Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter?

Tyd wrote:

Alainna wrote:I do not base this at all on how easy a book is or how long or anything like that. I base this completely on how much I LIKE a book and for that purpose it has to be Harry Potter.

Alainna
xxxx

I agree completely I enjoy Harry Potter so much because the way JKR uses humour; one of the reasons people re-read the series is because it's not an intense ride all the way through(Not saying LOTR is) and it is a fun book to read

I completely agree. LOTR, as "magnificent a creation" as it may be, is entirely humourless. This goes back to the whole human emotions thing, and, though Tolkein is an excellent story-teller, he is quite crap at making his characters believable. It is in the character development area that Rowling far exceeds Tolkein.

I've just realized that this argument is pointless, as you really can not compare books. A book is something that different people react to in different ways, some will love a book while others detest it.

Comparing two very good books such as these two will always be an ongoing debate as everyone has a different opinion.

Yes, you can state which one YOU PREFER, but you really can not say which is BETTER. Do you catch my drift?

Alainna
xxxxxxx

Hmm...LOTR or Harry Potter? I can't decide. I think that the plot in LOTR is better and more complex but the describtion is deadly. Whereas Harry Potter has a simple plot and is easier to follow.

I think i would say Harry Potter although LOTR is brilliant.

Alainna wrote:I've just realized that this argument is pointless, as you really can not compare books. A book is something that different people react to in different ways, some will love a book while others detest it.

Comparing two very good books such as these two will always be an ongoing debate as everyone has a different opinion.

Yes, you can state which one YOU PREFER, but you really can not say which is BETTER. Do you catch my drift?

Alainna
xxxxxxx

Although I may have gotten carried away with the debate somewhere down the line, I do agree. I'm not sure that it is a case that you can't compare any books, but that you certainly can't compare two that are so different. They are both equally good in different ways, and what is one person's treasure will be another's bin liner.

Although I wouldn't say that the plot of Harry Potter is simple. If it were so, Rowling wouldn't have millions of fans hanging around waiting and wondering what the outcome of book seven will be. If anything, the plot of LOTR is simpler. It's just the way Tolkein goes about telling it is more complex.

I completely agree. LOTR, as "magnificent a creation" as it may be, is entirely humourless. This goes back to the whole human emotions thing, and, though Tolkein is an excellent story-teller, he is quite crap at making his characters believable. It is in the character development area that Rowling far exceeds Tolkein.

Totally disagree. Ron, Hermione and Harry are actually incredibly flat, recycled characters. I don't like Harry all too much, Ron is alright and Hermione gets annoying. Rowling's characters are decent for a children's story, but against Tolkien's they are nothing.

Firestarter wrote:

I completely agree. LOTR, as "magnificent a creation" as it may be, is entirely humourless. This goes back to the whole human emotions thing, and, though Tolkein is an excellent story-teller, he is quite crap at making his characters believable. It is in the character development area that Rowling far exceeds Tolkein.

Totally disagree. Ron, Hermione and Harry are actually incredibly flat, recycled characters. I don't like Harry all too much, Ron is alright and Hermione gets annoying. Rowling's characters are decent for a children's story, but against Tolkien's they are nothing.

Apart from the fact that Tolkein's characters, though they may not get on your nerves, are almost entirely emotionless. Sorry, but I just don't feel like I know Frodo as I read LOTR. Not once, or very few times, did I notice any of them showing any real emotions. Sure, Frodo may have had tears in his eyes, and Tolkein may have described, in a roundabout way, that he was tired as he was crossing the plains of Mordor, but I just didn't get the feeling that he was really suffering. It annoys me when works such as LOTR are called "flawless", as all writers have their weaknesses, and for me, Tolkein's is his characters.

Sorry, I don't mean to start up a debate again, but I do think Tolkein's characters are generally flat, and (at risk of sounding repetetive) emotionless. Tolkein is a master storyteller, but as far as his characters go... meh.

I can identify with Rowling's characters much better. And that is not because they are childrens' books. I find she focuses on them far more, more, at times, than her plot. That I prefer.

