h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Read the section where Eomer finds Theoden and Eowyn dead. Its all anglo-saxon. Theres also archaic words which is archaic and has scotish roots. The names have celtic origin iirc (Eomer was definately celtic in origin). The imagry (as in looks) might be Nordic, but its written in anglo-saxon

dealing with rohan first, you are both right.

they are mainly anglo-saxon, but make use of the fact (which tolkien knew) that the anglo-saxons were a mixture which included germans, swedes and danes (roughly speaking) as well as a lot of celts in the form of scots and welsh.

regarding the hobbit movie, each party has a clear vested interest in the parts they are involved in, but none of them are prepared to be flexible in the interest of actually getting the film made. They have overlapping areas of interest, and currently seem to prefer the option of keeping all of nothing to keeping most of quite a lot.

While I don't dispute the quality of the lotr films, there are lots of subplots which are completely left out, some of which completely change the perception of significant parts of the total story.

The stuff with bombadil doesn't matter too much, but the bits before and after it help define merry and pippin's characters, as does the stuff with the ents. by removing the entire subplot about moving to buckland (as camoflage) you lose the stuff about the friends stucking together, and finding out about the ring, which means that frodo does not travel to bree alone. As this has consequences throughout the rest of the story, it is a problem.

it also explains where the rest of the hobbits get their elvish daggers (to use as swords) prior to bree.

Also, the nature of the wood gives the hints necessary for the full appreciation of the wood of the ents.

The split points for the dvd have more to do with the dvd format than with any dramatic reason. The actual split point should have been just after the ford of rivendell, before frodo woke up, which is where the book splits. that way you get the journey to rivendell in the first dvd, and the breaking of the fellowship on the second.

The split for the two towers is where gandalf rides for minas tirith, with the other cliffhanger being the capture of frodo after his encounter with shelob.

as to the return of the king, it splits naturally just before the rescue of frodo from the orc tower, so you could reasonably split it into six better films, each about 2 1/2 to 3 hours long.

Getting to harry potter, it was said right from the publishing of the chamber of secrets that it was intended to have seven parts, one for each year of his schooling. Since then rowling has further added that while there may be minor additional books like the couple of really short ones she did for comic relief, she would take some convincing to extend the series further, and it definately wouldn't happen soon.

Your main criticism seems to be that a lot of the visuals between the films are too similar, and LOTR was released first. however they were both in production at the same time, so the images were independently decided upon.

However you don't compare these sorts of epic stories based upon films which are vastly more simplistic than the books, you compare the books.

While the lord of the rings is undoubtedly the better epic, it is also much harder to read. I know a lot of people who hve started reading lord of the rings on the assumption it would be as readable as the hobbit, only to stop after a couple of chapters because it was much harder going. Whatever else you think about rowling, she hasn't made that mistake.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have not actually read either lotr or all five harry potter books, so it makes it increasingly hard to have a sensible discussion based upon the specifics.

While I admire jackson for actually getting the film made, there are quite a few things he failed to get right. However by only editing the first film for release, and doing it as 3 seperate films, he avoided running out of money (which is what happened with the animated film).

He also suceeded in actually getting all 3 films into the cinema, and if he had failed at that, there would not be the eventual remake in about another 20 years, which could actually get some of his mistakes done correctly.

The problem that longer books tend to have which shorter books don't is that they tend to include rather a lot of stuff which just doesn't work well on the screen. Because of this a lot of stuff has to be dropped from the script, and so does some of the stuff that depends on it.

This can seriously alter the nature of the film, as can be seen from the stuff cut from the abyss to produce the one actually released. It obviously has something missing from it, and when the directors cut was released, you could see an entire subplot which had been removed, which changed the entire nature of the film.

The illiad works well as a film because it is basically the book of the play.

"regarding the hobbit movie, each party has a clear vested interest in the parts they are involved in, but none of them are prepared to be flexible in the interest of actually getting the film made. They have overlapping areas of interest, and currently seem to prefer the option of keeping all of nothing to keeping most of quite a lot."
The simple fact is if AOL Time Warner want to make The Hobbit, they can quite easily do it by buying the rights. They have enough cash to do it without breaking a sweat.

