The Fellowship of the Ring
discussion
which did you like better lord or the rings or harry potter
message 51:
by
Clive
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
May 16, 2014 11:17AM
Haha this can't be a serious question, Harry Potter is very good but not even in the same league as Lord of the Rings, but then what is - it's in a league of its own.
reply
|
flag
Clive wrote: "Haha this can't be a serious question, Harry Potter is very good but not even in the same league as Lord of the Rings, but then what is - it's in a league of its own."Quoted for Truth
I think I agree with whoever said its not a fair comparison. You have the classic, epic fantasy in Lord of the Rings, which is also geared towards a more mature audience, compared to the YA urban fantasy of Harry Potter. However, if I were to pick, I would pick LOTR, not just because of the writing and the style, but also because LOTR set the stage for all modern fantasy novels.A Chance Beginning: Book One of the Shadow's Fire Trilogy
Christopher wrote: "...LOTR set the stage for all modern fantasy novels."Oh yeah!
It depends who you are. For example, children the age of like... seven or even six (it being read to them) can love the Harry potter books, especially the early ones. However, when I at least was that age, there was no way on earth that I would've been able to tackle Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings has a massive amount of history and backstory behind it, but Harry Potter does too. Personally, I love them both and I think they're both great in their own right.
Well considering I have only watched/read Harry Potter, I'm going to have to go with Harry Potter. I have read the Hobbit though and have seen both of those movies and have very much enjoyed them. However, I have not read or seen Lord of The Rings so by default Harry Potter is my winner. That isn't to say that I'm bashing Harry Potter though. Harry Potter, in my opinion, is AMAZING. Beyond amazing even. I love how fun and exciting it is. How you can just invest yourself into the world and fall in love with the characters (I guess you could do that with a lot of your favorite books/series.) and I'm sure you are able to do that with the Lord of the Rings as well. And I felt very inspired by Harry Potter because I love how it puts emphasize on things such as love, friendship, teamwork, intelligence (I think?), etc. But again I only have really only read/watched HP out of the two. I'm sure The Lord of Rings is fantastic as well.
But in the end I don't really see a reason to compare them. I'm sure they are both amazing and inspiring in their own ways.
I enjoyed the LOTR series a lot more because Tolkien gave a more expanse view into Middle Earth, unlike Rowling, who just focused on Potter, his struggle, and the world around him. Frodo and his crew traveled throughout the most famous and infamous parts of Tolkien's universe that had a history all in itself. Tolkien's series is far better than Harry Potter, but Potter is not terrible. It is a series that is good in modern times.
Fun trivia fact: LOTR was not actually intended to be a series - it was meant to be a single book - the publisher broke it into three sections. I love both LOTR and HP. I have read LOTR in the 15-20 times range. The Hobbit in the 10-15 range. HP is in the 5-10 range (some of the series I have read more often, as I would re-read them all before the next book came out, starting at book 4).
I love both just because they are both so magical in their own unique way. This is why I cannot choose between the two because each series has effected me in different ways. Harry Potter was my absolute favorite when I was younger and took me to a place where I could get away from reality. LOTR became my new loved series when I turned 13 and taught me many life lessons.
My god. Let's see...which one more or less invented the genre? Which one is really derivative of the earlier work? (Forehead smack!)
Donna wrote: "My god. Let's see...which one more or less invented the genre? Which one is really derivative of the earlier work? (Forehead smack!)"I wouldn't call Harry Potter derivative, just a different type of fantasy.
I grew up on the LOTR and have read it twice. I watched each movie immmediately as it came out. I have seen all three movies at least three times each. I am an avid Tolkein fan without becoming a T. nerd. I can´t quote Bombadil´s poetry, couldn´t tell you what happened in the first or second age, but I could sit through another 9.5 hours of the LOTR movie. On the other hand, despite being extremely enthused by Reading the book in the 60´s, currently I find the writing style a bit cumbersome. I would read LOTR with more difficulty these days as my taste in writing has changed significantly. As for the Potter, I´ve tried 4 times to watch the movies from beginning to end and only succeeded at the last time. I find him mildly interesting at the same level of interest of THE NEVERENDING STORY.
Considering that the movies have only mild interest for me, I don´t think I would be particularly interested in Reading the books.
I hope you don't look at all books vs movies that way. The only time I have not liked a book more than the movie was when the book was written specifically as a potential screen play.
I don´t go with that "truism" at all,Justine. It´s one that has been so self-fulfilling for so many people. I could cite several movies better than the bookSHIP OF FOOLS
GOODBYE, COLUMBUS
BOURNE TRILOGY
most of the JAMES BOND novels
FARENHEIT 451
THE GODFATHER
THE STERILE CUCKOO
DEATH ON THE NILE
THE LADY VANISHES
I would consider FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON to be as good as the book.
Bullshit, to put it politely. I have never found a movie to be better than the book. The book takes the reader into their own imagination - the movie takes the viewer into the director's imagination. I prefer mine.
