Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hello! I am kinda new to these forums, though I am a mOvie FREAK and I don't know why it took me so long to find this place...anywho I was kinda thinking about how BAD Harry Potter was and how GREAT Lord of the Rings was. Anyway, Harry Potter COPIED Lord of the Rings so BAD. I mean giant spider in Harry Potter? *coughs* Shelob. Ok. here is my list of things J.K.Rowling has COPIED from Tolkien.

1. Obivously the giant spider in Harry Potter vaugely resembles...who am i kidding, almost EXACTLY resemble Shelob in Lord of the Rings.

2. Dementors. Hooded and cloaked figures in black who bring fear into wherever they pass. You cannot see their face. I am sorry, but this is almost DIRECTLY out of Tolkien.

3.A Dark Lord. Volemort is actually referred to the Dark Lord at some point....i am sure he is. Anywho, if I'm wrong, it is something very similar to the name "The Dark Lord". Anyway, Voldmort is defeated and is quiet for years.....but his spirit still lives on in a very weak form, and he is getting stronger and gathering more supporters. I am sorry. But HELLO! J.K.Rowling is not the amazing individual author everyone thinks her to be. .

I have a ton more but i can't be bothered to post them. YOU do it. I wanna see how many I can find.

There's Wizards in Both.

Oh, yeah, great. Harry Potter is steeped in fantasy mythology, like LOTR. How it MUST be a rip off then... gee...

yeah! what rediculous nonsense it all is!

harry potter sux

dude i agree, i think harry potter is crap and that they did rip off LOTR. first off it seems suspicious that right as LOTR movies started to come out a harry potter movie is rushed and put out. plus they showed up in theaters a month before LOTR. i feel it was an etempt to still LOTR thunder, which i think fellowship would have done better if not for Potter. second playing the devils advocate here, tolkien is the major influence in fantasy so it would be hard for them not to have similarities, but there is an awful lot of them. Just my opinion though as i am sure there are many people who love potter (look at the box office). i just look at it as a child friendly fantasy, where as LOTR has a much more earthy realism to it, that might scare younger children.

I still havent let myself see it and i dont plan to.the thing i hate most about it is the fact that silly wee kids think it is soooooooooo much better than lotr.

Tolkien freely admitted that his own work was derivative. Everything takes influence from other things. Potter has done it very well and in a STAGGERINGLY popular fashion, too. It deserves the kudos it gets and there is no reason for it to be in competition with LOTR at all.

The Chamber of Secrets was better than the first. They are both great books/films. Honestly, I really don't care.

1. Who cares if there's a giant spider in both books.

2. There are lots of things with hooded, dark monsters in it. Hell, I used something like that for a story.

3. You might as well say that Star Wars copied Tolkien then. Vader was a Dark Lord, we'd better sue.

Come to think of it. Star Wars DID copy lotr......EVIL GEORGE LUCAS.

SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS! SUE GEORGE LUCAS!

And Tolkien ripped off a load of Norse mythology; shall we sue his estate whilst we are at it?

Yes I agree with Ush this could go on forever but comeon, JK rowling could really have tried to cover up her rip of of lotr i mean ~ Wormtongue / Wormtail ~ Same Name you poor excuse for a writer, Jesus hasn't Copyright taught you anything~ suffixes don't count (nor do prefixes for that matter)!?
Oh yes and I suggest any haters of Harry Potter should try to read Barry Trotter and the Shameless Parody by Michael Gerber oh yeah and while you are there read Bored of the rings ~ Now thats copyright infringement!

Yes! Wormtounge/Wormtail. They are both traitors to the Dark Lord. Now THAT is obvious.
No-on OWNS the Nordic legends.

Oh, that's all right, just because they were written before copyright existed then it is no longer plagiarism... it's the same thing, regardless of legality. And that point is moot anyway as no-one seems inclined to sue, and for good reason because a case based on what has been said here would be feeble.

LOTR and Potter explore fundamentally different things.

No, it's WAY different. Tolkien used the Nordic legends for INSPIRATION and he TOTALLY admitted it and said he was fascinated with it and that it really INSPIRED him. No where in J.K.Rowling's movies, books any of her franchise does she say that she took ideas from Tolkien, whereas Tolkien did say he took a lot of his stuff from Nordics legends to create a modern myth.

ha

If you asked Rowling if she took inspiration from other fantasies then the answer would be a resounding yes. But it is not even close to plagiarism.

