I loved Harry Potter when I was kid, but when I see Lord of the Rings especially Return of the King, Harry Potter is nothing.
Melman - 8 years ago
Lord of the Rings is far far far better than Harry Potter. It's unfair to compared HP with LOTR. We all know (except Potterhead) LORD OF THE RINGS won by heart of critics, fans and a lot while Harry Potter is just won by heart of Kids.
Elvish101 - 11 years ago
I don't quite agree that Lord of the Rings is for adults only. I am 13 and I read them (Admittedly with much difficultly) last year and enjoyed them. I also read Harry Potter obsessivly from age 7 to age 12. Then my dad showed me the world of Middle Earth. JK Rowling has created a magical world with enchanting artifacts and hidden secrets, but Tolkien is responsible for a lush, Garden of Eden like different world with in-depth history and a whole different languages for Valar's sake! They both are wonderful stories, but the fact that Lord of the Rings still has so many fans after all of this time speaks for itself.
Daniel Eaton - 12 years ago
OMGGG i am sik of dis criticism towards HP it is far betta dan Lord of the rings !!! ;)
Edo River - 12 years ago
I read LOR in the 60s. and again later on. I read all the comments above and agree. There is a place on the lower shelf for youngsters to read HP, but it takes a more mature encompassing mind to be hungry for all the details that LOR can present. HP is a simple story for simple pleasures. I have one great disappointment about LOR which haunts me to this day and I have found no relief yet. I would like to find a Tolkien scholar who could answer it for me.
caleb arsenault - 12 years ago
Anybody who says HP didn't have a rich background. JKR has stated she could write a book for every minor character. And at least jkr knew when the back story didn't fit.
Phoebe Pitman - 12 years ago
Lord of the rings can suck my balls. Harry Potter for the win. Wizards vs Midgits? Wizzards! Harry Potter for life!
ummabee - 13 years ago
To me, this is an absolute no-brainer:
One of these series, in both book and movie form, is a realsitic, interesting and fairly captivating story.
The other is a fantasy paradise and the movies are probably the most epic, awesome and heart-felt ever filmed, with easily the greatest battle sequences ever shown on screen. The books are to thank for this amazing story of the journey of unlikely heroes who, despite everything, maintain the willpower to overcome everything in their path.
Hats off to JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson.
Tihor Kiantap - 13 years ago
What people forget is that Tolkien was a language scholar who basically started the modern world's current fascination with the analysis of ancient myths. While it'll be wrong to say that HP is simply a kid's book, The fact remains that LOTR is much better planned, detailed and This doesn't even take into account the Silmarillion and other pieces of attendant literature !!
I agree fully with the writer of this post. The charm, the very facet of LOTR that has made it so endearing to so many people is the World-Building in it. A extremely rich, complex and ultimately unknowable and indescribable world, where every ruin has it's own tragedy, every sea hides an Atlantis, every sword has it's history etched in blood and fire- All this makes for something almost surreal in it's beauty and expression- Something that HP can never match. Harry Potter, at it's best, is only an extremely skilled re-imagination of our world. It isn't the product of the grand desire of a writer to put his or her dreams, sorrows and ideas into paper- It lacks the poignancy of Tolkien's prose, which was tempered not only by his all-consuming passion for his beloved languages but also the personal hurts he took from two of Mankind's greatest wars.
Philosophically too, LOTR is much deeper than anything HP dishes out. When I first read HP I was only 11 and even then I'd known how it'd end-Voldy is killed, HP and friends live happily ever after. The only saving grace for the books in my opinion was JKR knocking Black and Fred- Otherwise, What's the difference between HP and all other run-of-the-mill coming of age fantasies? The sheer air of hopelessness and loss in LOTR, nay which describes LOTR: Don't forget,the elves lost all, Frodo himself was wounded for life, For all the glory spoken of in the appendices the race of Numenoreans was a doomed one; The very theme of futility and courage weave a magic about LOTR that few have been able to come close to or even duplicate. I've seen it's like only with Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen Series ( A must read for any teen fantasy nerd !!). HP is a great series-critically acclaimed, praised with amazing character development but compared to LOTR, it's nothing.
