HP Vs. LoTR

[Pytt]

first, maybe there are threads where i could have slipped this in, but I prefer to make a own post. I found this on a norwegian site, though they too just found it somewhere else. here ya go:

Why Harry Potter is Better Than LOTR
by - CaLi_Jazz22 (Fri Jul 23 2004 05:45:52)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Fri Jul 23 2004 06:06:59
I’ve read posts on these boards that say HP fans don't provide sufficient arguments to support the opinion that HP is superior to LOTR. I hope I can clear things up.

First of all, let me say that I couldn't care less which books are classified as adult or children's literature, nor could I care less how many years each series has been around. Another thing I don't give a darn about is how many Oscars your over-exposed movies won, since all Peter Jackson did was hire a special effects crew. Also, don't use the Rowling-stole-ideas-from-Tolkien excuse because that one is false. So, if you're going to provide a counterargument, please don't use any of those shallow reasons.

1) The wizarding world in HP is more difficult to conjure up than Middle Earth is. Middle Earth resembles more of a fantasy land than the HP world does. Tolkien just created a world that he could have easily invented while day-dreaming. His land includes mountains, rivers, grasslands, and little towns, all with unique names that he could have made up by picking letters out of a hat and then arranging them. When Sauron's not stirring up evil, Middle Earth is simple and boring. (Actually, even when Sauron is around, it's boring, but more about that later..) Rowling's world, on the other hand, is complex. She includes politics, social classes, problems in society, and elements that occur in reality. She takes modern circumstances and integrates them into a fantasy world. Many of the names that she gives to the places and characters are carefully chosen, either using Latin roots or some similarity to the object. The non-realistic factors in HP are also more complex than the ones in LOTR. For every magical creature Tolkien created, Rowling has made ten more. Also, Rowling's creatures have more to them than grotesqueness. There are several species, each with their own innate characteristics. Furthermore, you may call Quidditch a silly game, but I don't see anything that creative in LOTR. The HP characters are always learning and discovering new things. What are the LOTR characters uncovering?? That Smeagol is a deceiving villain?? That's about it. The magic in HP blows any fantasy elements in LOTR out of the water. In LOTR, people kill each other with mortal weapons. In HP, people kill each other with spells.

2) The plots of the HP books are more intricate than those of the LOTR books. In LOTR, there is only one objective: Destroy the Ring, therefore defeat
Sauron. All Frodo has to do is make an obstacle course to Mount Doom, while the rest of the fellowship is off protecting him and killing ugly creatures. Sure, it's difficult for them, but there's not that much substance for the readers. All we really care about in the end is whether the ring was destroyed and if any of the characters died. In Harry Potter, on the other hand, you have to acquire all the plot points in order to understand the conclusion. That's because there are plot twists (example: Pettigrew is Scabbers and becomes Voldemort's servant), background information (example: the origins of the connection between Voldemort and Harry), and characters who die for reasons (Rowling has said that she killed off Sirius for later reasons; she didn't do it just so she could include some sappy moment a la taking Boromir's body to his father.) When reading LOTR, we know that Sauron would be destroyed by throwing the ring into the fires of Mount Doom. However, while reading HP, we have absolutely no clue how Voldemort would be able to be defeated. LOTR has no suspense - It just drones on and on with battles.

3) The characters in Harry Potter are far deeper than the characters in LOTR. Now, don't start talking about the Aragorn-Arwen-Eowyn love triangle (which is extremely stupid, by the way) or Sam's loyalty. Yes, the LOTR characters show great emotions, but that doesn't make them interesting. The personalities of the LOTR characters are either black or white. They're either good or bad, comedic or serious, skilled or unskilled. In reality, the behavior of people is not always that simple, especially in the life-or-death situations that the characters face. In HP, we are given the psychology of the characters. They each have complex personalities, they all have different motives, and they are affected by their own personal circumstances. The readers can identify with characters in HP. We've each known how it feels to be an outcast like Harry, or an academic nerd like Hermione, or some of us have had a troubled past like Snape has, or we've faced discrimination like Lupin does, or people have lost loved ones like some of the characters have. Even though they're fictional, they have qualities of real people. Not that many people can relate to the LOTR characters. War casualties may be of a high number, but the ordinary person has not fought in battle. Readers might be able to relate to the emotions of the LOTR characters, but that doesn't go as far as watching a character go through something similar to what you have personally experienced.