"While I don't dispute the quality of the lotr films, there are lots of subplots which are completely left out, some of which completely change the perception of significant parts of the total story."
Theres countless subplots left out, its impossible to cater to them all. And to cater to certain ones would be a bit silly, as people have different perceptions to charecters by focusing on subplots that interest them more.

"The stuff with bombadil doesn't matter too much, but the bits before and after it help define merry and pippin's characters, as does the stuff with the ents."
I disagree. Non of it was really that necessary, and would of added another 10-15 minutes to the film, making it longer...

"explains where the rest of the hobbits get their elvish daggers (to use as swords)"
Galdriel gives them elvish daggers in the extended edition. Its much easier for simple things like that to be shifted out of the main film to keep it shorter

"The split points for the dvd have more to do with the dvd format than with any dramatic reason. The actual split point should have been just after the ford of rivendell, before frodo woke up, which is where the book splits. that way you get the journey to rivendell in the first dvd, and the breaking of the fellowship on the second."
I disagree. Sure it would have worked, but the entire thing has been a build up. So when elrond announces the fellowship the music swells and it cuts. To have it cut at frodo unconcious would be pretty limp, as harry potter 3 has proven (every few minutes he goes unconcious and ends up in bed)

"The split for the two towers is where gandalf rides for minas tirith, with the other cliffhanger being the capture of frodo after his encounter with shelob."
Errr.. you mean Return Of The King??

"as to the return of the king, it splits naturally just before the rescue of frodo from the orc tower, so you could reasonably split it into six better films, each about 2 1/2 to 3 hours long."
It simply wouldnt work. Its why Harry Potter is going to implode but why star wars wont. With star wars, there were three films which stood alone and worked. The prequels were optional (could have easily been done in a book). So lucas makes three films seperately, leaving enough time for a build up of hype to be generated. With Harry potter, there being rammed out asap, mainly because there is no in house competing product (LOTR and HP realesed at the same time by the same companies = more cash for AOL Time Warner). They will eventually turn into the police academy series of child films. Slowly but surely, as the number of films goes from 3 to 7 (although book five is being split, meaning 8 or more films) people will eventually tire of it.

"she would take some convincing to extend the series further, and it definately wouldn't happen soon."
She will write another potter book after shes done the seven. Even if its just about his parents of his son/daughter. She does however, have the option to do it at leasure...

"Your main criticism seems to be that a lot of the visuals between the films are too similar, and LOTR was released first. however they were both in production at the same time, so the images were independently decided upon."
Ah no, you miss read me. They were released simultaneously by the same company. Fun that eh? very independent.

"While the lord of the rings is undoubtedly the better epic, it is also much harder to read. I know a lot of people who hve started reading lord of the rings on the assumption it would be as readable as the hobbit, only to stop after a couple of chapters because it was much harder going. Whatever else you think about rowling, she hasn't made that mistake."
Quite right, she has made a very simplistic tale. But then again, as was pointed out, spot the dog is a simple tale.

"It is becoming increasingly obvious that you have not actually read either lotr or all five harry potter books, so it makes it increasingly hard to have a sensible discussion based upon the specifics."
I refuse to pay for something i loathe with all my being, with a hatred unbridled by decencesy or common sense (Simply put- i dont like it). I will not read harry potter unless you're willing to pay for a book for me to read. I am however, cracking through lord of the rings at a far rate, having read return of the king and going back to read it.
As i stated i tried to read it a couple of years back. But as you can see it captured my imagination enough to try again. The Lord Of The Rings is easily the greatest book of all time, simply because of the hundredsof nuances in it that can be investigated when re-read.

"While I admire jackson for actually getting the film made, there are quite a few things he failed to get right. However by only editing the first film for release, and doing it as 3 seperate films, he avoided running out of money (which is what happened with the animated film)."
See now you've started on the editing and the money...
The film was done as one in that it was filmed back to back and usually out of sequence. Editorially it had to be done individually. Once the first film was out Peter Jackson could do what ever the hell he liked. The Fellowship of the Ring made enough money at the box office to pay for the next two films, and still make a lot of profit. There was never a question of the film production running out of money, due to the fact that one of the biggest media corporation in the world was behind it. AOL (internet coverage) Time (paper coverage) Warner (visual coverage).