LOTR's scale itself makes it a literary tour-de-force beyond anything conceived in HP. It took me weeks to get through the book when I first read it- The sheer scale of it had me riveted; Just see how many fans the movies won despite being a highly condensed version of the story. You barely hear of the HP movies these days-even Twihards get better media exposure !! But LOTR ? It's something more than mere fantasy literature, It's become a bulwark of the English Language.
oonagh - 14 years ago
As a huge fan of both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, I feel that they are both excellent books, but on completely different, if equally valid and inspirational, levels. The only direct ties between them are in genre, as they are both fantasies, and the quest nature of the plot, in which the characters must set out to accomplish something in the battle of good versus evil.
I don't believe that the Harry Potter series is aimed purely at children. I first started reading them aged 7 - I'm 16 now - and i found them fascinating, but I'm one of those obsessive readers who can read books time and time again. I read HP about twice a year, the entire series, and every time I don't fail to get something new out of them. As a story, they are absolutely fantastic, and they are gripping, but at times, the details don't add up, and you can tell that she hadn't fully planned them out when she was writing them initially.
Lord of the Rings, however, is written on such a detailed scale that it is almost credible that it exists. Being of a slightly obsessive tendency, I read it far too often, having read (and enjoyed) it for the first time at the tender age of 6, and, as someone with a keen interest in both English and History, I read it now almost as an academic study, reading the Appendices, studying the maps, and reading the masses of attendant literature such as The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.
Herein, I feel, lies the fundamental difference between the two. Harry Potter, though it can be read with all the symbolic and allegorical meanings, is, at its core, a great read, a well-imagined version of our world, and an interesting story. Lord of the Rings, by contrast, is a full story-telling of the history of an event, albeit a fictional one, in a fantasy world, which has an entire history to it. It has more in common with great epics from Ancient Greek times such as the Iliad and Odessy, as they both tell the story of Quests and heroes in such a manner that even the most unbelievable aspects of the story are made to seem credible.
Lord of the Rings is more of a mythology than a story, as the whole of Middle Earth and the individual races present living on it are given a full history, not to mention the detailed characters and maps, which make the book seem like a retelling of history, not just an adventure novel.
As such, I feel that, as books, the Lord of the Rings has the upper hand as a work of literature, but both it and Harry Potter are phenomenal works of creative and literary genius, as can be clearaly demonstrated by their wide appeal, as shown in their sales, reprints, and the number of languages into which they have been translated.
On the subject of the films, the Harry Potter ones are full of inconsistencies, and these may just have been caused by the regulare changes in director, or they could have been showing up some of the factual discrepancies present throughout the book. In no way did they help to shape my mental images of the books, and in my head, the characters remain the geeky, awkward-looking cartoons which my brain creates to represent books if there is no available film. By contrast, the LOTR films were accurate enough to supplant my bizarre brain-images, probably as the books were on too large a scale for me to fully comprehend without some visual evidence, in combination with the extraordinary grandeur of the films.
If that isn't sufficient as to which films have the upper hand, look at the numbers of awards won. I can't pretend to have noticed HP having been blessed with too many Oscars...
So, to summarise (this is longer than a lot of my essays I have to write), the books are, in my opinion, not really comparable, as one of them is mythological literature, and the other is a fantasy adventure, but on the films, the Lord of the Rings wins, no contest.
Oonagh (abnormally verbose 16 year old, and arch-LOTR/HP [/Twilight too, just to bring down the cultural level] nerd)
middle-aged erl - 15 years ago
I remember Christopher Lee saying (somewhere in my readings) that he had reread LOTR each year for 25 years. I could not imagine doing that with HP, even if there were fewer books. I know I have them at least 12 times over the last 35 years. Likely many more. I have read the Hobbit likely 8 times and really enjoyed my most recent reading from The Annotated Hobbit (I have read it through twice now). I have my I wish I was a Hobbit shirt from my Senior year of High School. My 9 year old is now wearing it. So it would be hard for me to not come down on the side of LOTR. I wander if a poll such as this was taken at Mugglenet.com or another main Potter site, would LOTR lose out to HP? Likely On Caracters I bow to LOTR just considering the Ents pain for the loss of the Entwives (to steal from the master alike and yet unalike) , Hobbits, Tom Bombadil (strangley enough) Strider ie Longshanks the growth in realionship/friendship between Gimli and Legolis, changing relationship between Frodo and Sam. Shadowfax who great name and how can you not love the depth of relationships Tolkien brings to each caracter. They were not children but all of the Fellowship experienced great growth. Potter is childrens literature overall and I enjoyed the readings, as I enjoy the Hobbit (for overall a younger audience). However, LOTR is deeper, richer in his ability to make it a history, it moves most (I would say) to tears. C.S. Lewis truely captured it in a few words with his "Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron." I would say I have enjoyed many of the childrens' series that have come out recnetly. I have read of course LeGuins Earthsea series (all 5) and read them likely 10 times, (quick and easier read on the first 3) again do not see myself doing that with the HP books. Sorry even in Caracters LOTR wins out for this middle-aged middle-earther. I have ran on to long it is 214am and time to go to dreamland , after a quick LOTR read!!!
