Harry Potter v/s Lord of the Rings

[Idril]

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.

You may have found the information on wikipedia but it's accurate. 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.

[Gallantry]

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.

[Reccura]

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

[Lioness_Heart]

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.

[crisaor]

in the preface to FOTR, it says that it was actually started before The Hobbit was published.

Spoken like a true goddess. Thank you Idril.
Sadly, my edition has no introduction, other than the one about the life in the shire and the prior events.

[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.!.

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.

[Idril]

Spoken like a true goddess. Thank you Idril.

Finally! Someone recognizes me for the goddess that I am.

[valis]

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.

[LPRox015]

LORD OF THE RINGS! All the way!!

[Orionsbelt]

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.

[BroadwayBaby]

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

[Mortis Anarchy]

Both are good...they are very different though...I can't decide.

[Aiculík]

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!

But fantasy is also literature. It's one of the genres.

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.

[JBI]

I dislike them both for different reasons. Lord of the Rings I found was terribly boring.

Harry Potter I found was stupid.

JBI

[manolia]

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?

Come one. No need to ask a question like this one..LORD OF THE RINGS