What do you prefer, Lord of the Rings or Harry potter?

Question

Do you like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter better?
Just curious...

Answer 1

From a Classic Literature point of view, Lord of the Rings is by Far the better. You really can't compare them. Harry Potter was written to be a young person's tale, set in 'modern', normal England. It's characters have much less depth to them than Tolkien's literary masterpiece, for that is what Lord of the Rings is. This trilogy has been around for much longer and has a much larger audience.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the Harry Potter series, and look forward to the next movie when it comes out, but it doesn't have the scale of storytelling or the grandeur of a completely different world as Lord does.

I also admit to being in my 5th decade, and that might have something to do with my preference.

Answer 2

Lord of the rings its a classic, but harry potter sits pretty at number 2 right next to it. I will always choose a classic. Tolkein developed a story so incatrit that a million books could be written on middle earth and its characters. Harry potter well it only follows harry.

Answer 3

Harry Potter

Answer 4

Harry Potter.

Answer 5

I"ve read Lord of the Rings and all the Harry Potters. I'd have to go with Harry Potter myself - I know the Lord of the Rings is considered a classic - but ever tried reading it!? It's incredibly boring, it drags on and on and on, and totally over describes everything. And I know heaps of adults who read Harry Potter, I'm bout 20 now, and I started reading them when I was 11, but I got older in between each book, and felt like the book grew with me, prob cos Harry was 11 in the first one. But I still like to go back occasionally and read them for some easy, fun reading.



As for the movies, I guess the Lord of the Rings does a better job, true it cuts out a lot, but I think that's necessary, its still rather entertaining. Whereas the Harry Potter movies are no where near as good as the books, they cut all the "personality" out of it.



Theres my take on things, to each their own though, yeah?

Answer 6

The Lord of the Rings books are considered literature. The Harry Potter series was written for children.

Answer 7

Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter was ruined by those boring comedians and their fruity acting.

Answer 8

I appreciate both differently, but equally. Tolkien was a scholar who allowed himself to be carried away in his critique of the Industrial Age. Rowling is a reasonably well-educated woman who knew in the beginning how to tell a story -- and never forgot. Stephen King just said the difference between her and Stephanie Meyers is "Jo Rowling can write."



Before Tolkien there were Gilbert and Sullivan and Wagner. Of course there were David Lindsay, Arthur Machen, E. R. Eddison and A. Merritt but most people didn't know about them. They knew about the Lord High Executioner singing about his little list in G & S, and those three formidable ladies wearing horned helmets singing "Heia ta heia heiea ta heia" in Wagner. It took Tolkien to snap our attention from that.



Rowling has plenty of precedents. Reading the Deathly Hallows reminded me a lot of Henry Kuttner, especially that scene with Dumbledore in King's Cross. And Kuttner was considered the consummate professional fantasy writer when he died in 1957. Alan Garner and Susan Cooper wrote childrens' books with fantasy which are arguably "better" on a technical level than Rowling -- but they are both setting them in the country whereas Rowling has taken all the old legends of Witches except the Magic School in Salamanca (which might just be the Wizarding school in Germany's prototype) and citified them.



Comparing LoTR and Harry Potter is like comparing LoTR and Alan Garner's Weirdstone of Brisingamen and its sequel the Moon of Golmrath. It's like comparing Harry Potter and Eoin Colfer's Artemus Fowl books -- about the enterprising young man who decides to steal from the Fairies. It's all POINTLESS. I don't prefer either LoTR or Harry Potter, I prefer them both.

Answer 9

Harry Potter is much easier to read, and I think J.K. Rowling has come up with some great characters.



If I want to get into a deeper, more difficult to read book I read LOTR. Tolkien has developed such a rich culture and story that I don't think any author can come close.

Answer 10

harry potter. although lord of the rings is considered by literary critics to be 'literature', i personally didn't find it nearly as accessible or engaging as the harry potter series, and i also didn't warm to any of the characters in lord of the rings as i did in harry potter.

Answer 11

Lord of the Rings. Gollem just blows Harry Potter out of the water. ;-)

Answer 12

harry potter, hands down

Answer 13

i'd read harry potter then go read something better than both like the call of cthulhu

Answer 14

Harry Potter.



Lord of the Rings is UTTERLY tedious. I can't read the book past the first page. I couldn't listen to it on the radio without falling asleep. Finally I tried watching the film and was totally bored after about 10 minutes.



It's dull, prolonged and a complete waste of time. "Uh? There's the ring. Run!" That's about all there is to it.

Answer 15

I've never seen either so I pick Ghostbusters which I've seen a million times!

Answer 16

harry potter is more hotter (rhymeing)