"He also suceeded in actually getting all 3 films into the cinema, and if he had failed at that, there would not be the eventual remake in about another 20 years, which could actually get some of his mistakes done correctly."
Perfection is not acheiveable. Peter Jackson got close enough for me. And considering he had one of the most difficult conversions to do (a book thats been out for several decades,as opposed to a book thats been out a few years) hes done a damn good job. There wont be a remake simply because it was too costly, and its too much to suspect a repeat performance. Its a bit like saying lets remake the godfather now, because its good and its old. It doesnt work like that im affraid. The only sucessful remakes have been superhero films, mainly because of the nature of the comic book. Look at The Italian job remake as an example.

"The problem that longer books tend to have which shorter books don't is that they tend to include rather a lot of stuff which just doesn't work well on the screen. Because of this a lot of stuff has to be dropped from the script, and so does some of the stuff that depends on it."
Thats just the way it works im affraid. Short books are perhaps more difficult as theres less to work with (i eggerly await the 3 minute long spot the dog)

"This can seriously alter the nature of the film, as can be seen from the stuff cut from the abyss to produce the one actually released. It obviously has something missing from it, and when the directors cut was released, you could see an entire subplot which had been removed, which changed the entire nature of the film."
The thing is, with subplots you can say "this needs to be in" and that could go against someone else perception of the book/play/whatever. The director has to do what he feels is right having done the proper research (Peter Jackson has read the entire thing 30 times.. thats in the first three years btw, not counting however many times hes read it in the other four years. The only person who could seriously match that is Sir Christopher Lee, who reads it once a year at least). Audiences will never be fully satisfied with a film for whatever reason. Thats the way it works.

"The illiad works well as a film because it is basically the book of the play."
Do not get me started on the mess that is the Illiad please. Thats a complete trashing of Homers work, as well as a mess in terms of the history behind it.

I think one of the best things about Harry Potter was the use of similar shots over and over again (look thers hogwarts with ringwraiths around it, and oh look harrys in bed), the guessable plot, and the similarities between Van helsing beastie and lucan beastie is quite bizarre

At the end of the day, the harry potter films are going to clock in at around the 20 hour mark in total. Thats without extended editions, directors cuts, now more potter books etc. Id rather pay for three films then eight, (12 pound at the look pictures as opposed to 32 pound to see harry go to bed).

If your problem with lotr is length, forget it. HP is longer in total, and will cost more to see. LOTR may miss out more, but then again a film about the life of jesus would miss out a similar amount. Theres only so much that can be put into a film. As much as id love to watch the entire book in a literal translation (peter jackson if your watching this is a hint..) its just not possible. To split the book would still miss out things that people will miss. And the actors are mortal after all.

Having said all that, dawn french was fabulous in harry potter (she great in anything though) as was the cgi tree which splatted birds and robbie coltrane (how i so want him to turn around and launch into fitz mode at harry)

dealing only with reading the books, you can do that without paying for them. you see there is this newfangled idea called a library which will actually lend you books without charging you for the privilage.



I will have to reply to the rest of it next time.

Infidel libraries! more then likely one hp fan boy or another will have it. Then theres the whole spending a few days reading it..

I wont be able to reply, im away for a week, but ill try and get on and here what u say

"The split for the two towers is where gandalf rides for minas tirith, with the other cliffhanger being the capture of frodo after his encounter with shelob."
Errr.. you mean Return Of The King??

__________________________________________

NO! We're talking about the books! Y'know, the bit where Faramir isn't a 2D simpering wreck because daddy don't love him, and where all 4 Hobbits are good friends, as opposed to 2 distinct camps.

But this thread's not about the film of LotR, or indeed the Potter films. I'll be honest, I quite like the Potter films, as they don't claim to be masterpieces of literary fiction.

Without comparing it to the works of Tolkein, which is a fairly pointless thing to do, my problems with the books are this;

1) The sheer hype surrounding them. Every shelf in every bookshop at every train station or airport has the Potter books, including their 'adult' covers. What's that about?
2) The overly simplistic way of writing. Is Rowling really that different from some of the writings of Enid Blyton, the pioneer of the trite boarding school novel?
3) The sheer number of cliches. It seems that every bit of predictable fare in a fantasy novel is wheeled out in Harry Potter, and very little of it is used in a new way. Ok, I'll make an exception for Quidditch, but if JK could think that up, why couldn't she think of something more imaginative to do with the Spiders in Potter 2. 'Oh, I've told you all I know but now I have to kill you.' (Mr Bond...)
4) The constant comparisons to Tolkein. It's like comparing Giggs to Platini. Ok, they're not bad, but they aren't the greatest novels of all time. Besides, there is very little to compare. One is about an epic quest, another is a boy's troubles at school. It's like trying to compare Star Wars to the Jetsons on the merit that they all have stupid hair and happen to be set in a futuristic setting.

