Personally I like Harry Potter better, I tried reading LOTR many times but only got so far, it just doesn't have the way to grasp me. But which do YOU like better? and why?
It's the same case with me. I read Harry Potter in my childhood (at the age of seven, I read the first book), and I cannot really find any rival for the series. It's just....enchanting. I also tried to read the Lord of the Rings a few times, but I find it tedious with the weird old English. But it's also not really that case, since I've read Eragon and it also contains difficult English. I just don't find the plot line very gripping.
But HP is my forever love 
I personally like Harry Potter better. LOTR is too drawn out in some parts, especially the descriptions of the settings. I absolutely LOATHED when they were describing their battle schemes. It bored the heck out of me. Also, Harry Potter is a lot easier to follow.
Harry Potter DEFINETLY
i tried reading the first LOTR but i couldn't get past the second page 
i just can't focus on the words, i just drift off.
Harry Potter is like comfort food that's always kinda around. I started LOTR, but then had to put it down for a little. I should pick it up again, as it seems like the kind of book I'd like. LOTR seems to be more substantial in the long run.
Yeah, the beginning is a little Bible -like, but it is Tolkien's Genesis. Once you read that though and get the to the Noldor revolt, then it really picks up.
Very close - I've read all the HPs, all thre LOTR, The Hobbit, but only managed the very beginning of The Silmarillion. It's just so very Bible-like, and I found that difficult enough to get through (again, I only managed about the first quarter of Genesis). I think it's one of those "don't start from the beginning every time you pick it up again after a long absence" sort of book.
I'm currently rereading LOTR. Yes, it is long winded at times, but Tolkien is a different writer than Rowling. In his time, literature was like that.
But I'd have to say that I'm even. HP's style is more towards what I like (and expect in this time period) to read, but LOTR has such a depth, such amazing...everything!
So, I'd have to say that if you handed me The Return of the King and Deathly Hallows and told me to choose, I'd take both and read them at the same time.
Has anyone here read all seven HP's, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and all three LOTR's? Because I have and wonder who's done the same.
I think Harry Potter.
I just love JKR's style of writing and her originality and creativity!
I didn't really understand Lord of the Rings.
I choose Harry Potter because it's an easy read and quite entertaining. I think Tolkein built a better world, though.
Baroness Ink wrote:Erm, just so you know I don't want to get tangled in a post-war.
I really prefer Harry over LotRs.
I can agree that Rings has a much more subtle and deeper beauty than Potter, but Tolkein's style just drives me right off the edge, crashing all hopes of the LotRs making it into my "Top 20 Books" list. I can agree that it is well-written, but I just don't like it.
Ehem...er....yeah. So...peace?
Erm, just so you know I don't want to get tangled in a post-war.
I really prefer Harry over LotRs.
I can agree that Rings has a much more subtle and deeper beauty than Potter, but Tolkein's style just drives me right off the edge, crashing all hopes of the LotRs making it into my "Top 20 Books" list. I can agree that it is well-written, but I just don't like it.
Ehem...er....yeah. So...peace?
I love LOTR, it has a great story, but Harry Potter is so much easier to read. I'd have to say HP.
Harry Potter tends to hold me better than LotR. I've read the Hobbit, and I cannot keep my attention on any of the books. HP, however, holds my attention much easier. Probably because it is contemporary, while LotR was designed for a much smarter audience...
Duh, Harry Potter! Hello, it has MAGIC IN IT.
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!)
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, and I agree about the films, but surely no-one would make any judgements without reading both?
Surely?
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).
Ofour wrote:Kazmurf: maybe he was referring to realism of the characters' personalities?
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once people get their heads out of their butts i think they'll realize that they are both really good!
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.
"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?
Duh, Harry Potter! Hello, it has MAGIC IN IT.
What more convincing do you people need?
-Tony
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.
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!
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.
. Call me a hypocrite, call me insane. It'll only make me agree with you.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.
"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.
whence wrote:Harry Potter, on the other hand, is fun to read. woopdyfriggindoo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Firestarter wrote:I've never called LotR flawless, personally. I just think it is far superior to most stories out there.
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: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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 completelyI 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
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 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 Here's my theory: When the Lord of the Rings was written, people had longer attention spans. Today some people don't even have the patience to read a book period much less a serries of long-winded books like LOTR or a classic like Les Miserables (>1000 pages, by the way). My little brother won't read at all--i tell him he's crazy.
I read LOTR books and watched the movies simultaneously (read a chapter, watch it on the movie) and it took me forever, but i fell in love with the story. The movies were much better in the books, though, because i felt like i was there. The actors were great, the plot staying along with the story in the books, the destinies of characters being played out. And no main characters (except for Boromir, of course, and King Theoden, but i wasn't too attached to them) died. I hate it when i get attached to a character and the author kills them off! *sniff sniff...dumbledore, sirius, and cedric...
which brings me to Harry Potter. I absolutely love the books. probably read each of them at least three times. Rowling is a brillant author, the plots are so complex and intertwining, and the characters so perfectly depicted that the first time I picked up Sorcerer's stone three months ago, I read it late into the night, and within three days I had read CS, POA, and GF. The movies do suck, but they're getting better. My all-time favorite was Prisoner of Azkaban, though I'm looking forward with joyful anticipation to July 13 this summer--order of the phoenix!
I'll never grow out of either harry potter or LOTR. They're both great in their own ways.
I agree with Thriving Fire when he said the Lord of the Rings is an aquired taste. I myself have read it several times, the first time being little more than a skim through, and to be honest I did still skim over bits of it the last time I read it (it's not that I don't enjoy them, I just have a very short attention span). My point is that every time I read the books I found it a bit easier and more enjoyable. I've made a promise to myself that the next time I get a chance to read them I will read every single page, though that's really not relevant to this discussion.
I prefer LOTR, but that might have something to with the fact that I seem to have grown out of Harry Potter. The last time I read one of them I found myself quite bored through most of it.
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
From your logic you would deduce that anything that is more sophisticated cannot be praised because it would be "intellectually snobbish". The reason LOTR is better is because its so much more complex. Some people call this "long-winded" because they don't have the patience to give it a chance. People like Harry Potter more because you read a line and think "Oh, that makes me sad", it couldn't be more simple. LOTR contains far more depth and many different emotions can be deduced from different parts, depending on who you are. Harry Potter provides no variety, it's there and there is only one train of thought you can follow from it. Harry Potter isn't more "accessible", it's just so much more simple.
This debate could go on forever but here's my take on it.
First off, LOTR is very much an aquired taste. I know, because I've tried to read it a fair few times and it just hasn't happened. It's the greatest fantasy ever written without a doubt, but it's just not for me. It's long-winded and hard to get into. Basically, it's one for the fans.
HP, on the other hand, is a much more accesible read. Where this debate really gets going is when people think an accesible read is a bad read. IT'S NOT. HP is fast, absorbing with a fascinating, tight plot. People who claim that it's not as good as LOTR for whatever reason are being intelectually snobbish.
Harry Potter all the way.
