Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings

[Bakiryu]

Harry Potter is a bit more readable, the lord of the rings can be described as a bit droll.

But both books are good in their own way.

[Orpheus]

I believe the Lord of the Rings is better in every possible way you can think of. It is a literature classic that has withstanded the test of time and it's pretty much the one that paved the way for all the similar books that followed it (ie. Harry Potter, Narnia, Eragon, etc.).

I would have to disagree with the fact that it paved the way for Narnia. Tolkien and C.S Lewis both rose at the same time. In fact I believe they were even collegues at one time.

As to the question, I have would have a very difficult time in saying which is better. The writing styles are totally different. However, the world that Tolkien created, far surpasses that of the Wizarding World in the Harry Potter books. I grew up reading the Harry Potter books long before that of Tolkien's work so I have become rather attached to the story. Actually, the HP books are what got me into reading in the first place. Before that I don't think I had read more than a handful of books outside of school. But then again, I was only ten years old. Alright, I'm drifting and i really don't have an answer for this anyway....

[Hyacinth42]

I think that as much as I love Harry Potter, I would have to say LoTR... Harry Potter is nice for when you feel like reading a story and finishing in the near future, whereas if you want to read a good long book, Lord of the Rings is better. I read so much Harry Potter Fanfiction that I actually don't like the books anymore, but I love the fandom... So yeah, Lord of the Rings is better.

[hastalavictoria]

This isn't even a question. Lord of the Rings is better. Much more mature, and elegantly written. It cannot even be compared to Harry Potter

[JBI]

This isn't even a question. Lord of the Rings is better. Much more mature, and elegantly written. It cannot even be compared to Harry Potter

Elegant is hardly the word. Had I enjoyed reading 3 books telling a story meant for one volume I would agree with you, but as you can see, everything is relative. Don't get me wrong, the bibliophile inside me doesn't care for Rowling's style either, but at least it doesn't drag on and on. Tolkien is a snorefest to some, and brilliant to others.

As it can be seen, v/s is the wrong term for this sort of discussion, since we are just saying which we like better, and not comparing the two works. The books are very different in scale, style, and message, not to mention target audience, so it is unfair to try and compare them by saying "I like that better" or something of the sort.

[Brigitte]

"I believe the Lord of the Rings ... pretty much the one that paved the way for all the similar books that followed it (ie. .., Narnia, ...)."

True, except for Narnia - that series started to be published in 1950, whereas Lord of the Rings series was not published till 1954.

Tolkien and Lewis were friends and colleagues who owed a lot to each other, but it would not be possible to estimate which of them owed what to whom.

.

(: The Chronicles of Narnia are near and dear to my heart. I reread the series every single year. I never grow tired of Aslan and with the years I've come to understand the underlying symbolism much more. As for LotR... that's a tougher read, and I consider it to be more fantasy than Harry Potter. Harry Potter takes place in London and is more "real" than LotR. So I wouldn't say I'm too big a fan of "fantasy."

So... Harry Potter. Although I must admit I haven't yet finished reading the LotR books...

[Behemoth]

My personal preference is for Lord of the Rings, but I think you have to admire the Harry Potter series for getting children back into reading again in a big way.

[Dark Star]

There's no real comparison here.

Harry Potter (while well written) is as it's core a simple children's series, while LotR for all it's flaws is much, much more.

While Tolkien's characters were irritatingly cardboard-cut-out-esque and with one or two exceptions there were virtually no shades of gray, the world-building he did is incomparable to anything else I've read.

[Lag866]

I like both but in comparison LOTR was written by someone well versed in literature, myths, and language where as HP was written by someone who though intelligent yes not so well versed as Tolkien. That is why I believe that though the HP books are popular now, they will not keep on being popular as LOTR has.

[NickAdams]

I saw a lot of similarities between the two (keep in mind that I saw both sets of movies)

Both had weird, hooded, evil creatures (LOTR - Ring Wraiths and HP - Dementors)

Both had white-haired, wise elders (Gandalf - LOTR and HP - Dumbledore)

Both had the somewhat unrelunctant hero who just sort of inherited the burden/honor - (LOTR - Frodo and HP - Harry Potter)

Both had dark lords (LOTR - Sauron and HP - Voldemart)

Personally, I like LOTR better but I do like Harry Potter

Don't forget (LOTR - Golem and HP - Dobby)

I would have to disagree with the fact that it paved the way for Narnia. Tolkien and C.S Lewis both rose at the same time. In fact I believe they were even collegues at one time.

I heard somewhere that Tolkien and Lewis flipped a coin to see who would write a fantasy and who would write a science-fiction novel.

[Dori]

Lord of the Rings far surpasses Harry Potter, in my opinion. Tolkien's genius is not only visible in the Lord of the Rings, but in his other works that were posthumously published. I'm a firm believer in saying that it would take one far more genius to create what Tolkien created than it would to create what J.K. Rowlings created.

What inevitably inspired me to become the reader I am is The Hobbit. I have read it no less than three times and every time seems more entertaining than the last. Of course, my mom practically indoctrined it into my head when I was a little runt by always putting in the cartoon movie of The Hobbit. Therefore, I have always been somewhat partial to Tolkien.

[smartgirl]

Originally Posted by Shalot
I saw a lot of similarities between the two (keep in mind that I saw both sets of movies)
Both had weird, hooded, evil creatures (LOTR - Ring Wraiths and HP - Dementors)
Both had white-haired, wise elders (Gandalf - LOTR and HP - Dumbledore)
Both had the somewhat unrelunctant hero who just sort of inherited the burden/honor - (LOTR - Frodo and HP - Harry Potter)
Both had dark lords (LOTR - Sauron and HP - Voldemart)
Personally, I like LOTR better but I do like Harry Potter

I disagree with you. LOTR is a great series, but Harry potter is more of a fantasy. That's what I like about it. Harry Potter is better for most people my age, and younger.

I love Harry potter. I first began reading at age 2 3/4. I started reading everything that I could. A while later, things began to get boring. I stopped reading. I only read when i had to for school, and didn't start truely reading until someone told me about the Harry potter book. I read it and loved it. I waited for the next one, and read it. So on. I now wait for the 7th book of the series. I can't wait til it comes out. Jo is an awesome writer. Her imagination is what brings kids back into reading.

IN the end....... I would have to say that for me, Harry potter wins.

[Saphira]

I like both books. Both has got magic, dragons and fantasy animals. I can't really decide what I think but I read LOTR in second grade and Harry Potter in fourth grade, so I think LOTR wins.

/Saphira

[Dori]

I wouldn't compare the two because it's like comparing Shakespeare to Dan Brown!

Just kidding.

[JBI]

Which is better, a Big Mac or Whopper? Keep in mind, the Big Mac came first, whereas the Whopper is a rip off of it, but on the other hand, the Whopper has different topics, yet a similar flavor, and is thicker (perhaps about 7 to its 3) in terms of patty size.