similarities in tolkien and rawlings   

I like myths, legends and fairy tales too. They seem to be something that come from the mists of time which makes them believable even when telling something outlandish and improbable. Science fiction on the other hand tends to become science reality as time goes by. I like Jules Verne.

I haven't read any book by Rawlings but I have seen several of the Harry Potter movies. She has done very well for herself, indeed. There was one controversy early on when someone accused her of stealing or plagiarizing their work but that died down quickly.

I stand corrected on the name of the author of the much-beloved Harry Potter. As someone else has pointed out, they drew, both Tolkien and Rowling, heavily on Northern mythology which makes it even more interesting. There seems to be an upsurge in interest on these matters, I just saw the movie on the Brothers Grimm which puts a new, modern take on fairy tales.

Thanks to our modern technology, it's possible for movie makers to adapt our favorite adventure and fantasy books. Ever read the book series 'Wheel of Time' by Robert Jordan? Surely you'll love his books too. He's on the same genre as Tolkien's. In fact more on Tolkien's style. You should. From the very first book, you'll get hooked!

Now that you mentioned the wise wizard, I am reminded of Merlin and King Arthur. There is a parallel and a twist in Arabic fairy tales which have the wise but often treacherous vizier to guide kings and sultans and is usually the arch-enemy of the hero.

Yeah, like in Aladdin - or was that just the Disney version?

I like reading fairy tales, folklore, myths and what not. There are very clear similarities that one can easily find no matter if the setting is in ancient Europe or ancient China or Japan. There must be a common origin or if not, a commingling of sources brought by travelers and merchants.

Kudos to that. Plots based on ancient europe, myths, folklores and fantasy adventure are very appealing. Those worlds sweep you away and makes you wish those worlds ACTUALLY exists. *sigh* It'd be astounding to know Middle-earth exists OR existed.

Other than the Shire, I think Middle Earth would be too scary a place for me LOL. I would really like to see the elfin city though. That would be cool.

The elves were a big eye-popper for me and also the dwarves. I was used to thinking of elven folk as wee creatures. Here they were magical creatures with lots of wisdom and grace and beauty. Dwarves too were less comical characters but more heroic and powerful than ordinarily depicted.

tthom, why is middle earth scary for you? I think the place is great!!! It'd be cool to live there AFTER Sauron's defeated of course. No one wants to mess up with orcs. Scary. Anyway, LOTR gave dwarves a somewhat new image. When I was a kid, I always imagined dwarves to be REALLY tiny and has magical powers. In LOTR however, Tolkien gave it a more realistic image. They don't do magic but they're brave warriors, wealthy, and established wonderful kingdoms in the mines. Among the made up creatures, for me the best were the elves. They were portrayed to be something more than doing magic, granting wishes while asking for something in return but ELVES were shown to be peaceful and beautiful people, immortal, and full of wisdom. LOTR never stopped amazing me until the last page. I just can't get enough. SIGH.

Procne, you hit in on the head - the Orcs. They scare me! Those black horsemen were no picnic either. But they made for a wonderful read huh? Loved the books and movies. Someday maybe I'll be as brave as Frodo. Course maybe he wouldn't want to deal with nuclear weapons, asteroids, and terrorists LOL.

Your discussion is quite involved and lucid. I agree that archetypes are bound to be there when talking about literature, legends and myths. I think deep down we might share very similar roots and these have been shrouded in mystery as time wore people's memories down. When they surface as new material their similarities begin to show even when these are not intended to be copycats but more an expression of an archetype.

Sure, we all have character stereotypes...they are based on age, gender, occupation, wealth, and yes...race. The reason these stereotypes are popular is because people can relate to the character, either they identify with their situation directly or the character reminds them of someone they know.

Let's use Harry Potter as an example. When we first meet Harry he is living in a closet with his custodial guardians. Harry is an outsider. He doesn't fit in with this family. I'm sure that any person who has had to play second fiddle to a sibling can relate to how Harry feels, without the writer even saying how he does. Harry's situation is comically over-the-top, but when you live in that situation everything does seem to be magnified anyways. By placing Harry in this kind of situation we sympathize with the character. Who hasn't felt like an outsider at some point in their life. This allows us to directly relate to our protagonist.

Some of the other characters embody other stereotypes...Hermione is a brain, Ron is the poor kid with holes in his clothes, Hagrid is kinda dumb, Dumbledore is the wise mentor, ect ect...with these characters it is not crucial to directly identify with them, only to recognize and associate. This is your "supporting cast."

Shakespeare is one of the earlier examples we have of stories where the characters are fleshed out with these distinguishing traits...my recommendation is NOT to read Shakespeare, which is tedious and unpleasant, but to find a good community theatre that knows how the Bard works. Go see one of his comedies and you'll know if it is good because you will laugh. Shakespeare works up love triangles with letcherous old men and great schemes and they are very amusing, and pretty naughty.

The lesson here is while we complain that stereotypes are counterproductive to progressive thinking, they are there because often they do pan out. Comedy, drama, movies, cartoons, books, editorials, and just about any form of entertainment of this sort utilize the stereotype extensively. I sugest that instead of complaining about the old stereotypes, we develop new ones. A stereotype does not have to be negative, on the contrary it can be very endearing. Have you you ever met someone new, but they reminded you of someone else you knew before? They may have had a similar appearance, mannerisms, style of dress, or even just had the same name? Did you find yourself reacting to them much like you would the person you already knew? I know I have. Perhaps you made a correct assessment, perhaps your assumptions mislead you. The point isn't whether you were right or wrong, but the fact that you made assumptions based on superficial observations. We all do this, it is part of how we enteract with our environment.

Your information is quite illuminating and I agree that authors tend to influence each other after all, their favorite activity must be reading, aside from writing. This is also very true with music where there is a lot of copying and influencing. Early Western music would build upon a tune written before and musicians would create something quite fresh and unique, the original tune becoming the cantus firmus and the new tune becomes a counterpoint to it.

Exactly my point. A good example in music is the early music of the Beatles which was greatly influenced by the rhythm and blues and early rock and roll music of the 50's in this country. It certainly seemed to encourage more creativity on their parts. I would have to agree that writers must generally love to read as well. Others ideas provoke new ideas in us which we then want to share with others...and so the cycle continues.