Many people who have posted on this subject have read Harry Potter, but not Lord of the Rings. I am exactly the opposite, having read Lord of the Rings many times, and never even picked up Harry Potter. Needless to say, I prefer Lord of the Rings.
Call me old fashioned, but I think one of the reasons Harry Potter is liked more is because, as they've said, it's an easier read. I've read excerpts, and the language is snappy and simple. Lord of the Rings is intricate, descriptive and thorough. The reason HP is preffered, I think, is that people know what England looks like. The culture and landscape is known already. Middle earth had to be build from the ground up, in only a few books. Therefore the details are piled on liberally.
The style is more traditional in LOTR. It isn't as up-to-date as Harry Potter, and not as socially relevant to us. Plus it seems that attention spans are shrinking. It takes a determined person to finish LOTR.
The Hobbit and LOTR are two seperate things. The Hobbit is the prequel, if you like, to LOTR. Fellowship of the Ring is the first in LOTR, followed by Two Towers and Return of the King.
I'm going to have to side with hekategirl; I need the motivation to read LOTR. However, I have been reading Harry Potter since who knows when. I keep borrowing LOTR from the library, then don't get around to reading it.
Oh, question!
This is a question asked totally out of ignorance, so don't get too mad at me: Which book in Lord of the Rings comes first? (Now I'll probably get it completely wrong) Is it Hobbit, or Fellowship of the Ring, or am I just way out in left field?
Someone help! It is now my official personal goal to read it over vacation. Really. As soon as I find out what comes first (tangent: the chicken or the egg. sorry. end tangent) I'll go to the bookstore and buy it, then I can have something of real substance to post in this reply.
On the subject of Harry Potter (since I have read this one, I can comment in good faith), there are people who dislike it, saying that it's not good writing and that the characters are flat, or that it's just a good story. There are times when I don't like Rowling's writing style, it seems very sparse and action-oriented, but I think the fact that there are seven books makes up for it because over that period, the reader can glean information about things as they change over time, the same reason the characters often seem flat (I completely agreed with that statement up until a few months ago when I started reading up on it). And her books do tell a good story, but there's more to it than that; I love all the foreshadowing that appears in her books. I think it involves the reader in the universe more.
Going by the films, LOTR was done much better. The Harry Potter films have had too many directors to be consistant and there is barely continuity within the storyline. You'd think that if I've seen the LOTR movies, I would be able to at least start the books, but nope. Haven't done it yet. Still getting around to it.
Update [30 March]: I now have Lord of the Rings in my posession. Yes my friends, I have taken the first step towards reading the beloved trilogy! Now all I need is time...
The challenge is persent in understanding the connotations and allegories in the book. Any words are easy to "read", I did not phrase that well. Being challenged by a book does not make me frustrated or annoyed, it's like a hard puzzle, you enjoy its difficulty and apparent impossibility. Harry Potter is like a very simple puzzle that, when you have completed it, you do not feel as if you have accomplished anything. There is a difference between how easy something is to read and how easy something is to fully understand.
I feel that Harry Potter is a very good at being a plain book, nothing more. You can read it, its enjoyable and takes no mental effort. However, the extra challenge provided by LotR to understand all that is written makes it, for me, by far the better book.
My thoughts exactly. LOTR is just too hard a read and/or too complex for a lot of readers to understand.
Harry Potter is good. It's fast-paced and exciting. LOTR, however, is of another league completely. Even the LOTR movies are far and away superior to the HP ones.
I completely agree with Shafter on this:
I'm very sorry that the attention span of the average reader is not long enough to see the depth and beauty in LotR.
I feel that Harry Potter is a very good at being a plain book, nothing more. You can read it, its enjoyable and takes no mental effort. However, the extra challenge provided by LotR to understand all that is written makes it, for me, by far the better book. The world of LotR is just so much bigger, better and more interesting. It is also much harder for a reader to access which is why I liked it so much more than Harry Potter.
In terms of movies I don't think that either of them are as good as the books. Even so the LotR movies are by far better than the HP ones which are just plain boring.
It's pretty close for me, but i'd have to say The Lord of the Rings. I agree that Harry Potter is easier to read, but i've outgrown the earlier ones, and the more recent ones just got on my nerves. LOTR is a difficult read, but I did really enjoy them, although the first part of The Fellowship of the Ring was a tad bit boring. Plus, the LOTR movies were way better than HP.
I've read all six books of HP, but only one book of LOTR, so saying HP would be unfair, lol.
I agree with the others about HP being easier to read, though. But once I've read all the books, and watched all the movies of both, I'll get back here.
Harry Potter is my favorite, followed by His Dark Materials. Harry Potter is just a wonderful story. Rowling is a great writer in that she can combine the dark with the light and make it funny and interesting.
Lord of the Rings. Hmmm. I've been meaning to read those. I tried a couple years ago, but my mind wasn't prepared.
And did everyone know that there is going to be a His Dark Materials movie towards the end of this year???
I'm so excited.
Well, I find Harry Potter ultimately the better book. LOTR is so description-heavy, we don't need to read ten pages describing a mountain. I think the plot of LOTR is more epic than HP, but the characters are flat. You can't really relate to them, I think Tolkein is far more interested in getting across his epic plot and landscape rather than conveying human emotions. HP, on the other hand, goes the other way, taking more time to build up character depth than concentrate on scenery. I like this more.
Regarding the films, LOTR are definitely better, simply because of the way they are more accurate and better acted than HP. On the point of His Dark Materials, I find it in between: it slightly edges into the realms of over description, yet still manages to maintain character depth in most of its characters. Unlike Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, etc. you can relate to Lyra, Will, Lord Asriel, Mrs. Coulter, Serafina Pekkala, etc. much better.
personally and speaking for the younger publeic, wich counts more than anything, i think that harry potter is an easier thing to read, but if you do read lord of the rings or atleast watch the movies i can say hands down that lord of the rings utterly burns harry potter. harry potter was meant to grow with age group and to grow with harry. starting out with harrys age group in the first book as the main public reader target and worked its way up year by year. i found this very effective in creating a creative drama in a young boys life making it easier for them to read and magnificently increasing there vocabulary. harry potter educationally probably has lord of the rings burned. so by my own logic we are at a deuce of 2 great epic adventures!=)happy reading(=
Mickiemoo wrote:Harry potter for books, and i think the films for both are good, im hooked on harry potter constantly, but i cant get into LOTR
Harry potter for books, and i think the films for both are good, im hooked on harry potter constantly, but i cant get into LOTR!
Mickiemooxxxxxxx
*blushes*
well, technically, i suppose... i will have to read it eventually... but i might have to wait until i'm thirty.
this generation? i'm 77, remember? (and steadily decreasing in age. i used to be 100.)
Hoy, Pushca, unreadable?! My, my - where has todays generation gone off to? I stick by the fact that the LotR is a modern literary masterpiece, concieved by a masterful mind and written by an equally masterful hand. That I shall ever come across anything quite like it, as far as I can tell, is highly unlikely. Tolkien, I think, was one of a kind 
definitely. His Dark Materials are certainly a lot deeper than Harry Potter, but LotR is at the top of my list. It has more symbolism and more in-depth themes than anything I've ever read.
