I enjoyed the HP series up until the 5th book. "Goblet of Fire" is by far my favorite and "Order of the Phoenix" was boring.

And I won't bother reading the 6th one since I already learned what the major point of it was, the identity of the half-blood prince.

On Tolkien, I loved "The Hobbit" but LOTR was hard to take, too descriptive. I ended up having Dad read the trilogy to me when I was around 12 or 13, he translates things well. The movies were great fun though, albeit very very long.

However, I DESPISED "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison. (I think). It was boring and tried too hard to make you believe it was waxing philosophical. Bleg. X.x

Snoink wrote:Er... yeah. Someone mentioned Tokien? Yeah... I don't like his works. It's like, "STOP DESCRIBING EVERY USELESS THING."

I don't like "A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." By Mark Twain, yes, but OMG. SO BORING. *flails*

A duel, Snoink--first blood and you've got to admit Tolkien is the genius of the 20th century when you lose. ^_~

Useless, indeed, my friend.

And to MH: Yes, Paolini is the notorious homeschooler who wrote Eragon, etc.

I don't tend to recall the things I dislike to any extreme. Hating something too much puts it one's mind, and then it drenches the good...

I don't hate Tolkien, and in fact, out of all the writers out there, he's the closest one I can identify with. I've created languages for my characters and stuff too, plus made a mythology up. So it's not that I have an issue with. But his style of story-telling is much too disorganized for me to be enamored with it.

Snoink wrote:I don't hate Tolkien, and in fact, out of all the writers out there, he's the closest one I can identify with. I've created languages for my characters and stuff too, plus made a mythology up. So it's not that I have an issue with. But his style of story-telling is much too disorganized for me to be enamored with it.

But I didn't say you hated Tolkien; hardly even implication unless misapplied impudence.

I suppose it's a question now of subjective and objective. ^_^ In the subjective, I am rather enamoured of Tolkien on all levels, if it must be that word.

...And this is going off-topic into likes rather than dislikes...

Carry on all the rest with hates and loathing.

I hate Tolkien. It's drawn out boredom and endless description over whats unnecessary. Tolkien was a world builder, not a story teller.

I don't think I'm better than anyone, sure there are probably plenty of writers out there that would get more fanmail than me but that doesn't mean I have to like them or their work.

I've read all the HP books and I didn't really like them much, that doesn't mean I'm jealous or anything, we're all allowed to have our own opnions and I don't think anyone could change my mind so please don't think I hate anyone because they're better off than I am.

Wow, so many people who can't see the Lord of the Rings books for what they are. Tolkine just had a lot of background that went into his world. His fantasy is the most real that's ever been produced, rather than half-assed fantasy writers these days that go "Ooh look I'm going to put some elves with pointy ears in my stories and they'll be all good and nice".

Tolkien is the MASTER of all fantasy and always will be.

He doesn't include unneccesary description, he just has big world and a lot of stories going on at once. Lord of The Rings is the ultimate fantasy book and there will never be anything that can beat it - it basically is fantasy.

I think there's this new range of readers (young teenagers, 13-17) who have basically grown up on Harry Potter books and Christopher Paolini and expect quick, watered-down prose, with action. They've grown up on TV, computers and things so that they only really appreciate a sort of fiction where the satisfaction is quick and easy.

Lord of the Rings is an effort to read -- of course it is! But that doesn't mean it's rubbish. Tolkien wasn't the best writer in the world. He doesn't have elegant prose, or magical writing abilities. He has functional prose, but he's an incredible storyteller. I think Lord of the Rings is the best plot ever created.

That's it, I think, though. Tolkien might not be for modern, young teenager readers anymore. He was an old-style writer. LotR is nothing like Harry Potter or anything these days because that form of storytelling has died out. I think that makes it all the more beautiful. I'm just sad nobody can get into LotR anymore because of modern writing.

Another point: nearly everyone I know that doesn't like LotR has never finished reading it. Try reading it all before you judge it.

Lord of the Rings is an effort to read -- of course it is! But that doesn't mean it's rubbish. Tolkien wasn't the best writer in the world. He doesn't have elegant prose, or magical writing abilities. He has functional prose, but he's an incredible storyteller.

It took me ages to read them at first but I'm beginning again and starting with re-reading The Hobbit as things become a little more clear with a second read. The Hobbit is one of my favourite pieces by Tolkien.

The Hobbit Ive read - its deemed readable. LOTR I cannot get past the boredom of Bilbos birthday which is simply mind draining.

Another reason I hate LOTR is the villain, a tower with an eye on the top isn't great at all. Firestarter I didn't think the plot was that overwhelming, its just about Frodo going on an adventure, there was little suspense or mystery in the whole thing. From page one you know the ending - the ring goes back in the mountain. I felt the characters were a bit 2D as well.

Compared to Harry Potters plot LOTR is a hobbit (LOL! - Im just not funny am I?). You cant deny HP isn't incredible in its plot, the series is entirely plot driven and everyone is asking so many questions about the next book because of its excitement.

