Harry Potter VS Lord of the Rings
My Precious, you shall not pass - expelliarmos!
Harry Potter
Side Score: 18
|
 |
Lord of the Rings
Side Score: 28
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
Okay, let's be honest. I'm not even going to talk about sales or success. Harry Potter is one of the best series I've ever read, and they're beautifully written. No author has brought together so many people with such a clear and concise story line that makes you want to keep reading it. 363 days ago | Side: Harry Potter
1
point
The stories she put into her books are trite and overused, and very little of it is original. Look at book 4, for example; it's just WWII from the British perspective. Also, I'm not so sure about "beautifully written" as much as "written at an elementary reading level." She also botched a number of characters (i.e. Harry every time he gets angsty) which means her story is permeated with stereotypes instead of real, in-depth characters. Lastly, her "hocus pocus" approach to magic is childish and shameful. 362 days ago | Side: Lord of the Rings
"The 'hocus pocus' approach to magic is childish" The way she finds the spells is actually quite creative. The spells are in Latin and mean things like 'shoot' or blast'. I think expelliarmos means to expel (get rid of) arms (weapons). Childish? I think not. 362 days ago | Side: Harry Potter
Harry Potter is a modern classic that is easy to relate with. Whereas I am not even sure I would want to relate with some of the things in Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter is a family-based story whereas Lord of the Rings is not. I wouldn't say it was a family thing based on the fact that I wouldn't think slaughtering elves and suicidal bearded men is appropriate. 362 days ago | Side: Harry Potter
1
point
|
3
points
Harry Potter is written terribly, with little to no thought behind the actual situation. For example, at Hogwarts, students only study magic related subjects. There is no maths, English, or science, so they have a huge hole in their education, they should all be dipshits. LOTR on the other hand, I don't think any author has ever spent so much time and effort constructing an entire world with its own mythos, peoples, cultures and even literature. Tolkien invented four new languages for his books, and compiled notes after notes for several decades, building up the background story. The story is incredibly moving, when Sam fends off Shelob it was the closest I've come to crying over a book. The entire world is rendered in minute detail and the struggles of the characters resonate with every struggle in real life. The only dodgy thing is, well, giant eagles. In short, Rowling is a mediocre children's writer, Tolkien was a true literary genius, (even though he converted CS Lewis to Catholicism, inspiring him to write the Chronicles of Narnia, a poorly constructed allegory for Jesus). 362 days ago | Side: Lord of the Rings
I enjoyed the first Harry Potter book but not enough to read the second. I've seen a couple of the movies. From what I've seen they are not even in the same class. Harry Potter is pop culture, and sure, enjoyable to a degree. Lord of the Rings is a classic though. The writing is superior and the story is superior. 364 days ago | Side: Lord of the Rings
1
point
Harry Potter was extremely successful, but I doubt it'll become a classic, per se. It's a series made for children, and is accordingly simple and trite. How many current classics can you name that were, at the time, books for children? 362 days ago | Side: Lord of the Rings
I enjoyed the lord of the rings movies. They were amazing! The only Harry potter movie I watched were the half blood prince and deathly hallows part 1 and 2. They were great but lord of the rings is better. In fact not too long ago I re watched it because I havent sen it in awhile and I ow all three of the movies 364 days ago | Side: Lord of the Rings
1
point
I think, it is obvious that Lord of the Rings much more better than Harry Potter. First of all, LotR was written around 60 years ago and it is still interesting to people while HP would be forgotten after some years. Second, someone said that Rowling used Latin languge for spells. However, Tolkien created some new languges just because of hobby. I'm not sure in "beautifulness" of language because I had read both book on russian language, but in translated version LotR was written better than HP. 360 days ago | Side: Lord of the Rings
I agree The Lord Of The Rings can get boring in parts but I have always said if you perservere you will be rewarded, the first couple of times I tried to read Lord Of The Rings I could'nt finish it but on the Third attempt I managed to read the whole thing and it is brilliant, if anyone has'nt read the book I would suggest starting with the Hobbit, whilst not strictly part of LOTR it does help set the scene (recurring characters, the ring etc) and I think makes Lord Of The Rings easier to read 348 days ago | Side: Lord of the Rings
|