Legolaslover - 15 years ago
ok, lotr is sooooo much better than hp. i mean seriously i watched the entire lotr series (movies) in one day. i also locked myself in my room for eight hours straight (except a few min 4 food) the day before to read the first one 4 the second time. so there. and i also totally forgot about hp after beginning the lotr series. again, so there. don't get me wrong, i did have an hp kick, but it was brushed aside by my lotr kick. i am seriously obsessed with one of the lotr characters (you'll never guess who) but i never was even the slightest bit obsessed with any hp character. LOTR IS THE GREATEST SERIES THAT WILL EVER SEE THE EARTH! i swear, lotr is the best. Legolas rol! (rocks out loud) ps any real lotr fans just check out theargonath.cc)
Zulu - 15 years ago
Yes LOTR is an absolutly amazing film, but the books are tiresome to read and the language is difficult to uderstand, maybe the were popular back in the days but its time has been and gone. Harry potter is the true winner in my heart.
James - 15 years ago
Why LOTR will have a more lasting impact than HP (and I do believe that HP will fade as time goes by) is the very idea of the WORLD over the CHARACTERS. Tolkien practically invented the idea of "World Creation" in story telling (with apologies to Lovecraft and Dunsany). World creation is now a hallmark of almost all fantasy and science fiction stories. The very thing that literary critics always complain about in genre fiction. But that is why it is so beloved. People love LOTR because we want to go there. They want to inhabit that place. People like HP because they want to be him or know him. HP touched a nerve in ever kid who dreamed of being something more then they are, of a secret life beyond there mundane existence. Nobody wants to BE Frodo...I mean, things didn't go so well for him, right? But we all wanted to be Hobbits of the Shire or Elves of Mirkwood, etc. Ask yourself why Star Trek or Star Wars remains so popular? Because of the World (or worlds in their case). Because of Jedis and Klingons not because of Kirk or Luke.
Steven - 15 years ago
As movies, you're right, LotR is undeniably than the Potter series even aspires to be. As books however, I could barely put the Harry Potter books down while at times I had to force myself to endure LotR (especially The Two Towers) just to get through. They're both great stories, but Harry Potter is far more readable than LotR, and I disagree with some people's comments that it's just a kids' series. It obviously started out that way, but it matured far beyond where it began.
Although I find LOTR to be deeper and richer than HP, I do love both stories equally. They both serve their purposes beautifully. LOTR set the standard for fantasy and deepened people's appreciation for literature as well as the world around them. HP got entire generations into reading, children and adults alike, opened people's minds to those different from them, and mobilized tens of thousands of fans to fight for social justice in many different parts of the world (the HP Alliance for those who don't know). I am exceptionally proud and grateful to have been a geeky part of both worlds and fandoms. I will pass both stories onto my children with love. Thanks for writing!
Just as an aside, the true Lord of the Rings is Frodo, not Sauron. Tolkien says so in one of his letters.
J Summy - 15 years ago
My wonderful dear,elementary school teacher Father introduced me to both series. I find LOTR sparked my imagination more because it was so rich and deep. The older I became the more I comprehended this wonderfull world ogf Hobbits, Ents, wizards, Orcs and Elves. These books led me to other series in the fantasy genre. I think I love Harry and his world because of the rich characters. But the true spark to my imagination will always lay in Middle Earth. Onward Shadowfax!!
Alex - 15 years ago
The LotR is a literary masterpiece like no other fantasy work. It creates a true mythology that goes deeper than any other fictional book or story. It is and always will be a cornerstone for fictional work. You have to give props to the Harry Potter series however. The books are a fun read, it's good straight forward storytelling. Any book series that can motivate kids to read and be imaginative is a good thing. You have 9 year old kids reading a 1000 page book, that's an accomplishment in and of itself. The Harry Potter series are great introductory books that new fantasy readers can get into, they are more accessible and easy to read than LotR. Of course eventually they absolutely should delve into Tolkiens works. Everyone at least should have read the Hobbit.
Though Tolkien as a languages scholar did steal certain names and ideas (e.g. Gandalf is the name of a dwarf in the Norse sagas who persuades Freya to have sex with him for a necklace), his background construction lends so much depth to the stories themselves.
