CreateDebate


Debate Info

46
53
Harry Potter LOTR
Debate Score:99
Arguments:33
Total Votes:117
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Harry Potter (16)
 
 LOTR (17)

Debate Creator

JakeJ(3254) pic



Harry Potter VS Lord Of The Rings [books not movies!]

Harry Potter

Side Score: 46
VS.

LOTR

Side Score: 53
6 points

A lot of people seem to think harry potter is a kid thing. That's probably because of those PG movies. The books are not so PG. This is why I put [books not movies] in the title.

J.K. Rowling puts so much meaning in the messages of the books. And it's probably the most intertaining thing I have ever read.

Side: Harry Potter
5 points

JK Rowling was having trouble selling short stories and then all of a sudden BOOM she makes a book about wizards and a school for them and she explodes.

Books were excellent longest I took on reading any of them was 2 days, but I must say I think the quality in the books themselves dropped after book number 4. I hate to say it but I think she was just trying to get the job done and be finished with HP.

I read the first LOTR's book and that was it I couldn't get into them like I got into HP, but thats just me. (LOTR movies were freaking awsome )

Side: Harry Potter
2 points

I disagree about her writing; I think Rowling started writing more visually after the movies came out, which, in my opinion, actually improved her writing.

Side: LOTR
DaWolfman(3322) Disputed
2 points

I must say it started to decline after book 4, not to say my enjoyment of the tales declined but I feel she changed up her writing. But not in a good way, all I can say is after the 5th book I just read to be finished with them. The only reason I choose HP is that I couldnt even get into LOTR, and if I see a movie before I read a book I can't read the book. =\

I loved the movies but I could never finish the first book.

I'm more of a Patterson, King, Grisham kinda guy.

Side: Harry Potter
4 points

lotr drags big time and what is the story..................... I forgot it has never happened before but when you read harry potter you actually can feel it happening around you. it's so damn cool.

Side: Harry Potter
ya_boy_clack(14) Disputed
1 point

I am sorry but even though they are both influential books written by fantastic authors your argument can be argued from both sides. Harry Potter is cool and personally I loved it but its not fair to say that something like LOTR isn't as cool or flowing is quite unfair. The lore of LOTR is so much better and it actually has more explanations for the universe that it is based in whereas the Harry Potter universe just hasn't been able to do so.

-YaBoyClack

Side: LOTR
3 points

harry potter is the world famous series of magic books based on an orphan and his life in the magic school hogwarts. In the beginning potter is featured as a young and energetic lad who has lost his parents in his infant-age. As the story progresses, the author highlights the importance of love friend ship compassion unision and the role of teachers in the life of an uprising teacher.In this fact harry potter outsmarts lord of the rings.

Side: Harry Potter
Banshee(288) Disputed
3 points

How does a straightforward coming-of-age tale -- a very common plot device -- "outsmart" the intricacy of LOTR?

The HP stories are tremendously entertaining and the fantasy world is very clever, but it has nowhere near the complexity of LOTR. Frodo and Bilbo similarly progress through realizations about "love, friendship, compassion, and the role of teachers," but also develop as they question and affirm their own values, confront multiple questions concerning the nature of power and the relationship between intelligent beings and the natural world, engage in an epic battle of good versus evil, contend with foreign cultures, and discover the continuities between the past and future destinies of Middle Earth . . . Potter's got an "epic" battle, but as a character he -- and the other characters of Potterworld -- never really change. Harry Potter is always "the Chosen One" and he always comes out on top; Hermione is always the bookish witchy revival of Molly Ringwald's character in "Pretty in Pink"; Ron is always the nobleminded-yet-humble comic relief; Draco and the Slytherins are always the bad guys; Hagrid is always an oaf; Voldemort's been rotten since his early childhood . . . and so forth. They're fun characters, but they never really develop or change in very meaningful ways. There is never a very real possibility that the heroes may succumb to temptation, give up, or fail. They just get a bit older and more interested in kissing.

Likewise, while Rowling's writing is very engaging, it doesn't compare in literary complexity or imaginative originiality to Tolkien's. Rowling may have had far more commercial success in writing about teen wizards than any other fantasy author to date, but as a concept it's derivative -- it's been done before, and lots. Tolkien, on the other hand, originated many of the character types that have since become stock components of modern fantasy fiction -- rangers, halflings, staff-bearing wizards, walking talking trees, tall beautiful elves who write in runes -- as well as weaving together diverse traditions of mythology and lore into an integrated whole. He was an accomplished scholar and theological philosopher as well as a gifted fantasy writer. Rowling tells a good morality tale, but I just don't think the HP books compare to LOTR in literary value.