-Kaz

I've never called LotR flawless, personally. I just think it is far superior to most stories out there.

On the idea that Rowling focuses more on her characters than the plot, once again, I have to respectfully disagree -- the whole series is completely plot driven. It is not an exploration of characters, because it is a children's series and children prefer plot over character (generally). LotR is also a plot-driven adventure style story, but the reason I feel Tolkien's characters spring out more to me is the simple fact that they were original and exciting -- you might point out here that everybody has arrow-firing elves and grumpy dwarves and wise old wizards, but Tolkien *made* those stereotypes more or less -- when I first met the stout little hobbits or the carefree Tom Bombadil, or the Ents, I just kept thinking this is original, this is fiction at its best, this is a writer creating quirky, fresh ideas.

When I read the first Harry Potter book I think I was ten so I can't remember my feelings, but now I don't see anything spectacular in them. The best characters in Rowling's series are the ones that never get enough time on the pages, people like Sirius and Lupin. Instead (because I want to see how the series end, I actually got sick of the books in 5 and 6) I find myself getting bored of Harry's complaints and whines and bored of Hermione's uppity nature.

For me, I never once thought in LotR, "I am so bored by this character". They just fitted seamlessly and magically into the carefully guided plot and world. They are part of his grand storytelling. On the other hand, Rowling's stories are good, but they just don't approach the same level -- they enthrall, yes, but that's based primarily on the plots, and the fact most people go "ZOMG normal peoplz hav MAGIK!!!11one" (this sort of attitude is mirrored by people flocking to see spirderman/x-men movies despite thinking comics are sad, they just like to see normal people get cool powers -- also see many storybooks on this very site ...).

The Harry Potter books are well-written, interesting children's books that are never slow and have excellent plots. But the simple distinction for me is that Lord of the Rings is a book that I could connect to on a much deeper level, where I could watch a whole world crafted together, with a new language and new creatures and races and places and wars. Rowling simply attached her "world" to the existing one, which made it more accessible to her readers, but much less interesting.

Firestarter wrote:LotR is also a plot-driven adventure style story, but the reason I feel Tolkien's characters spring out more to me is the simple fact that they were original and exciting -- you might point out here that everybody has arrow-firing elves and grumpy dwarves and wise old wizards, but Tolkien *made* those stereotypes more or less -- when I first met the stout little hobbits or the carefree Tom Bombadil, or the Ents, I just kept thinking this is original, this is fiction at its best, this is a writer creating quirky, fresh ideas.

I do agree with you here, the characters in themselves were completely original. I just find that some of their personalities bore me some of the time. I find it a shame that "arrow-firing elves and grumpy dwarves and wise old wizards" have been used to the point of being sick of it. Yes, I agree, the characters are original. I just prefer Rowling's.

Firestarter wrote:The Harry Potter books are well-written, interesting children's books that are never slow and have excellent plots. But the simple distinction for me is that Lord of the Rings is a book that I could connect to on a much deeper level, where I could watch a whole world crafted together, with a new language and new creatures and races and places and wars. Rowling simply attached her "world" to the existing one, which made it more accessible to her readers, but much less interesting.

Again, I appreciate and understand your point here. Middle-Earth itself, with the languages, races etc. is interesting on a much higher scale than Rowling's world. Although I prefer reading about the wizarding world simply because I'm not forever over-whelmed by it, which, as you say, is mostly because we can easily connect to it, given that the environment itself already exists. I love Tolkein's Middle-Earth, I love the complexity of it, the diverse races, the language, everything.

However, I feel that if I have to read one more lengthy song about events that happened in the past, I will have to strangle myself. Hence, I skip the poems, but that just irritates me, as I like to read the whole story, and enjoy it in the process.

Firestarter wrote:I've never called LotR flawless, personally. I just think it is far superior to most stories out there.

