Saint Anselm College Great Books

Blog for the Liberal Studies in the Great Books Program at Saint Anselm College

Saint Anselm College Great Books header image 2

Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings

April 17th, 2009 · 190 Comments


Friday, April 24, 2009


2:45pm – 5:00pm


Bradley House 3rd Floor



Harry Potter vs Lord of the Rings

We all have our loyalties to our childhood Fantasy series, but are you willing to go to bat for those loyalties?

Who is a batter hero- Frodo or Harry?

A better villain, Voldemort (Oops! I mean He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named) or Sauron?

Why are these stories important for us? Why do we have fantasy?

Come duke it out!

Theme related Food!! Butterbeer and lembas

Please don’t dress up. Spare us the agony. Thank you.


Tags: Great Books Society · News

190 responses so far ↓

  • 1 LOTR // May 12, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    Wha– ?!?!
    How could you even compare the two?!?!
    The Lord of the Rings Movies are 92174239874983274% (and more) better then harry potter!

  • 2 HP triumphs! // Jun 20, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    It’s not about the movies! It’s the books! The movies could never portray all that the books bring to life in your innermost fantasies of your mind! And, although I have not yet finished reading Lord of the Rings, I am willing to bet that Harry Potter is much more exciting and engaging than Lord of the Rings. The craze over these stories has little to do with cinema and everything to do with novels! However, I will say I love Lord of the Rings, but Harry Potter will never be overshadowed in my mind. HP FOREVER!!!

  • 3 HPHPHPHPHP // Sep 26, 2009 at 12:26 am

    Obviously, its the HP books that make it fascinating! LOTr suks! Although the movies of HP suk more than LOTr, HP books are defeinitely better than the LOTr books! HP rawks! ROAR! EXPELLIARMUS!

  • 4 kevin // Nov 8, 2009 at 3:21 pm

    Uhm , ya maybe if your a tween you would consider HP better than LOTR. HP is frankly a kids book. Everything in it is watered down drivel. The whole concept of Muggles vs the magic world is just contrived and difficult, and really makes the whole story line stupid. Ok, so ya, there is a magic world that the “muggle” world has no clue about… and these people with power don’t bother taking over the muddle world? Or making human their slaves? or making humanity a better place? seriously, it doesn’t make any sense.

  • 5 JASON_LOTR BETTER THAN HP!!!!!!! // Nov 28, 2009 at 2:59 am


    A message for this stupid HPHPHPHPH :

    I think you haven’t read yet The Lord of the Rings. Please finish first the books that you are criticizing before saying that its sucks!

    For me, they are both great works of imagination but The Lord of the Rings could not be compare to Harry Potter! It is far more better aaaaandddd GREATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 6 Tomas Peverell // Dec 6, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Now lets see,kids.

    Boy-who-lived versus the Lord of the Rings:

    Whinny kid who is crying throwout the series about his parents being dead,kid who can’t stand up for him self ’till he’s like seventeen,but others do it instead of him,and a lot else versus the greatest and noblest hobbit of all time,who confronted the greatest dark maia of all time despite the fact that he lost Gandalf long time ago.Even though he’s parents died very early and he has one of the most annoying cousins of all time he doesn’t even mention it,unlike Harry.

    Winner:Frodo Baggins

    Other Characters:

    Noble companions:
    Ronald Billius Weasley versus Samwise Gamgee
    Ron is also a winny bitch,living in his best friend’s shadow,jealous(Goblet of Fire,Deathly Hallows),poor and extremly stupid versus the brave,noble,wise(samWISE),companion Samwise The Brave


    Sirius Black versus Aragorn,son of Arathorn

    Now,despite the fact that he needs to act like a parent and guardian,he shows completely different behaviour and rushes to danger trying to convince Harry to do the same thing,Sirius acts very inappropriate for his age.Aragorn,Strider,Elessar,Dunedain,the ranger of the North,the King of the South,the keeper of the Narsil/Anduril,the slayer of orcs and beasts,Gandalf’s companion,proud and wise Aragorn is supreme character here.


    Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore versus Gandalf the Gray/the White/Mithrandir

    Many fans call this a close call.They’re two of my favourite characters,but I’ll have to be objective:

    Albus,equiped with his Elder’s Wand and 140 years of knowlege versus a descendent of Angels(Valas)a Maia himself,equiped with centuries of knowlege and a mighty staff,servant of the Secret Fire,Balrog-killer Mithrandir.

    It’s clear:Gandalf

    And now the villains

    Tom Riddle/Lord Voldy versus Gorthaur/Sauron

    There’s no need for explanation.All who read HP books and The Sillmarilion know who’s the supreme


    Now the outcome:

  • 7 hp 4 eva!!! // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    how can you compare lotr to hp? really? hp rocks! obviously some ppl here havent read the hp books cus its not about muggles vs. wizards…its about defeating the dark lord…besides i have read both and lotr is just soooo boring i mean its so predictable!!! hp on the other hand has a magical world that is full of adventure, danger and magic spells! besides if you think hp is a kids book then you need to read the book cus there is nothing childish about it, see ya later lotr looooooserrrss!! haha

  • 8 anonymous // Jan 13, 2010 at 9:44 am

    It is far better written than HP. Much more mature, much more thought provoking…Harry Potter is for little kids who don’t have the IQ to handle a serious book. You probably will never be able to read War and Peace or Les Miserables or Mill on the Floss either if you can’t even handle LotR. Enough said.
    YOU are calling LOTR fans LOSERS? LotR fans have the intelligence to handle a long, detailed book, which you HP fans obviously cannot.
    So you can just push off and go read your little childish book about flying broomsticks in a corner. Get back when you can handle more mature content.

  • 9 anon // Jan 31, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    I think that to even have this discussion is stupid.
    I also think those two series are directed at two different audiences and having read both series I think I can say that 11-17 year olds would appreciate the HP series and more mature and definitely patient adults would enjoy the LotR series. I loved both. But face it HP lovers, Tolkien is the superior writer and anyone who says otherwise should get some sense bitch slapped into them.


  • 10 archie // Feb 3, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    The only problem when addressing such problem and provoking comparison is that people always pick a side and become a real fanboi. Where’s the objective viewing and discussing.
    Tomas Peverell, in his comment, was trying to compare, but you can clearly see whose fanboi community he belongs to.

    One other thing is, that people tend to think about Harry Potter as kids book. And keep in mind that those people probably didn’t read after first 2-3 books of the whole series, which become more mature and darker with each additional book.
    It kinda bother me and also insults the Geek community when it’s considered OK to talk about LotR, but immature and childish when people have serious discussion about HP world, character analysis or plot/story.

    I really enjoyed both, but can’t decide for only one. As I said, it’s hard to decide when you can’t held a non biased discussion with other people.

  • 11 Jasper! // Feb 11, 2010 at 6:21 am


    HP is better than LOTR. The story is just sooo unpredictable and new conflicts are presented in every book. We can’t deny the fact that JK Rowling writes in a way that will never bore you.

    When you read HP, you can really feel the atmosphere… It just like watching a 3d movie… You can’t stop thinking of it… It’s addicting. I can still remember how i reacted when I first read HP. I was so obsessed with it that my classmates thought i was mad. I only started reading it early this year (i was only a movie fan before) but i felt like i lived with it…

  • 12 Kia // Feb 28, 2010 at 4:44 am

    You must keep in mind the fact that Harry Potter just came out in 1997. Lord of the Rings has been around since 1953. The very fact that it still has such dedicated fans says a lot. We’ll see if HP survives the test of time.
    For me, Lord of the Rings wins all.

  • 13 Edward // Mar 7, 2010 at 1:17 am

    As much as I like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings takes the cake. I mean, some of the stuff in Harry Potter was even INSPIRED by LOTR. Harry Potter just doesn’t have the ancient powers and history as Tolkien’s works, no questions asked. The ancient powers of darkness would’ve corrupted Harry Potter’s world before even Voldemort could blink. Arguable yes, but not without good reason as it took great magics to finally end darkness in Middle-earth forever. Magics Harry Potter could never conjour up.

