Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings? Whats do u think is better?

Question

I think in ways Lord of the Rings is better and in other ways Harry Potter i s better.

Answer 1

i agree with you. i love both books, and its hard to compare them because each of them have qualities that make them a little better than the other.
i guess it would depend on what criteria you use. from a literary perspective- the prose, vocabulary, etc- i'll say lotr is better.
for, lets say, reading level, because its essentially a children's book, and although the story got more complex with each book, hp was an easier read.
i honestly dont think i can pick one over the other.

Answer 2

I agree with you. For writing skill, Harry Potter is better. For overall story, the Lord of the Rings wins.

The Lord of the Rings badly needed editing to take out the deadwood, but no one did it because of the reputation of Professor Tolkien. The movies DID remove the deadwood and re-inserted some stuff from the appendices that should have been in the main story. They improved it.

Harry Potter could have used some editing and proofreading, but overall the writing is better and it stays on course far better than the Lord of the Rings did.

Answer 3

The Lord of the Rings is a literary masterpiece. The story that starts with "The Hobbit" and then proceeds to the " Lord of the Rings" is a heroic tale of bravery, camaraderie, sacrifice, mysticism and magic that Potter fails miserably at. Tolkien is a masterful author where Rowling has copied others including Tolkien to spin a boring childishly written series of books. The Lord of the Rings was written in the 30's and 40's and has stood the test of time in entertaining generations. Time will tell if Harry Potter stands that test.

Answer 4

I actually have not read all of the lord of the rings but I really liked the Hobbit.
Hp I think has gone downhill, because if you didn't notice.
after the 3rd one there was like tons of bad words, and in the last one, there were some swear words, and I don't think that is very appropriate for little kids to read. Do you?
But I did really enjoy reading them.
though I think the first through third books are better than the last 4 because of the reasons stated above.

Answer 5

Harry Potter, all around. It's definitely more interesting. Lord of the Rings is so boring.

Answer 6

To write "Lord of the Rings," J.R.R. Tolkien invented his own universe complete with different creatures having separate histories and languages, all worked out even when not included in the books. It took decades to write and was not appreciated for a long time, when it finally came into its own and has drawn new readers from each successive generation. If it is a "kids' book," as one reply has suggested, it is for 'kids' who are at least of college age. How many kids read poetry?

J.K. Rowling came up with the clever notion of combining an old genre -- the English school story -- with another old tradition -- witches and wizards (not to mention werewolves, vampires, ghosts, and other Hallowe'en creatures). She wrote explicitly for children and chose to write for her original audience as it grew older, rather than continuing to write for 9 and 10-year-olds. She certainly had her audience, which went far beyond 10-year-olds even in Book 1, wondering what was coming next, and millions engaged in spirited discussions about Harry's chances of surviving Book 7.

There were major surprises at the ends of the Harry Potter books, all of which added to the pleasure of first time readers, some of whom promptly reread the book they had just finished to see if Rowling had played fair leading up to her surprise. Traditionally, books with major surprises do not wear as well as books that succeed without them.

I am predicting that the Harry Potter series will remain successful as books that folks will pass on to their children to read, many of whom will like the books as well as their parents did.

But... Harry Potter will become history in a way that "Lord of the Rings" will not. Thirty years from now, people will be reading "The Lord of the Rings" much as they do today, while Harry is fondly remembered as 'those great books I read as a kid.'

I am not putting down Rowling's books, which I enjoyed immensely and read over and over. Were Rowling to give all her money away ten years from now, she would immediately become a very wealthy woman again as royalties continue to pour in.

And there is one other thing. If "The Lord of the Rings" is and will remain a classic, a work of literature greater than the Harry Potter books (as I believe), Tolkien is dead, and he never created anything to match his masterpiece. Rowling is still young, and her masterpiece may still lie in her future. In which case, "The Lord of the Rings" had better watch out. I do hope she finds a strong-minded editor to slim down what comes next.

Answer 7

I never really got into Lord of the Rings not even after they turned them into movies. Harry Potter is much better.

Answer 8

THE HOBBIT and the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy is deeper and richer in plot, themes, storyline and characterization than HARRY POTTER.

J.R.R. Tolkein was credited for the invention of two original fantasy creatures besides the usual bevy of elves, dwarfs, trolls, goblins, and giants - Hobbits and Orcs!

But both movies are excellent and high quality.

Answer 9

Well, LotR is really good in it's own way and Harry Potter is good in it's own way, as well.

Answer 10

Harry Potter rules!