4) Simply put - HP is more interesting than LOTR. LOTR is just a bunch of battle scenes and cool characters kicking butt. That's captivating if you're playing a video game. Like I said earlier, Middle Earth is boring even when Sauron is around. HP is much more complex and deeper than that. The overall themes of HP are more powerful. The main theme of LOTR is the battle between good and evil, which has always been obvious. The themes in HP are such as love is the greatest power and family is not always connected through blood - themes that people often forget when they need them most.

If you ask me, HP is a far more intelligent series than LOTR. I'm not just saying that as a biased fan, for I have given explanations above. To all of you LOTR fans who say that HP is a silly kiddie series - think again. To all of you who say that HP is boring, that's because it requires you to think intelligently and not rely solely on special effects.

Btw, I have read both the HP and LOTR books.

I will make some thoughts and arguments later.

Edit. Finaly I put it in a quote...

[Vadskye]

nothing but special effects and battle scenes? no PLOT??? You sure you read the LOTR books...?

[Manveru]

wow if i wasn't so lazy right now i could poke soooo many holes in every single argument in that article. but ill give a little summary:
1)

Middle Earth resembles more of a fantasy land than the HP world does. Tolkien just created a world that he could have easily invented while day-dreaming. His land includes mountains, rivers, grasslands, and little towns, all with unique names that he could have made up by picking letters out of a hat and then arranging them....Rowling's world, on the other hand, is complex. She includes politics, social classes, problems in society, and elements that occur in reality.

Rowling didn't even create her own world. i dont know if the author noticed but it takes place in ENGLAND. but anyway about tolkien's names: he spent wayyy more time thinking of names than Rowling, to him the names were the most important part. For example, Gandalf says his name in the south is 'Incanus'

Incanus is also a Latin word meaning "quite gray" A related word, incanto, means "to enchant". Incanesco means "to become gray".

And that is only one name, most of his names have some sort of meaning, obviously the author isn't aware that tolkien studied ancient languages and created his own languages.

For every magical creature Tolkien created, Rowling has made ten more.

Actually i don't think so, Rowling did make alot of magical creatures but most of them are just dumb little critters and the main ones she uses she didnt actually make up i.e. centaurs and giants

What are the LOTR characters uncovering?? That Smeagol is a deceiving villain??

Well i think someone needs to read LotR again...

The plots of the HP books are more intricate than those of the LOTR books

i had to laugh when i read that, the plots are completely different, tolkien wrote a heroic romance, rowling wrote a mystery, it depends what you like better

2)

That's because there are plot twists (example: Pettigrew is Scabbers and becomes Voldemort's servant), background information (example: the origins of the connection between Voldemort and Harry), and characters who die for reasons

and there aren't plot twists and background info and characters who die for reasons in lotr?? what about 'the choices of master samwise'? 'a tale of years'? 'the departure of boromir'?

a la taking Boromir's body to his father

When did that happen??

LOTR has no suspense - It just drones on and on with battles.

i guess somebody hasnt read the 'the choices of master samwise' and 'mount doom' chapters.

3)

Yes, the LOTR characters show great emotions, but that doesn't make them interesting. The personalities of the LOTR characters are either black or white.

All of tolkien's characters have depth and personality, even guys that only have only line are developed, none of them are black and white

4)

The overall themes of HP are more powerful. The main theme of LOTR is the battle between good and evil, which has always been obvious.

so i guess friendship, hope, sacrifice, industrial revolution, the power of nature, addiction, death, etc all don't count as themes, the thing i like better about themes in LotR is that a character doesn't have to explain them at the end (ie dumbledore), the reader has to find them out for themselves. every time i read LotR i find new themes

If you ask me, HP is a far more intelligent series than LOTR. I'm not just saying that as a biased fan

lol then u sure just did a really good impression of a biased fan

To all of you who say that HP is boring, that's because it requires you to think intelligently and not rely solely on special effects.

umm we're still talking about the books right...??

well i guessed that ended up being more than a little summary...
btw i love the hp books too but i hate it when rapid fans try to say rowling wasnt influenced by tolkien and that lotr is dumb

[azalea]

This kind of thing is not only pointless, but it makes me sick to my stomach to read those "arguments." Although the author of that post claims to have read LotR, her comments show that if she has, she didn't "get it," or is simply unable to understand and appreciate a well-written story.
Again, I don't see the point of contrasting two very different books just because they happen to be classified in the same genre. Enjoying literature isn't a competition.

[Elemmírë]

Pytt... maybe you should have put all that in a quote... it makes it look like it's your own words!

I don't really have all that much to add after Manveru's post... but I'm reluctant to believe that CaLi_Jazz22 was actually reading LotR, or at least paying attention to it...