That (finally) is my opinion in the subject.

I'm not certain I agree that Tolkien didn't plan to write a sequel to the Hobbit. The first book of LOTR is written for a similar reading age to the Hobbit and most people seem to think that LOTR was started as a sequel, the style changed in the later two books - particularly the Return of the King - and these are written in pseudo biblical English with lots of "Lo"s and "beholds" making the writing rather dated today - even when compared with contemporary books (eg the later Wyndham science fiction, which stand up very well today).

I also understand that Tolkien didn't plan, or like, splitting LOTR into three books; particularly calling the last book Return of the King as it gave the ending away!

Going back and back to the original post, I don't think its fair to say that Harry Potter is entirely plagurism; it is a "classic" style story and there are many such stories with common elements; young hero, old mentor/guru, heroine, entirely evil enemy, long journey to undertake etc. Tolkien, George Lucas, Rowling books/films have these elements, but so does Homer's Odyssey! Rowling has at least introduced some original ideas into the classic framework.

Not so, she's used propps narative and thats the point.

By using the same thing over and over, and taking things from common sources - and then setting it in a blindingly obvious place (a school...) rather then being original (why not have harry potter as a homeless bum?), its hard to see why so many people have a care for it at all.

The next book (6 out of 7, soon it shall be all over!) is called Harry Potter and the Half blood prince iirc.
Now, correct me if Im wrong here, but Aragorn was a prince through all the lord of the rings and he was half blood (Dunedian were men and elf iirc). My thinks this half blood prince might just be a half elf for some reason...


As has been discussed ad infinitum here on this thread about the originallity of her work, what exactly have I missed thats original?
I watched matilda last week with my small (and hated) sister. Why does it seem the same exactly. Over weight Uncle/father and Nephew/brother are nasty to harritlda. Harritlda develops magic powers to give old sibblings a pasting, then goes off into a happy family (Griffen house as a representation)...

... why not have harry potter as a homeless bum?

Well, that would draw obvious comparisons with the "Wizard Of Pigeons".

... Aragorn was a prince through all the lord of the rings.

Well, if I was to be picky, not after the Coronation he wasn't, he was a king.

It seems strange to compare Aragorn with an unknown character in a forthcoming book as an example of non originality. However, Tolkien has, IMHO, rightly been criticised for over emphasising the importance of bloodline whilst ignoring the women in that bloodline; in the Tolkien world it wouldn't have mattered who Aragorn's mother was - in fact ISTR Aragorn saying that his blood was pure leading back to Isildur, by which it was pretty clear he meant through his father's side.

Rowling's world is the antithisis of this; she regularly makes the point that it doesn't matter what you are born but what you choose to make of yourself. "Half-blood" is a term only used by the nasty wizards.


... what exactly have I missed thats original?

To fully answer that I would need to know all that you have missed , however, the "common" view of a wizard is as a wise old man - indeed wise, wizard (and wit) all derive from the common source witan. So the line "Harry, you're a wizard" was quite a surprise when I read the first book, I really didn't see it coming!

The dementors seem an original invention, I can't think of a very similar idea.

The idea of a separate wizarding bank and currency.

Wizards being ignorant of the normal world.

That's only a couple of minutes thought.

Subtle use of puns - I didn't get Diagon Ally, and some people didn't get Grimmauld Place. Although Harry Harrison springs to mind as a punning author, you couldn't describe him as subtle in their usage.

I think if you look for old ideas in any book you will find them, and usually the author knows and acknowledges them, Rowling certainly does - Arthur C. Clark has claimed to only have had one really original idea in his life! - but the easy test is to post a couple of original ideas of your own for characters/books...

-Andrew

"Well, if I was to be picky, not after the Coronation he wasn't, he was a king."

Oh great, a Harry Potter fan. Seriously though when you look at all the works of Tolkien, does he spend more time as a prince or as a king.