Donna wrote: "My god. Let's see...which one more or less invented the genre? Which one is really derivative of the earlier work? (Forehead smack!)"While I've loved LoTR from the first time I read it, when I was twelve, and it's lost none of its appeal for me through time, after delving into the classic Celt and Norse myths and story cycles, I realized that Tolkien's works are a masterful mash-up of Celt and Norse mythos with some Christian allegory (like his good friend, C.S. Lewis was prone to) served up from a supremely creative mind that had lived through a time of cataclysmic war.
So, for me, it's unfair to label Harry Potter "derivative" without acknowledging that LoTR is also derivative. Tolkien himself, at least in any of the essays or accounts of his discussions of his work I've ever encountered, never claimed any different. He acknowledged the backgrounds for his work. His genius was weaving the threads together, especially in The Silmarillion. Yaweh? The archangels? Lucifer, anyone?
And it does seem problematic to compare the two. While they're both fantasy, one is classic High Fantasy and the other is entirely different. I suppose it would be categorized as YA Fantasy, but it transcends that simplistic a classification. HP doesn't create a completely new world — a requirement for HF — it supposes a parallel existence, one that's the same . . . just with magic.
How do you compare two things that are so essentially different?
Claire wrote: "I personally don't think it's fair to compare them like this. It's like comparing apples and oranges; both are species of fruit, sure, but they are delicious and nutritious in very different ways...."
Agreed
LOTR....I'm not into YA fantasy
i have never read/watched harry potter but i have read LOTR and watched the three movies each like 3 times a month they are my favorite movies EVERRRR. i just read the hobbit and enjoyed it but the hobbit movies were soooo boring i didn't like the first one at all and the second one was only ok because of Benedict Cumberbatch the original LOTR movies were 100 times better
LotR wins for originality and over all creativity,HP wins on appeal to a wider audience and dramatic flair.I personally lean to the Rings but both entertain the masses.
Not being a big fan of HP, I give it credit that it has gotten so many people to READ A BOOK!
Both. I love them equally for different reaosns.
Lord of the Rings, definitely. To me, it's the greatest adventure story ever and is the best example of good over evil sort of thing. But Harry Potter is amazing too. I respect both stories.
Harry of the Rings. lol
Hairy Rings? Lord of the Potters?Hmmm . . . Hobbits have hairy feet . . . and then there's all the pipe smoking. Tobacco? Riiiiiight . . . Remember the descriptions of the amounts Hobbits can eat?
And they're inordinately fond of mushrooms . . .
Lynn wrote: "J.K. Rowling has admitted that she took a lot of inspiration from Lord of the Rings when she wrote Harry Potter."She did? Can someone please verify this? The only thing I've ever read about Rowling and the LotR is that she never got around to finishing the series...
Time Magazine Interview, 2005
It wasn't until after Sorcerer's Stone was published that it even occurred to her that she had written one. "That's the honest truth," she says. "You know, the unicorns were in there. There was the castle, God knows. But I really had not thought that that's what I was doing. And I think maybe the reason that it didn't occur to me is that I'm not a huge fan of fantasy." Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn't even read all of C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot.
Doubtless she was influenced by it indirectly, but I'm a bit skeptical that it goes any further than that.
Oh, and as a curious aside, it appears Stephenie Meyer is a much bigger fan of Tolkien than Rowling is.Variety Interview, 2013
DM: What about a return to “Twilight?”
SM: I get further away every day. I am so over it. For me, it’s not a happy place to be.
DM: Is the door completely closed on that?
SM: Not completely. What I would probably do is three paragraphs on my blog saying which of the characters died. I’m interested in spending time in other worlds, like Middle-Earth.
So perhaps someday we'll all be able to read about Aragorn sneaking into Arwen's bedroom to watch her sleep? I can hardly wait.
The funny thing is, I must admit that for all I was unable to make it past page 50 of the first Twilight book, I did rather like The Host. Not the best thing I've ever read by any stretch, but I'd put it as being better than Invasion of the Body Snatchers but not quite as good as The Puppet Masters.
Come on folks, let's be honest here. If Harry Potter had not attracted millions of sales from children it would not be able to even sit on the same book shelf with LOTR. And yes I have read both. LOTR is such great literature that I have read the trilogy five times, whereas I had to force myself to finish HP.
I'm sure HP will go down as a classic based on the volume of sales it has generated, but it will never compare to LOTR.
Ok like the 1st comment says you can't compare these 2. Rings is an epic and has been around for oh god..years..but Harry only been around for a 3rd or 4th of the time and has become epic in its own way.. Both book series are gonna be around forever.
I personally feel more attached to Harry Potter. I grew up reading these books, and was pretty close in age to Harry and his friends as each book came out, so I was able to relate strongly to the characters. I think one of the great benefits of Harry Potter is its ability to get kids excited about reading! Series that are accessible to young adults serve as a gateway to heavier fare, like Tolkien I would say. Series like The Chronicles of Narnia, The Time Quartet, and Harry Potter all encouraged me to read more and become engulfed in new worlds, which helped me appreciate Lord of the Rings when I was older.