I find Harry potter (the first book especially) seems too close to Ursula le Guin's Earthsea trilogy.
Roland (whether consciously or not) seems to take much from the fantasy genre and re-write it in a much lesser, poorer way. For instance her hidden platform 13 is not only in “The Secret of Platform 13” by Eva Ibbotson (published 1994), but the whole concept was also used by Douglas Adams in “The long dark tea time of the soul” (published 1988) where the premise is used to get to Valhalla (which is St Pancras railway station).
I know people say they (the Harry Potter books) are kids books that grownups can also read, but the same can be said of “Roger Red Hat” that I fondly remember from my youth.
I'm sorry I se no way that the two can be compared
Dave - 15 years ago
I read Lors for the 1st time in the Army in 1969. Since that time I have probaby read it another 5. I have also read 4 of the Harry Potter books and started the fifth but lost interest, to much of the same old thing. I stiil own a Lord of the Rings set ,the Hobbit and Silmarillion and hope to read them many more times in the future. No has ever written Adult fantasy like Tolkein and there will never be another book to match Lord of the Rings,Harry Potters not even close!
Winstonfield Pennypacker - 15 years ago
I think it is safe to say that Tolkien is 'great literature' because it is not only superior in technical ability (Tolkien was a professor of language), but it is also superior in theme, symbolism, and just about every other measurable standard. Moreover, it has withstood the test of time. 50+ years later it is still one of the most beloved works in the English language, and it's themes, tone, and quality are still among the very best our literature has to offer.
I enjoyed the Potter books - but it has to be said that they are inferior in every way to LotR. That isn't a slap. It's just reality. EVERYTHING in the genre is inferior to LotR. Tolkien wrote it not for profit, but as a labor of love. He also had a skill in language and folklore that simply does not exist in the world today. How could Rowling ever possibly hope to compare to that? By comparison her characters are flatter, stocker, and shallower. Her plots are looser, less coherent, and are cumbered with redundancy and excessiveness. Her prose is sloppier, less elegant, and more simplistic.
And look at how Potter is today now that Rowling has stopped writing them. The only time I even hear "Potter" mentioned anymore is when one of the movies comes out. Potter is much more likely to be a flash in the pan, a fad, or a temporary obsession. 20 years from now people will be, "Harry who?" - but people will still know and respect The Lord of the Rings.
No contest here. Potter just isn't even in the same league as LotR. Did Potter sell a lot of books? Sure. But that doesn't make it great literature.
Rob - 15 years ago
Like you, I loved both series. The Hobbit has the distinction of addicting me at 12 to the Fantasy genre. I quickly read LOTR and became even more enthralled with the genre. I agree that LOTR has brought high fantasy to the public's attention when it really became popular in the 60's, but I don't necessarily agree that every fantasy book written since owes it's story to LOTR. I don't think Harry Potter owes anything to LOTR, in fact. Similarities there are, as you mentioned, but they are similarities that are the core of ANY story, genre non-withstanding. Mentor, protagonist, sub-protagonist, antagonist, and sub-antagonist are the most common elements in any story.
In my opinion, Harry Potter succeeded because it is different enough from most fantasy stories to generate interest. Yes, yes, I know Rowling borrowed many mythological elements from many cultures, but that's what fantasy writer's do. Where do you think Tolkien got his Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, Ogres, etc...? It also succeeded because it started out as a kids series, which made it accessible to both kids and adults since parents would read to thier children then become hooked themselves. I'd also like to opine that I don't think the Harry Potter books have really been kids books since Prisoner of Azkaban.
And, as for some people's argument that LOTR is literature and Harry Potter is pulp fiction, well, that's just garbage. I don't believe in the differentiation. It's merely a way for self-absorbed, self-proclaimed literary elitists to make themselves feel superior. I'm sure the same personality types of Tolkiens day cast aspersions upon his works too, saying it wasn't real literature.
kim - 15 years ago
You MUST be kidding! There's no comparison whatsoever. LotR is Geek lit 101. Harry Potter is... well, remedial geek at best.
Kevlar - 15 years ago
The depth of Tolkien's creation far exceeds the Harry Potter works. Consider the extent of the history, languages, and additional writings - The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Children of Hurin, etc. that shape a world much larger that what most people understand through only The Hobbit or LotR. I thoroughly love and enjoy Harry Potter, but the overall creation is shallow compared to the richness and lore of Ea.
