Its unfair!!

[AbacusTafai]

Let see... I hate people who think that Harry Potter is much better than Lord of the Rings. Rowlings story is watery, poorly concieved, and downright corny. (yes, I have read it unfortunatly) Compared to Tolkiens work, its worse than childs play. How some people can even begin to compare the two is beyond me...

I just needed to get that off my chest

[Ñólendil]

It's probably unhealthy to hate people based on their tastes .... Anyway I wouldn't say Harry Potter was better than the Lord of the Rings, but I can understand that opinion. I myself love the Harry Potter books, I feel they're one of the few 'fantasy' works that come close to the quality J. R. R. Tolkien achieved. I quote 'fantasy' because J. K. Rowling does not feel Harry Potter belongs to that genre -- understandably, as modern fantasy is quite different from the magical world of Harry Potter. I think the series is closer to what Fantasy ought to be, and what it might have become had that certain 'something' used by Tolkien survived and gone on its way down the years.

Other authors in this category I think include Stephen Lawhead and Tad Williams.

[AbacusTafai]

May contain spoilers for those who have not completed the Lord of the Rings







Hmm, yes, I was wrong to say hate... but I still don't see how they compare. In LotR, I went crazy when Gandalf died, and became depressed when Frodo 'died' (I gave up for the night because I was too depressed). I was sad when even Boromir died. I connected with these characters on a cellular level (if that is the correct phrase to use), but in Harry Potter, they just pissed me off. I thought that the characters were poorly developed and generic (Dopey sidekick with financial troubles, and goody too shoes sidekick that always studies dispite her background, and the main character that everyone loves except for a few that turn out to be the villain most often.)

[Ben]

I love both series.

Abacus, have you read the entire series? As it progresses, the plots get darker and more complicated, and the characters acquire much more depth. Book 4 is incredible.

Book 1 and even Book 2 are kind of like the Hobbit - the fluffy intro to the series. But each book represents a new year, so Harry continues to grow and mature with each new tale.

[hama]

I've never read any of the Harry Potter books. I always assumed they were more "childrens books". Are they worth a read?

[Ñólendil]

Definitely! They're wonderful books!

J. K. Rowling was actually surprised when her publishers told her Harry Potter would be marketed for very young people. She didn't write it for children, like Tolkien, she pretty much wrote it for herself. As such, people of all ages can enjoy them.

I myself was reluctant to read them, for it didn't seem to me that I would like any sort of 'mainstream story' on Rosie O'Donnell's book list. But my dad started reading them and told me how great they were, so I started on them. I've read the four now that have been published, I consider them real treasures.

I think each book was better than the last too. I definitely like the fourth one (Goblet of Fire) the best.

[IronParrot]

Oh no. Not one of these discussions.

Over at the Star Wars board I moderate, there's discussions like these all the time. LOTR and Star Wars. Hmm, let's compare one of the two great mythologies of the twentieth century with the film adaptation of the other, because they open within six months of each other. Hmm.

Anyway. I'm usually wary of treading into a "versus" debate because many people on one side are often so ignorant of the other, but here I go:

First of all, I like LOTR more than Potter.

But, that's because I think LOTR is the greatest novel of all time and am totally prepared to defend that statement.

However, the as-yet-unfinished seven-volume Harry Potter saga is turning out to be possibly my second or third favourite piece/cycle of fantasy literature ever, and I am also totally prepared to defend that statement.

Next, I simply don't believe in comparing stories in terms of "quality". I believe in comparing stories in terms of how they handle certain common facets or themes, which of course leads to "quality". So bear with me here.

First, the matter of originality. Always a major factor in analysing the greatness of a work. LOTR shows influences in mythology: Norse, Greek, Arthurian, et cetera. And, expanding upon the warm-up effort of The Hobbit, it pulls off such a complete overhaul of every concept there is that dictionaries should update their definitions of the words "dwarf" and "elf" just to account for the fact that their modern perceptions can be traced back to LOTR, if such a thing hasn't happened already. The narrative style, especially the literal "parallelism" in Books III, IV and V, remains inimitable to this day.

Rowling, however. First of all, we shouldn't really judge the Harry Potter saga until it has been completed. Secondly, we haven't even given it some time to sink in, and see how well it stands up to the test of time. My guess: very well.