I mean, the 'school for Wizards' thing had been done a hundred times before. Wizards, Withces, the spells, the hero prophecy boy... it is ALL classic fantasy cliche but who the hell cares? It is just done well.

Yeah but she would never say "i stole lots of my ideas from Tolkien" would she?

no, because that is pointless. it seems to me some of you have read very little fantasy literature; there's work that's far more similar to LOTR; but not that there's really anything wrong with that. just the way it is in fantasy, lots of cliches.

Ok. I have read PLENTY of fantasy literature. PLENTY. adn sure there are lots of fantasy cliches, but none with so close or so many "simirallities" to lotr as harry potter.

Cermiestar how could you say that star wars is bad?
i know where you live by the way........well not exactly, i know your fone number.......

dude, "smoky" dude i never said it was BAD. Though I don't actually like Star Wars...that is my own OPINION! I am ALLOWED one. right? I just said that Star Wars ripped off Lord of the Rings. Not A LOT. just a bit. and u even said so urself. u and hannah were discusing it while i was trying to watch LOTR.
Oh no. Now i am going to get killed by the millions of Star Wars freaks round the globe.

*retreats to corner and curls up in a ball*

for like the 100th time

I don't do it purposely. And smoky, don't forget YOUR star Wars freakaholic days. I know there are photos SOMEWHERE.

SOMEWHERE!

Some of those don't check out.

Which ones? As I said I wrote it a year ago...

Well, there were four HP books before the films, for a start.

Yeah but that dopesn't negate the truth of that statement. Yes JK Rowling had written 4 books in TOTAL, which also means that 3 were written (just not including the 4th).

Yeah but you may as well say they were both written on paper for all the relevance that has for saying they are similar.

Yeah all right, whatever.

well in my opinion, Tolkien inspired many authors and you cant look at a modern fantasy novel without being able to see similarities. Now in saying that all those authors would say that they drew inspiration from tolkien. now with Harry potter i am sure that the author wouldnt deny that there was a tolkien influence, but the sad thing about potter is that it is a more blatent rip off. when certain characters are so similar (even in name) it appears obvious that this has crossed the line of inspiration to rip off. there is just too many things in common. now i know that tolkien drew inspiration from norse legends and even quenya was inspired by an ancient form of finish, but he was trying to create a mythology for Europe so where better to draw from than the legends that already exist. Rowling was trying to create the almighty buck.

That is a better list than mine kiwifrodo! i am dead impressed.

Lle ume quel

I won't even bother to vote in this thread. And not only because i don't fit into any of those options.
I don't especialy like harry potter but i'm really not that bothred with it.
I think it's even good, for kids...and i probably would've loved it 5 years ago.
After submerging into tolkien's world i really don't care how they say lotr is plagiated. Because i KNOW it's not. So why bother to argue..

Because it it FUN!

that's a dumb answer

I'm a dumb person

No I'm not.

hi. again. i am NOT dumb person. and it was SO not a DUMB answer.
anywho. i have a site! it is REALLY cool!.

www.geocities.com/ejlogic

GO! it is cool!

spam!...that's pretty dumb too
tisk! tisk!...wasting web space around like that

Spam? what spam?

i don't remeber it exactly nut i think it's:
stupid pointless advertising message. (i'm not sure about the stupid pointless part)

basicly..don't advertise in a post. Just write the link or whatever in your siggie and everyone's happy.

Tolkien was trying to make a mythology for England, specifically. VERY specific; he wouldn't even accept British.

i think the elves are german in origin.

Uhh, we could be until the end of time debating the origins of fantasy mythology.

Anyway, I think it is extremely flimsy to try and accuse Rowling of plagiarism on such vague grounds especially as the two works are so fundamentally different. Also not worth criticising her just because she wants to make money. In any case, she brings joy and pleasure to millions and opened up their imaginations and the source of much criticism from the LOTR community is simply because some Tolkien fans are annoyed that anyone could like anyone else more.

Well, they can and do, and Rowling deserves all the praise she gets for achieving that.

Britain, England. basically the same thing. adn dude. my site is way cule. it deserves to be in the post.