  • 14 HarryP // Mar 15, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Harry Potter is much better than LOTr , when you read it you feel like you know Harry like you grew up with him

  • 15 name // Mar 19, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    these are probabley the 2 best books ever writen, they both to me are equill but i would have to say i think it was harder to write the hp novels then the lotr ones, J.K.Rowlings was completely new, J.R.R Tolkiens outshined any other medievil fantasy book ever but it wasnt new, i have to say they are both awsome hp books are better tho lotr movies are better

  • 16 pr.Simon.B.Heitz // Mar 23, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    I share the opinnion of the proffesional critics and those are;the form and composition of pr.Josephs writing are extremly difficult whitch results in phrases that only those who know how to understand really does pay attention to the beauty of selfsustaining teatrical core,and comparing such form with vocabulary that is so much more than a pure but studyed language…you get the amazing impression that is just a simple reflection of a world that pr.Joseph created and witch we will never completely understand.I think there is no need for me to talk about Harry Potter.

    Utulien ore,auta lome,I say to the J.K.Rowling!

  • 17 Koen Scholten // Apr 9, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    I honestly can’t see why al lot of people think Lotr is superior to HP. @ Tomas peverell you’re comparison is clearly prejudiced. How you portrait Ron and Harry as stupid little whining kids which is nonsense. I could write that kind of comparison in 5 min but I won’t since it’s no use for my opinion.

    I like both but what some Lotr fans don’t seem to understand is that Lotr is not the only great fantasy world. HP and Lotr worlds are whole different. HP takes place in the real world Lotr does not. Also HP does have very intruiging story lines. Frodo is not per se better than Harry as a hero. Same with some other comparisons. I really love both books. But as i have to choose i choose HP because that was the one who tickled my fantasy and because of HP i started writing myself. J.K Rowling has done a amazing job writing this world which’s co-excist with the real world. If you aren’t a fan you don’t understand the attraction of the HP books / world. Also the film of Lotr is better than HP but not that much.

  • 18 Md. Imbesat // Apr 19, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    HI all. seems a great discussions going on over here. I dont want to have prejudices. I love HP forever. I mean seriously. When I was starting to be drawn in the world of harry potter I asked for more books, preferably of fantasy genre. I came to know about LOTR then, my friends and a teacher suggested me about it. okay, yeah, so I got a pdf version of it and started reading it but it just cant be finished. I mean, I couldn’t feel myself getting into it, while the wizarding world of HP provided me that.
    Seriously people, thats the thing which matters. Driving yourself into what you are reading. If you cant do it then whats the point. It has nothing to do with whether HP is a kids book or not. Of course its not. People who say so just dont want to seriously consider it. There are hell lot of young and adult people reading HP and appreciating it around me. They are not only engaged in it but also in other books like those of Paulo Coelho and even other genres.
    I think you are getting the point. Do not just try avoiding HP you LOTR folks. It will surely stand the test of time.

  • 19 aa // Apr 22, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    HP fans seems to admit that LOTR movie is better than HP movie.
    what they didn’t know is that LOTR books are indeed far better
    and had more depth than their movie subjective interpretations.

    Tolkien is a Professor of linguistic, a phylologist which many of
    his professional writings are becoming academic literature for many decades.
    LOTR itself actually is a compilation of 30 years ongoing bed-story
    dedicated for his beloved children. it is a manifestation of love.
    meanwhile, HP was written simply for money (I guess).

  • 20 HP. // Jun 25, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    guys it doesnt matter what was better written or what has lots more to it!! it is about what you enjoyed more what let you escape from the real world and to harry potter did just the thing it let me escape and let me be free. Im not saying lord of the rings is rubbish because i think it great but i always seemed to like harry potter more i just grew with it. And yes HP may be for a younger audience but it does not stop adults from enjoying it i know lots of adults who enjoy harry potter. so i think they are both good but harry potter is more enjoyable and you actually feel for the characters.

