Young Writers Society

I love them both, i think its unfair to compare them. Two different authors, two different plots, two different times, two different genders, many different characters. IF you like lord of the rings, you like lord of the rings, doesn't mean you don't like the other.

Tolkien does a beautiful job with detail, which causes many people not to finish, which they should. Rowling people are dying to finish!

Harry potter is probably the most debated book, trust me an entire english class got eaten up by a debate about it. And it wasn't a normal debate, it got personal too. The only reason LotR isn't is because it's a higher reading level. Once people get their heads out of their butts i think they'll realize that they are both really good!

I prefer LOTR, mainly because I think Harry Potter's writing style is very shallow.

Harry Potter is quick and easy to get into, however it's also very, well, dumb. It obviously wasn't going for realism, and the characters are interesting enough, but any book where you can skip several pages and still know exactly what happened isn't really a winner in my book.

LOTR is tough to get into, mostly because of the massive number of names and locations you have to memorize to understand it. It relies on a backstory which you basically need to know, unlike Harry Potter which just sorta springs up and is easy to pick up and read. I strongly suggest reading The Hobbit first, it makes it MUCH easier to understand because it draws you into the world, instead of shoving you into it suddenly like it does if you only read the LOTR books.

Then again, the two aren't really anything like each other, so it's tough to compare them. But IMHO:

LOTR is a very densely packed book with lots of information to process.

HP: Is a book with not a lot of information to process, but it is very slowly revealed to you, resulting in the books being excruciatingly long, without that many events actually happening.

Duh, Harry Potter! Hello, it has MAGIC IN IT.

What more convincing do you people need?

-Tony

"Duh, Harry Potter! Hello, it has MAGIC IN IT" - I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but have you read Lord of the Rings?

DefJam101 wrote:Harry Potter is quick and easy to get into, however it's also very, well, dumb. It obviously wasn't going for realism, and the characters are interesting enough, but any book where you can skip several pages and still know exactly what happened isn't really a winner in my book.

I'm sorry, but since when did LOTR ever go for realism? It has dwarves, elves, hobbits, wizards, evil dark lords who forge magic rings bent on controlling the world, and walking trees. If you're going to ask which one is more realistic (which is a pointless question, as they're both fantasy - the whole point of a fantasy is to not be, well, fantastic) then Harry Potter is surely you're answer, as it is set in the modern world, involving modern themes, etc. etc. I apologise if I've misunderstood you, but I find that a rather bizarre statement.

As to the "fact" that you can "skip several pages and still know exactly what happened", I must again disagree. You can say many things concerning the hype it has recieved, but you cannot say that the books are predictable and uneventful.

Once people get their heads out of their butts i think they'll realize that they are both really good!

Thank You Author 13!!! That made me laugh and it's sooo true!!!

I can't remember if I ever posted on here but guess which one I think is best!!!


You guessed it! Harry Potter by far. Mmmm... If Tom Felton was on LOTR then maybe the other way around but I never really got into it as much as I did with Harry Potter.


HARRY POTTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kazmurf: maybe he was referring to realism of the characters' personalities?

Ofour wrote:Kazmurf: maybe he was referring to realism of the characters' personalities?

In which case I still disagree.

LOTR 4 3V4R!!

I really prefere HP, but in the films LOTR is the best

Seriously who here has read them both? I'll respect your opinion better than someone who's going mainly on the movies (which always do a horrible horrible job no matter what the book is).

I have, and I agree about the films, but surely no-one would make any judgements without reading both?

Surely?

author13 wrote:Seriously who here has read them both? I'll respect your opinion better than someone who's going mainly on the movies (which always do a horrible horrible job no matter what the book is).

I have

Okay, so I don't think I could ever give a definite answer to this because I love them for two different reasons.

Harry Potter is amazing! It is incredibly original and I admire J.K. Rowling very much, as a writer. These books are gripping and the characters are easily likable (except Harry, at times). I read these when I want action and a fast read, but when I read the sixth book I felt like it was just another HP book, not something new and exciting. It felt to "filler" for me. I hated all the extra fluff of teen drama. I pray #7 isn't like this, and it shouldn't be.

LOTR; however, is pure genius. Harry Potter worships the ground LOTR walks on. I would probably put this genius second to the Bible. I love how it is written. And whenever I am sick or I am depressed, honestly, I either pop in the DVD or read a chapter or two from one of the books. (usually chapter one from Fellowship or the second half of the Two Towers) All fantasy stems from LOTR and bows down to it's greatness!

Anyways...so while I cannot say which is my favorite, I can say that LOTR is way superior to HP for originality and writing style (and time taken!)