Hey u know in iceland. they TOTALLY believe in elves. they won't build over ground where they think elves live. Isn't that COOL!
Anywho. Rowling is just not aware of copyright infringement lawas.

no advertising message deserves that.
Besides....why would you want to make a site that interests noone. Those are just personal data of yours.
Besides..i only took a short glimpse...but is that just HTML code?

Tolkien was rather direct about specifying England and not Britain, as I said.

And yes Rowling DOES know them, and has broken none. Else she would be being sued.

No. u must be using a strange browser. and hey, my site is very interesting. please don't diss it. Personal data?

no matter...back on topic.

She has being sued already. and i LIVE in britain/england. it is BASICALLY the same thing. B-A-S-I-C-A-L-L-Y

It's not the same thing at all, basically or otherwise.

She is not being sued by Tolkien's estate, that I have heard.

Do u live in England?

Cermiestar, this is a British owned site. Most of the most active members live in the UK or nearby. England, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway...

I, on the other hand, am a Californian boy from the USA. That makes me different. And what does it matter if you live in England?

JK is not being sued for anything right now.

Harry Potter is a good book/movie in my opinion. Lord of the Rings is a good book/movie in my opinion. If I was a mod I'd probably close this because it is somewhat pointless and you keep advertising your site, which is what we call spam, btw.

You can put the link with your Hello Kitty! pic if you want.

Cermiestar thinks I cannot know what I am talking about unless I live in England, which is odd to think, but it only takes a glance at my details on the left to see that I do anyway (at least, I imagine most English people would know where Essex is).

As for the topic... obviously spamming is frowned upon, and the poll is a bit pointless, but if people want to talk about how Tolkien has influenced just about all fantasy written since his (and I prefer terms like 'influenced and inspired' as opposed to 'copying and plagiarism) then that is fine. Though no-one should forget how 'influenced' Gandalf was by Merlin... in fact Gandalf pretty much IS Merlin with a different name.

Ok. 1) i will not "spam" anymore. but that is a stupid rule anywho.
2)if u didn't like the topic why did u come in here anyway?
3) this is a british site? that rox. and yes it does matter if u come from england.

adn btw, it is because of u, i quote, "Californian boys from the USA" that JK.Rowling had to change the name of the first harry potter book.
What is wrong with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone?"
You know they had to film each scene where they mentioned the stone twice. Once with Sorcerer and once with philosopher. That is just dumb.
There is a whole mythology behind the philosopher's stone. why did it have to be changed for the americans anyway?

i can't realise how this movie/s (HP) can stear up so much controverse.

ya, it is kind of an odd movie to be sturin the pot. now somewhere i heard this and it might have just been a joke i completely fell for, but i had heard that the story of Hary Potter was ripped of from some story some guy wrote in the early 1900's with a similar name. Im not trying to spread propaganda but it seemed a little far fetched so i thought i would ask everbody and find the truth to it.

all i know about hp origin is that it was written as a bed time storry.,

nonsense

It was changed to Sorcerer's because it American publishers seem to think their reading public is dumb and would not know what the Philosopher's Stone is.

and where did you get that information from or are you assuming. maybe the publishers felt or maybe even did some studies determining that the different name is more marketable in the US. not that they did a study and felt we were dumber.

They think it is more marketable because they do not think enough Americans recognise what the Philosopher's Stone is, and would not buy the book ebcause of the word 'Philosopher' and so they turned it into something meaningless. This is effectively making out that American kids have less knowledge than those in the rest of the world. This sort of thing has happened before. That is just how it is. It is a ridiculous situation.

Are you meaning to imply, Cermiestar, that I am a stupid Californian who has no idea what the word Philosipher means and that it is my friends fault and mine, as well as the rest of the population of the California State? I take that as an insult, just so you know.

Also...

1) I'm glad you won't spam any more.
2) I came here to this thread because I have the freedom of choice and can do as I please.
3) Yes, it's a British site, and NO it DOES NOT MATTER if you live in England.
4) Why do you keep numbering your points?

california is a beautiful state. i also live here and i dont see the connection between the name change and being californian. seems to me something only a fool would think is connected.

Well said.