First of all, let me say that I couldn't care less which books are classified as adult or children's literature, nor could I care less how many years each series has been around. Another thing I don't give a darn about is how many Oscars your over-exposed movies won, since all Peter Jackson did was hire a special effects crew.

Well, that's good, since neither do I.

1) The wizarding world in HP is more difficult to conjure up than Middle Earth is. Middle Earth resembles more of a fantasy land than the HP world does. Tolkien just created a world that he could have easily invented while day-dreaming. His land includes mountains, rivers, grasslands, and little towns, all with unique names that he could have made up by picking letters out of a hat and then arranging them.

Sure, Tolkien could have been "picking letters out of a hat." But he didn't. I think creating your own languages is a bit more difficult than just rewriting Latin phrases. Not to mention... your own working language.

She includes politics, social classes, problems in society, and elements that occur in reality. She takes modern circumstances and integrates them into a fantasy world.

So does Tolkien. The fact that this poster didn't notice politics in LOTR is probably related to only paying attention to the movie.

Many of the names that she gives to the places and characters are carefully chosen, either using Latin roots or some similarity to the object. The non-realistic factors in HP are also more complex than the ones in LOTR. For every magical creature Tolkien created, Rowling has made ten more.

About names... *ahem*

About magic creatures... IMO, LOTR is not a fantasy story of the same type as HP. Legions of magical creatures were not necessary. Since when is quantity more important than quality?

Also, Rowling's creatures have more to them than grotesqueness. There are several species, each with their own innate characteristics.

Oh, I agree. The Elves are all so grotesque! And how similar they all are! No difference whatsoever between Noldor and Sindar and Nandor and Vanyar and all the others...

Furthermore, you may call Quidditch a silly game, but I don't see anything that creative in LOTR. The HP characters are always learning and discovering new things. What are the LOTR characters uncovering?? That Smeagol is a deceiving villain?? That's about it. The magic in HP blows any fantasy elements in LOTR out of the water. In LOTR, people kill each other with mortal weapons. In HP, people kill each other with spells.

I like Quidditch.

I'm in danger of venturing back into the Silmarillion... more comfortable territory for me... (*ahem* duel at Tol-in-Gaurhoth *ahem*)

Well... why are spells superior to mortal weapons? In LOTR, everyone doesn't have all sorts of crazy magic. In fact, I would venture to say that magic itself doesn't play that much of a part, unless your talking about the subtle forms practiced by the Elves, who wouldn't even consider their arts magic. And the Istari and Sauron... they're MAIAR!

2) The plots of the HP books are more intricate than those of the LOTR books. In LOTR, there is only one objective: Destroy the Ring, therefore defeat Sauron. All Frodo has to do is make an obstacle course to Mount Doom, while the rest of the fellowship is off protecting him and killing ugly creatures.

Someone quit halfway through Fellowship.

That's because there are plot twists (example: Pettigrew is Scabbers and becomes Voldemort's servant), background information (example: the origins of the connection between Voldemort and Harry), and characters who die for reasons (Rowling has said that she killed off Sirius for later reasons; she didn't do it just so she could include some sappy moment a la taking Boromir's body to his father.)

No plot twists in LOTR? That's laughable.

No background information? Ever read the Silmarillion? There's about 7000 years of background information.

No characters who die for reasons?

I'm tired of refuting all the ridiculous arguments of this alasaila quén. Especially to a bunch of Tolkien fans.



btw... Pytt? Do you know where they found that?

[BeardofPants]

One word: Etymologist.

That is all. I agree with what 'Zales said.

[Elemmírë]

found it!

here



The responses have been... harsh...

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Oh so this is the part where we rip it into tiny peices!

First of all, let me say that I couldn't care less which books are classified as adult or children's literature, nor could I care less how many years each series has been around. Another thing I don't give a darn about is how many Oscars your over-exposed movies won, since all Peter Jackson did was hire a special effects crew.

I'm not the films greatest fans but PJ did more than hire a special effect crew. The movies took 2 years to make.

Also, don't use the Rowling-stole-ideas-from-Tolkien excuse because that one is false. So, if you're going to provide a counterargument, please don't use any of those shallow reasons.

And why is that a bad thing? I wouldn't say she stole any, just that she used elements from some charcters and put them into her own.

1) The wizarding world in HP is more difficult to conjure up than Middle Earth is. Middle Earth resembles more of a fantasy land than the HP world does.

That's because ME is an original idea whereas Hogwarts is set in England.

Tolkien just created a world that he could have easily invented while day-dreaming.

Oh yes. I'm sure Tolkien invented up Beleriand, Valinor, Numenor, Gondor, The Shire etc. while he was bored in the WW1 trenches.