Side: LOTR
3 points

harry potter is so much better. i haven't even read lord of the rings and i don't want to. it doesn't even seem interesting but that my own opinion. when i start reading a harry potter book i cant put it down to the end. u never know whats gonna happen in the end. she always throws a twist or something. Harry Potter all the way!

Side: Harry Potter
greylight(4) Disputed
3 points

To compare two things you have to know both of them.

I have two numbers. One of them is 8. I have no idea what the other number is. Could be 1 could be 10000 but since I don't know, 8 must be greater.

Sounds stupid and illogical? So does your argument.

Side: LOTR
2 points

HAHA

sorry, this mainly just made me chuckle

But yes, i generally think that both books are awesome in their own right, of course. BUT, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that lord of the rings is written in a MUCH more complex, detailed and professional style than Harry Potter. I mean come on, the target audience for harry potter is young people - kids even. Of course its going to be on a slightly lower level because they need to understand it. The reason most children aren't into lord of the rings is because they literally don't understand the content of the book - they can't engage with it - in other words, it's BETTER and written on a higher intellectual level. Thereeee we go. I rest my case.

Side: LOTR
lexican98(1) Disputed
1 point

I read lord of the rings when I was about 12 (I was a keen reader) and it is the best piece of literature ever written in my eyes,harry potter is taken at face value,its a story,lord of the rings and the books surrounding it are a full history,and Tolkien created a whole new Fricking language that,if you wanted to could learn to speak and lord of the rings all the way,oh and vbloxham,just,just shut up

Side: LOTR
3 points

Harry Potter, through and through. It is so creative, magical and a great read for kids and young adults. Harry Potter should win, no hands down!!!!!!!! (GO HARRY!)

Side: Harry Potter
3 points

harry potter is the best whatever anyone says.......

Side: Harry Potter
3 points

and my mistake, you don't forget the story of harry potter any series any time so harry potter ever.........

Side: Harry Potter
3 points

I love Harry Potter. The story is very well-written, the characters are amazing, the whole world of HP is intriguing and inviting, and I've never gotten so "into" a series before. The characters all have of such wonderful personalities, ranging quirky and lovable, to the antagonists who are very much loathsome. I've never really "cared" and loved characters as much as I do for the HP characters. LOTD failed on the first several occasions to keep me interested past the first page, only managing to keep me interested on probably the tenth attempt. I've never seen such a broad interest in a single book series before. I've had conversations about Harry Potter with middle-aged men and women, teens of both genders, and children, all of whom share the same love for the series as me. I concur that the writing of both books spark interest and fascination in its readers. They're both so very descriptive. Tolkien's is very detailed, but at times can be somewhat point-blank, while I think Rowling has a slight edge with her simplicity and imagery. Tolkien, at points, failed to engage my attention. At times I would read a paragraph, but comprehend nothing, even if I understood the meaning of every word, while Rowling's tends to engage my interest more so simply with her writing, even if not much was happening in the series at that point. I just love characters so much. Voldemort, Bellatrix, and Umbridge are so "bad" I almost love them for how evil they are. Rowling's world of magic is incomparable. (Thestrals surpass "horses" any day.) The writing itself is simple, engaging, and funny. I love the way Rowling describes things. The mass appeal of Harry Potter outshines that of LOTR. Rowling created her own world. She invented so many creatures and magical items, whereas Tolkien seemed to use more traditional elements of mythology. It just shows how much effort Rowling has contributed to her work. I don't care if I'm stupid or if my IQ is simply too low to comprehend LOTR. The fact of the matter is is that I love Harry Potter more than LOTR, and there really shouldn't be much consideration beyond that.

Side: Harry Potter
Eowyn(1) Disputed
0 points

Hahahaha...no. I love harry potter but....no, just no.

"Voldemort, Bellatrix and umbridge are so "bad" I almost love them for how evil they are"

Yeah, well let me tell you, Voldemort and all his deatheaters combined are about as frightening as a litter of bunnies compared to Sauron alone, whose jewellary alone spelled doom and destruction for an entire continent.

"Rowling's world of magic is incomparable"

Are you serious? Tolkien invented entire histories covering thousands of years. He created unique, detailed cultures (at LEAST ten) of elves, dwarves, men, orcs and ents. He invented several detailed languages, quenya, sindarin, adunaic, dwarvish, the black speech of mordor, etc. How many did rowling create? None.

"She invented so many creatures and magical items"

Rowling created threstrals, houselves, pygmy puffs and arguably dementors. the rest were just modern spins on existing mythology. She did not invent phoenixes, just altered them. Same for sphinxes, dragons, unicorns, etc. Tolien, on the other hand, completely invented the characteristics, culture, history and appearance of elves; balrogs, orcs,nazgul,ents and many other creatures. Also, two of her most iconic magical items use ideas FROM LOTR. Horcuxes=One Ring. Pensieve=Mirror of Galdriel.

