Discussion in 'Debates' started by Tatharlin, Dec 22, 2004.
By the looks of it, your BF lost! hahahahahah
Harry Potter is more of a snack, while Lord of the Rings is a fancy dinner!
It's all a matter of taste. Some find Tolkien's one-dimensional characters a bit of a bore and prefer some moral complexity. Whichever side of the fence you prostrate yourself, the fact is there's room for both. Thinking Tolkien is the be all and end all of fantasy is not a sign of intellectual superiority, as many literary critics seem to think. To me, Potter is a billion times better than the Narnia books, but I wouldn't look down on someone just because they like Lewis. Fantasy is already regarded as a geeky genre - we don't need to get elitist on each other's asses.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was quite clunkily written (unsurprising for a first-timer) and so I can understand the hostility with which it was greeted in some quarters. Later books were better, though, and Rowling's writing style is superior to that of Pullman, who comes across as a stuffy university don. I judge authors on their ability to spin a yarn, and Rowling spins a good yarn. Comparing her to such a revered figure as Tolkien is unfair, however. You might as well compare Peake and Tolkien. Peake was a better writer, but I'm betting a poll wouldn't reflect that.
I'll weigh in on the side of Lord of the Rings. It touches every archetype within our souls. Some parts of it make me almost reverent.
Let's give the Potter books credit, though, for a better sense of humor. All the snarky characters in oil paintings, the headless ghosts, the whomping willow. Rowling was writing for kids, sure, but she gets laughs out of everybody.
I really don't think there is any comparison. As many people have stated, LOTR is for adults, Harry potter is for kids. I've read both books and enjoyed them both, but for different reasons. It's like comparing Law and Order with Hanah Montana. HP is fast-paced, in your face, sort of shallow, and very dialogue-driven; while LOTR is backed by oodles of back story and history and is filled with very detailed descriptive language.
I vote LOTR, but I'm old. If you ask a 10-year-old, they'll say HP.
There is no comparison, but this is because J.(K.) Rowling is a very bad author, with a rubbish plot in each book, who now does things for money, while LOTR or any John Ronald Reuel Tolkien novel is (or are) the best ever!!! JRR Tolkien is just the best author ever, with a great style, great descriptions and greatest plot.
Each has its place. The Hobbit was no great shakes. If HP gets people into the fantasy genre in general then it can only be a good thing. Fantasy fans are already regarded as geeks; snobbery within the genre doesn't help our cause. It's a wide church and open to all, or so I'd hope.
What got me into Fantasy was Eragon, I really loved it. Now that I've read "The Lord of the Rings", "The Belgariad", "The Mallorean" I just think it too simple, even unrealistic (for fantasy). The beginning of "Eragon" is so copied from "The Belgariad"! You're right though Strontium Dog, it's just that people who enjoy Harry Potter and who find it good aren't verygood readers and would not/have not read classics (not just fantasy).
I'm not saying their supid though!
lol I agree!
This is just weird. You can't compare LotR to HP, they are very alike and very different, and both have valid points.
Saying that Harry Potter targets kids is not true, in my opinion. They may be easier to read than LotR, but they certainly are not less dark or mature in story.
I completely converted. When it comes to classic fantasy, give me a Song of Ice and Fire. It defeats all two for sure.
How many primary characters die in LotR compared to Harry Potter... it's sort of interest to me that Ms.Rowling kills off more of them then did Tolkien. That said, I've read LotR at least three times, listened to the BBC audio production more than three times, and the story just has a magic about it that Harry Potter never had.
On the subject of killing off major characters; it seems to me with JK Rowling that she almost picked names from a hat (save Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny) and decided who would die. Their deaths are nowhere near the depth of explanation and reason of those in LotR, where the main characters are chosen to be so because they are extremely skilled warriors, which means that they have more chance of surviving than people with an advanced taser shaped like a twig.
I really think both are very good. I love LotR, as it defined the actual concept of epic fantasy, tolkien made a real good work! On the other hand HP "created" a new dimension of the "teen adventure", that was folowed by a lot of other writers. I doubt that Cristopher Paolini or Rick Riordan would have that success if JK Rowling didn't come first with HP. That was when a new generation of fantasy lovers was born. I start liking fantasy after reading HP, just some yime after I wouuld read and watch LotR.
It's hard to compare HP and LotR, they are very different from each otter, I mean, while HP is about a boy who is becoming a man, LotR is about commom people who can make the difference. But if I have to choose one of them, I would Choose LotR, anyday, because it's a very deep work.
Harry Potter was great when I was a kid, but I'm afraid Tolkien wins hands down. How many authors create entire worlds with its own languages, history and geography? J.K. was lazy she could have done so much more, she could of gone so in depth with the magic and the history of magic. In the whole series I swear they only use about a dozen spells. She started off with the passion similar to that of Tolkien but somewhere along the way she lost it (I'm thinking money had something to do with it). Whereas to his death Tolkien was working on his fantasy world. Also I can't say for certain but I think Rowling 'borrowed' elements of Tolkien (in my opinion there are too many similarities between Voldemort and Sauron, among other similarities that seem to big to be sheer coincidence). Overall whilst I found Harry Potter relatively enjoyable, Tolkien's works win any day in my eyes... But each to their own opinion.
On a side note my computers spell-checker accepts the world Voldemort but not Sauron *inner rage*...
Mine accepts Sauron, and Saruman, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Morgoth, Feanor, etc. (British English on Mac)
I still believe that Tolkien is much better, especially as you mention PixieTook, in creating his world and languages, which Rowling spares no thought upon (worse latin than pig latin, no consideration on hiding Hogwarts, the train, etc.).
Lord Of The Rings was the work which got me into fantasy literature but I also like Harry Potter. I don't think you can compare the two. Harry Potter is a light hearted read.Lord Of The Rings is much deeper. By that I mean that you have to think more about Lord Of The Rings. J R R Tolkien created a whole world i.e languages,cultures etc. J K Rowling created Hogwarts. No contest.
It's pretty impossible to compare the two, but while I love and respect LOTR I am going for Harry Potter. This is a very subjective poll, neither is "better" than the other, but we just have personal favourites, stories that effected us more as an individual. The reason I chose Harry Potter is because I'm the generation that grew up with it. Being 21 now, I was about 8 or 9 when the books first started to be released. From that age until now I have been reading, re reading, going to midnight showings of the films, buying the books on release dates etc. Generally immersing myself in the whole Harry Potter world. Those books have been a huge part of my life now for longer than they haven't. I went a mere 8 or 9 years without them, which means they have now been with me for at least 12 years. LOTR never affected me in the same way because I didn't grow up with it as much.
Harry Potter. It's youth sentiment!
Separate names with a comma.