Ok. Because of the time difference or between America and England, u r posting at like 2am in the moring by my time.
1)hello. they do believe in elves in Iceland. it is NOT nonsense. Have you been to Iceland? Well I have and they divert roads and stuff just so they don't build on these Elvish places. so don't tell me it's nonsense.
2)People, I am not trying to imply that Americans are DUMBER than the rest of the world. Though there might be some truth in it.....KIDDING. really. And i was not referring to California specifically! I was quoting something u said. Like referring to ALL americans by saying whatever it was i said about california. Like MOST americans refer to all British people as being Londoners. STEROTYPES. Every country does it to every other country. Ok, yes I am from london, but i do not speak in a cockney accent, i do not speak in the queens english and no, i am not on speaking terms with teh queen. EVERY COUNTRY HAS STEROTYPES. see my point? anyway, i am not implying you are all stupid, just that the publishers were making a stupid decision in changing the name fro america just cos they THOUGHT that they were more stupid than the rest of the world.
3)I am glad u r glad i am stopping with the spamming. *curtsies*
4)I DO NOT THINK ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING CALIFORNIAN AND HAVING A NAME CHANGE IS CONNECTED. note above : social steryotypes and quotes.
5)Why do i keep numbering my points? I do not know.

JUST A TEST TO SEE IF I GOT MY SIG RIGHT

well how do you know that they felt like we were dumberer. I never heard that stereo type that we are dumberer then everyone. i just think sorcerers stone sounds more exciting then philosophers stone.

Yes but u are licing in america aren't u.

yes but u r living in america. aren't u. u wouldn't know ALL the sterotypes about ur country would u.

And it is a well known fact that publishers thought americans wouldn't understand philosophers stone.

true i wouldnt know all the stereotypes, but how is it well known that the publishers thought we would be to dumb? i havent followed this movie at all so i dont really know anything about the publishers or any stories that pop up about the film.

I don't know, it was in the news a while back. But they assumed it and they should be the ones u r asking. NOT ME!

It is what the publishers said, that is why. It was in the news at the time.

They didn't say you were too dumb, obviously, they said you would not get the reference. But everyone else in the world seemed ok. So it seemed to be making out that the US publishers thought American kids didn't know as much to get the reference, which is nonsense. It was silly.

Yes! i agree! that is what i was trying to say....but Ushgarak did it in much fewer words than me....and it made more sense.

Of course, he lives in England.

k well i guess it was a smart move on there part since i dont have any clue what a philosophers stone is. i mean i can make a guess just by the name, but is there like a legend or myth or something to do with a philosophers stone i dont know about that goes beyond what the name suggests?

Yes, it is a mythological reference.

Care to elaborate, Ush? Did she steal the idea from mythology?

'Steal' is a ridiculously harsh word to use, seeing as The Philosopher's Stone is one of those general mythological things that all fantasy draws from. It is no more copying to use it than to use Wizards, dragons or Magic Wands.

It is simply the same given to the fabled material that could turn lead to gold and give everlasting life. The search for such materials obsessed people for centuries in the past.

Potter put it in, rather directly, as have dozens of things in the past. What it is is described in the book just as all the other weird stuff is and no readers in any part of the world other than the US thought the title was a problem. The original title would almost certainly not have been a problem in the US either, it all comes back to the bloody publishers.

Oh, the gold and everlasting life thingy...

I never realised just how copied Harry Potter was. That book which JK Rowling stopped from being published somewhere - Tanya Grotter - who was very similar to Harry is no different to what she wrote being similar to LOTR. Wish I'd known that earlier and I'd of never bought the books.

oh, pulease! that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard today. the situation you described is in no way similar to harry potter vs. LOTR. you're far off the hook here, mister, get some common sense into your judgement.

Yeah! whatever "mah" said!

mah!!! i cant beleive you would attack someone like that just for sharing their opinion. telling someone that they need some common sense, when all they are doing is voicing an opinion is ridiculous.

but someone who has no grasp of reality needs to get common sense in their arguments! it's not an opinion it's untruthful nonsense, and that's a fact.

I agree!

well saying that they have no grasp of reality is kind of harsh considering the only thing being argued is a difference of opinion. you state your views as fact or i should say that apposing views are nonsense is fact. actually there is really no facts in the argument, it is all a matter of opinion. no one knows what the authors intents were when writing Potter, so it is up in the air.

it's not much up in the air though, is it? we're talking about a story, Tanya Grotter, clearly a blueprint copy intent on making money cause of the equal title. downright plagiarism in other words. on the other side is arguments about Harry Potters similiarities to LOTR. highly questionable at best; sure it's fantasy, and there are wizards; and gee! some even have the same type of typical fantasy names. woop-de-fecking-doo!

