which one is better: Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter. and why so? (pls dont pick based on popularity)?

Question

For me, LOTR is so much better because it involves fantasy and not witchcraft, is has a nice story. Even though it's very long, it explains just how wonderful the story is.


Harry Potter is more famous because the target audience are the kids. Therefore much easier to understand and the movies are well executed. But da story for me is bah

Thas my opinion yo.
Whut about you?

Answer 1

People who have read either series know how to use the English language properly, therefore I can only assume that you haven't read either of them.



That said, the two books don't have the same theme, are for different target audiences, and are not even the same type of fantasy, so you can't really pick one over the other. You might be able to pick the genre of one over the other. But you'd still have to have read them.



Overall, LoTR is much better written, had more time put into it, and (at the time it was written) was a much more original story. The basis for Harry Potter was already a well-known trope, almost to the point of cliche, when HP was written. It's the same trope they used as a basis for the original Star Wars movies; dark lord kills father. son sets out to avenge father's death.



Even if you're an HP fan, some things need to be recognized. My last not so great note about HP is the random deaths at the end of the series. Killing characters for shock value is never a good thing. It cheapens the story. That didn't happen in LoTR. Every death had a purpose for the story.

Answer 2

No. Harry potter is more famous because it appeals to all ages and let's people escape from reality. Rowling created a world that will always be the home of the fans. The reason why hp has a huge fanbase is because we've grown with the characters and the story defined a generation. Lotr is great but hp has a bigger impact in people's lives. Hp is not just a book and movie. It's a lifestyle.

Answer 3

Well, for one thing, I think you are confused.



Witchcraft is fantasy. The terms you are looking for are "high fantasy" (which is what LotR is) and "Contemporary/Urban Fantasy" (which is what Harry Potter is). Both LotR and HP involve witchcraft. And they both involve fantasy. So that's not really an argument for or against them.



As for the "more famous because the target audience is kids"... um... since when is HP more famous than LotR? LotR has been around since the 1950s. They were kind of a big deal, and still are. The movies made schist tons of money and won tons of awards. I don't know if you can really say which is more famous, but neither is exactly obscure. If anything, LotR doesn't have as much buzz around it because it was written half a century ago and the movies are already a decade old, as opposed to HP which is still fairly new.



Now as for my opinion... I've gotta go HP. Your entire point seems to be "LotR has fantasy" (which, as I explained, applies to HP as well), "LotR has a good story" (which... so does HP... you might think it's "bah", but millions of people think it's good. Not just kids- adult readers and other authors) and "HP is for kids" (which is kindda irrelevant).



I prefer HP for several reasons. For one, the language is less archaic. Tolkien wrote in a very distinctive style, and I personally find it a little dry. Number two, as I mentioned, LotR is High fantasy. I almost always prefer contemporary. That's just personal preference. I also have more of a personal connection to HP, having grown up with it. There's also the fact that, on a broader level, ROwling revolutionized the publishing industry, proving that kids and teens are capable of reading long form chapter books, allowing for a much more varied selection of books.



However, in the end, it's arguing apples and oranges. I might as well say "which do you like better, Hunger Games or Perks of Being a Wallflower?" Yes, they are both fantasy novels, yes they have both been made into movies, and yes, they are both very famous, but in the end, they are very different and both fairly awesome in their own right. Why do we have to compare them?

Answer 4

I love both, but Lord of the Rings is definitely better. It's all original and epic, has a great story, and teaches you life morals that deal with things such as greed, evil, friendship, trust, etc, and how too much power in the hands of one man is evil. The movies are absolutely amazing, from the acting, visuals, worlds and character designs. Both Lord of the Rings and HP are probably considered classics, but LOTR is a masterpiece. It will be pretty hard to top something this great.

Answer 5

Books:

Harry Potter- Rowling creates a world parallel to our own, filled with generic magic and with child characters. A nice fun read, but I think they went downhill after Book 4, though it might just be me getting older, and anyway, I enjoyed Animorphs more at the time. As I've got older, I've realised that this might be because she can't convincingly pull off the emotions of the characters after this age, and even Book 4 was a bit of a stretch at the end. On the other hand, I can see her difficulty, as writing the realistic thoughts of a teenager might be a bit much for the child audience. Still, great fun to read, but by no means legendary.



The Lord of the Rings- The world Tolkien creates is so rich and realistic, so deep and complex that it is amazing. Another thing I loved about it is that while everyone has their own backstory and agenda, they are neither ignored nor become the focus. The characters just carry them the entire time, but they are not forgotten as soon as the quest begins, or overly fleshed out- just the right amount to remain interesting. The focus is always the War of the Ring, and while other things happen, this focus never disappears, except for the ending once it is over. The same thing goes for the storytelling. While obviously having a Catholic bias, Tolkien never once sacrifices the story because of it. The story came first, and then seeing whether it fits in with his values came second (though apparently he did struggle with this in the Silmarillion, but that's a separate issue). I'm not even going to being to mention the detail he put in to make sure that the names of places were just as distantly related to English as he wanted, or how he constructed different dialects and languages within his created languages and how they varied over time, but it is amazing. He taps into mythology and creates a world that makes sense on its own.