On the His Dark Materials note, its much better than Harry Potter, and by all rights, should be more popular. It's better written, and far more consuming than Harry Potter.
But I still think LotR is brilliant, and nothing I have read in my life thus far beats it for me.
Yes, I'm back to post again...
Thank you, doubt_all, for your support of LotR even though you didn't like it. I'm reading through LotR again with my family and believe me, I am biting my tongue (fingers?) to keep from taking someone's head off here. I'm very sorry that the attention span of the average reader is not long enough to see the depth and beauty in LotR. Let me reiterate: I like Harry Potter, but the depth is not there. I'm sorry, it's just not.
About Dark Materials trilogy: different subject, but a very interesting one. Doubt_all, PM me if you want to know what I think of the trilogy. 'Twould make for an interesting discussion, to be sure.
And... I'm going to stop writing now. Bye!
Erhem. Far too much HP support on this thread in my opinion, because Lord of the Rings (as Literature with the dreaded capital L) is vastly superior. Vastly, vastly, vastly. And I'm not even a LotR fan. I read the first two books when I was sixteen and hated them - but my sister forced me to read the third. It was semi-enjoyable. 4, 5 and 6 were very entertaining, I'll admit... a highschool soap with magic, great idea - but lacking any remote hint depth.
Personally, I think that Phillip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy trumps both. But alas, it was never as popular as either HP or LotR.
uhhhhh lotr movies are f'in awesome. books? unreadable. i only every made it to chap 10 of fellowship. hp movies, blow, though, but the books are amazing.
did you just say that hp isn't as long as the lotr trilogy? uh huh...
anyway, lotr wins. pretty much because it makes such a great movie (love to peter jackson). i am a bit biased, though.
HP all the way!!!
Its more gripping, its got sequels.... it isn't so long and boiring and confusing!!!
Harry Potter. I did try to read LotR, but I read one page and I couldn't bring myself to read anymore. I did however, read and enjoy The Hobbit, but even comparing it to that I do still prefer Harry Potter.
Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter? Is that even a contest??!!
LotR is a incredibly deep, epic story about a group of people changing the fate of an entire world. Harry Potter is a fun story about a bunch of kids going to school and fighting off bad guys. You can't compare them!!
But, if I had to choose one, I'd choose LotR. Because every time I read it, I see a new truth, a hidden metaphor, something that challenges my thoughts. I'm afraid that's not so with Harry Potter, despite the fact that they're cool books.
There. I have said my piece. Those of you who just slammed Tolkein are lucky I don't know where you live. Otherwise I would drop by and debate you to death.
Very tough question, both so original and both so unbelievable fantastic. My question is why pick? They both rock, so why pick? lol...so in answer to my question I'm not going to pick one at all. They both satisfy different aspects that I look for in books and I admire both authors greatly. But if I had to choose one, I would choose...Tolkien. He has had the greatest effect on the world of literature and is simply..."fill in a really good word, whatever you prefer."
~Aero
I'm the common male, so more violence owns little witch craft crap. Although, LOTR was written like a history book.
I don't know. LOTR storyline, hands down. Prolly LOTR. HP is all that jazz about witchery and wizardry-I think that LOTR is deeper, even if the books aren't as lively. I read almost the whole trilogy, and I prolly need to go back and reread them. They can get pretty dull, though.
Again, I'm more of a historical fiction buff.
Erhmm well I'd say Harry Potter, LOTR story is very very dull to read very descripted and such, if the film is already so descpripted you wouldnt expect anyyy less from the book lol But they are both very well thought out books. And I think it has a lot to do with the time they have been written in, harry potter is more modern maybe thats way much more easier to read ?
They are both some of the best fantasy novels to date, but if I had to choose, I would pick The Lord of the Rings because I am extremely fascinated with how much background there is to it. Aside from the main trilogy there is The Silmarillion, The Book of Unfinished Tales, and the 12-book-long History of Middle-Earth. They are very close, but I'd have to sway towards The Lord of the Rings because of all the extra information provided.
How about... not.
HP's my favorite. It's interesting, great and the characters are believable. I only read LOTR because my parents said I had to in order to see the movies, which are amazing no matter what anyone says.
I'm leaning towards Harry Potter; I, too, read a few pages and I wasn't "sucked" into the story as I wish to be. I don't find Lord of the Rings too intersting, and I never really liked the concept of the book. I was a bit surprised that I liked Harry Potter, I picked it up four or five years ago, and ever since I've been hooked.
I haven't read the LOTR, though I plan to read at least the 1st one someday... I'm probably not mature enough yet. I have a pretty short attention span. My parents read me the Hobbit when I was little and I adored it, but I'm sure it's totally different than the trilogy.
I have seen the LOTR movies, which were pretty awesome. I know from seeing them that even if Tolkien did tend to over-describe things, he still had a great storyline and characters.
The HP series is cool, though maybe a bit over rated. It's very entertaining and has really strong characters. I don't think that people should dis it just because they're kids books. Even if something is simple and intended for children, teens and even adults can still appreciate it for the plot, characters, suspense, humor, ect.
As for the movies, LOTR, hands down. Most of the HP movies were pretty much pathetic, and really quite insulting to the books. The LOTR movies were exciting and engrossing had much better acting, as well as lovely scenery. I didn't like the long, gory battle scenes much though. I was thinking, "Okay, we get the point, they all slaughter each other, spare us the gory details, please."
Anywho, I don't think it makes alot of sense to compare the two with each other. I think there completely different, besides both having magic, and that they're probably both good for totally different reasons...
Phorcys wrote:The LOTR Movies were half baked crap which were better than the raw crap books. THe books are drawn out and long winded to the Nth degree, every single page bored me.
The films likewise, they were a waste of 12 hours of my life. They went on and on and on when such alot could be cut.
I am a huge part of the HP fanbase as I am admin of two fairly active rp sites, one custom made on my own space. I am a HP podcaster too. Ive read the books millions of times and have never found a dull moment.
I also love the films but ever since Gambon and Fiennes have come in I have reviewed them harshly.
HP ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know whether to laugh, cry, throw a fit...nah, I think I'll just stare in amazement 
Phorcys wrote:The LOTR Movies were half baked crap which were better than the raw crap books. THe books are drawn out and long winded to the Nth degree, every single page bored me.
The films likewise, they were a waste of 12 hours of my life. They went on and on and on when such alot could be cut.
I am a huge part of the HP fanbase as I am admin of two fairly active rp sites, one custom made on my own space. I am a HP podcaster too. Ive read the books millions of times and have never found a dull moment.
I also love the films but ever since Gambon and Fiennes have come in I have reviewed them harshly.
HP ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know whether to laugh, cry, throw a fit...nah, I think I'll just stare in amazement i personally like LOTR better
i like the more complicated books i guess
HP isn't my type of book i guess
The LOTR Movies were half baked crap which were better than the raw crap books. THe books are drawn out and long winded to the Nth degree, every single page bored me.
