Harry Potter = Lord of the Rings?

This is a topic I feel I must address. There are those who suggest that Harry Potter is a plagiarism of Lord of the Rings. That's...I think it's simply outrageous. If there was actual, actual plagiarism of ideas that belong solely to J.R.R. Tolkien, then perhaps, yes, Harry Potter could be a hidden version of Lord of the Rings. But the comparisons I read here suggest nothing of the kind.

1. Dark Lord fearfully named, attempting to return to power, who placed part of his soul in a ring.

Okay, you have to understand, first, that there is no way - at all - that Tolkien owns dark lords. So anyone who says, "oh, look, Harry Potter has a dark lord and Lord of the Rings has a dark lord! They must be the same thing!" is ignoring the fact that a dark lord, a personification of evil, is universal. Whether it be an actual dark lord, a witch, a wizard, an ogre, a giant, a troll, an evil spirit, an---ANYTHING. They all serve the same role within the story and they are ALL trying to return to power/take over the world/destroy Good.

This is my own addition but when I was learning Beowulf first semester of this past school year, we learned about the importance of cups and other objects being passed around for the more treasure a person has, the more importance the person has. Figures lived on through the treasure they left behind. This could be why Tolkien, and then Rowling, give an importance to a piece of treasure, a ring. Also, Voldemort's ring did not play a significant enough part in the Harry Potter books that I would think Rowling was trying to recreate Lord of the Rings. A ring is so convenient as a thing of power or to hide one's soul in because it is small, unnoticeable, and can be worn on your person. It isn't like Harry Potter was walking around with the ring and used it to become invisible, nor do the Harry Potter books center around the ring in any way like Lord of the Rings does.

2. Concept the Dark Lord cannot understand, ultimately used against him

Again, how can you say Tolkien owns that? That's used all over the place.

3. A birthday sets events in motion

Again, not owned by Tolkien. In my myth and folklore class, we learned about how the hero is often an adolescent and that his adventures symbolize his growth and maturity. Birthdays are used all the time in fairy tales as symbolic days (Sleeping Beauty - on her sixteenth birthday she will prick her finger, Beauty and the Beast - often an age is given for how long the Beast has in order to turn back into a person). Also, the only reason why Harry's birthday sets things in motion is because he is born in July and you have to be eleven to go to Hogwarts. ALL the Hogwarts students began to receive their acceptance letters the summer they were eleven, whether their birthday was earlier or that summer. If Rowling chose to have Harry's birthday in July, you can't say she is copying Lord of the Rings just because LotR opens with a birthday as well. And it isn't as though it opened with a party like LotR did. If it had, that would be one thing. But if it wasn't Harry's birthday that particular day, it still would have been almost exactly the same. He still would have been eleven, old enough to attend Hogwarts.

4. Wizened old wizard

Oh please. Old ones, Elders, Wise ones, that concept is universal as well and was definitely around waaaaay before LotR was.

5. Strong non-parental connection

Can anyone say...Fairy Godmother? That's a Cinderella-type story, not a LotR one. And Bilbo's role in LotR is completely different with Sirius's role in Harry Potter.

6. Annoying relatives

a. Tolkien definitely doesn't own that
b. The Sackville-Bagginses and the Dursleys are very different

7. Scar that won't heal

Okay, here I could say she was bordering on taking that idea from LotR, except that the scars are quite different and have different roles. Harry's scar definitely has more significance. And, anyway, she's allowed to have her character have an important scar. I wouldn't jump down her throat just on that.

8. Inherited invisibility device

Yes, but, again, they are very, very different. Harry's isn't something dark and evil that he must destroy.

9. Eerie prison controlled by dark forces

Okay, perhaps.

10. Treasure Hoarding Goblins

Oh, please. That's taken from the treasure hoarding dragon in Beowulf. Tolkien didn't come up with it.

Alright, this is taking much longer than I expected and I have to go get ready for Shabbat, but maybe I'll continue in another entry. However, my point is, a heck of a lot that people are holding against J.K. Rowling is really nitpicky and extreme, considering most of it Tolkien didn't actually originate.

Tolkien took a lot of his stuff from Beowulf and the Saga of the Volsungs (this includes special swords, rings of power, etc. Look here and here). And anyway, the first place I'd think of that uses important swords is King Arthur, which was around ages before Lord of the Rings.

Every author uses things from other authors, if you look hard enough, but if you want to compare Harry Potter to anything, it should be this: a book and movie that I read/saw AGES ago, long before Harry Potter.

The thing that really bothers me about Harry Potter is, supposedly Harry had love protecting him and that's why Voldemort was unable to kill him. But what I want to know is, how was that situation so unusual? If Voldemort was going around terrorizing and murdering families, friends, lovers...no one else ever died for their loved one before? In his whole reign? It doesn't make sense. Lily Potter was the only mother who died for her son out of love?

Anyway, everyone have a Shabbat Shalom!