodo Baggins is a Hobbit, a peaceful -- almost childish -- and weak race. He is entrusted with the task of saving the world from great evil | Harry is an 11 year orphan who does much the same |
| Special Object | The One Ring is the object that the hero must prevent the villian from getting, so as to regain his full powers | The Sorcerer's Stone is the same |
| Mentor/Protector | Gandalf is a guiding, helping, mentoring, teaching figure for Frodo | Professor Dumbledore is the same in the Harry Potter series |
| Troll | In the Fellowship of the Ring, the Orcs have a Cave Troll with them, and in The Two Towers, the Cave Trolls open the gates of Mordor | In Harry Potter II, there is a Mountain Troll, whom Harry and his friends have to overpower |
| Giant Spider | Shelob is a giant spider that almost kills and eats Frodo, in The Return of the King | In the forest, there is a talking spider. It is a friend of Hagred, but chases Harry wanting to eat him |
| Giant raptor bird | A giant eagle saves Gandalf from Isengard | In the Prisoner of Azkaban, Buckbeak is a giant raptor helping Harry and friends |
| Dragon | In the Hobbit, the prelude to The Lord of the Rings, the dragon Smaug is Bilbo Baggins adversary | In Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets, there is a dragon like reptilian monster, the Basilisk, whom Harry has to slay |
| Goblins | The goblins are one of the races of evil allying with Sauron and Saruman | There are goblins who run the bank. They are physically similar to the other ones, although mostly benign |
| Sidekick "Creature" | In Lord of the Ring, Gollum is a creature with both dual good and evil personalities. He helps Frodo in his quest | Dobby is a house elf who is both a hinderance and helpful at different times |
Of course, J.K. Rowling has a lot of original ideas of her own, such as the concept of muggles, and the game of Quiddich.
My opinion is that she borrowed too many themes to be a coincidence. For sure she was "inspired" by Tolkien's Lord of the Ring, at least partially.
After writing this page, I found the following links that ponder some of the points above:
- "Stone" and "Ring" look like 2 pages out of Same Spell-book
- Wikipedia article has a brief mention of similarities.
- A web page listing the similarities between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings going into character details.
Comments
mollywobbles23 (not verified)
Someone posted this link
Sun, 2006/10/08 - 20:53Someone posted this link over in the leakylounge asking for some perspective, I responded to it there and thought I'd also put my response here. I've copied and pasted, so some of it may seem out of context:
Okay, I'm going to try to answer this with the points presented in the linked article. I believe that Jo did not borrow heavily from Tolkein, but that they BOTH borrow from older literature and mythology. I must also say that the person making this argument had only seen the first two movies and read about the third. This is all purely my initial reaction. I'm reading it as I'm writing.
1. Sauron vs. Voldemort: The simlilarity they point out is limited to the Sorcerer's Stone and that book alone. (It was published in 2004) I'm pretty sure Sauron had nothing like horcruxes.
2. Frodo vs. Harry: Again, limiting argument to SS. Frodo ages, what? a couple of years? Since Jo mapped Harry's whole life and gave us much insight into some of it (I'm pretty sure she knows what happens to Harry after book 7). Oh yeah: Harry's a wizard! Frodo's basically a short Muggle with hairy feet.
3. The One Ring vs. the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone: Well, since the Sorcerer's stone is an actual legend, his argument is moot that she stole the idea from Tolkein.
4. Gandalf vs. Dumbledore: Oh no! There's a wise old wizard with a silver beard! Wait? What's that? Merlin, who? Again, drawing on legend, which many authors do, including Tolkein. Though they couldn't have known this at the time of they wrote this, Dumbledore died and will not be coming back (pulling a Gandalf).
5. Troll vs. Troll: For one, this person says that the troll in HP appears in COS, which it does not as we all know, so they are wrong on the basis of ignorance. But, for argument's sake, I'm going to say that Tolkein didn't invent trolls. Just look at fairy tales. Also, the troll in SS/PS is used to bring the trio together. The trolls in LOTR are just purely minions in the context of the story.
6. Shelob vs. Aragog: Again, who said Tolkein had the patent on monsters? Please tell me where that is written. They both serve different purposes. Shelob is for pure fear factor as far as I'm concerned, though it's been awhile since I read the books. Oh, yeah the person never says anything about reading LOTR, only watching the movies. The meeting with Aragog proves that Hagrid is not the heir of Slytherin, which is very important information.
7. Giant eagles vs. Buckbeak: Um, duh. Tolkein looked at eagles, thought "I'll make them giant." Jo looked at the mythological creature hypogriff and decided to make it a magical creature in her world. The eagle helped Gandalf and Buckbeak helped save Sirius, but it also saved itself.
8. Smaug ( a dragon from The Hobbit) vs. the Basilisk: Apparently, they didn't even bother with looking into the other books like GOF. Again, both dragons and basilisks are mythological creatures.
9. Goblins vs. Goblins: Okay, LOTR goblins fight on Sauron's side; HP goblins run a bank and we know they have a history of wars, but we don't know the details of those wars because Harry tunes out in History of Magic.
10. Gollum vs. Dobby: Oh, dear. Okay, apparently this person doesn't know that Gollum was once a hobbit and he turned into the creature he is because of the greed and lust for power that the ring poisoned him with. He is a metaphor for what greed does to you. Dobby was born a house-elf and will die a house-elf. He and other houselves represent racism and other types of prejudice and what those things can create: slavery. Gollum hindered Frodo for selfish reasons; Dobby hindered Harry in COS because he feared for Harry's life.