His land includes mountains, rivers, grasslands, and little towns, all with unique names that he could have made up by picking letters out of a hat and then arranging them.

And I suppose all the grammer was just picked out of a hat aswell.

Rowling's world, on the other hand, is complex.

Whereas ME is simple?

She includes politics, social classes, problems in society, and elements that occur in reality. She takes modern circumstances and integrates them into a fantasy world.

So does Tolkien. Take a look at the Shire or Gondor for example, you'll see different classes there.

Many of the names that she gives to the places and characters are carefully chosen, either using Latin roots or some similarity to the object.

OK, here you're right. You just forget to explain that Tolkien invented his own languages.

There are several species, each with their own innate characteristics.

Like El said. Take a look at elves. You can look at men, hobbits and dwarves etc aswell, there are different species of them to.

Furthermore, you may call Quidditch a silly game, but I don't see anything that creative in LOTR. The HP characters are always learning and discovering new things. What are the LOTR characters uncovering?? That Smeagol is a deceiving villain??

I very much like Quidditch and I admit that there is nothing like that in Tolkien. But if the Fellowship stopped every week or so for a game of Quidditch, then the story wouldn't really have flowed.

In LOTR, people kill each other with mortal weapons. In HP, people kill each other with spells.

I'd prefer to weild a sword that I knew I could use than be given a wand and have to do a speel that I'd never done before.

2) The plots of the HP books are more intricate than those of the LOTR books. In LOTR, there is only one objective: Destroy the Ring, therefore defeat Sauron.

And save the race of men. Defeat Saruman who will not die when the Ring does. The book doesn't end after the Ring's been destroyed. There's at least another hundred pages after that.

All we really care about in the end is whether the ring was destroyed and if any of the characters died.

And in HP?

In Harry Potter, on the other hand, you have to acquire all the plot points in order to understand the conclusion. That's because there are plot twists (example: Pettigrew is Scabbers and becomes Voldemort's servant), background information (example: the origins of the connection between Voldemort and Harry), and characters who die for reasons (Rowling has said that she killed off Sirius for later reasons; she didn't do it just so she could include some sappy moment a la taking Boromir's body to his father.) When reading LOTR, we know that Sauron would be destroyed by throwing the ring into the fires of Mount Doom.

There are more plot twists and more to get your head round in LotR than there is in HP. Eg. have a look at some of the family trees and see how they're all intrigated(sp.). Look at the Appendices especially at the Tale of the Years and look how much there is there.

However, while reading HP, we have absolutely no clue how Voldemort would be able to be defeated. LOTR has no suspense - It just drones on and on with battles.

We do. We know Harry has to kill him.

3) The characters in Harry Potter are far deeper than the characters in LOTR. Now, don't start talking about the Aragorn-Arwen-Eowyn love triangle (which is extremely stupid, by the way) or Sam's loyalty. Yes, the LOTR characters show great emotions, but that doesn't make them interesting.

The core LotR storyline is about love and freindship and trust. Sam's loyalty is probably the best example of this, and for this reason he is my second favourite character in LotR.

The personalities of the LOTR characters are either black or white. They're either good or bad, comedic or serious, skilled or unskilled.

Gollum and Wormtounge are two people you must have not thought of here. As for black and white charcters may be either good or bad but that doesn't make them black or white. People today are usually good or bad, are you saying that they ar just black and white.

In reality, the behavior of people is not always that simple, especially in the life-or-death situations that the characters face. In HP, we are given the psychology of the characters. They each have complex personalities, they all have different motives, and they are affected by their own personal circumstances.

The charcters in LotR are he most complez I have ever seen.

The readers can identify with characters in HP. We've each known how it feels to be an outcast like Harry, or an academic nerd like Hermione, or some of us have had a troubled past like Snape has, or we've faced discrimination like Lupin does, or people have lost loved ones like some of the characters have.

But they are all wizards. We can't associate with that.

Even though they're fictional, they have qualities of real people. Not that many people can relate to the LOTR characters. War casualties may be of a high number, but the ordinary person has not fought in battle.

That doesn't make them have unhuman characteristics. And the normal person hasn't attended a wizarding school and at the age of 15 had the most experience and success with the Dark Lord.

4) Simply put - HP is more interesting than LOTR. LOTR is just a bunch of battle scenes and cool characters kicking butt.

Someons has only read 'Helms Deep' and ;The Battle of the Pelennor Fields'

That's captivating if you're playing a video game. Like I said earlier, Middle Earth is boring even when Sauron is around. HP is much more complex and deeper than that.

Parts of HP are boring to. At least haldf of it is them in lessons. I'd hardly call that captivating stuff.