The films likewise, they were a waste of 12 hours of my life. They went on and on and on when such alot could be cut.
I am a huge part of the HP fanbase as I am admin of two fairly active rp sites, one custom made on my own space. I am a HP podcaster too. Ive read the books millions of times and have never found a dull moment.
Well i still to manage to read LOTRs the movie was great though. Harry Potter movie are way below that film. The 3rd film was the best the forth the worst the worst. So no idea one older one newer so i'll go equal since Jk Rowling probalby got laot of her ideas from J.R.R Toilken.
The LOTR Movies were half baked crap which were better than the raw crap books. THe books are drawn out and long winded to the Nth degree, every single page bored me.
The films likewise, they were a waste of 12 hours of my life. They went on and on and on when such alot could be cut.
I am a huge part of the HP fanbase as I am admin of two fairly active rp sites, one custom made on my own space. I am a HP podcaster too. Ive read the books millions of times and have never found a dull moment.
I also love the films but ever since Gambon and Fiennes have come in I have reviewed them harshly.
HP ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'Tis truth. Tolkien is literary, in the most profound sense. Rowling is entertaining. They really needn't be compared. Their aim is different; unless you intend to compare aims, in which case Tolkien wins out on that as well.
I think that JK Rowlings writing has no where near as much depth as Tolkein's, which is why it is much more accessible to the average reader. Tolkein created an epic that spans three volumes, whereas Rowling created an easy to relate to story which uses simple language and large print. Its quite obvious why most people prefere Rowling. It is the same with anything like music and writing: the simpler works are more popular with the general population because the simpler the work, the less knowledge (or IQ, I guess that is true also) needed to absorb it, and therefore within the population there will be a larger percentage of people who can enjoy it than enjoy a more complex work such as Tolkein's. I compare this to music because most popular music such as country, pop-punk, emo, and modern rock is almost all laughably simple compared to more complex genre's such as blues, jazz, and classical. I am not making this up either, I am a qualified musician (8 years piano, 2 years clarinet, 2 years saxaphone, 2 years guitar, many many many hours of practice and learning theory).
So, I love Rowling's books, and understand why people prefer them over Tolkein's. I find them much easier to read, and much easier to get instant pleasure out of. But speaking just in terms of literary merit, Tolkein has the upper hand. LOTR set the bar for the fantasy genre, and therefore is a beast to be reconed with. While both stories plots exploit the same cliche (the most unlikely character's becoming heroes), I think that LOTR does it much more realistically, showing much more imperfection in Frodo than is shown in Harry. But they are both great, so why argue. I love to analyze the differences, but when it comes down to it they are completely different. HP is, in many ways, about growing up. LOTR is much more about war and values, and religion as well.
Ah, I could go on forever...
But I wont.
-Jason-
Interesting...I suppose because Harry Potter is just in that time-period that most of you choosers of it are in. I mean you can all relate to it-it was written more directed at you. The LotR, however, was written by a crabby-old English proffesor who couldn't be understood half the time because he spoke so fast!(Much like my grade 4 teacher...It was he, in fact, that read to the class the Philosophers Stone when it came out, needless to say I became a fan before he finished), with the goal of really, yes continuing the Hobbit, but creating a fantasy world of his dreams, which he cared not whether others liked it or not (well of course it was on a course to outsell the Bible), and in fact being the pessimist he was, thought it wouldn't make it that good to begin with. This is an opinion topic, after all, and all to their opinions. But I stick by it-LotR byfar.^_^
I like to read Harry Potter more than Lotr,cuz the way J.K.Rowling wrote it, its hillarious,making everything realistic.
But in movies I've to say that Lotr is better than HP.
Harry Potter, definitely. I've liked it since fourth grade and went to the midnight party at Borders to get Half-Blood Prince. I've tried reading The Hobbit twice, gotten about half way through, and just didn't like it. Oh well. Maybe I'll try again soon.
i like both but i have to say harry potter cause its easier to read and the movie isn't that bad either
It really is a great, simple, and comedic (is that a word...?)book. And the Hobbit (rather the movie) is what brought me to the LotR, and surprisingly I read it after I had read the LotR-unexpected as it was the Hobbit movie that dragged me into this whole trilogy! it would seem sensible to start with it, but no...
My dad can't stand the Hobbit, but he loves the trilogy. I preferred The Hobbit to the trilogy very easily.
Really a matter of personal preference.
Oh, and I tried to read The Hobbit when I was in fourth grade, got halfway through, almost died of boredom, and didn't pick it up again until ninth grade, when I adored it.
The Hobbit.......Too BORING!?!? *jaw drops*
I just can't...compute! I don't know what to think or feel! The madness! The sheer, utter, bewildering, and not the least, confuddling madness! My dear boy, The Hobbit is a classic childrens tale, it's to children as the LotR is to older folk! 
And Joeduckedtape, I surmise you are at Of the Ordering of the Shire? Or past it by now, no doubt. I might ask how you find it thus far? Give a rating, on a scale of 1 to 10, of how: boring, absorbing, and of course interesting it is.
at the moment ilike the harry potter books better
I tryed reading the hobbit, but it just got too boring for me i'm told it's good if you get into it.
The lord of the rings films were amazing and the pooter films are good too especialy the latest one.
But what author can you come up with who doesn't do that at all? Everything we write is inspired by something else we've read or seen. Even Tolkien got his ideas from somewhere.Torpid wrote:The nazgul dementor topic you've got a point. She borrows stuff from Mythology and a few from Tolkien though. I dont really hold that against her, i like to do the same thing for my stories sometimes but she still takes stuff.
The nazgul dementor topic you've got a point. She borrows stuff from Mythology and a few from Tolkien though. I dont really hold that against her, i like to do the same thing for my stories sometimes but she still takes stuff.
I don't really like either. I tried reading LoTR but It bored me beyond belief. I liked the first Harry potter book but after that I developed a deep rooted hatred of Harry and found him very annoying. And the books are very very long. The longer they are, the more it hurts when your little sister drops them on your toes.
I liked the hobbit though.
No your wrong Tropid... JK.Rowling got most of her ideas from Greek mythology and Dementor arn't based on Nazgul if you ask me. Nazgul fight Dementor take away all your hope Nazgul are just imposing and the reason they affect frodo so if that he has the ring. Dementor are a bit like Nazgul but they're nothing like them in a way yeah they both wear black but seriously woudl you like it if Dementor wore pink polka dot cloaks.
I dont know if anybodys said this but LOTR i would have to take instead of HP. HP is really good, in my opinion, but LOTR has contributed and inspired more than HP has or will and also, if you research a little, JK Rowling uses many things from Tolkien and other sources. But then again nothing is newunder the sun, right? Dumbledore comes from Tolkien, Hogwarts from the movie Labrynth (i think). Dementors are wraiths/Nazgul. The name sirius is from northern mythology, as one of Odin's favorite hounds. Remus and hermione also comes from mythology. Minerva goddess of wisdom. Etc. Etc.
I really still like HP though. I'd just have to take LOTR over it.
~Torpid
Erethror, I'm off to read FotR... and I think I'll do my reread of HBP after that.