I do agree with the article writer's judgement of certain characters being more developed and known on a personal level in Harry Potter.
Mike - 15 years ago
It really isn't a fair fight. I mean the Harry Potter books are for kids. I've always thought they were very readable and a good yarn, but to compare them to a literary work like LOTR seems unfair. A better comparison would be to the Wizard of OZ series.
I loved Harry Potter when I was kid, but when I see Lord of the Rings especially Return of the King, Harry Potter is nothing.
Lord of the Rings is far far far better than Harry Potter. It's unfair to compared HP with LOTR. We all know (except Potterhead) LORD OF THE RINGS won by heart of critics, fans and a lot while Harry Potter is just won by heart of Kids.
I don't quite agree that Lord of the Rings is for adults only. I am 13 and I read them (Admittedly with much difficultly) last year and enjoyed them. I also read Harry Potter obsessivly from age 7 to age 12. Then my dad showed me the world of Middle Earth. JK Rowling has created a magical world with enchanting artifacts and hidden secrets, but Tolkien is responsible for a lush, Garden of Eden like different world with in-depth history and a whole different languages for Valar's sake! They both are wonderful stories, but the fact that Lord of the Rings still has so many fans after all of this time speaks for itself.
OMGGG i am sik of dis criticism towards HP it is far betta dan Lord of the rings !!! ;)
I read LOR in the 60s. and again later on. I read all the comments above and agree. There is a place on the lower shelf for youngsters to read HP, but it takes a more mature encompassing mind to be hungry for all the details that LOR can present. HP is a simple story for simple pleasures. I have one great disappointment about LOR which haunts me to this day and I have found no relief yet. I would like to find a Tolkien scholar who could answer it for me.
Anybody who says HP didn't have a rich background. JKR has stated she could write a book for every minor character. And at least jkr knew when the back story didn't fit.
Lord of the rings can suck my balls. Harry Potter for the win. Wizards vs Midgits? Wizzards! Harry Potter for life!
To me, this is an absolute no-brainer:
One of these series, in both book and movie form, is a realsitic, interesting and fairly captivating story.
The other is a fantasy paradise and the movies are probably the most epic, awesome and heart-felt ever filmed, with easily the greatest battle sequences ever shown on screen. The books are to thank for this amazing story of the journey of unlikely heroes who, despite everything, maintain the willpower to overcome everything in their path.
Hats off to JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson.
What people forget is that Tolkien was a language scholar who basically started the modern world's current fascination with the analysis of ancient myths. While it'll be wrong to say that HP is simply a kid's book, The fact remains that LOTR is much better planned, detailed and This doesn't even take into account the Silmarillion and other pieces of attendant literature !!
I agree fully with the writer of this post. The charm, the very facet of LOTR that has made it so endearing to so many people is the World-Building in it. A extremely rich, complex and ultimately unknowable and indescribable world, where every ruin has it's own tragedy, every sea hides an Atlantis, every sword has it's history etched in blood and fire- All this makes for something almost surreal in it's beauty and expression- Something that HP can never match. Harry Potter, at it's best, is only an extremely skilled re-imagination of our world. It isn't the product of the grand desire of a writer to put his or her dreams, sorrows and ideas into paper- It lacks the poignancy of Tolkien's prose, which was tempered not only by his all-consuming passion for his beloved languages but also the personal hurts he took from two of Mankind's greatest wars.
Philosophically too, LOTR is much deeper than anything HP dishes out. When I first read HP I was only 11 and even then I'd known how it'd end-Voldy is killed, HP and friends live happily ever after. The only saving grace for the books in my opinion was JKR knocking Black and Fred- Otherwise, What's the difference between HP and all other run-of-the-mill coming of age fantasies? The sheer air of hopelessness and loss in LOTR, nay which describes LOTR: Don't forget,the elves lost all, Frodo himself was wounded for life, For all the glory spoken of in the appendices the race of Numenoreans was a doomed one; The very theme of futility and courage weave a magic about LOTR that few have been able to come close to or even duplicate. I've seen it's like only with Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen Series ( A must read for any teen fantasy nerd !!). HP is a great series-critically acclaimed, praised with amazing character development but compared to LOTR, it's nothing.
LOTR's scale itself makes it a literary tour-de-force beyond anything conceived in HP. It took me weeks to get through the book when I first read it- The sheer scale of it had me riveted; Just see how many fans the movies won despite being a highly condensed version of the story. You barely hear of the HP movies these days-even Twihards get better media exposure !! But LOTR ? It's something more than mere fantasy literature, It's become a bulwark of the English Language.
