Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings

[dhriti]

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?

[PeterL]

Betterin what way. Both are excellent their particular ways, but they are quite different.

[Alexei]

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...

[Shea]

Welcome Dhriti! I go with PeterL. I'm a big fan of both sets, I wouldn't know how to compare them.

[crisaor]

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.).

[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

[crisaor]

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

[Tasartir]

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!

[EAP]

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?

[Whifflingpin]

"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.

.

[areader]

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.

[Shalot]

Just a typo -- no need to be alarmed. 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.

[Shalot]

"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.

.

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.

[Triskele]

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.

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.!.

[crisaor]

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.

Interesting info, Whifflingpin, thanks.
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.

just a typo -- no need to be alarmed. 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.

I figured as much, just wanted to be sure, that's all.