I can deem HP's plot in the exact same way, it's about a kid who goes to a strange school and has an enemy who wants to kill him. People have done magic schools before JK Rowling came along.

When I first read LotR, I didn't know the ending. Maybe the movies have ruined it for you, I don't know. But I opened the book with an open mind, which is something perhaps you can't do anymore.

Characters 2D? You haven't read past Bilbo's birthday and you're judging the characters? That's impossible, and short-sighted. You can't expected Tolkien to introduce, develop and make an impression with his characters in the first chapter.

The villain? The same thing can be said about Voldemort. He's just a guy who for some reasons wants power. He's exactly the same as Sauron. Your comment about the tower with the eye is, yet again, short-sighted, because that's in the movie and never really commented about in the book.

In fact, I think the only things you know about LotR areprobably from the films, and THEY ARE NOT the same as the book. Tolkien presented Sauron very different to his readers than PJ felt he had to present him to viewers. PJ needed a sort of image of the villain, because in the book he's never shown, so he used the lighthouse-eye-technique (something I'm not fond of either).

My point is - you've never got past the first chapter of a book with thousands of words. You've judged the characters, his writing style, the plot, the villain, on THAT?

If I picked up the first chapter of the first book of HP, I could criticise the same things.

Ive read the hobbit, I can judge Tolkien on that book.

As for plot, Tolkien seems linear. There are so many plots riddled into one plot with Harry Potter.

Characters, yes Ill stick with it, in the first chapter of the Hobbit all the dwarves etc... come to Bilbo's house. I really cant tell them apart other than name. None of them are really all that unique.

Maybe I should borrow the fellowship and have a read although I doubt I will get to the middle without being bored into the grave.

At the end of the day I suppose its each to there own but in terms of Popularity JK wins hands down. There isnt a debate in my last comment its fact. Mugglenet had millions of visitors to the website, RPS and some peoples lives are devoted to harry potter. Every household knows his name.

Ill quote McGonnagal in PS/SS - "Theres not a boy or girl who wont know his name"

The character was quite right.

The Hobbit is a children's book; you should read Lord of the Rings if you want to properly understand Tolkien's writing style. Hence the Hobbit is linear so it's not too complicated for a child to understand.

In terms of popularity?

Yes, I'll grant you, Harry Potter is more popular. But popularity has never been a good judge of how good something is. Besides, the LotR films showed it can be just as popular to people.

We're talking about literary quality, not crazes. If the best argument you can come with as to why Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings is "because of its popularity" then I'm worried.

Anyway, to end all of this, I love Harry Potter and I read all the books the day they come out, etc. That wasn't my point. I was just defending Tolkien, because everyone seems to have a pop at him every so often

I really love Harry Potter, and not because I like "watered-down prose with action". Everything about is fantastic, the plot, world, characters, etc. Granted it has certain similarities to The Dark Is Rising and Lord of the Rings, but she drenches all the similarities in tons of new material. Hers are the only fantasy books I can really read straight through. With all due respect (and I know this is near-heresy), she blows George RR Martin completely out of the water. I didnt really care about any of his characters, the world was just ok, and I'm not a huge fan of the plot.

Paolini, on the other hand, is a disgrace. He's a disgrace to writers, young writers, and humanity itself. He's an insult to our very solar system, and probably the galaxy too. He's a terrible writer, an intellectual property thief, and actually thinks that he's one of the greatest writers ever. I was buying books at a bookstore and he was there doing a speech or something, and the guy's got a wizard robe, staff, and pointy hat, and was talking in the most nasal and annoying voice ever about how wonderful he was.

He's disgusting. One of my driving goals in writing is actually to prove to humanity that not all young writers are complete rip-offs like Paolini.

The LOTR Films however was not the blockbuster of the year. HP was.

And who said it was the best point of the argument? Id already discussed plot characters etc... in her work compared to the meagre comparison in Tolkien's work.

However utter popularity and love of the book is a big factor as well. Harry potter is adored by millions and probably will go down in history for its huge HUGE success. LOTR has kept its readership for many years however it didn't have the same awe as HP when it was out. Also why are you worried that this might have been my only point? lol

In terms of money for the films, Return of the King is higher than any of the Harry Potter films, however they are all about the same. But it doesn't really matter, since we're not debating about the popularity of the films.

I'm worried because I have this feeling you think popularity accounts for a lot, when it doesn't; something being popular doesn't make it good, it just makes it accessible.

Harry Potter is so popular because anybody can read it. A child who is seven can probably understand most of the earlier books. I would say you have to be in your early teens at least to understand Lord of The Rings, with a preference to being older. Harry Potter attracts both children and adults, it has a larger audience; in comparison, Lord of the Rings has a mostly older, adult audience. Obviously, therefore, more people will read Harry Potter. Especially since it's been released in a time where the internet spreads news and books can be published and shipped in hundreds of countries at once.

In Tolkien's time it wasn't the same. To compare popularity is pointless: it doesnt indicate which book is better than either. This wasn't really the debate I wanted to get into either but you seem to want to drag JK Rowling into anything to do with LotR.