The overall themes of HP are more powerful.

What's more powerfull than love, freindship, loyalty, trust etc.

The main theme of LOTR is the battle between good and evil, which has always been obvious.

ON the surface but if you read carefully other things become obvious.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

The themes in HP are such as love is the greatest power and family is not always connected through blood - themes that people often forget when they need them most.

None of the charcters in the Fellowship are immmediatly related to anyone else in the Fellowship but look at the bond of love formed between them.

[Elemmírë]

What? Couldn't fit that with the other post?

Is there anything left to mention?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I was 76 charcters over!

[Radagast The Brown]

Pytt, do you agree with this article?

I agree with azalea... and I think the only way you can say which is better, is in how much you enjoyed reading each.

And I have the idea she was referring to LotR movies many times, not to the books...and as the first person in the other board said - ignore this person.

[Pytt]

hulo guys. sorry I didn't left my own thoughts, beacuse I had to run.
and when you say it, I should have put it a quote.

No I don't agree with this at all. Like Azalea said, it don't seem like the person have got it. she lays forth her own meanings as the one and only truth. and says HP needs innteligence to understand. I think the writer is straight ahead dumb. most of it is. some of the arguments, like simple plots, are so childish I can't find words.

BTW: MY POST NUMBER 300!

[Vadskye]

They didn't seem to have a problem finding words... did you even read their posts? A rebuttal would be nice, otherwise your argument is toast.

[sirigorn]

Wow. That's all I have to say.

I for one like HP better than LotR *hides under table*, but that person is really not-very-intelligent. She obviously doesn't really get LotR. I mean, I may like HP more, but obviously I like LotR, or I wouldn't be here, but I still agree with what all of you are saying. Everything you've said is true. Except I don't think she stole ideas from Tolkien. But really, that person has no idea what she's talking about. She doesn't apprieciate Tolkien like it should be appriciated, she obviously doesn't know anything about how he made LotR.

And I don't have any quotes to say, ya'll said them all already.

[Wayfarer]

Hmmm.

The Lord of the Rings
First Book Published in 1954
Single Book Published in three installments
Total of about 1500 pages.
Set has sold 100,000,000 copies (Or about 300,000,000 copies of the three installments combined.)
Consistently voted Favorite Book of the 20th Century.
An Epic story of the battle between Good and Evil in primordial Middle Earth, and the simple, peace loving people who are caught up in the struggle and upon whom the end ultimately rests.

The Harry Potter Series
First Book Published in 1997
Five Books Published so far, totaling about 3000 pages.
All Books combined have sold 200,000,000 copies (Or about 40,000,000 copies of the complete set)
Won the Nickelodeon 'Kids Choice Award' for 'Favorite Book'
An episodic series of stories about the exploits of an orphaned child from modern-day London who discovers his magical heritage when he is invited to enroll in a school for wizards, where he is forced to contend with the evil wizard that killed his parents.

Hmm. You know, far be it from me to suggest such a thing, but despite any comparisons you might be tempted to draw, the two are barely in the same Genre, let alone the same League. Honestly.

[Manveru]

thank you!! thats what ive been saying for years

[Nurvingiel]

I don't care how long the books are, how many books are in the series (there are 5 Harry Potter books now Wayfarer), how long they have been out, etc. etc.

One can compare Harry Potter and LOTR, but the author of the original posts demonstrates in several places that he/she doesn't understand anything about LOTR, including magic, the plot, the characters, and the themes.

You can't compare LOTR and HP when you know squat about LOTR. But even putting that aside, arguments 1 - 3 don't work out. Argument 4 is simply that he/she likes Harry Potter more. That doesn't make it a superior literary work (which is very hard to judge objectively anyway).

[Minielin]

HP and LOTR are incomparable. That's all there is to it. They are far too different on far too many levels to try and determine superiority (as per the Genre thing Wayfarer mentioned). Personally, I don't see why people like this can't just enjoy both for their own respective merits.

Additionally, there is no way this person can have read or possibly even heard of The Silmarillion... or else he/she is just unbelievably delusional...

[inked]

Actually, useful comparisons can be drawn productively! See LOOKING FOR GOD IN HARRY POTTER by John Granger, or his THE HIDDEN KEY TO HARRY POTTER (if you are lucky enough to get a copy). For a blurb to the concept check out www.hogwartsprofessor.com and site articles. Also, I have read the "Harry is a Hobbit" essay recommended on the site, and it notes the parallels quite well.

That said, I do not think our original thread starter's cited article's author has these depths of perception in mind, nor the depth of the texts of either, IMHO.