I certainly don't look down on Hp lovers-why when I have all the books, read EACH in the first week they each came out, and obviously like the series? Now I say this for myself, and I'm sure there are other LotR and HP fans who draw swords, and I verily agree this is wrong. While I'm sure if Tolkien were alive he would no doubt criticize Harry Potter with utter loathing, and maybe fans take this to heart and mind, again wrong-don't be the man, this is a liberal age, the LotR must change along with the generation, and the movies executed this well, and though I respect fans who do not like the movies, despite what they've done-bring in a whole new generation of READERS (like myself, who can now drone on about the subject that instead of falling asleep, my comrades would try to silence ME!)- I still think they should be more open to the films for this reason.
joe ducktaped-I suggest you pick the FotR up. While it may not be that book that enthralls you enough to read in excess of 200 pages non-stop in a day, it still is a good book, or rather the LotR in whole (as it supposed to be one book). And please take my word for it! I, seen by friends as a kid too exposed to LotR that he might as well be from Middle-Earth, was once a die-hard HP fan! All the way to the Goblet of Fire-so that would be apprx. 4 years. The end of Grade 7 spelled a life-change, and a significant one by looking back from this day. It was June, and nearing the end of my 7th year of school, and lo! the teacher had decided to pop in the Hobbit near the end of the day because of course there wasn't really anything else to do. I had disliked the LotR up to that point (though my mood was softened over the course of those 4 years) but only the movie-I never knew there were books, and I hadn't even watched the movie! only heard about it from friends, too me it was only a HP rip-off. But I had only heard of the Hobbit once before, and knew nothing of it, nor that it was connected to the LotR in some way. Well after watching only half-an-hour of this 70's animated film, I was enthralled! I couldn't get the Hobbit off my mind! I was going crazy, acting out Bilbo and Gandalf until the end of school. And lucky for me-the local video rental store had it! Well of course I rented it and watched it over and over! That same summer I bought TTT for it just came out, and rented the FotR-it was a lotr night for me! I LOVED the movies, and lucky for me the RotK came out that very same year near Christmas, well I bought the RotK book and read it after I watched my first lotr movie in theatres-loved it. As well as the book when I read it. Soon after, and up to this point, I have read many Tolkien and Tolkien-related books, and my personal interest and knowledge on the subject only grows with every one. So you see, if you don't try something, you might as well regret not doing it, for you don't know what your missing! And I encourage non-readers of either books to read them! Don't be ashamed of doing so, I certainly wasn't, and now I'm hooked.
But try not to be dettered by any long-windedness or difficult words or descriptions, I guaruntee if you read slowly and take everything in slowly (which is why maybe 200+ pages a night is pushing it) and/or a second time around, you'll no doubt get it (the movies do help, despite its changes and shortening) and enjoy it. ^^
Just a question: haven't any of you LOTR haters had to read books like the Odyssey and the Scarlett Letter in school? I'm wondering because the way you talk about how terribly boring the LOTR is, it would make me think you have never had a proper english class.
Yes, HP is easier to read. And gives you more instant pleasure (almost every page is enjoyable). But LOTR contains comments on humanity which go far deeper than any HP book. JRR Tolkein was in WWI. After coming back he was so traumatized that he released the stress by writing a book: the LOTR. And it shows. You can see the WWI influences in this book.
I prefer Harry Potter to LotR. While I understand that part of what makes Tolkien such a genius the immense world he created and the mythology and all... He's extremely long winded. I struggled through The Two Towers and The Return of the King, and probably still couldn't tell you what they are about, despite having read each book more than once and seen the movies. I loved The Fellowship of the Rings, probably because I was actually able to follow the plot. I also loved The Hobbit. However, as a series, I greatly prefer the Harry Potter books. They're simpler, and they make more sense. I find the plotline of the later two LotR books to be so convoluted that I just didn't get it.
Also, IceCreamMan, I'm taking American Lit this year, and like every other eleventh grader I know, I read The Scarlett Letter. I loved it. So how does that fit in? Hawthorne's style is similarly long winded. However, the book is shorter, the plot less complex, and I just found it to be more interesting.
I personally am a fan of Harry Potter. They really are great books, and I've grown with the books, so I can appreciate how the simple plot and happy characters have changed drastically. I enjoy JK's writing style, but she isn't very descriptive.
I have yet to read LotR. I have the Fellowship on my shelf, but its a bit tedious for me, and I'm know to read two hundred pages in an average day. I have trouble reading something if it doesn't catch my eye immediately, and I'm usually a good pick of books from just the first paragraph. I've never gotten a book I didn't enjoy (besides the Series of Unfortunate Events books. blech.) However, I feel a bit guilty for skipping such a great piece of literature. I think The Fellowship is the next book I will attempt to read.
Personally, I don't understand why so many LotR fans must look at the HP lovers and scoff. It's kind of hypocritical if you haven't read the books. I personally do not say "Oh HP is soooo much better than long LotR", because its very different and I haven't read it completely yet. Please LotR fans, even those that have read HP, don't look at us down your noses. We're just fans of different literature! THe same for HP fans. We can disagree without being hostile. I understand this being a Christian HP reader whose best friend often cites the devilish qualities of the books. Yet he wants so badly to see the movies....
Just a question: haven't any of you LOTR haters had to read books like the Odyssey and the Scarlett Letter in school? I'm wondering because the way you talk about how terribly boring the LOTR is, it would make me think you have never had a proper english class. What about Brit. Lit.? American Lit.? I mean, come on guys, if you have been through high school or are currently in it, you must know that LOTR isn't the hardest, most boring thing you can read. I think everyone's making a bit too much of a fuss about a book which is much easier than many things you must read in high school english classes. And better too. So why not read it? And while descriptions help you visualize the world, you don't have to get hung up on them because its the characters and plot which make this such an incredible book to read.
Maybe the movies were so good you decided there is no way the books are better. Well, your missing out because while the movies captured the plot quite well, they took out a lot, including some rather large parts.
Yes, HP is easier to read. And gives you more instant pleasure (almost every page is enjoyable). But LOTR contains comments on humanity which go far deeper than any HP book. JRR Tolkein was in WWI. After coming back he was so traumatized that he released the stress by writing a book: the LOTR. And it shows. You can see the WWI influences in this book. Tolkein didn't understand the meaningless slaughter of human beings in WWI so he wrote the book in an attempt to give it meaning (I think thats why, but don't take my word for it. Read the book. Read about the author. Then start making some connections of your own. Theres enough to go around). I think that the reason the LOTR is so much darker than the Hobbit (besides it being aimed at adults rather than children) is this influence. The plot is great in this book, but its the small things that really matter: friendship (cross species, even. It shows how you when you stop looking at the differences between people and focus on the similarities, they are not so different after all), good vs. evil, how war changes a man (or woman), and having a clear sense of what your fighting for. Those are just a few of the things I got from the book.