Rowling's influences: the traditional and glorified idea of witchcraft in wizardry, previously exemplified by L. Frank Baum; just as Tolkien was influenced by elements of classical and medieval mythologies. A writing style of a levity that can be traced back to Lewis Carroll. And how about the originality? Well, take this into account:

Harry Potter is the first unified mythical saga of its kind. I hesitate to use the term "for children" - it is no more "for children" than The Hobbit... in other words, the "children's literature" label is really a term of accessibility.

Let's look at previous fantasy sagas clearly accessible to children. Lewis' Narnia? It's hardly a continuous cycle; some portions are very disjunct, and beginnings don't match up exactly to endings. It's definitely a "series", not a "saga". Baum's Oz? Oz was serialized until his death, and as a result of that open-endedness it continued to be serialized by other authors of lesser talent. Cooper's The Dark Is Rising? It's a highly neo-Arthurian work, and of a tone different enough from Potter that they are not entirely comparable... also because of its much higher degree of "Earthliness".

Now, with Potter, we have an unfolding saga that keeps on thickening, darkening. For the first time, a modern literary mythology accessible to children. (I say "literary" because otherwise, Star Wars would undoubtedly count.) Sure, Rowling draws on many past influences, many of which can be considered "stereotypical". But so did Tolkien! So do all fantasy authors who wish to make their works accessible! It's a matter of balance, a matter of how much to use and how much to create. And all written with a sharp tongue.

Speaking of writing styles: Of course you can't compare Tolkien to Rowling. You might as well try comparing Arthur C. Clarke to Douglas Adams!

I have more to say but I'll save it for a later post. Remind me to come back here and finish this up.

[Finmandos12]

I agree totally with you, Abacus.

Inoldonil, how can you say Harry Potter isn't a children's book? It is about a middle school, even if it is a magic school! All it is a watered down pseudo-fantasy book. It steals most of the creatures from classical mythology. It has bathroom humor! How can you call this a great work of fantasy?

[Ñólendil]

Great post Iron-Parrot!

Finmandos, psuedo-fantasy books. I imagine people who have 'read Harry Potter' and disliked it have only read the first book. For who would read more of a series they dislike? Philosopher's Stone is not a children's book, less so than the Hobbit, because it was not intended specifically for children. What are 'children's books' anyway? Just what we see fit to feed them, I think. We've ruined classic fairy-stories that would frighten children in order to market it especially to them, for some reason I do not quite understand. We've taken a heap of classics and locked them in the nursery, to be forgotton by those who would really enjoy them in their original form.

But, as has been said here, Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Askaban and Goblet of Fire are all more 'adult' (if you like that term) than the Philosopher's Stone. You have to be of a certain age to read or to be read the first book even, and older people enjoy them.

I would personally hesitate giving Book 4 to a child under the age of 10 (or therabouts), but it can readily be sold to anyone of any age upwards. Some ten year olds would have trouble reading it themselves, maybe. It's not a children's book, it's not a children's series, they're novels for anyone who like novels.

[ragnor]

to me there is room for all. some of my friends rave on Salvatore or Brooks. i've read them all and find that each in their own way are significant. LOTR is tops for me but i enjoy the rest as well without comparing them to each other they are fun in their own right.

[fatclown]

It is quite unfortunate that people can spend their energies quarreling on such topics. The legacy of Tolkein will never be threatened. Obviously The Harry Potter series is more appealing to a younger audience demanding contemportary reads filled with easy to understand action and magic. But Tolkein's books will always live on. They set the basis for all things fantasty. Dnd, warcraft, pern, dragons, great novels of elves and dwarves all were inspired off tolkeins works. He is the grandfather of all fantasy and will never be overtaken. I even read a book that starwars was influenced by LOTR. He has sold copies all over the world (even has a huge community of fans in russia). Also is the debate of which of the two movies will get more veiwers. I dont think this is a huge issue. Not only is the movie NOT HIS ENTIRE EPIC but if you enjoy the movie great, this isn't a poplularity contest. Besides lotr has sold and estimated 5 billion copies worldwide :P.
May all the people proclaim: HAIL TOLKEIN HAIL TOLKEIN!