Tanya Grotter?
if that's the russian version mah, it's not plagiarism, because they simple don't have authers rights in Russia

please read the previous posts in the thread

If you take all the letters that spell 'H-a-r-r-y P-o-t-t-e-r' and jumble them around and mix them up and put them in a blender, they actually end up spelling 'F-r-o-d-o B-a-g-g-i-n-s'.

Oh yeah, California has better waves than England. Therefore, California has better surfers than England. Therefore, the surfers in California are more experienced and one could say "smarter" than English surfers. Californians are Americans. So, one could now say Americans are indeed smarter than the English. See.

However, many Californians have roots spawned from England. Therefore, the smart gene came from England. So, one could say that in every Californian is an English surfer trying to escape. What does this all mean? Well I'll tell you.

Remember the part in Harry Potter II when Harry stabs that giant snake in the head with that sword. Remember where Harry got that sword? He pulled it out of a stone. Harry Potter actually copied "The Sword In The Stone."

So, now that I completley make absolutely no sense, please make me stop. I'm having a smart ass moment on a computer and I need to be put down. Thank you if you enjoyed my wasting your time.

P.S.

I don't really think Americans are Smarter than the English (or vise versa.) I don't even know why I went there. But I do know this. I like Harry Potter and I like Lord Of The Rings. They both derive from the same good vs. evil stories that have existed for centuries. In fact, they both utilize the 'hero myth' which spawned the 'hero paradigm.' Just about every story dealing with a quest, a vision, a sword, or a ring, came from these roots. I once read somewhere that there are only twelve ways a story can go. For example, tragedies, comedies, horror flicks, muppet movies, they all have to end some way, and there's only twelve ways. They all copied the Illiad. And the Illiad copied the Rosetta Stone.

What I like about both movies is that you can start each movie anywhere, be it the beginning, the middle, toward the end, and it will envelope your senses with the music, the visuals, the sound effects, the twists the turns, the Ents, the Mandrakes! It's all good. Every story has been done, it's just how you do it that makes it worth while.

Okay, enough of me.

yes, enough of you; no need to post 4 posts after another.

Hang on! The Rosetta Stone wasn't a story! The Iliad based itself on a lot of Greek Mythology (in the same way fantasy today draws on contemporary mythology) but not on an Egyptian royal edict!

The significance of the Rosetta Stone was in its aid to translation.

Helloooo again!

Hello. I am BACK after my long absence of what 2 days?
he he.
anyway.
I'm going back to numbering my points. If anyone has a problem with that set up an online petition and I'll CONSIDER stopping doing it.
1)Preston Millans can make as MANY posts as he want, he only made 4 and they make more sense than all of my 32. Except for the americans cleverer than the english thing.....
2)Can someone explain what the Rosetta stone is?
3)I heard that thing about Tanya Grotter and it SO obviously was a fake thingy. one written after J.K.Rowling published Harry Pothead, sorry, i meant to say POTTER.
4)What are the 12 different endings?
4)

Why are people not with the voting on the poll?

not many visit this lotrplace and many don't like to vote

But...but...but

I think people aren't 100% happy with the poll options.

The Rosetta Stone was a vital find in understanding Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Hieroglyphs are so different to other written forms of language that, without a point of reference, it was near impossible for anyone to understand anythinmg beyond the mere basics.

The Rosetta Stone WAS that point of reference. It contained a royal proclamation given around 196BC in Egypt. Vitally, the message is given in three languages on the tablet. One of the languages was Egyptian, and one was ancient Greek, which we CAN understand. Once the Greek was translated to English (or more to the point, French, as they found it), we knew what the Egyptian Hieroglyphs there meant in English as well and from there the whole of the ancient Egyptian language was unravelled. Mostly.

If only there was a Rosetta Stone for the Maya. Then it wouldn't be such a crap trying to figure it out.

btw, Preston, Harry Potter didn't pull the sword of Godric Gryffindor out a stone. He pulled it out of the sorting hat.