As a huge fan of both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, I feel that they are both excellent books, but on completely different, if equally valid and inspirational, levels. The only direct ties between them are in genre, as they are both fantasies, and the quest nature of the plot, in which the characters must set out to accomplish something in the battle of good versus evil.
I don't believe that the Harry Potter series is aimed purely at children. I first started reading them aged 7 - I'm 16 now - and i found them fascinating, but I'm one of those obsessive readers who can read books time and time again. I read HP about twice a year, the entire series, and every time I don't fail to get something new out of them. As a story, they are absolutely fantastic, and they are gripping, but at times, the details don't add up, and you can tell that she hadn't fully planned them out when she was writing them initially.
Lord of the Rings, however, is written on such a detailed scale that it is almost credible that it exists. Being of a slightly obsessive tendency, I read it far too often, having read (and enjoyed) it for the first time at the tender age of 6, and, as someone with a keen interest in both English and History, I read it now almost as an academic study, reading the Appendices, studying the maps, and reading the masses of attendant literature such as The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.
Herein, I feel, lies the fundamental difference between the two. Harry Potter, though it can be read with all the symbolic and allegorical meanings, is, at its core, a great read, a well-imagined version of our world, and an interesting story. Lord of the Rings, by contrast, is a full story-telling of the history of an event, albeit a fictional one, in a fantasy world, which has an entire history to it. It has more in common with great epics from Ancient Greek times such as the Iliad and Odessy, as they both tell the story of Quests and heroes in such a manner that even the most unbelievable aspects of the story are made to seem credible.
Lord of the Rings is more of a mythology than a story, as the whole of Middle Earth and the individual races present living on it are given a full history, not to mention the detailed characters and maps, which make the book seem like a retelling of history, not just an adventure novel.
As such, I feel that, as books, the Lord of the Rings has the upper hand as a work of literature, but both it and Harry Potter are phenomenal works of creative and literary genius, as can be clearaly demonstrated by their wide appeal, as shown in their sales, reprints, and the number of languages into which they have been translated.
On the subject of the films, the Harry Potter ones are full of inconsistencies, and these may just have been caused by the regulare changes in director, or they could have been showing up some of the factual discrepancies present throughout the book. In no way did they help to shape my mental images of the books, and in my head, the characters remain the geeky, awkward-looking cartoons which my brain creates to represent books if there is no available film. By contrast, the LOTR films were accurate enough to supplant my bizarre brain-images, probably as the books were on too large a scale for me to fully comprehend without some visual evidence, in combination with the extraordinary grandeur of the films.
If that isn't sufficient as to which films have the upper hand, look at the numbers of awards won. I can't pretend to have noticed HP having been blessed with too many Oscars...
So, to summarise (this is longer than a lot of my essays I have to write), the books are, in my opinion, not really comparable, as one of them is mythological literature, and the other is a fantasy adventure, but on the films, the Lord of the Rings wins, no contest.
Oonagh (abnormally verbose 16 year old, and arch-LOTR/HP [/Twilight too, just to bring down the cultural level] nerd)
I remember Christopher Lee saying (somewhere in my readings) that he had reread LOTR each year for 25 years. I could not imagine doing that with HP, even if there were fewer books. I know I have them at least 12 times over the last 35 years. Likely many more. I have read the Hobbit likely 8 times and really enjoyed my most recent reading from The Annotated Hobbit (I have read it through twice now). I have my I wish I was a Hobbit shirt from my Senior year of High School. My 9 year old is now wearing it. So it would be hard for me to not come down on the side of LOTR. I wander if a poll such as this was taken at Mugglenet.com or another main Potter site, would LOTR lose out to HP? Likely On Caracters I bow to LOTR just considering the Ents pain for the loss of the Entwives (to steal from the master alike and yet unalike) , Hobbits, Tom Bombadil (strangley enough) Strider ie Longshanks the growth in realionship/friendship between Gimli and Legolis, changing relationship between Frodo and Sam. Shadowfax who great name and how can you not love the depth of relationships Tolkien brings to each caracter. They were not children but all of the Fellowship experienced great growth. Potter is childrens literature overall and I enjoyed the readings, as I enjoy the Hobbit (for overall a younger audience). However, LOTR is deeper, richer in his ability to make it a history, it moves most (I would say) to tears. C.S. Lewis truely captured it in a few words with his "Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron." I would say I have enjoyed many of the childrens' series that have come out recnetly. I have read of course LeGuins Earthsea series (all 5) and read them likely 10 times, (quick and easier read on the first 3) again do not see myself doing that with the HP books. Sorry even in Caracters LOTR wins out for this middle-aged middle-earther. I have ran on to long it is 214am and time to go to dreamland , after a quick LOTR read!!!