[IronParrot]

[Harry Potter] steals most of the creatures from classical mythology. It has bathroom humor! How can you call this a great work of fantasy?

1.) Yes, Rowling "stole" witches and wizards and unicorns and dungeon trolls and the rest. Just like Tolkien "stole" dragons and elves and dwarves.

2.) See Shrek. I find it to be a good example of a case where alleged "bathroom humour" does not at all detract from a story's surrealist magic.

3.) I personally think Harry Potter is going to last, and that Rowling will become recognized as a very significant personality in the development of "children's" literature. It may seem like a fad, but that's only because it's been brutally overcommercialized to the point where people begin to reject the artistry of the series solely based on the veil of materialism that surrounds it.

Of course, my ultimate judgment on Harry Potter will stand on how it all ends in Book Seven. I find that the most memorable fantasies are cases where it's not so black-and-white as "Meet good, meet evil, see how good defeats evil." LOTR and Star Wars come to mind immediately... I speculate, note, speculate that Harry Potter is going to ultimately become a redemption story. Seeing how J.K. Rowling is taking the saga so far, I severely doubt it's going to be as clear-cut as Harry overwhelming Voldy in a wizard duel.

Really, that's what's going to make or break the saga.

So save your judgment until it's over.

The commercialism and hype around it won't last. The actual story will. I expect the same to happen with Star Wars, actually... the films will last, and the surrounding commercialism that disguises the story's artistry will perish.

Anyway, I think I'm beginning to get off-topic.

[IronParrot]

I'm going to respond to fatclown:

First of all, you're right in that "the legacy of Tolkien will never be threatened." Absolutely right. I think he's a far more influential author than Shakespeare ever was or will be.

I would not go so far as to assume that Harry Potter is only for younger audiences. That's like saying The Hobbit is only for younger audiences. And if you look closely, in terms of tone, The Hobbit is actually not too far off from Harry Potter...

About Star Wars being influenced by LOTR - thematically, yes. One of the reasons why I think Star Wars is the second greatest mytho-fantasy of all time, maybe even tied for first, is because of how it presents all the themes that worked so well in LOTR; and also because of how in terms of environment, it's completely original. Meanwhile, other authors keep trying to imitate LOTR's environment without capturing its themes, and in that respect I feel that they ultimately fail to become legendary.

And I agree that what's really sad is how some people have some sick desire to create ignorant competitive animosity between SW and LOTR, just as some people do with LOTR and Potter.

[ringbearer]

Could it be that all of us "lovers of Tolkien" are just a bit biased!
I have not read "Harry" yet...but I find myself offended, when another author comes along that gets any kind of 'notariety" in the fantasy genre. It is one of my "human" flaws.

[IronParrot]

Could it be that all of us "lovers of Tolkien" are just a bit biased!

Hell yeah.

But fans of all the other series are equally biased, so we're all even in the end. A reasonable degree of objectivity is attainable through thorough experience with all parties involved.

[ArwenEvenstar]

i've read both seris and i like them both, but if I had to choose i'd probally pick LOTR because it's the best!

Potter's ok, but it's kinda of dumb................. (if someone asks me i'll tell why)

[Comic Book Guy]

Why?

[Agburanar]

there's no real comparison. Book 4 of HP is great but I still prefer Tolkien or I'd have signed up to an HP site.

[arynetrek]

first off, i have not yet read any of the Harry Potter series, so i'm writing strictly as a Tolkien fan.

Tolkien's writing triggers a lot of powerful emotions for me (and because of it's popularity, i'd assume for a vast majority of readers), and one criterion of mine for any good author is how they call up & use the emotions of their readers.

calling a series "lesser" for its use of common stereotypes (wizards, etc.) makes no sense at all. first, all writers to some extent use stereotypes. look at tolkien's use of "black" for evil and "white" for restoration & rebirth, for an obvious example. and really the only difference between a stereotypical symbol & an archetypal symbol is the audience's acceptance.

aryne *

[FrodoFriend]

the Harry Potter is a really great series, i love them and i can't wait for the next book to come out....

BUT,
it is nowhere near as good as LotR.

Harry Potter is a good children's book, it's original and funny, but it's not a "great" book, it has a number of annoying plotholes, and it just doesn't have the depth of LotR. there's no comparing the two, LotR is just better every way.