While I must contend with saying each to his or her own, I don't think you can say that the LotR isn't as great as most people make it to be-some people just love it, and if it weren't that great, as you say, why do they (including me) like it so much? Ok, maybe some people over-glamorize their love, and surely the movies fuel this, but many there are who despise the movies, and are content, yet love, the literature.
I've read and watched LOTR and it isn't so great as most fans make it out to be and Harry Potter just doesn't interest me. I only read them and watched them because they were made into movies and people were so mad about them (at least a lot of people I know), if they hadn't had so much publicity I wouldn't have picked either to read or watch.
I think, Jessie, that you may have exagerated that a tad too much ^^;; As a matter of fact, I think there is a neat balance between dialogue and narrative. In fact, there might indeed more dialogue(just scan through a few pages). But yes, I too do think the LotR will survive longer, however! Harry Potter has made such a huge impact in the world of childrens(and even beyond that) literature, and it might become somewhat of an immortalised Grimms' classic! But LotR will indefinately endure, even as Beowulf or the epic tales of the past have. And because it is translated into many languages, and not just one or two, it will be preserved even the longer. In short, epics were made to last, else the Oddysey was writ yesterday!
As far a long-term survival of literature, I would have to say that LOTR will really survive for a much longer period, just because of the literary quality of the works. However, I find many of Tolkien's descriptions as boring as I find the HP4 movie painful to watch.
For short-term enjoyment, I say Harry Potter all the way. And I think the fifth and sixth books really are very good works of literature.
Now, as far as movies- LOTR overwhelmingly takes victory. Although I tire easily from the extended editions (don't take offense, JHs)
I am a big fan of both Harry Potter and LOTR,both the books and movies, but I'd have to choose LOTR as my favorite. In my opinion, LOTR is definitley the better of the two in both the books and movies.LOTR is much more epic in scale and is a bit more serious.
As far as books, HP all the way! The HP movies, on the other hand, disgust me, and they have absolutely nothing on the masterpieces that are the LOTR movies. I actually enjoyed reading LOTR books as well, once I read them a second time. Tolkien's descriptions are unnecessarily long, and that really slows them down, but they really are good books, once you get past the twenty-odd pages that describe the grass on the hill in a place that really isn't significant to the plot. Victor Hugo is bad about that too.
Definitely LOTR. I was a huge fan of Tolkien's when I was a really lil girl, and I don't really like Rowling's writing style, although I do think she has some brilliant ideas.
I think, that, perchance thou art too harsh
If it were the way you explained, no book could compare to it! However, there are many great reads, and each of them has something unique and something someone can relate to. That is why some may not like the LR! In this modern age; the 21st century, we are not as exposed to the 'clean' fantastical elements found in the LR, which is 50 years old(and written by an English Professor/Linguist/Theologian etc.), and of course the spoken and written word has changed much since that time(just compare a teen born around the late 80's, to one born 60 years ago persay!), so despite the fact many may hound the LR for its 'boringness', they in turn don't deserve to be hounded, to be honest, it's quite true that more 'modern teens' can relate to Harry Potter, because it delves into areas which they understand and go through themselves!
I'll add that I am a LotR fan all the way!
My favourite is definetly Lotr, and i'd like to explain to the ignorant rabble who disagree with me,exactly why. Harry Potter is just a story, in essence a "quick-fix" and nothing more. Lotr is, however, so much more. i hear the whine: "there's too much discription" repeated, and to those that state this i say: that tolkiens brilliance derives from his descriptions, in that he isn't merely telling a story, but rather he is and has created a WORLD!Coupled with this are Tolkiens characters,real characters that speak to us, coz he doesnt focus on their being non-human (hobbits,dwarves,elve etc), rather he focuses on their differences and how they overcome them and forge friendships. Friendships that endured throughout.throughout seperation,battle,the corruption of power and pure evil.Tolkien also explores power, or more specifically how power corrupts + we see throughout the epic tale, the characters resist the lure of absolute power (frodo + the ring, Aragorn and kingship). Added to this tolkien tests the endurance of the human body and soul through heart-renching experiences.
Tolkien's is a tale spanning generations that explores themes still relevant today. Tolkien is regarded as the Godfather of epic fantasy and is a literary legend. Finally i have this to say: whenever a book is released today you will see it compared to Tolkien "rivals tolkiens works" or "doesn't measure up to Tolkien". J.K.Rowling is not mentioned.
I have read the LOTR and all the Harry Potter books, I enjoyed reading them but I don't think I could choose between them because they are not in my list of favourite books. I really hated the movie versions especially Harry Potter *dies* it was not as good as the book was.
I don't think people should compare the books because they are very different, the only same thing about them is the witchcraft/magic.
I do agree that LOTR is amazing. It's a lifetime's work of a genious. I know this. I defend Harry Potter because it gives me a quick escape from reality, because it's a modern work that I can readily relate without thinking too much. Is it so wrong to love a book because it gives my life a quick and easy retreat?
I see that almost everyone is rooting for "Harry Potter". OK! Harry Potter's good but LOTR is amazing. Think of it, LOTR has been fascinating people for decades. Harry Potter has lasted alittle less than one, and already the Pottermania is on the wane.
For example, let us consider the way Rowling and Tolkien have handled the villains. Tolkien's
villain, Sauron is never seen by any of the characters, whereas Voldemort is seen at least once in every book. Morerover, Tolkien makes it more enthralling because we learn that Sauron was but a servant of the Dark Lord, of whom only references are made.
Also, the world Tolkien has created is much more detailed. It is to the extent that people may be inclined to call him nerdy. Harry Potter gets nowhere near Frodo Baggins.
I am truly appalled. I feel put down, on behalf of Tolkien, in so many ways. Now I understand Tolkien didn't expect his series to take off the way it did, but still! What's all this about 'too much description'? Why is it so hard to read the Lord of the Rings? I'm taking this to the discussion board honestly...
I first read the books when I was 12, twelve! and I'm no genius. Sure the first time I read through it, I was lost on some concepts and words, but the second time, which I'm currently at, the series is/was completely coherent! In fact, the entire mythology is! It's not hard to follow, I mean your all old enough for the subject matter, and content. The books have meaning, just like most stories. One thing I find interesting, is the fact that Tolkien himself says he despised all forms of allegory, and stated himself, that his stories are not it in any form, unless on a sub-consious level, but only faintly. However, I find that he could have fooled us all, because the more I look at the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, the more allegory I see, the more connections I make to the Bible, or at least to Biblical refrences, and the Christian faith in the whole. I could go on to discuss my favourite topic, but I'm running short on time. All i'll say is give th series a chance, read it! Don't get bored, your all old enough to handle a magnificant writing style, and what you call 'too much description', which no doubt enhances the tale! [/i]
glad to know that evvryone likes tlotr movies a 10000000 times and much more than hp movies. hp movies gives a bad impression to the books, someone persuade peter jackson to do the rest of the hp movies. maybe this 4th movie will be a tinsy winsy better-the movies go soooo off-storyline and Hogwarts doesn't look iompressive from the outside. i too cried a loooooooooooot when Sirius and Dumbledore died-they are my favourite chararcters. anyone in for more "chose betwwen 2 series?" read my new post on hp and eragon!!!