I did not mean to make it sound like I dislike LOTR or The Hobbit. I just think that this is a ridiculous argument, especially in the link given since the person didn't bother to read HP or it seems LOTR and based all their arguments off of the movies. Also, Jo has said that she doesn't really read fantasy and LOTR is certainly that.
mogle (not verified)
" Also, Jo has said that she
Thu, 2006/12/14 - 19:51" Also, Jo has said that she doesn't really read fantasy and LOTR is certainly that. "
To quote from a BBC article :
"In a recent interview with Time magazine, Rowling said she was "not a huge fan of fantasy" and was trying to "subvert" the genre.
JK Rowling recently launched Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The magazine also said Rowling reinvented fantasy fiction, which was previously stuck in "an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves". "
[Terry ] Pratchett, whose first fantasy novel was published 34 years ago and has since sold more than 40 million books, said in his letter that the genre had always been "edgy and inventive".
"Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to their times," he wrote.
"It has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve."
His full response to Rowling's admission that she did not think Harry Potter was fantasy as she was writing it, was:
"I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?" "
Your a Moron .
Jo Rowling basically translated a lot of Fantasy genre conventions into a child-friendly storyline....not only does she have a complete midunderstanding of the fantasy genre , but her writing just isnt worth the acclaim that she is given .
Anonymous (not verified)
No, you're a moron
Sun, 2009/07/19 - 14:48I'm not a "hugh fan" (J.K. Rowling's words, not mine) of Star Wars either but I know enough to take meaningful parts of it and rework it into another story.
Tolkien is an institution and I'm sure trying to avoid his works in the UK is like trying to avoid Star Wars in the US. Most Americans know who R2-D2 is even if they've never seen the films. Nobody feels the need to explain who Darth Vader is in the United States.
While JRRT did borrow heavily from mythology and folklore he also had a lot to do with the interest in it today. While I wouldn't go screaming that Rowling is a rip off artist at every turn it is uncanny. I'm not a Rowling fan (and I would hardly consider myself a JRRT fan) but I noticed a lot of similarities in the two from just one viewing of THBP.
Anonymous (not verified)
Does it matter?
Mon, 2010/05/17 - 15:26Well people what does it matter whether she borrowed stuff or not? She still managed to make a really brilliant and, in my opinion, completely different storyline to the Lord of the Rings. Pratchett borrowed stuff from other people, Jo borrowed stuff from other people, all writers do. They still managed to come up with a story that was completely their own, no matter how many borrowed things were in it. The storyline is different, OK? And no-one can say the story is the same just cos there's this main character who has to face many dangers and fight against this evil force. Every single story is like that, duh. If you complained about thins like that then you'd be blaming every author on earth!
So stop making such a fuss, you fussy people! Just enjoy the story!
Anonymous (not verified)
YESS i completely agree
Mon, 2010/06/21 - 13:45YESS i completely agree
MLE (not verified)
7
Thu, 2011/02/10 - 08:32An English teacher told me once that there are only 7 basic storylines.
-So I ask how can we truly be original??
Anonymous (not verified)
Word.
Mon, 2010/01/11 - 21:34Word.
Russ (not verified)
Completely agree. J.K. is
Mon, 2011/03/07 - 13:44Completely agree. J.K. is probably the least original author I have ever read.
As for all the people claiming that the similarities are a coincidence, what a load of crap!
Beorn turns into an animal - Sirius and various other people turn into animals
Dumbledore does in theory come back to speak to Harry when he "dies" in the last book - Gandalf comes back from the dead
Invisibility cloak - the one ring gives invisibility
Horcruxes contain Voldermort's soul ("coincidentally" one is a ring) - The one ring contains Sauron's soul
Dementors are basically rubbish Ringwraiths
Dumbledore and Gandalf both heavily linked to fire (the phoenix, wielder of the flame of Anor etc)
Harry and Frodo are both pretty useless
Wormtail - Wormtongue
etc.
Kathryn (not verified)
1. Shapeshifters go back VERY
Tue, 2011/07/26 - 19:461. Shapeshifters go back VERY far in old tales and mythology. Rowling provides a unique name for hers but that's basically what they are. Just a common theme in fantasy.
2. Dumbledore doesn't come back at all. Harry dies and goes to wherever you go when you die and then came back to life.
3. Invisibility is yet another common theme among wizards in fantasy stories. The fact that it's produced through an object is a little different but the truth behind the matter is the cloak was part of a way to cheat death, part of the hallows, I believe it had a very powerful charm placed on it, it was Death's way of remaining unseen to humans and he tore some of it off for the peverell brother. It wasn't just invisible.
4. The ring Sauron has is not a horcrux. And the ring of Salazar slytherin was already an object in the books. And they only made it a horcrux because of Voldemorts personal ties to it. They were created different ways and that's what sets them apart. Not to mention Voldemort's entire soul isn't contained in the ring he's spread it out across different objects of meaning. A different theme going on there
5. Not going to argue the dementors one right now
6. Dumbledore has one bird that burns when it dies. But have you noticed that Dumbledore actually fights fire? He uses water against Voldemort when Voldemort has this crazy fire thing going but Dumbledore uses his water
7. Sorry but Harry and Frodo are useless? That's just a dumb one. That's like saying Dumledore and Gandalf are both old. Useless kid is useless.
8. Yeah that one is weird... but they call him Wormtail because of the animagus form he takes on- he's a sneak who betrayed his friends and his tail as a rat looks like a worm. His real name isn't Wormtail
Anonymous (not verified)
did u notice that in both
Thu, 2007/07/12 - 20:32did u notice that in both books the torll backed frodo/harry into a corner and rowling decided to not copy lotr at that moment by harry not getting hurt from the troll and then um.... both spiders try to eat a main character...... and i havent heard of the legend sorcer's stone...... sauron has an army of over like 20,000 orcs and like 10,000 evil men and what does the guy from harry potter have on that oooooooooooooooooooo
cant stop the funk or the truth............
Pages