"It seems strange..." etc
I wasnt making a direct comparison, I was saying that its fairly text book stuff. I would not be at all surprised if this half blood prince is an aragorn-esque charecter with an elf chick and a funky sword.
As for critising of the male bloodline seen as the pure, its just Gondorion society and the way it chooses to trace. Fair enough you can say its sexist, but then again people like to point towards LOTR being sexist/racist/istist all time.

"Harry your a wizard".. who says that? Dumbledoor? The wizard with the big white beard?

Dementors - representations of death. Hell if I had death following me round everywhere id go mad

The bank - fair enough. Then again its not that earth shattering is it? I mean, the french have a different currency and banks and it doesnt rock my world.

Wizards being ignorant etc etc - Hmmmm wana rethink that? HP et al are clearly aware of the real world. And if you mean the real world being ignorant of the wizards, arent the Hobbits like that with the outside world for the most part. 'Land of the big people' they call it iirc

...does he spend more time as a prince or as a king. [sic]

Well he spend more time as a prince, but I took the fragment "Aragorn was a prince through all the lord of the rings" to mean that Aragorn spent all his time as a prince.

I'm not certain I agree it's "Gonderian" society alone in Tolkien that overstates the male blood line; there are no female wizards, no female dwarfs, men, dwarfs and hobbits are referred to as sons of fathers, viz Frodo son of Drogo. Thorin son of Thrain.

... but then again people like to point towards LOTR being sexist/racist/istist all time.

Not all the time, but often and, I think sometimes justifiably. I wasn't particularly criticising LOTR, Tolkien lived in a different age after all and was a rather old fashioned individual even in the fifties. I put that to one side when I read the book and LOTR is one of my favourite books which I re-read most years. I was really pointing out that HP and LOTR, although obviously have some similarities as they are both set in a fantasy world of wizards, dwarfs, elves (or elfs) and so on, also have marked differences; as you would expect.

... "Harry your a wizard".. who says that? Dumbledoor? The wizard with the big white beard?

... Dementors - representations of death.

This may seem a daft question, but have you actually read any of the HP books? The line was said by Hagrid - the half giant (don't remember many half giants in literature, it does create a rather unpleasant image for the conception !). Dementors aren't representations of death - in fact they can't kill, they are creatures that feed on happiness; their greatest weapon is to suck out the soul of a victim - again, I can't think of other similar creatures; perhaps the golem character has some resonance (not the LOTR character, but the Polish legend which Tolkien borrowed).

... Wizards being ignorant etc etc - Hmmmm wana rethink that?

Neither rethink nor retract; a running joke in the book is that wizards don't know how to use a phone, cover a letter with stamps to post it, call firearms, fire legs, policemen, pleasemen and so on. Obviously muggle born wizards will know about the "real" world but I did'nt say *all* wizards are ignorant! The "original" part is reflecting the wizards keeping themselves secret from muggles by making muggles "secret" from some wizards.

Still awaiting some original characters or book ideas...
-Andrew

- No female dwarfs, elves etc etc

Galadriel has one of the rings of power (Nenya), Arwen Evenstar, Eowyn of Rohan. Sure non went on the fellowship but thats quite sensible IMO. Watch GI Jane - They ask why they dont let women in the marines. The answer? Because the men would develop feelings towards them and have a tendancy to defend the bodies.

- Dementors

Nope but a) Its obvious and b) ive threatened to burn my mates copy if she leaves it lying to close to me.
They suck the soul out of the body yeh? And this leaves them alive? Im sure death has been represented somewhere as a taker of souls. Ill dig around.

- Muggels etc

What so like in the worst witch where the wizards society is kept secret and seperated from the normal world, but they can still interact.

As you seem to be criticising books you have never read, perhaps we should end the conversation here .
-Andrew

I quite like how you totally dodged all the points and didnt address them what so ever. Ingenious.


The soul sucking thing - Doing Faustus. To lose the soul is to be as good as dead...

"The soul sucking thing - Doing Faustus."

And Shang Tsung from Mortal Kombat, and certain cultures believe that certain meterological circumstances can remove the soul, plus that whole Voodoo religion thing.

All literature, and all media is derivative.

LotR 'rips off' as many sources as Harry Potter. Elves and Goblins are both faeries from English mythology. The king/hero returning to save a besieged people can be linked to Arthurian legend, the legend of drake's drum, and countless other sources. The 'half-blood' is a common mainstay of fantasy literature. Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone is a halfblood, as is Gemmell's Tenaka Khan and the greek Heracles (half man, half deity).