Films:

Harry Potter- The films were the opposite of the books- they got better as the series went on. Again, fun to watch- it had a good mix of being emotional, suspenseful and funny, but it wasn't life-changing. Obviously, special effects were good, but a lot of character development was missed out.



LOTR- Amazing. It might be because I saw them before reading the books (not the Hobbit though), but I really still do enjoy them. After reading the books, I was initially disappointed that they hadn't put in Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs, but now I realise that while the latter could have been amazing and possibly terrifying (though not likely, as the Army of the Dead parts could've been so much scarier), the former would've totally changed the mood. I do think, however, that a few things were ridiculous- Elves at Helm's Deep, Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath and the Nazgul being within touching distance of him, Gandalf vs Witch King (extended edition), and a few other things.

They are still in my top ten films of all time, however.





So, my verdict.

The Lord of the Rings wins on both counts.







And let's not even begin to talk about how much Rowling borrowed from Tolkien... Aragog and the other spiders in the Forbidden Forest vs the spiders in Mirkwood, The Whomping Willow vs Old Man Willow (in the LOTR books)... the list goes on...

Answer 6

No question: Lord of the Rings. It's more than just a nice story. The characters are more varied and interesting, and even many good guys are dark; it's more realistic in that, though it can be overcome for a time, evil never disappears. Tolkien's a far better writer than JKR (no insult intended).



This is from someone who's read and enjoyed all the Harry Potter books at least twice!

Answer 7

I personally like Harry Potter better, but only because it wasn't as complex. I loved LOTR and it has an amazing storyline, but it got into to much detail sometimes. I'd wind up skimming paragraphs in it just to get to something other than detail. Harry Potter I didn't have that issue with and it holds a place in my heart from my childhood.

Answer 8

Stephanie meyers and the atrocity this is twilight would desire to by no capacity ever be while in comparison with genuine literature....EVER. My 4 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous would have written a greater advantageous novel than twilight, and with greater precise grammar. Lord of the rings is my renowned novel of all time. it somewhat is fantastically written. splendidly imagined. it somewhat is the wonderful delusion novel ever written. i myself love Harry Potter. i myself do. regardless of the shown fact that it in basic terms won't be in a position to examine to Lord of the rings. It in basic terms isn't on the comparable point. For movies, i like the HP movies greater advantageous. yet it somewhat is via fact i did no longer like the Lord of the rings movies. They aggravated me and each and each time i think of roughly them they serve to make me indignant, so i won't be in a position to observe them.

Answer 9

If you were to compare the books themselves by how well they read, then Harry Potter is better since they are well written and well paced. LoTR is long-winded, ponderous, and harder than hell to get through.



It's like the differences between the ponderous and difficult to read style of Frank Herbert vs that of his son Brian who took up the mantle and finished the series after his father died.



As for witchcraft? Witch-king of Angmar? Wizards such as Saruoman and Gandalf? Fantasy is fantasy, magic is magic. Besides if the previous Pope (John Paul II) could look at the Harry Potter series and call them a harmless series of books that are an allegory of good vs evil and how the positive qualities of friendship, courage, and loyalty can overcome all obstacles, then one should not be so quick to judge simply because the series is based on magical, spell chucking folk.



Which is the better story? Both have their merits and their flaws. LoTR had a lot of elements that had nothing to do with the story, did nothing to advance it (Tom Bombadil comes readily to mind) and actually bogged the pacing of the story down. HP is simpler and meant for a younger crowd and so is not as deep or as intellectual as LoTR. The simpler topics and issues makes the story a little formulaic and predictable.



The movies? LoTR has it hands down for visual stunningness. The beautyo f the Elven lands, the harshness of Mordor, the epic level of the battles makes it more visually stunning. Also apart from trimming out the unneeded fat (Tom Bombadil and other dead zones in the story) and the sequencing of how simultaneous elements are presented, LoTR was a lot more accurate to the books than HP was since they really shaved a lot out of the later movies.



But, the HP movies did a lot to get the more mature audiences to reconsider the books and to read them. I had no interest in HP until a friend invited me to go see the first movie (her treat) and I figured for free how bad could it suck. By that weekend I had all 4 books (that were out at the time).



So which is better? Can't say. Which is better for each individual person? Have to ask them.



Which is better for me? Harry Potter for the books, LoTR for the films.

Answer 10

Well, quite frankly: I found LOTR a better story, but too glorified. There was an exorbitant amount of detail were it wasn't needed and overall it made it a bit of a trial to pick through. HP, on the other hand was also good- not as epic in terms of plot, but more generically readable without drowning in particulars. In the end I would have to choose Harry Potter, not because the story was better but because you could get strait to the story without six paragraphs of interim thesaurus fecking.

Answer 11

Which one is better: apples or oranges?



LotR is a great adult fantasy book.

HP is a great children's book.



They are not comparable.

Answer 12

lord of the rings! i just like the feeling and presence of it. damn, i miss it!

Answer 13

LOTR because its epic.



HP is good, but a little gay.