Harry Potter all the way!

Harry Potter, man!

LotR is okay, but I'd have to admit it's kind of back there...

I'm going to say Harry Potter because the story is more intersting and fun to read than the Lord of the Rings.

Oh, MY GOD. Are you kids serious?

Granted, the Harry Potter is definitely an entertaining series. And it's definitely "fun" and easy to read.

But there is NO WAY you can compare it to the Lord of the Rings, and I'm a bit shocked that some of you are doing so, and rating Harry Potter BETTER! Tolkien's masterpiece set the pace for fantasy for the next 50 years--were it not for him, we wouldn't have anything like Robert Jordan, R.A. Salvatore, the entire WORLD of Dungeons and Dragons, including the Forgotten Realms universe and books, and so many others I don't feel like mentioning right now.

And by NO MEANS can you say that the Harry Potter series can compare to the epic scale of the world of Middle-Earth and the quest to destroy the One Ring. This is a world that spans the very edge of time itself (and the very limits of humanity in its struggle to once and for all extinguish the dark hand of evil).

Flame me if you want, kids, but how many of you have actually read the entire series, from The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring? If you had, I really can't see some of these comments being made. And if you have read these books and still feel this way, you're probably the type that will be reading R.L. Stine and Dean Koontz for the rest of your life.

*shakes head in despair*

Harry, Harry, Harry! Potter all the way, although the LotR is a good series.

I really like the Harry Potter series alot...but I still vote for Lord of the Rings. Sure, Harry goes on a lot of adventures...inside of a school. Now..Frodo Baggins (and Bilbo in the Hobbit) go all over Middle Earth. (Bilbo goes all the way from the Shire up to the great Lonely Mountain!) Harry Potter cannot compare to that. But HP is still a great series.

quote DivineDragon

(You think that, and we feel differently, it is all a matter of what your tastes are... This shouldn't be a thread for dissing and such, getting into flaming, so I would appreciate it if you would just state which is better and be on your way.)

I definitely entitle each to his own opinion. And I definitely do not mean to flame. I just get really discouraged to see people comparing two things that I, and most well-read readers, would probably not consider quite in the same league.

If someone were to ask me, "Who's a better guitar player: Jimmy Paige, or the guy from Puddle of Mudd?" or "What's the better movie: Schindler's List or Spider-Man?" I would speak the same way. Especially when the inevitable votes for the latter choices began to surface.

I suppose, then, that the question should be clarified. Are we asking which is better, or which is your [/i]favorite[/i]. It probably doesn't make a difference either way, realistically or academically, but the distinction is worth noting.

quote Whitecloak

Oh, MY GOD. Are you kids serious?

Granted, the Harry Potter is definitely an entertaining series. And it's definitely "fun" and easy to read.

But there is NO WAY you can compare it to the Lord of the Rings, and I'm a bit shocked that some of you are doing so, and rating Harry Potter BETTER! Tolkien's masterpiece set the pace for fantasy for the next 50 years--were it not for him, we wouldn't have anything like Robert Jordan, R.A. Salvatore, the entire WORLD of Dungeons and Dragons, including the Forgotten Realms universe and books, and so many others I don't feel like mentioning right now.

And by NO MEANS can you say that the Harry Potter series can compare to the epic scale of the world of Middle-Earth and the quest to destroy the One Ring. This is a world that spans the very edge of time itself (and the very limits of humanity in its struggle to once and for all extinguish the dark hand of evil).

Flame me if you want, kids, but how many of you have actually read the entire series, from The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring? If you had, I really can't see some of these comments being made. And if you have read these books and still feel this way, you're probably the type that will be reading R.L. Stine and Dean Koontz for the rest of your life.

*shakes head in despair*

quote Whitecloak

I definitely entitle each to his own opinion. And I definitely do not mean to flame. I just get really discouraged to see people comparing two things that I, and most well-read readers, would probably not consider quite in the same league.

If someone were to ask me, "Who's a better guitar player: Jimmy Paige, or the guy from Puddle of Mudd?" or "What's the better movie: Schindler's List or Spider-Man?" I would speak the same way. Especially when the inevitable votes for the latter choices began to surface.

I suppose, then, that the question should be clarified. Are we asking which is better, or which is your [/i]favorite[/i]. It probably doesn't make a difference either way, realistically or academically, but the distinction is worth noting.

I feel exactly the same way as Whitecloak feels. I don't intend to diss anyone, its your opinions, but still I feel that this is a SIN. In no way can Harry Potter series compare to the epic LOTR trilogy and to its amazing depth. I still love to read Harry Potter books, and they are really amazing, but they can't touch LOTR. Tolkien spent all his lifetime writing the trilogy and all the other books that surround it, and I can bet that even J.K. Rowling will surely admit that she isn't as great as Tolkien, and that his novels don't compare with his. Rowling is an amzing author, and book after book she continues to amaze me, but Harry Potter books are lot more simplstic than LOTR. While they still have many characters and depth, it doesn't even compare to LOTR. Rowling's simplistic yet entretainment and intelligent writing has made her a million seller, and her cleverness is unmatched. But it can't touch LOTR. Read the Silmarillion and then come back and tell me that Harry Potter series has that depth, and that manyh characters and history, maps, etc. Tolkien even invented languages for his books, and he is really the author of the century. What I feel that Harry Potter has is that it is much more easier for young readers to follow. But LOTR is not really a book for young readers, so that is why some kids may say that Harry Potter is better, and it is to a degree understandable. But for the more experienced reader, the LOTR trilogy (and the other books that follow it) are much more richful experience than Harry Potter. Still Harry Potter series is also an amazing achievment, and is an excellent read for any person, regarding age.

This message was edited by James00 on Jun 26 2003.

I COMPLETELY agree with Whitecloak and James00. Harry Potter is a very fun, entertaining, and exciting series but it's definately not as detailed, deep, and complex as The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter is definately easier to read and understand, that's why it's so popular. The Lord of the Rings can be dull according to some people I've talked to because they miss all of the hidden depth and detail in the story.

Um. yea, my vote goes to The Lord of the Rings.

I'll back up the other three with LOTR. I haven't read more than a page or two of any HP book. However I can tell by the writting sytle and dialogue that it isn't as rich or as deep as LOTR.

Also I don't think one should compare two dissepearte styles. HP was originally written for a far younger audience than LOTR. I'm not saying HP is a kids book. I'm just saying it was written with easy and entertainment in mind.

LOTR was written to tell an epic story. One which has a very deep an rich history. Even if it is a mythological history.

quote DivineDragon

[size=1]What is so complex about LOTR?!

I have read the books myself, and they seem to be at the same level Harry Potter is.

Please go back and read LOTR again. There is no way that you can say that both are as complex. I think you only read The Hobbit, because it is very clear that LOTR and especially Silmarillion are complex books in the sense of how many characters and history they involve. Also Harry Potter books are written in a more "friendly" or "easy to understand" way than LOTR. It is not difficult to understand the LOTR books, but some younger people do hacve this problem. The writing style of LOTR is much more richer, afterall Tolkien was a expert in Literature (he was a very high proffesour in world famous Universities).

quote DivineDragon

For some reason, and I hope I don't offend anyone, but I think that Tolkien may have been a bit... 'Different-Minded' then most people.

I mean, who would take the time to invent languages, and make a whole world, etc.?

Of course he was, he was a genious afterall. Do you think Einstein was a perfectly normal person? All geniouses are like this, sort of like excentric, but those are the people who change the world!


As for all your other comments, I'll let Whitecloak or anyone else answer them, I am to tired right now. I'll be back!