I think the Harry Potter books are much more to the point, descriptions as the ones in LOTR are long and drawn out which makes them oh-so-boring. The Hobbit was good but I hated the others. Also, I think JR Tolkien speaks in a less-modern voice than JK Rowling. The LOTR movies were WAAAAYYYY better than the HP movies though.
but the lord of the rings isn't i think people are only reading them because of the movies.
TLOTR doesn't seem very friendly.though THE HOBBIT was aimed at kids and i loved it.
i like both but HP is better. TLOTR doesn't seem very friendly.though THE HOBBIT was aimed at kids and i loved it. HP 5TH Wasn't very good but the rest esp. 3,4and 6 are excellent.
I agree the hobbit was good but the lord of the rings isn't i think people are only reading them because of the movies. Harry potter is not an extrodinary book like everyone makes it out to be. They are third grader books, I would never read them if i hadn't read the first couple or so in third grade. You must be really used to reading run of the mill books if you cried at the end.
Honestly I tried reading the Lord of the Rings. I managed to finish the first book in about a month, I am not bothered to read the other two since I've seen the films. I know theres alot more said in the book that they didnt film but I don't care. I enjoyed reading The Hobbit, its (in my opinion) much better than the Lord of the Rings.
Harry Potter. I am not a fan and I don't think I ever will be. I didnt like the films and got bored with the books. My sister has all six books and cried at the end of The Half-Blood Prince.
*sighs* I don't know why theres rivalry between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
There's actually a thread for this, if you care to go look for it.
I have immense respect for Tolkien, who practically created a whole new subgenre and style of writing with his Lord of the Rings books. It truly is an epic story, and I'm sure it will continue to be read alongside Homer, Virgil, and other great composers of epics throughout the years. He created a whole new universe of imagination that people are continuing to explore.
HOWEVER, I find it hard to really get into Tolkien's style, but that all boils down to plain and simple personal preference. As much as I respect Tolkien and his work, I prefer to read Harry Potter just for pleasure reading. It essentially does the same thing that the Lord of the Rings do, though on a smaller and more accessible scale.
*nods* but at the same time, if you read the books, they downplay alot of it and focus instead on the characters and the battles. And then of course the fact that Tolkien was himself a Christian and some people believe that the trilogy is a religious alagory (the author denied this)... I can see the cases for both sides...
Mmm hmmm. Elves, rings that have to power to destroy all that's good in the world, Dark Lords, wizards with staffs that light up in the dark, ect. I think that's all magic. Just because it doesn't say the word "witch" doesn't mean there's no "witch craft."
Noxious wrote:I still don't get how it's against your religion.
Fontroy wrote:Brandan no offense but Witch Craft, we are not in the middle ages.(i wish) We do not persecute witch craft so get to the now already jeeze.
Now to say which i prefer Harry Potter all the way, the movies were practically an insult to the book, but the LOTRs movies all the way.
No offense but i tried reading the LOTRs an well i got quite far but got bored(too much description,I'll try to reread it).
Brandan no offence but Witch Craft, we are not in the middle ages.(i wish) We do not persecute witch craft so get to the now already jeeze.
Now to say which i prefer Harry Potter all the way, the movies were practically an insult to the book, but the LOTRs movies all the way.
No offence but i tried reading the LOTRs an well i got quite far but got bored(too much description,I'll try to reread it).
I guess it just depends on what you like in a book for Tolkein's stuff...you may be 'inspiring the feeling of awe you get when looking through Tolkien's work to something bigger than you ever imagined', but I'm going 'well, this may take awhile...'
I wrote a letter to her, and I got a reply. Very kind women, and of course gracious, for taking the time to write a reply....^_~
I love Harry Potter more than LOTR. I just don't know why. Maybe because I can relate more to the characters of Harry Potter. And to J.K. Rowling: you are the best!!!!
I applaude Silverstar *returns high five*. Tolkien remember, did spend most (it's unfair to say, or even speculate his whole life!) of his life working on his mythology, from which sprouted the LotR. I too do prefer The Silmarillion, though it has no general and re-acurring 'flow', except whatever tales the certain time holds, concerning directly, or in-directly the fate of the Jewels. And even more so am I enamoured by The Book of Lost Tales, the original Mythology as it was. But I am easily enamoured by a subject concerning a subject, so though I am now knee-deep in long-forgotten lore, which holds naught, but the feintest gleam of a link to the mythology and epic as we know it, my heart doth easily travel amongst all the tales told by Tolkien.
No contest. LotR all the way. Actually, the Silmarillion is better, *high fives Erethror* As for too much description? Its a matter of taste. And for me, what mood I'm in. He took great lengths to make his world seem real, and it paid of. Anybody ever seen an analysis of quenya grammar? Not to mention that I love it because it is so serious. It shows good against evil, and shows that nobody can go through that much without being effected. And the movies? They were great. I managed to read LotR before they came out, (I was like, eleven, ha) but was blown away by the story even then. And the special effects on the movies were awesome.
Now on to HP. Er, I'm not to fond of the whole thing. Actually, I don't like it at all. Can't stand the characters, or the trumped up world. If I want something less serious, I have plenty of other choices. But then, it's a matter of taste.
But in my opinion, HP could never come close to inspiring the feeling of awe you get when looking through Tolkien's work to something bigger than you ever imagined.
My two bits.
I personally love both. But LOTR does take a while to get into and Tolkien tends to overdescribe EVERYTHING. It's very deep though and has a lot to it once the reader begins to learn how to decipher it.
Harry Potter I absolutely love though. I can't really criticize any part of it that I can think of right now but it's really rather late and I'm a bit muddled. . . The reason I think I really go for Harry Poter (Having read it several times and the LOTR series only once) is that the fusion of medievalish times and modern times really intriuges me. Previous to Harry I never thought of the coupling, dismissing it in the back of my mind as impossible. Perhaps this comes from my American view of things always having to move forward and progress into the present, but Harry provides a view of thses two times colliding behind the back of the other and working. Of course having magic on your side always helps.
I'll be honest. I was for a fleeting moment, nearly blind with anger. I read, but with every post my heart rate rose, and I felt I would burn to ashes unless some sense came into the posters minds. Sorry, but that is the truth, and I mean no harm.
I will be honest once more. I liked AND was intoruduced to Harry Potter in grade 4, the near same time The L.R. came out, the FotR, on film. I of course, being enamoured by Harry Potter, dismissed LotR as some well, 'wannabe', note that my love and general interest in the area of medieval and afore lore was planted, but did not sprout until nigh the end of my seventh year in school. At that time I saw The Hobbit, then the three films, then the books, Silmarillion, and it has been the second year that I have become enamoured by Tolkien's work(s) 3 months ago. It might be that I love the subject(s) in general that Tolkien's works concern/draw upon, which no doubt justifies why I am in no way bored of The Silmarillion, which did not quite satisfy in length, so I have begun reading The History of Middle-Earth. But, the subject is LotR. Now Tolkien himself did not excpect a large fan base to revolve around his book, and if he were writing it now, he would have had next to no hope at all, if you know what I mean.