  • 21 anonymous // Jun 28, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Statements like “Hp/LotR is more enjoyable” MUST NOT BE NOTED. This is a highly subjective manner, and we must analyze the actual substance of both books:

    1.Writing: Sorry, kids, Rowling loses here. Tolkien was a master with words.
    2.Plot:I have to give this one a tie.
    3.Imagination:Tolkien easily. He created an entire HISTORY and not just a secondary world.
    4.Character development:Rowling, I must admit.
    All in all, LotR wins.

  • 22 Feanor // Jul 10, 2010 at 1:21 am

    Having been, at different stages in my life, a fan of both books, I understand both sides. when I was fifteen, Harry Potter was a much easier book to relate to that Lord of the Rings. However, once I got older, and became less interested in characters and more interested in story, Tolkien’s books moved me much more.

    That being said, I will have to say I consider Tolkien’s work far superior. It is a much richer world, with much more powerful characters and much more creative language and stories.

    however, I consider Harry Potter an excellent book for children. Tolkien’s work is definitely not written for young people, with the exception of The Hobbit.

    I regards to predictability, which seems to be a problem many people have with Lord of the Rings, I would respond by saying Harry Potter is at least as predictable, if not more. Every book in the series follows the same chain of events, usually concluding with someone other than Harry saving the day, but Harry getting credit for it. At least in Lord of the Rings, not every problem is resolved with duce ex machina.

    Also, I would say that it is hard to fully appreciate Tolkien’s writing without reading The Silmarillion. That is definitely not a book for children. It is a great epic, very similar to the stories of the Volsungs and the Kalevala.

    In short, both books have their worth. However, Harry Potter is a good children’s book, whereas the works of Tolkien are better for adults (excluding The Hobbit). I understand liking both, but I have to say I find the idea of grown men and women that read children’s books (and aren’t reading them allowed to children) a little disturbing.

  • 23 Nimloth // Jul 11, 2010 at 7:28 am

    The Lord of the Rings!!

  • 24 He who must not be named // Sep 15, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    I have read them all. Harry Potter owns!!!!!!!AH! Aveda kedrava !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 25 dumbledore // Sep 15, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    I Like IKE Kids. Harry Potter’s worst book, The Chamber of Secrets tops all of the lotr books

  • 26 Zachary // Sep 18, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Harry potter tops lotr easily.

  • 27 Zurdo // Sep 19, 2010 at 3:26 am

    It’s ok if you enjoyed HP while growing up. I did as well. But face it, people. If we are going quality-wise, in every sense, Tolkien stands high and alone.

    And you can start calling me names or cursing me or asking who the hell am I to be writing all this, but the fact is there: If you like HP more than LOTR, that’s fine by me. But there’s no denying the fact that Rowling was crawling through the path that Tolkien had already mastered. Get that into your heads.

    The fact is there.

  • 28 Anonymous // Sep 30, 2010 at 2:41 am

    I’m a bit surprised at all of the people saying that Harry Potter “Tops lotr easily” or even that “lotr sucks” (that was rather childish, I think). I can understand people having a preference one way or another, some people indeed enjoy Harry Potter more than The Lord of the Rings, but I think it is fairly obvious that LOTR is a superior piece of literature.
    I have only read the first two Harry Potter books, and that was a long time ago, so yes, I am biased, and no, I can’t fairly go into a detailed comparrison, but I would like to relate what I have found from what I know about the two series.
    Tolkien put a lot more effort into his books than Rowling did. Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT saying that Rowling was sloppy or a bad writer. In fact, skimming over some chapters recently, I have found that I enjoy her writing style immensely. However, Tolkien invented an entire world complete with history, languages (with their own grammar rules), cultures, countries… Rowling didn’t invest nearly as much time into her books as Tolkien did his.
    Tolkien’s books are written for adults, while Rowling’s are written for kids. Now, being geared towards adults does not automatically make a book better than one aimed at children, but it does allow for further depth. Tolkien can explore more complicated themes in his works because it was written with a more mature audience in mind.
    And finally, Tolkien’s stories are drawn from real life experiences. Rowling’s, as far as I know, are not. Much of the inspiration for the conflicts and battles in LOTR were inspired by Tolkien’s participation in World War I. This allows for a depth that cannot be found in books where the author has not experienced similar things first hand.