ok, lotr is sooooo much better than hp. i mean seriously i watched the entire lotr series (movies) in one day. i also locked myself in my room for eight hours straight (except a few min 4 food) the day before to read the first one 4 the second time. so there. and i also totally forgot about hp after beginning the lotr series. again, so there. don't get me wrong, i did have an hp kick, but it was brushed aside by my lotr kick. i am seriously obsessed with one of the lotr characters (you'll never guess who) but i never was even the slightest bit obsessed with any hp character. LOTR IS THE GREATEST SERIES THAT WILL EVER SEE THE EARTH! i swear, lotr is the best. Legolas rol! (rocks out loud) ps any real lotr fans just check out theargonath.cc)
Yes LOTR is an absolutly amazing film, but the books are tiresome to read and the language is difficult to uderstand, maybe the were popular back in the days but its time has been and gone. Harry potter is the true winner in my heart.
Why LOTR will have a more lasting impact than HP (and I do believe that HP will fade as time goes by) is the very idea of the WORLD over the CHARACTERS. Tolkien practically invented the idea of "World Creation" in story telling (with apologies to Lovecraft and Dunsany). World creation is now a hallmark of almost all fantasy and science fiction stories. The very thing that literary critics always complain about in genre fiction. But that is why it is so beloved. People love LOTR because we want to go there. They want to inhabit that place. People like HP because they want to be him or know him. HP touched a nerve in ever kid who dreamed of being something more then they are, of a secret life beyond there mundane existence. Nobody wants to BE Frodo...I mean, things didn't go so well for him, right? But we all wanted to be Hobbits of the Shire or Elves of Mirkwood, etc. Ask yourself why Star Trek or Star Wars remains so popular? Because of the World (or worlds in their case). Because of Jedis and Klingons not because of Kirk or Luke.
As movies, you're right, LotR is undeniably than the Potter series even aspires to be. As books however, I could barely put the Harry Potter books down while at times I had to force myself to endure LotR (especially The Two Towers) just to get through. They're both great stories, but Harry Potter is far more readable than LotR, and I disagree with some people's comments that it's just a kids' series. It obviously started out that way, but it matured far beyond where it began.
Although I find LOTR to be deeper and richer than HP, I do love both stories equally. They both serve their purposes beautifully. LOTR set the standard for fantasy and deepened people's appreciation for literature as well as the world around them. HP got entire generations into reading, children and adults alike, opened people's minds to those different from them, and mobilized tens of thousands of fans to fight for social justice in many different parts of the world (the HP Alliance for those who don't know). I am exceptionally proud and grateful to have been a geeky part of both worlds and fandoms. I will pass both stories onto my children with love. Thanks for writing!
Just as an aside, the true Lord of the Rings is Frodo, not Sauron. Tolkien says so in one of his letters.
My wonderful dear,elementary school teacher Father introduced me to both series. I find LOTR sparked my imagination more because it was so rich and deep. The older I became the more I comprehended this wonderfull world ogf Hobbits, Ents, wizards, Orcs and Elves. These books led me to other series in the fantasy genre. I think I love Harry and his world because of the rich characters. But the true spark to my imagination will always lay in Middle Earth. Onward Shadowfax!!
The LotR is a literary masterpiece like no other fantasy work. It creates a true mythology that goes deeper than any other fictional book or story. It is and always will be a cornerstone for fictional work. You have to give props to the Harry Potter series however. The books are a fun read, it's good straight forward storytelling. Any book series that can motivate kids to read and be imaginative is a good thing. You have 9 year old kids reading a 1000 page book, that's an accomplishment in and of itself. The Harry Potter series are great introductory books that new fantasy readers can get into, they are more accessible and easy to read than LotR. Of course eventually they absolutely should delve into Tolkiens works. Everyone at least should have read the Hobbit.
Though Tolkien as a languages scholar did steal certain names and ideas (e.g. Gandalf is the name of a dwarf in the Norse sagas who persuades Freya to have sex with him for a necklace), his background construction lends so much depth to the stories themselves.
I find Harry potter (the first book especially) seems too close to Ursula le Guin's Earthsea trilogy.
