Its unfair!!

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

The comparison is much like that of chess and candyland

[Ñólendil]

Personally, I like Harry Potter little less than the Lord of the Rings. It's my second favourite fantasy (if it is fantasy, the author doesn't think so). One point I must bring up about the 'children's' label is that J. K. Rowling did not write any of her books for children. She wrote them for herself, like Tolkien did.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

I do not condemn the books for the quality of writing. It is simply not my taste in content. The fact that little kids can read it and understand it makes it less apparrently intellectual. The fact that it is in England makes it a little to real a little to close to home. Like a Tom Clancy novel. It doesnt maintain that fantasy aspect.
It's a thing of taste and I do not doubt there quality. However Rowling comes no where close to the absolute rilliance of Tolkien and It is such a ludicrous comparison. I want the fans of the Harry Potter fans to understand that the chess-candyland comparison was not to have a Deragatory conotation towards Rowlings series. Tolkiens works were just far better

[Renille]

I, also, am a huge Harry Potter fan. But they really can't be fairly compared to Tolkien. Rowling made a series in a place we recognize; our current civilization. Tolkien made a world; a whole and complete legacy of imaginary beings. So of course, his writings are more complete, make alot more sense, and seem to draw you in to the world he created. But Rowling's books are pure imagination and fantasy, a drama of the unreal. They are obviously less intellectual than LOTR, but they are about children, written in the children's fantasy genre. LOTR is about a civilization like no one's ever seem before. It was necessary to explain more and go into grinding detail so people could actually understand it! Such a book is bound to be more intellectual. So intellectualism isn't a fair thing to judge Harry by.

Forgive my ramblings...I'm half asleep.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

That is true. You cannot. Although like I said "It is a matter of taste", so that if my taste is a world completely created and fully explained then I can make the comparison based on my taste not on the factors that decide my taste.It is a good point though

[ringbearer]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
Personally, I like Harry Potter little less than the Lord of the Rings. It's my second favourite fantasy (if it is fantasy, the author doesn't think so). One point I must bring up about the 'children's' label is that J. K. Rowling did not write any of her books for children. She wrote them for herself, like Tolkien did.

Inoldonil, have you read the "Amber" books? If you do, I believe it will become your 2nd favorite.

[Ñólendil]

"The fact that it is in England makes it a little to real a little to close to home. "

Although it doesn't effect your point at all, Hogwarts is supposed to be located in Scotland.

No, I haven't read the Amber books. I haven't heard of them either, what sort are they?

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

If you mean that my point was off because they were in fact in scotland not england...I live in oklahoma...That does not make it any more fantastical than england... If you simply don't think it was used in the right context.-They were reasons, reasons I liked LOTR better than harry potter
and since my point was to prove that.It fits perfectly with what im saying. Out of all my ramblings surely you could attack something
other than that! Obiously you are angered by my first message chess- candyland comparison. I explained it in the latter message.
That I do not dislike harry potter, I like Tolkien to ludicrous extemes .
My apologies to you for offending you i hope you see reason in my reasoning

Edit---lol i reread your message and saw what you meant.
Again my apologies i mixed up your wording.
Im sorry...

[Ñólendil]

Ah, we all get tired.

[ringbearer]

Originally posted by Inoldonil


No, I haven't read the Amber books. I haven't heard of them either, what sort are they?

Go here and here.
Should answer some of your questions, it is a series of 10 books(each around 200 pages) about beings who can basicaly create any type of world they wish to with their mind and travel there.

There is an edition called the Great book of Amber, which contains all 10 books, for around $20. Eveyone I have recommended this series to have enjoyed it to the extreme, so check it out...it is a
must read!

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

Should answer some of your questions, it is a series of 10 books(each around 200 pages) about beings who can basicaly create any type of world they wish to with their mind and travel there.

Sounds like the Myst series

[ringbearer]

Originally posted by CardenIAntauraNauco


Sounds like the Myst series

There are some similarities. Amber came out before Myst, though. I love the Myst games!

[jerseydevil]

I don't think there is any way to actaully compare LOTR with HP. Middle Earth has an entire history - from beginning - to the age of man, along with languages, religion, everything.

HP is a fun read. With LOTR, you can get completely engrossed in and research the histories, peoples and languages. Very few, if any other, fantasy books comes close to LOTR in this respect.