    In summation, no matter how much you prefer one or the other, “The Lord of the Rings” is superior in quality to “Harry Potter.” Honestly, I bet J K Rowling would agree with me.

  • 29 Lord Of the Rings FTW // Nov 1, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Zudo, I tottaly agree with you, the only thing I don’t beilieve what you said was the near perfection part. That is a lie. Lord Of The Rings IS PERFECTION! This is coming from a guy who read BOTH SERIES AND HAS DONE RESEARCH ON BOTH! Now think about it. If Lord Of The Rings came out before Harry Potter, and Harry Potter had silimar quailties. Then that means Harry Potter copied Lord Of The Rings just like Percy Jackson(Which Sucks BTW) copied Harry Potter. I mean think about it. Sauron who reforms. Voldemort who reforms! Really, and Gandalf and Dumbledore. I’m fine with other people liking Harry Potter. But READ THE GOD PERFECT LORD OF THE RINGS BEFORE YOU SAY IT SUCKS OR IS BORING!!!!! Seriously, it really pisses me off!

  • 30 Lord Of the Rings FTW // Nov 1, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    BTW: To add on, I read Harry Potter when I was 6. And that was about 8 years ago. I finished Deathly Hallows 3 days after it came out. I know what happens in both. I finished all books that came out before I turned 13. Just face facts. Tolkien spent his(It’s a he) entire life on this. Imangie how much time it took for him to write 1000 pages of writing inculding BEAUTIFUL songs and poetry! Plus a new language and translation. Think about it. I give Lord Of The Rings Infinte trophies of Best Book Award EVER.

  • 31 laura // Nov 19, 2010 at 11:00 pm


    All in all, lotr movies win.

    Books, can’t be compared. A whole different playing field. But that being said, the HP field is a piece of dung.

    Haha, just kidding. But all of these outrageous posts are funny.

    Yes, I respect the the HP books, but as far as saying that they’re better books and more realistic/easier to enjoy… You need to wake up and know what’s good.

    Tolkien wasn’t trying to write this book for anybody to fall in love with.
    He wrote it for the sole purpose of a HISTORY, it’s not supposed to be easy to read. No one wakes up in the morning and pulls out their World History book and is excited to read about the founding of Athens and is all captivated by the romanticism of it. They’re reading it for interest and broadening of their knowledge because it’s INTERPRETATION.

    Anyone can read a book and take exactly what the author wants you to feel from it. It’s called using pathos in persuasive writing, and both Tolkien and Rowling know how to do it. Yeah, Rowling probably did that better in her books, but it’s also a childrens book. Children aren’t smart enough to think independently of the author. Tolkien could do it too, HE WAS A PROFESSOR IN IT. The fact was, he didn’t. The author created fully-functioning languages that evolved along with race’s history.

    Yes, it’s a harder read, but the challenge of it is the purpose. Reading literature SHOULD be difficult, because the purpose of quality literature is to make readers pause, reflect, and internally connect with the work. People don’t need to agree with the messages of the work, or even like how it is written, in order to internally connect.

    And as far as the story itself and depth of the worlds. I don’t think I need to even explain this.

    I have a hard time believing that Rowling would ever say that her novels are superior to Tolkien’s.

    If the own author couldn’t defend their work, how could you even mildly argue that theirs is better?

    Remember this is about which has more worth as LITERATURE. I think you get what I’m saying.

  • 32 HP lovecraft FOREVA // Nov 22, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    coming from A level student, studying technical accuracy, language, sentence structure I think that LOTR is by far a much better book than HP. LOTR uses varing sentence structures to suit the paragraph’s purpose (building tension etc.). the language used in LOTR is of a vast vocabulary aiding the visual imagrey. my last point is the techniques used in the liturature are another object that builds on the imagrey built inside the book. HP uses mostly simple or converse sentences the laguage is ok and the techniques are scarce. much more time and effort was put into the LOTR books, the HP books seemed to be churned out as quickly as possible towards the end (explaining why she killed almost everyone off in the end). I think that LOTR should be compared to a more worhty book like the works of HP lovecraft and HP should be compared to the works of stephine meyer (twilight series)

  • 33 harry potter forever // Nov 23, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    harry potter is better!!!