No one author holds monopoly over a common convention. Potter, I am the first to say is trite and cliched (as I said at the beginning of this thread), but that is no reason to accuse Rowling of blatant plagarism. The Dementors who stalk the night may bear a resemblance to Nazgul, but the Nazgul bear more than a passing resemblance to the traditional western 'Grim Reaper' and surely the whole 'dark spirit haunting the night' thing was originally done by whoever wrote the Old Testament? You know? The Angel of Death stalking Egypt, killing firstborn sons to punish the Pharoh for the enslavement of the Israelites.

The 'Lands of the West besieged from South and East' part of LotR can be seen to be imitating medieval history, with the Islamic Moors attacking Europe through Spain and Byzantium, and the Golden Horde of the Mongol Khan devestating Novogrod, Poland and Austria, stopping only at the gates of Vienna (read Minas Tirith) where the knights of Christendom (read Rohirrim) were headed at full speed?

If you want to criticise Rowling, do it because her writing style is poor, her characters weak charicatures of typical stereotypes, her structure basic and her plot twists are predictable. Not because she draws inspiration from other literature.

Just my considered two penn'orth.

Psyc.

But theres nothing truely original about it thats the point.

Lord of the Rings has been mapped from start to finish to the point where it has histories, languages (with archaic versions discussed), alphabets, maps, subcultures the list goes on.

Theres a point where it goes from drawing inspiration and rehashing the same old thing. Fair enough if its the same old thing then its done, but there shouldnt be this level of fanatism. There should be fans, but not all this really.

The point in fanatacism is that it defies reason. A person saying "You shouldn't be a Potter fanatic because LotR is better" is merely demonstrating a will to monopolise opinion. Going slightly off topic, I myself am of the view that if you want to be a fanatic, watch football, because energies are wasted on books because once a book is written (no matter how well written), that's it.

May I point out that the "half blood prince" in Harry Potter is clearly Voldemort? Pure-blood, in context, means both your parents were magical. Mud-blood means both were Muggles. So one presumes that half-blood means one magical, one muggle. Voldemorts mother was a witch, his father was a muggle. Elves don't come into it.
Regarding the comparisons between HP and LOTR, a totally original story cannot exist. Life is life, and a story must reflect the fairly limited experience of life accumulated by the human race.
Part of the fun of the Harry Potter books is figuring out where the ideas come from. They are not as unoriginal as they are painted - Rowling may have taken ideas and concepts from various places, but she has woven them together in an original fashion. In the fifth book, Harry is obnoxious, rude, stupid, unable to control himself, cannot take advice and is also extremely bigheaded. Most heroes, including Frodo, are none of these. Surely that indicates some creativity?

is it possible to admit to being a fan of LOTR and of HP?

eek!

The major point for me (HP wise) is that I do subscribe to the school of thought that goes like this: anything that gets kids reading is good. Get them reading, then slip them LOTR and say "see, aren't books brilliant?"

I don't care that HP is full of cliché. I like sci-fi. There hasn't been an original idea in sci-fi since... well, ever. Does that stop it being entertaining? Fun? Original? Not really, some sci-fi does the rehashed ideas better than others, some gives it a totally original spin and some falls flat on its face.

The point being on how it grips the reader. Most of the kids that I know who have read HP love it. Not many have chucked it away halfway through HP3 and said "nah, boring cliché rehashed stuff. Here, Sho, gimme your LOTR instead"

HP5 is overly long, over written and frankly the Angst pudding is over egged. But still I like to read it.

If I wanted a great philosophical discussion I'd read Eco. If my kids want something a tad more original and thought provoking I'll send them in the direction of His Dark Materials.

Me? I'm happy to get out of the real world for a few hours - plus I think that (although she's now wasted him) Sirius Black has (had) the potential to be one of the best characters in literature. Ever.

Sorry to butt in and all that, but I finished rereading HP5 this morning and had nobody to witter on about it to.

My only request if you're going to put down the Harry Potter books is that you at least be able to spell/know what you're talking about.

They're dementors. The Ringwraith-like creatures?

Voldemort is your evil Sauron character.

Continue with your ranting