[bropous]

Quite simply, the Harry Potter books are children's books, and the Lord of the Rings is SERIOUS literature. Harry Potter is fine for kiddie-winkies, but I must agree with my highly insightful friend, Carden: "The comparison is much like that of chess and candyland."

And no, calm down, fellow mooters who have read and enjoyed Harry Potter, nothing against ANY of you who have enjoyed the Harry Potter books. we all have different tastes in reading. I thoroughly enjoyed Michael Moorcock's "Elric of Melnibone" series, and you folks might find those really lightweight in comparison to LOTR. To each his/her own. I just don't care for Ms. Rowling's writings.

Tolkien created an entire world, something like nine different languages, an entire mythology, and painted the entire creation in such magnificent detail as to make it the greatest work of literature of the twentieth century. To me, there is zero comparison between his works and those of Madame Rowlings.

[Wayfarer]

You think that's unfair?

I'll tell you what's unfair.
One of my friends was telling me about a conversation she and some other friends of mine had last week. She said that

Direct Quote:

They spent the entire hour bashing Harry Potter even though none of us has actually read the books.

Now, tell me, which is worse. Claiming (however unjustafied you may be) that one book is better than another, or flat out deciding that 'this sucks' even though your only knowledge comes from a third or fourth hand source. I.E. From your parents, who read about it in a magizine article, written by someone in thier sixties, who heard about the book from this other person they know who has an acquaintance who may or may not have read it.

I, personally, doubt that the Harry Potter books will even make a scratch in my favorites list. I just don't see a series that debuted less than five years ago displacing the legendarium of a man who spent the better part of his eighty year life working on it, or a husband/wife team that spent several decades apiece on various worlds (the eddingses, who wrote my second favorite works).

On the other hand, Rowling would be hard pressed to do worse than a few authors I've read. Robert Jordan, for example (sorry Dylan) just seems to get worse and worse the more he writes. And even he isn't that bad when compared to Frank Herbert (who'se recurring motif seems to be 'sex, drugs, and politics, and whom Jordan seems to have gotten his bad traits from) or Stephen R. Donaldson (who'se Chronicles of Thomas Covenant made no sense whatsoever, and sounds like something I might have written when I was badly depressed and suffering from mild psychosis)

All in all... I plan on waiting until the marketing frenzy dies down, so I can read the books without casual fanboys (who couldn't possibly match me in literary fervour) trying to comment.

Who knows, I'll probobly like them.

[bropous]

Who exactly are the "Eddingses", and what books did they write? I'm curious.

Actually, the books I've found which have at least remotely the level of detail and creativity that Tolkien fashioned into his books are the "Dune" books by Frank Herbert, and then continued by his son, Brian Herbert, in collaboration with Kevin J. Anderson.

As for the "Thomas Covenant" series by Stephen Donaldson, of which I have a signed copy of "The One Tree", I liked them as I read them initially, but in retrospect, the fact that the hero/anti-hero, Thomas Covenant, is a rapist, absolutely sickens me. I felt my skin crawling as I read them, and yet I DID cry at the demise of the Giants, and the victories of Lord Foul. They are quite well-crafted, although they are a knock-off of Tolkien, but it just turns me off in my more mature years that I would have not thrown down the first book at the rape of Lena. I don't read books like that anymore. The second trilogy in that series, I found, was a complete let-down, with the Sun-disease and the Rukhs and bloodletting and so forth.

No comparison, again, with the works of The Master. Again, I state that The Lord of the Rings is the greatest work of ANY genre of the twentieth century. James Joyce be damned.

[jerseydevil]

I know David Eddings wrote the Belgariad and Mallorean series. But I didn't know his wife and him collaborated together.

The Belagriad contains -
Pawn of Prophecy
Queen of Sorcery
Magician's Gambit
Castle of Wizardy
Enchanter's End Game


The Malloreon series
Guardians of the West
King of the Murgos
Demon Lord of Karanda,
Sorceress of Darshiva,
Seeress of Kell

These books were really good.

Belgariad Info

[ChildofEru]

The comparison is much like that of chess and candyland

I love playing chess, I could play for 4 days strait if I could find people to play.
But candyland is still a fun game although I would get sick of it after 2 days.
(NOTE: ChildofEru is quite the obsessive person when he becomes obsessed with a certine thing/game/book/object/person/animal/theory)

[Agburanar]

Erm, seeming like a bit of a thick plank here but what's Candyland?

[bropous]

Agburanar, "Candyland" is an exceedingly simple children's board game, several steps below the difficulty of "Chutes and Ladders".