  • 34 LK // Nov 30, 2010 at 9:23 pm

    I like both HP and LOTR but between the two
    LOTR wins no question.

  • 35 frosserin // Dec 1, 2010 at 7:58 am

    GUYS!!!!…its ofcourse anytime…TOLKIEN has created a different world nothing is related to our thats what i call a fantasy..IT RULES!!! n not nly that he has created LANGUAGES…thats just too much…i heard that we even can do PHD on elvish…its much more greater..n LOTR givs us a message,about greed…lotr is artistic n creativ..

  • 36 The Amused Spectator // Dec 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    Some of these responses really are immature. For example, “He who must not be named”. How many of the LotR fans read past ‘Chamber of Secrets’? How many of the HP fans even picked up a copy of ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’?

    I’ve read all of the HP books, and I’m on ‘The Return of the King’. I’m a big fan of Harry Potter, but I’m also enjoying LotR. I feel that both have depth and lessons to be learned, and both created an imaginative world. I admit, though – Tolkien took much more time and effort in creating his legendarium, as far as creating several new languages. His work is more mature and geared towards an older audience, and should be read by those who are at a more advanced reading level. Rowling’s books are more of a coming-of-age kind of story, and despite appearances, each subplot contributes to the overall plot. Both series have symbolism and good character development. Overall, I think that each have their merits.

    Conclusion? Stop acting like little brats and have a intelligent conversation, for once.

  • 37 james // Dec 22, 2010 at 8:52 am

    1. Both are stories about underdogs who have been predestined to be the key players in the ultimate battle of good versus evil. Both accept their roles very grudgingly. Neither is physically imposing or exceptionally intelligent, but both have an innate courage and strength to persevere and complete their tasks. (I am going to assume that Harry is able to destroy Voldemort, because really, how else would the series end?)

    2. Both are fighting the most powerful forces of evil of their time. Sauron and Voldemort are both omnipotent villains, who if victorious, would plunge the world into decay and darkness. Furthermore, both are disembodied as a result of a previous defeat – Sauron is a giant fiery eye and Voldemort, at least in the first half of the series, is an incorporeal being as well.

    3. Both are assisted by the most powerful “good” wizards of their time. Gandalf and Dumbledore both have long hair and beards, large noses and wear pointy hats. They are instrumental in helping Frodo and Harry respectively with their tasks, but even they must leave the final fight to their mentees.

    4. Both HP and LOTR have the brilliant concept of the soul or the spirit of the villains being contained in one or more objects. These objects must be destroyed in order to kill the villains. Voldemort’s soul is in the seven Horcruxes while Sauron’s spirit is in the One Ring of Power.

    5. The Ring-wraiths or the Nazgul in LOTR are quite like the Dementors in HP. In addition to similarities in their wardrobes, they both inspire chilling dread and despair amongst those they encounter. Furtheremore, just as a Patronus charm is used to dispel the Dementors, so too does Gandalf project a beam of bright white light to scatter the Nazgul.

    6. Giant spiders make appearances in both books. Harry and Ron have to escape from the clutches of Aragog (which sounds awfully like Aragorn) and his family while Shelob tries to make a meal out of Frodo and Sam.

    7. Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew) and Grima Wormtongue (the advisor to King Theoden) are both weak creatures who are greatly influenced by their evil leaders (Voldemort and Saruman respectively) and betray the people they are supposed to protect, namely James and Lily Potter in HP and King Theoden in LOTR.

    8. Voldemort is supposed to inspire so much fear that magical folk do not even like to speak his name out loud. Instead, they refer to him as He Who Must Not Be Named. In LOTR, instead of calling Sauron by his name, Faramir calls him The Unnamed, The Nameless and most interestingly, He whom we do not name.

  • 38 james // Dec 22, 2010 at 8:53 am

    LOTR IS 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% better then the bad story known as harry potter…..