I've read all 3-----LOTR, Harry Potter & Twilight. While I like apples, I love oranges. I will continue to reread LOTR, at least once a year. Not enough time has past for me to reread Potter yet. Kudos for JK for creating another world I like to re-visit and explore. (It is my hope that she continues writing other stories and leave this one alone. Great writers know when to end the story.)Twilight? a classic? nay,neigh,no
Spooky wrote: "Ok like the 1st comment says you can't compare these 2. Rings is an epic and has been around for oh god..years..but Harry only been around for a 3rd or 4th of the time and has become epic in its o..."And did the Baum books survive a century of neglect other than a fantastic musical?
LOTR for me.But which do you like better... Harry Potter, Wizard or Harry Dresden, Wizard.
Dresden Files is far better than HP - wizard wise, plot wise and writing wise. Mouse has more personality than most of the HP characters.
Harry Potter. Not a fan of LOTR at all
LOTR, hands down. Harry Potter benefited immensely from movie adaptation immediately fleshed out imagery with which some may have struggled. Tolkien, on the other hand, did it entirely through the written word.
Jonathan wrote: "Kace wrote: "Twilight beats both."There's a special corner of Mordor reserved for you"
YESS, my pressciousss there isss.
I think they are written for two different audiences, with Harry Potter being easier for a younger audience to relate to. I think LOTR is a series you can read over and over again and always get something new from it that applies to where you are in life. Harry Potter uses parallel world to show character growth and core values. LOTR creates a whole new world and deeply delves into personal growth, motivations, values, and evil. Remember LOTR came first and it probably influenced what we see in Harry Potter.
I find that in a way the books are incomparable, because as many of you mentioned the depth and the context are different. LOTR is great in the way that TOLKIEN is an absolute genius, and he's created a different world.. not just a parallel universe, but a whole different world with a language, and a setting, creatures, and it's overwhelming.
BUT
I feel that Rowling was able to write a great series where there are not as many details as the LOTR, but they're more accessible to the general public: anyone can read HP, but it takes a specific kind of enthusiasm for someone to read LOTR/the Tolkien world, simply because of its complexity. ALSO I feel that in this day and age where I find that literature is declining, Rowling helped teens and young adults read more. "Ok since HP is so cool, let me start reading it... wait reading is absolutely amazing!" I personally know people who have inspired to pursue a career in journalism/english, who have been constantly discouraged due to the poor quality of English teachers.
Yuki wrote: "LOTR is great in the way that TOLKIEN is an absolute genius, and he's created a different world.. not just a parallel universe, but a whole different world with a language, and a setting, creatures, and it's overwhelming."
That's pretty much how I see it. LOTR is this complete different world. There is a bit of that in HP as well with Hogwarts and the train station, but to a large degree it is a story of "Wizards Among Us". HP isn't considered Urban Fantasy but I couldn't tell you why it isn't.
I don't think that this is a fair comparison. I honestly liked the Lord of the Rings before Harry Potter. I was in Junior High and was with a group of girls who were obsessed with it before the movies even came out. We had a group called FOTG. Fellowship of the Girls. I love Lord of the Rings because of the memories I had with a group of girls that will never leave me, even though we have separated and are all on our own paths and many of us do not speak to one another.
I love Harry Potter because it opened me up to my imagination in a way LOTR never did. I owe many books for making me become a reader, but I own Harry Potter for helping me get lost in a world that I never knew was possible.
Both of these books helped me develop into a writer, thanks to the really bad fanfiction I have written in the past.
I can't say that I like one over the other because they each hold a place dear to me in my memories and my development as a reader and a writer.
Ahhh, desicions decisions :p Well I love both of them, I guess I'll go with HP cause I hated reading before I read those.
I need to re-read LOTR, I haven't read it since I was in school, I really struggled with the second book, I glazed when they kept talking about all that walking. Now I'm in my 20's I think I need to give it another go.As for Harry Potter it's a completely different kettle of fish. I grew up with these books, they're probably a small part of what made me who I am now.
After Beowulf JRR Tolkien has defined the fantasy genre. I can think of only a few writers whose works are not derivative. Guy Gabriel Kay and Neil Gaiman are two of a very short list.
Even the master, Tolkien, wasn't truly original. His opus is a mash-up of Celtic and Norse mythology. It still is the foundation for modern fantasy literature, but it isn't wholly original and Tolkien never claimed it was, at least not in any commentary I've found.
I read LOTR about a dozen times before the Movies even came out....
I had to force myself to finish the LOTR books..so much description over what was it? Four books? I was bored as hell..I just didn't get into it. I read Harry Potter just to see what all the commotion was about, and yeh it was good but I didn't think it was epic or anything.
I prefer Harry Potter. The pacing of HP is much faster - LotR spends far more time on exposition. It often feels like LotR has more to say about the setting than it does about the characters or the plot. I understand why some people like that sort of thing, but it's not really my cup of tea.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Fellowship of the Ring (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
A Chance Beginning (other topics)The Fellowship of the Ring (other topics)