I will admit though it was the movies (to be more exact The Hobbit, if I hadn't have seen it, I might have never had have any inclination to watch the FotR, which was by then out on video), which have led me to read the books, and that is one of the, if not the, biggest and most positive outcome of the movies release.
Now everyone who has a mind to complain about the books, complain firstly, about it's 'amount of detail'. This is absurd, an authors job is to paint a visual picture for the reader, it may seem as if it does not give a reader much space to imagine the world in his own way, but really, if one had imagination he could interpret the descriptions in his own way, everyone may have a different way of visualizing something. Now if I'm correct, that's what most, if not all of you here complained about, thats unfair! Your just all complaining about Tolkiens style, which, if asked my opinion, is good.
However in the end it's your opinion, and I fully understand that, as well as the fact that it was written over 50 years ago! And the mythology itself was began in the making as early, as far as I know, as 1915!(Then of course, it was almost much different in style and conception). Not too mention Tolkiens character, one who understood what Tolkien was like, would understand his writing, and Tolkien himself knew this, which is why he was so pessimistic of it's fan base. Harry Potter was written quite recently (though its concept, and original drafts date back to the early 90's), which is why I think, even older kids, relate to it.
My final word is this: The Lord of the Rings, as a whole, is an excellent modern epic, and in my opinion the best, if of course there are any true modern epics that contend with it. The writing style suits my taste, and the mythology as a whole is exceptional. Tolkien, and in my opinion, was a distinguished: linguist, writer, theologen, and poet (amongst some other things!). I just hope many of you will give the books a second chance, they are excellent reads, if one has patience and interest in that sort of thing, the movies couldn't, and don't capture what is written in those books, it's essence, it only captures it's general plot line.
(Don't get me wrong, I too like the Harry Potter series, I myself was a junkie even before LotR came into my life. I have all the books up till now, and enjoy them.)[/i]
I've tried reading them both but gave up half way through. The Harry Potter movies are boring but the LOTR movies were OK.
Personally I don't like either books.
LOTR all the way for me. Harry Potter is just too full of... teenage wanna be stuff... or something like that.
I would say at the moment I like the Harry Potter series. I can relate to the problems more...not that im saying i have a evil wizard trying to kill me BUT the teenage problems atleast. J.K. Rowling is a Genius and is just brilliant ,not that im saying TolKien was'nt because i must say he was to. I prefer Harry Potter. thank you!
ps. Lord of the Rings movies are great! katie
Books: Harry Potter. They may be a dime a dozen but hell if they're not better writing. Tolkein was a long-winded jackass, I'm sorry to say, and while the story was good, the books, frankly, sucked. One of my friend loves them, but personally I reckon they could be chopped down to one volume...and STILL be too longwinded. Yes, there were good bits. But they were few and far between. If I hadnt had the movies I would have lost the plot entirely. And I consider myself a pretty intelligent, generally devoted reader. 
Kind of like The Princess Bride (for those of you who've read/seen it). Goldman or whatever his name was chopped out all the long-winded parts about the history of wherever and stuck to the good bits. Someone should do that for Tolkein.
Movies: LOTR all the way. The HP movies were so pathetic. The third was better than the other two, but it was still disappointing. I hate the way they screwed with things to make it funnier and better for kids. I mean, come on! But the LOTR movies were pretty good. No needless exposition. Action action action! Just the way I like it ^_^
The last chapter of HP6 made me sniffle a bit too, not that I wasnt EXPECTING Dumbledore to die, but...*sniff* it was sad as...
I agree with everyone else about the movies. The Harry Potter cast seam like they were picked for their looks.
I prefer the Harry Potter books. I got half way through the LOTR and gave up, but that was when I was 10 or 11 so I might have another go at It.
I LOVED the Hobbit. I got this cool one with awesome illustrations in the library. I think the Hobbit is a lot better than LOTR. Simply because its more bearable to read.
But overall...HP is the winner. I got so upset when Dumbledore died. 
I cried a lot. J.K. Rowling makes Harry's world seem so realistic and I grew very attached to quite a few of the characters, including Dumbledore. This didn't happen at all to me when reading LOTR.
Call me shallow, but I couldn't get past the first chapter in LOTR. The movies are awesome though! Way better than the Harry Potter movies, which kind of sucked. But with the books there's no contest. Harry Potter is extremely special. I cried at the end of the last book too. DUMBLEDORE!! *sobs*
It all depends on which books. book two of the lord of the rings was exeptionally dull. It spent like eight paged discribing Erond's ears. Actually not really, but I think you get it...
As a whole, I like Harry Potter. The end of book 6 made me cry too.
Everyone who likes Harry Potter should post in my favorite charecter/favorite book/charecter most likely to get killed in book 7 poll. It's in the lounge.
Sorry, that was off topic.
I like them both about equally. I honestly can't say one is better than the other, though I think Harry Potter is easier to pick up and read than LOTR. I read all of the LOTR books twice in one month, and it was a chore. I'm re-reading all six of the HP books now, and it's a lot easier, and I always seem to notice things I didn't before (or I just forgot them). I thought the sixth book was really good, it was also very funny at times (made me laugh out loud), but the ending made me cry.
They're both extremely special.
Nothing against you reichieru (you have a cool cat pic and you have very constructive comments)
I think I personally prefer LOTR myself. But the end of the last HP book left me spellbound!
It's really tight!
But LOTR is still my fave, plus they made way better movies!
I like both. But I guess Tolkien was a little too long winded at times. You don't really need most of the background mythology and history he includes. Then again he wasn't a real author and had no time for doing revisions. If he had, it probably would have turned out differently. Still, his books are something special. Harry Potter is nothing special It just seems that way because of the massive success it has had.
The story of Lord of the Rings is awesome, perhaps even awesomer than Harry Potter, but at the same time, I like the Harry Potter books better. Why? To the point, and the descriptions are more clear-cut.
I think the storyline of LOTR is good, but the description is sooooooooooooooooo long and boring. I fell asleep three times reading "The Siege Of Gondor" which is the big battle scene in RoTK. And did he really need 4-5 chapters that basically are "They went back to The Shire"?
Harry Potter all the way.
Even though your 6 years older then me I have to agree that I like the newer ones (Oder of the Phenoix, Half Blood Prince) because their getting more adult and more intresting.
At the moment Harry Potter, I tried to read LOTR last year but I think the films plus everything going on put me off. The films are just boring, when I went to see the first one I'd had my navel pierced a few hours earlier so sitting crouched for three or so hours was absolute agony - plus someone kept sniffing every ten seconds throughout the whole film. When I tried reading the book I had my GCSEs plus all these ideas for crappy stories I had to get down. Hopefully after I get my results I might be able to concentrate on the books more then so hopefully I'll read them soon.
Harry Potter I like because as the more books they are they do get more appealing for the older readers. When I read the first one it was like "oh my god I'm reading a kid's book" but the sixth one was more adult so it was easier to read.
120,356 Literary Works • 649,548 Reviews
Points: 5016
Reviews: 163
Donate