  • 39 heartintwo // Dec 27, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    I read the first HP book in 2nd grade and followed the series breathlessly until the last book came out. Every summer I re-read the series. The books play like a movie in my head; I laugh and cry aloud at certain parts. HP was real for me; it practically raised me; sometimes when I look back I realize it was quite scary how much it possessed my & my friends’ lives. I am now reading LotR and I don’t know how the two can even be compared. Sure, there may be some *interesting* similarities, but the writing style and the way the reader connects to the characters is COMPLETELY different. LotR relies on a lot of third-person descriptions and details about the scenery, while HP is more dialogue- driven. I am not held fixated to the book with LotR as I am with HP. However, LotR is very thought-provoking and definitely for a more mature audience. Having said that, I absolutely disagree with aforesaid comments that HP is only for children/teens. ALL ages can relate to it, that is why it holds so much power. Furthermore, don’t comment on HP or spew useless drivel on what you think the theme or plot is unless you have read it, and understand the many-layered themes within it. It IS NOT ABOUT WIZARDS VS. HUMANS.

  • 40 Idrial // Jan 5, 2011 at 9:24 am

    ”He not who not be named” (and I’m talking about the guy who says something) says:
    ”I’ve read them all. Harry Potter owns Aveda kedrava !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ”
    But because I was very interested in the spells of HP I know he spelled Aveda Kedrava” incorrectly its : Avada Kedavra.

    HAHAHAHA what an idiot, and he calls himself a fan, HAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA What a LOSER!!!!!!

    P. S. LOTR RULES Suckers

  • 41 Austin // Jan 17, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Now, i must both books are best sellers, but…theres goes that but again i must i have more interest in Harry Potter and i think i always will most of you who are saying some idiotic things dont no what the hell your talking about. This is just an opinion so dont get in a fight about which one is right, because none of you are right. Some of you are making fun of the kid who say HP sucks okay thats your opinion but you shouldnt even say anything its not like where going to go on your side and say YEAAHHHHH LOTR ROCKS!! no im not going to do that because i like Harry Potter better then Lord of the rings and ive read both series so dont think i dont no what im talking about
    Sincerly: The HP Fan ,

  • 42 HP all the way // Jan 17, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    ive never read the lord of rings. But i think harry potter is epicccc! Ive seen all the movies but i dont remember them. im reading harry potter books right now! and everytime someone says u kno who i say voldemort? =D

  • 43 Polly // Jan 25, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    I read both series in my early teens and without a doubt i much prefer Tolkien’s LOTR.The plots and characters and not to mention the descriptions leave a picture in my mind,something the HP series couldn’t.Im not saying i don’t like the series as i do.I guess its to do with preference.I like the fact that Tolkien didn’t just write a book ,he made a language and language that is now used in other books and throughout his own works.

    I like HP,but everything about it is too close to LOTR.Nearly everything about it can be related to something about LOTR.

    HP is like a re-write of LOTR and not a better one.


  • 44 Caleb_S // Feb 6, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    I won’t be the first to admit that Tolkiens work is far superior in terms of writing and overall quality. But a lot of people my age practically grew up with Harry Potter. It were the first real books I was interested in and it got me to like reading as a whole. Had I not read the HP books I might never have wanted to pick up the LOTR books.

    So even though I think LOTR is better written then the HP books. HP will always top LOTR for me simply because those books are special to me. Besides I just want to give J.K Rowling some more credit, I’m sure she would admit that Tolkien is a fabulous writer and that LOTR is a fantastic series but I just think Rowlings story is interesting. You know, poor woman rises to be the first billionaire writer. Besides she still regularly uses the bus to travel.

    So all in all, Credits to Tolkien for the amazing piece of writing he created but Rowling takes the cake, simply because she and her books have a special place in my heart and that will never change.

  • 45 Kel // Feb 13, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    I have read both. I love both. Harry Potter is good for a read where you don’t feel like thinking. Just read a good story. The Lord of the Rings is a rich and epic history. The writing cannot be compared. Tolkien was a literary genius. Harry Potter is formula fiction, The Lord of the Rings is a classic and has stood the test of time. It is so wonderfully written, the characters are stronger and much more deep. Although Rowling does do a great job. What’s “better” obviously comes down to personal opinion. But objectively, Tolkien’s work is clearly a better piece of literature.