Roland (whether consciously or not) seems to take much from the fantasy genre and re-write it in a much lesser, poorer way. For instance her hidden platform 13 is not only in “The Secret of Platform 13” by Eva Ibbotson (published 1994), but the whole concept was also used by Douglas Adams in “The long dark tea time of the soul” (published 1988) where the premise is used to get to Valhalla (which is St Pancras railway station).
I know people say they (the Harry Potter books) are kids books that grownups can also read, but the same can be said of “Roger Red Hat” that I fondly remember from my youth.
I'm sorry I se no way that the two can be compared
I read Lors for the 1st time in the Army in 1969. Since that time I have probaby read it another 5. I have also read 4 of the Harry Potter books and started the fifth but lost interest, to much of the same old thing. I stiil own a Lord of the Rings set ,the Hobbit and Silmarillion and hope to read them many more times in the future. No has ever written Adult fantasy like Tolkein and there will never be another book to match Lord of the Rings,Harry Potters not even close!
I think it is safe to say that Tolkien is 'great literature' because it is not only superior in technical ability (Tolkien was a professor of language), but it is also superior in theme, symbolism, and just about every other measurable standard. Moreover, it has withstood the test of time. 50+ years later it is still one of the most beloved works in the English language, and it's themes, tone, and quality are still among the very best our literature has to offer.
I enjoyed the Potter books - but it has to be said that they are inferior in every way to LotR. That isn't a slap. It's just reality. EVERYTHING in the genre is inferior to LotR. Tolkien wrote it not for profit, but as a labor of love. He also had a skill in language and folklore that simply does not exist in the world today. How could Rowling ever possibly hope to compare to that? By comparison her characters are flatter, stocker, and shallower. Her plots are looser, less coherent, and are cumbered with redundancy and excessiveness. Her prose is sloppier, less elegant, and more simplistic.
And look at how Potter is today now that Rowling has stopped writing them. The only time I even hear "Potter" mentioned anymore is when one of the movies comes out. Potter is much more likely to be a flash in the pan, a fad, or a temporary obsession. 20 years from now people will be, "Harry who?" - but people will still know and respect The Lord of the Rings.
No contest here. Potter just isn't even in the same league as LotR. Did Potter sell a lot of books? Sure. But that doesn't make it great literature.
Like you, I loved both series. The Hobbit has the distinction of addicting me at 12 to the Fantasy genre. I quickly read LOTR and became even more enthralled with the genre. I agree that LOTR has brought high fantasy to the public's attention when it really became popular in the 60's, but I don't necessarily agree that every fantasy book written since owes it's story to LOTR. I don't think Harry Potter owes anything to LOTR, in fact. Similarities there are, as you mentioned, but they are similarities that are the core of ANY story, genre non-withstanding. Mentor, protagonist, sub-protagonist, antagonist, and sub-antagonist are the most common elements in any story.
In my opinion, Harry Potter succeeded because it is different enough from most fantasy stories to generate interest. Yes, yes, I know Rowling borrowed many mythological elements from many cultures, but that's what fantasy writer's do. Where do you think Tolkien got his Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, Ogres, etc...? It also succeeded because it started out as a kids series, which made it accessible to both kids and adults since parents would read to thier children then become hooked themselves. I'd also like to opine that I don't think the Harry Potter books have really been kids books since Prisoner of Azkaban.
And, as for some people's argument that LOTR is literature and Harry Potter is pulp fiction, well, that's just garbage. I don't believe in the differentiation. It's merely a way for self-absorbed, self-proclaimed literary elitists to make themselves feel superior. I'm sure the same personality types of Tolkiens day cast aspersions upon his works too, saying it wasn't real literature.
You MUST be kidding! There's no comparison whatsoever. LotR is Geek lit 101. Harry Potter is... well, remedial geek at best.
The depth of Tolkien's creation far exceeds the Harry Potter works. Consider the extent of the history, languages, and additional writings - The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, Children of Hurin, etc. that shape a world much larger that what most people understand through only The Hobbit or LotR. I thoroughly love and enjoy Harry Potter, but the overall creation is shallow compared to the richness and lore of Ea.
I do agree with the article writer's judgement of certain characters being more developed and known on a personal level in Harry Potter.
It really isn't a fair fight. I mean the Harry Potter books are for kids. I've always thought they were very readable and a good yarn, but to compare them to a literary work like LOTR seems unfair. A better comparison would be to the Wizard of OZ series.