I don't see how the language and universe Tolkien created is more sophisticated than the language and society created by Rowling in the Harry Potters. They just appeal to a different audience.
2006-09-18 19:37:19 · 22 answers · asked by acage123 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
I would have to say that the universe of the Lord of the Rings is deeper than that of Harry Potter. There is more mythology and history than you would find in Harry Potter. Tolkien also created his own languages that appear in his books, something that you will not find in Harry Potter. While I would argue that Harry Potter is much more accessible (and dare I say it?) less boring, than the Lord of the Rings. The LotR must rival Harry Potter in greatness simply due to the face that the universe is so complex.
2006-09-19 08:14:39 · answer #1 · answered by abbaloveu06 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have read both. I like both Harry Potter and Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Which is more a sophisticated, literate writing - Tolkien's works are. I love Harry Potter - but JK Rowlings books are just not on the same level as Tolkien's works. It is really unjust to compare the two different literary works.
2006-09-19 02:54:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think both are equally great.... The reason Tolkien's L.O.T.R. series is so well received, is because he has captured the essence of life. His character development is very well done. Each character is unique, and has a personal burden they have to deal with at some point in the movie, (or continuously). Not to forget he does so well at painting an understanding of war.
The part just after Bilbo uses the ring to disappear, (while Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pipin, are at the bar). There is a hobbit that talks about minding your own business, and no bad will come your way. Well That is just a delusional thought on his behalf, because bad WAS already coming their way. Had it not been for the courage of those who knew what had to be done, (if not at least had their loyalties), there would have been pain, turmoil for everyone. And the world they had so greatly enjoyed would have been just a memory. It is not just that he created a whole new world, with different languages... It was everything about the stories he did, and you can tell, (through read/watching his works), that he saw combat action.
CyberNara
P.S. fyi. Tolkien, and Lewis were friends...
2006-09-19 03:37:50 · answer #3 · answered by Joe K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is appealing to the average audenince because in many ways it's also the same reason why "Star Wars" was a blockbuster franchise. Everyone could identify with the characters and how they overcome adversity.
Throughout both trilogies the odds of winning aren't in their favor but somehow win in the end. It's books and movies such as "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" which help inspire the Harry Potter titles become an interest in the first place.
Harry Potter is just a teenager that has to overcome these series of problems along with just growing up. These are similarities in the formula of these three different storylines. We all know that Voldemort is going to die and Harry Potter is going to live. This much we know based upon knowing plot formula.
But we don't know how and this is what intruges us as both the reader and the ones that watch the movie. All of this was possible because of "Lord of the Rings". However I will agree that both Harry Potter titles and LOTR appeal to different audiences because of the age differences.
2006-09-19 03:48:46 · answer #4 · answered by mrgoodbar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a) I don't think they appeal to a different audience. I love both series.
b) JK Rowling is a very smart woman who wrote a series partly based on this world, filled with refrences that you don't have to pick up on to enjoy the series.
Tolkien was professor, who had a great understanding of the myths and languages that shaped English culture. He drew on those to build Middle Earth. Whether or not it makes his books better is a judgement best left to the reader, but I do think it adds a richness and depth to his story that Harry Potter doesn't have.
So I think it's really up to the readers. BTW, what languge did Rowling create? Not knocking her, but I didn't notice one.
2006-09-19 13:40:31 · answer #5 · answered by mury902 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you can compare LOTR and Harry Potter. Tolkien created a world with many different peoples, like dwarves and elves, even telling about their "history". Creating a language that is grammatically correct is not easy, and he created more than one. He wrote more books than LOTR, telling even more about Middle Earth, he even wrote a kind of creation myth.
I also read every Harry Potter book, and i love them, too. But JK Rowling did not invent a whole new world or language. There are no orcs or elves in the Muggle world. Of course there is Hogwarts, and there is magic, but there is no really new language. She took her ideas from myths and from books like LOTR. In fact the Butterbeer Harry and his friends like comes from the name Butterbur, who is the innkeeper of the Prancing Pony in the Fellowship of the Ring.
In my opinion both works are fantastic, but on different levels. Harry Potter is a read for kids and teens (also for grown ups of course) which is easy to understand and lots of fun to read. LOTR is more complicated, I don't think an eight-year-old would understand much or like it that much. It's more sophisticated than HP. Tolkien and Rowling both created great tales and not everybody likes both. But that's ok, because different people have a different taste.
It's not fair to say that one is better than the other. Tolkien came first and Rowling wrote books according to the time she lives in. Enjoy both and don't compare, as they are very different from each other.
2006-09-19 05:37:05 · answer #6 · answered by simse 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we can compare the two, they are very different, even though they fall into magic and fantasy domain. But we shall attempt to understand them through their differences...
Rowling wrote Harry Potter because she had a story to tell.
Tolkien wrote LOTR to use languages that he had created.
Rowling did not invent a language in the true sense, she added new words to an existing language.
Tolkien invented languages - with their own grammar and verbs and intonations - seperate like English or French or German is.
Rowling Hogwarts is beautiful, and simple, but it was written for children, for entertainment.
Tolkien's LOTR was an academic quest - Hobbits are a seperate study, as are the elven kings as are the Kings of Rohan, as is Smeagol. The concept and topography of Middle Earth, the tools they used, the climatic conditions, the species that existed...everything was detailed.
Try reading Tolkien's contemporary CS Leiws - Chronicles of Narnia...that's more like Harry Potter - with morals and teachings for children to learn from.
2006-09-19 02:56:02 · answer #7 · answered by friedpaw 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
For one thing, Tolkien came first. Rowling used him as inspiration. For another, Tolkien is a classic - Rowling is more of a pop fiction type thing. And finally, in my opinion Harry Potter is a bunch of trash. But that last thing is just my opinion - don't take it personally.
2006-09-19 02:47:37 · answer #8 · answered by Koshka Boga 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just like Rowling one has to appreciate Tolkien's imagination.
Most of my friends that are Potter fans are also Middle Earth fans.
2006-09-19 04:09:53 · answer #9 · answered by Yellowstonedogs 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a fan of both... But in comparison, e language used in LOTR is of higher class-- typically catered to young adults... Unlike Harry Potter which targets kids & teens, thus e language is more subtle... Like e rest hav said, Rowlin made Tolkien her inspriration...So both hav similar writin skills wif different language basis...
2006-09-19 05:38:43 · answer #10 · answered by *Lyzerg* 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