As am new here so thought of starting my journey with a new thread
So the topic is Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings ...which book you think is better?
Printable View
As am new here so thought of starting my journey with a new thread
So the topic is Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings ...which book you think is better?
Betterin what way. Both are excellent their particular ways, but they are quite different.
I am in love with "The Lord of the Rings" and in contrary I don't like the Harry Potter series at all. So I guess the answer is obvious...
Welcome Dhriti! I go with PeterL. I'm a big fan of both sets, I wouldn't know how to compare them.
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 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
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalot
Lord of the Rings=Literature
Harry Potter=Fantasy
Although I do think the HP books are well written I don't think they're literature, I just think they're fantasy books.
I prefer The Lord of the Rings, I'm a big fan of all Lord of the Rings related!
Lord of the Rings is one of the best books ever written in English language. The Harry Potter series is an excellent literary achievement which is mad fun to read but not on the level of LOTR.
Tasartir,
You do realize you contradict yourself when you imply fantasy is not literature yet consider LOTR to be literature?
"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 Harry Potter series is definitely more entertaining and engaging than Lord of the Rings. If I want a nice bedtime story, I'll read Lord of the Rings.
Just a typo -- no need to be alarmed. :D A lot of the time I am posting on Lit Net, working in another program and watching TV and alt tabbing about and not paying attention to what I'm actually typing. I re-read my old posts and find lots of stuff that just makes no sense at all. Sorry for the inconvenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by crisaor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
I think the Narnia and Harry Potter series are geared more towards young readers and are easier for them to read. I tried reading Tolkien when I was a kid and just couldn't do it. I had friends who had read LOTR but I wasn't patient enough to plow through it. That's not to say that all children are incapable of reading LOTR but I remember reading the Narnia books in one sitting and not being able to get past chapter one of the Hobbit. It wasn't until I was older that I was able to read Tolkien.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalot
i disagree, i read lotr when i was young and fell in love with it, there is no comparison, lotr is just better, better crafted, deeper thinking, more complex, and backed by a whole library of imagined history, harry potter, while a good series just does not hold water in comparison to lotr, which pretty much defined fantasy as a genre i think, especially when you realize that much of the source material for harry potter was lord of the rings. also, narnie=fab.!.
Interesting info, Whifflingpin, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
The Hobbit was published in 1937 though, so I think it's possible to assume that Tolkien was the first one. Also, a quick search on wikipedia (not one of the most reliable of sources, I know, but still) indicates that writing for Lord of the Rings began in 1937, just after the printing of the Hobbit, whereas the writing of the chronicles of Narnia started in 1949. Main difference being that LotR took a lot more years to be finished, and thus Narnia was published earlier.
I figured as much, just wanted to be sure, that's all. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalot
You may have found the information on wikipedia but it's accurate. :p In fact, in the preface to FOTR, it says that it was actually started before The Hobbit was published. He worked on it in fits and starts, he began it only to quickly abandon it to work on The Simarillion and returned to it whenever someone would prod him to. He was much more interested in The Silmarillion which he started writing in 1917 or something crazy early like that so if you include that book, he started way before Lewis. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by crisaor
This is no contest, Tolkien was a mastermind and created one of the greatest pieces of literature ever written. Earning the reviews of masses of scholars who wrote all sorts of books about him and his works with titles like "Author of the Century", "Following Gandalf", and "Philosophy According to Tolkien" to name a few. Tolkien's work incorporates an entire world view into an entire world. Harry Potter is entertaining; however, it is a passing fancy that may or may not be worth picking up to keep up with cultural trends.
Ooooohhh, I'm so sorry. I haven't read 'Lord of the Rings'. But I want to. Harry Potter is quite addicting, lord of the rings movie is very... uh... tingling to the stomach. hihi
I love both lotr and Harry Potter, but they are so different that it is hard to compare them. HP is easier to read, but lotr is better once you get into it.
In a way, HP is better because it appeals to a wider range of people, and all ages. Having said that, I read the Hobbit when I was 6 and (it took me a while) lotr when I was between 7 and 10. But then again, reading it more recently, I understood it better.
I think that both are really good, although lotr is a more convincing world.
Spoken like a true goddess. Thank you Idril.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
Sadly, my edition has no introduction, other than the one about the life in the shire and the prior events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triskele
I wasn't trying to imply that the Narnia and Harry Books were better than LOTR because they aren't. But LOTR could be more intimidating to a younger reader than say The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe just because of the length of it (for one). I agree with you when you say that LOTR is better because it is --- I was just saying that when I was younger I read CS Lewis but not Tolkien.
And I do like the Harry Potter series and I can't wait till the final book is released in July.
Finally! Someone recognizes me for the goddess that I am. ;) :p :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by crisaor
If they ever remake the movie "Murder By Death", Harry Potter will be added along with Miss Marple, Nick and Nora Charles, Charlie Chan, and all the other detectives. The HP series consists of nothing more than murder mysteries with the same hackneyed tricks and ploys that date back to Poe.
LOTR has some weak aspects when being appraised as literature, but there's no real basis to compare it to HP. When LOTR was written, there weren't endless shelves of stories with dragons, wizards, elves, etc. It was as original as Poe's "Purloined Letter" or "Murder in the Rue Morgue". I'm hard pressed to think of a single original component of the HP stories.
LORD OF THE RINGS! All the way!!
I have been a Tolkien fan for a long time. Having said that, I loved HP. I would not count HP out as literature. O'Henry wrote some pretty simple stories that are classic as did Kippling. Tolkien is certainly more intricately developed. We won't make the choice anyway.
I only read The Hobbit, and it was really good, but I've read all the Harry Potters and loved them all so I can't really judge, but they are both awesome from what I read
Both are good...they are very different though...I can't decide.
But fantasy is also literature. It's one of the genres.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasartir
The difference between HP and LotR is that HP is fantasy originally meant for young people (though adults like it as well), while LotR was written as a myth. Which is why it is more difficult to read than HP.
I like Harry Potter - I have all six books and impatiently wait for the last one - but I love Lord of the Rings. It is somehow... deeper than HP. There is passage in Return of the King, when everything seems to be going very bad, and people in Gondor are expecting the attack and Pipin is talking to Gandalf and he can see that in spite of it all, Gandalf is not really depressed, that if he started to laugh nothing could stop him. It's my favourite passage from all books I ever read. Nothing in HP can be compared with that.
I dislike them both for different reasons. Lord of the Rings I found was terribly boring.
Harry Potter I found was stupid.
JBI
Come one. No need to ask a question like this one..LORD OF THE RINGSQuote:
Originally Posted by dhriti
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by crisaor
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....
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hastalavictoria
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.
(: 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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
So... Harry Potter. Although I must admit I haven't yet finished reading the LotR books... :blush:
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. :)
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.
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.
Don't forget (LOTR - Golem and HP - Dobby)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalot
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orpheus