"it just shows how much effort rowling has contributed to her work"

Sure, she put a lot of effort, but tolkien put more. Tolkien invented MANY cultures, languages and histories, where as rowling just invented one wizard culture.

Side: LOTR
3 points

Harry potter is clearly better. For instance Dumbledore planned his own death 18 or so years before it happened. He gave harry so little clues that only he and his two mates would understand, with some thought that is. My point? Harry Potter is a good, complex read and lord of the rings is about a little person carrying a ring to a far away place (lol) with a wizard (Gandalf) who isn't very impressive at all.

Potter has also sold many millions more than lotr in such a little amount of time. How many decades has lord of the rings books existed? How long has potter books existed. No competition when you think about it.

Potter rules hands down!

Side: Harry Potter
3 points

This is a really hard one. One one side you have a book created to show us an incredible word with so much detail and on the other you have a story about people. In the end I would go for Harry Potter because it has much more real characters (I'm taking about moral complexity). All the characters in LOTR (except for Gollum/Smeagol) are just good or just evil. Meanwhile in Harry Potter only Volemort is one dimensional. So in the end Harry Potter is better.

Side: Harry Potter
2 points

The Lord of the Rings provides detailed narratives that over-lap and create a sense of realism. The fellowship characters and their adversaries are believable. The on-going support for the texts are an indication of how greatly precious they are to readers around the globe. I wonder how well the Harry Potter series will fare in generations to come, I suspect the glow around these book swill fade.

Side: LOTR
1 point

HP is so much more exciting. there is no way LOTR can compete

Side: Harry Potter
1 point

While I enjoyed the Hobbit, I had a difficult time getting through LoTR simply due to all of the detail in the book. I didn't need 3 pages on the leaves on trees. I enjoyed the world Tolkien created a great deal but between Harry Potter and LoTR I would choose Harry Potter as the better books. I loved her deep messages and comedic timing, I enjoyed the character creation greatly and loved all seven of the books.

Side: Harry Potter

I think that Lord of the Rings is a much more intriguing book, and J.R.R. Tolkien is a much better author than J.K. Rowling. That's not to say, however, that I didn't immensely enjoy reading Harry Potter. I simply feel the Tolkien is a much more skilled author, and that his fantasy world is much more creative and ingenious than Rowling's.

Side: LOTR

"Harry Potter" is so shallow. It's a ton of fun to read, and as the books progress, the plot gets very intricate and lovely, but LOTR is just so... perfect.

Side: LOTR
5 points

er,

this isn't really a competition. Lord of the Rings is probably the greatest fantasy series in the english language ever written. The Hobbit may be on of the most popular single fantasy books in history.

Rowling's Harry Potter is a pop phenomenon. Sure it's entertaining, but Tolkein was ten times the writer. Rowling is probably average as far as published writers go, he just stumbled upon a goldmine.

Side: LOTR
6 points

You do mean "she" right? Rowling is a woman.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Side: Harry Potter
3 points

lol, yeah, I knew that.

I actually like Harry Potter though. I mean, I'm not saying she isn't very talented.

But to me, I would compare it to say the difference between Mozart, and Black Eyed Peas. Both very talented, one is strictly entertainment, the other I would consider more on the "art" side though.

Side: LOTR
4 points

Tolkien created a whole world with its own history and tales and languages and to top it all he also had a wonderfull story through which to tell us about that world. Middle Earth draws you in. You would know that world just as you know your neighbourhood. You can visualise the places you have read about as if you had been there recently. Harry Potter was good too but I think LOTR is way better.

Side: LOTR
2 points

passion is every thing. Despite of reading all the famous and intriguing harry books i didn't find them as interesting as lotr books which are probably mastered to perfection. despite of all my efforts to see originality in harry potter books i personally found that they were inspired by the lotr you can easily see the similarities of Dumbledore and Gandalf and the other part is harry potter and deathly hallows is closely linked with the lotr books. Besides harry potter presents a self centered story of harry while lotr books provide the equal opportunities for all of the characters in the books. So no characters have gone to waste.Love you Tolkein

Side: LOTR
1 point

Tolkein accutually came up with original ideas whereas Rolings just borrowed from other authors

Side: LOTR
Tsunami(3) Disputed
1 point

Uh no... she totally came up with her own ideas+tolkien used creatures from other books

Side: Harry Potter

So? most authors like Rick Riodan, Derek Landy and many others have based so many of there ideas from other books or mythology's so there you go. Is it a bad thing to base your own ideas from other ideas and he didn't just get those ideas from others but he changed them drastically.

-YaBoyClack

Side: LOTR