I wasn't suggesting you did, I should have made myself clear. It irritates me that the common conception of LOTR is that it has no faults, which I do not think is true. All works have faults, and that is what gives them character, be it slight plot inconsistencies or a rather lengthy method of description. I do appreciate LOTR, and I'm forever grateful to it, as without it fantasy as we know it today would probably not exist. I just think that they, too, have faults. Less, perhaps, than others, but they are there, and I dislike calling anything "perfect."

Your points are valid, and, though I still prefer HP, I understand your reasoning for liking LOTR.

-Kaz

Well, that was the nicest response I've ever seen in debate =) I can also appreciate people's reasoning for enjoying Harry Potter. Let's just agree they're both great.

Yes indeed! That's probably the best solution

I skimmed the first and last page of responses. And now I'll force my opinions upon you:

Lord of the Rings, on any literary level, is superior to Harry Poetter. It's a veritable epic. It's a grand, breathtaking universe that's filled with intriguing characters and delicate histories. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is fun to read. woopdyfriggindoo. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings is a breathtakign, heartfelt, engrossing read that plunges the reader into his story-- and more so, his world.

whence wrote:Harry Potter, on the other hand, is fun to read. woopdyfriggindoo.

Isn't the point of a book to be fun to read?

whence wrote:Tolkein's Lord of the Rings is a breathtakign, heartfelt, engrossing read that plunges the reader into his story-- and more so, his world.

That's entirely debatable, depending on whether you like his style or not. Every time I read LOTR I feel as though I am being pushed away, rather than being drawn in. Sure, he created a world. We don't need to know every single detail about it, from the number of clouds in the sky to the shape and texture of each individual blade of grass (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point.)

As far as I'm concerned, there is no definite right or wrong answer. And to say with absolute certainty that one is better than the other, without any room to acknowledge its faults, seems rather arrogant.

Both books are entirely different, anyway. The biggest of these differences is also the most obvious: LOTR is an adults book, while HP was written for children. Though we may enjoy one more than the other, you most certainly can't say which one is better, as they are both so drastically different.

"As far as I'm concerned, there is no definite right or wrong answer. And to say with absolute certainty that one is better than the other, without any room to acknowledge its faults, seems rather arrogant." - I agree, but you can still say that you think one is better and say why, you just shoudn't expect others to agree with you. I think you can say which is "better" but you have to bear in mind that it only applies to you.

"Isn't the point of a book to be fun to read?" - some people might think not, some books I've read are either disturbing or terribly sad; they weren't fun at all to read but they're still good books.

Ofour wrote:"Isn't the point of a book to be fun to read?" - some people might think not, some books I've read are either disturbing or terribly sad; they weren't fun at all to read but they're still good books.

Yes, I agree with you there, what I was saying, or attempting to say, is that you can't dismiss the integrity of a book simply because it's enjoyable. Hope I cleared that up!

KazSmurf wrote:

whence wrote:Harry Potter, on the other hand, is fun to read. woopdyfriggindoo.

Isn't the point of a book to be fun to read?

whence wrote:Tolkein's Lord of the Rings is a breathtakign, heartfelt, engrossing read that plunges the reader into his story-- and more so, his world.

That's entirely debatable, depending on whether you like his style or not. Every time I read LOTR I feel as though I am being pushed away, rather than being drawn in. Sure, he created a world. We don't need to know every single detail about it, from the number of clouds in the sky to the shape and texture of each individual blade of grass (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point.)

As far as I'm concerned, there is no definite right or wrong answer. And to say with absolute certainty that one is better than the other, without any room to acknowledge its faults, seems rather arrogant.

Both books are entirely different, anyway. The biggest of these differences is also the most obvious: LOTR is an adults book, while HP was written for children. Though we may enjoy one more than the other, you most certainly can't say which one is better, as they are both so drastically different.

This is precisely why I opened up that post by saynig those were my opinions. Nothing more. Despite my wayward attempts at proving otherwise, what I say is in no way 'fact'. It's simply my beiliefs, and that's all they'll aspire to be.

You argue a good point, and for the record; I'm currently re-reading the Harry Potter series for the ...5th?... time. However, I'll still argue the superiority of LotR any day. . Call me a hypocrite, call me insane. It'll only make me agree with you.