Sorry about those four posts in a row, I was bored last Saturday Night. I don't know much about the Illiad or the Rosetta stone, just some stuff to throw at all you all. It'll never happen again.

I don't give a damn if you post 4 times in a row, it's fine with me. But I forgive you anyway.

I bought a book containing the Iliad and the Oddysey. They would make good movies if I could understand them at all...

Ok. thank u for explaining stuff.

Now who wants me to change poll options?

Well, you can't. The poll has ended, and only mods can change the options.

But a change in options would be nice.

well...meh. no real reason to get this thread up again, the name of the thread itself makes the poll biased.

ok I love LOTR and Tolkien but a lot of things have cloaked dementors and wizards and a lot stuff- the best part of LOTR is ELVES

Rex, isn't a movie about Helen of Troy being made? And coming out soon?

Well, it was made for the television, or so I believe. I read a review that said it was crap. It basically gave the "If you like massive wars with bloody killing, sex, and a bad version of a good plot, watch this film!" sort of review.

Oh well...

Now I have to get cracking on the Iliad. It would be easier if it didn't say 'spake' and 'sate' (speak and sit) every ten seconds.

Helloo!
I know that thing about troy! They are making that movie with sean bean and orlando Bloom aren't they?
la la.
What do you mean only the moderators can change the poll? anyone know any moderators???
Ok, so if i DO get to change it, what do people people want the poll to be????????????
can i just say something REALY cool????/i am signed in at school wrting this. and i signed in cos i remembered my password! i remebered it! I NEVER remember what password i use for what...so i am quite proud. ok that was boring but anyway......

I'm a moderator. Ush's a moderator. but I see no real need for this poll to be ressurected.

Don;t forget the Aeneid, Rex...

Aeneid's a story right? First I'd like to finish the Iliad/Odyssey 1000-page book that I have.

I've forgotten if the Aeneid's a story because I haven't study the Greek since last year or so.

can someone change the poll? PLEASE!

The Aeneid is a Roman story but in the same continuity as the Odyssey; it's about a Trojan Prince.

Is there muich point in changing the poll, Cermiestar? It's closed, all done and dusted.

It's CLOSED?

Yup. I didn't do it so either Mah did or it expired.

aw.

Mind you, I could always open it again... what did you want done to it?

Last I checked she wanted to make some better choices to seem fare to those who like Potter.

SHE! i do have a NAME. I dunno. What do people want for a poll?
i have a question,
What does the C stand for in KMC?

com.

then y the capital C?

You can't compare the two. HARRY POTTER is meant for kids between the ages of 8 and 13. LOTR is for teens and adults. Theres a difference.

but I really enjoyed them both. I have no problem.

Christ!!! The food in HP was driving me MAD!!!! I wanted to jump in the movie just to eat the food on the dang tables!!! ARGH!!!

Mauls women i get what your saying but i read LOTR at 10. this thread is just kind of poking fun at the similarities and despite what it might sound like i think from previous posts i think that both are great especially considering they are getting kids to read more. you are right when your talking about the movies though (maybe thats what you meant) LOTR might scare youngins.

I'm not saying it will scare them. I'm saying that LOTR is on a more advanced level than HARRY POTTER. This is a mythic tale mainly compared to HARRY POTTER and its on more of an adult level.

Yes. I am 8-13. (Note the sarcasm...)

And I read Lotr when i was 7, so therfore, kids enjoy lotr, and teens/adults enjoy harrypotter!!

ALL books, and I mean ALL, are based at least vaguely on an existing story/poem/idea etc. POSSIBLY the first book EVER was original, but it was probably based on the Ug's Fairy Tales...

Feel free to yell at me if I am abusing sarcasm...

I know, I AM saying it will scare them. my nephew who was 8 was scared to death of the ringwraiths (and all the scenes of aragorn and arwen kissing)

Ahh, well, if you want to talk Harry Potter and nothing else, then it is best done in the Harry Potter area, I think!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. HATE HARRY POTTER.

Tolkien didn't write the epic with children in mind per se. But neither did Frank Herbert, but there are some kids who can appreciate the stories to a degree.

Anyone would probly be better than Chris

I don't get what you were saying about Herbert, Cermiestar.

What do you mean by 16.99 pounds sterling?

Who's frank Herbet?

Ok, this has just become silly now... closing.