    It’s hard to compare because Rowling set out to write for an audience. Tolkien just sat down and started writing. He made a history filled with cultures and languages (he was a linguist) and wrote a small fragment of his mythology to explain some of it. The result was The Lord of the Rings. He spent his lifetime building Middle Earth. That sort of time and effort cannot be neglected. While the reading through might be tedious to some. you get the feeling that Tolkien knows about every nook and cranny in Middle Earth. It’s authenticity is unrivaled because most authors set out to write a story. Tolkien created a world. To each his own, but please, do not make ignorant statements such as “lotr sucks” or “harry potter sucks” for that matter. Can’t we retain some form of maturity, here? Both are beloved by many, but in terms of literary genius, objectively, Tolkien’s work is superior to Harry Potter.

    But don’t get me started on the movies, if anyone seriously believes HP movies are anywhere close to LOTR…

  • 46 Varda's handmaiden // Feb 22, 2011 at 5:51 am

    Ai Elbereth Gilthoniel!

    What wrong has Lord of the Rings comitted to be compared with so infrior a series!

  • 47 Madison :) lotr all the way!! // Mar 10, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    I think…no wait I actually know that lord of the rings beats hp no matter what! I mean a whole second world of evles, dwarves, hobbits and wizards seems so enchanting and magical it totally beats a whole bunch of whiny children bitching about how the “one who must not be named” is evil and bad and blah blah blah. You want a real plot? Well then read lotr! I’ve read both lotr and hp and I can clearly state to anyone of the top of my head how I find it so exciting and magical! And btw there’s no age thing about the two because guess what, I’m 12 years old.

  • 48 Emma // Mar 25, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    God, why can’t you realize that Harry Potter is better. Always will be. It is great, and I couldn’t live without it. Sorry LOTR lovers, but Harry Potter will always be rembered as the better book.

  • 49 temporalthree // Mar 29, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    I have read both and watched all the movies. I grew up with Harry Potter, but I also read J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.
    Being a member of the literati, frankly, the distinction is clear.

    Harry Potter is great, but it’s just that. The Lord of the Rings, however, is a seminal series.

    Harry Potter has an enormous appeal to younger readers because, obviously, they are the target audience: of course they will say that Harry Potter is better. The value of Tolkien’s works however, far outweigh the value of the Harry Potter series; you could practically say Lord of the Rings invented magical fantasy while Harry Potter is its snappily dressed envoy to a younger generation. One series defined the genre, the other series expanded it, one series built an entire fantastical world while the other created a subculture. Kids want to read about characters, which is why books like Harry Potter and Twilight are so popular. More mature audiences understand the need for complexity: they want a book that encompasses an entire universe and tells a tale in the context of that universe, not a book that has a protagonist and antagonist while everything else is little more than subtext. The world knows the value of Tolkien’s works, after all The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are taught in middle and high schools, Harry Potter is not.

    While I’m sure many of you may disagree, the reason you may dislike The Lord of the Rings is probably simply because you may not understand it, after all it is a very challenging read, while one of Harry Potter’s strong points is that the series is very accessible. I’ve noticed that people who read a lot will generally like Lord of the Rings and people who read less will generally like Harry Potter. However a great series merely requires interest, while a seminal work, an epic, requires understanding.

    Verdict: Lord of the Rings.

  • 50 Deepsunil // Mar 30, 2011 at 12:50 am


    I just like grew up with Harry Potter and set.

  • 51 temporalthree // Mar 30, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    you think i care? no? screw it? ;)

  • 52 Adi // Apr 15, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    LOTR is ver very well knit together book… from timeline to languages… ITS LIKE EVERYTHING ONCE EXISTED AND WE ARE READING HISTORY but in a 1000x more interesting way…. MOREOVER HP IS KIDS BOOK….. A PROPER ENGLISH CRITIC WILL ALWAYS FAVOUR LOTR!!!

  • 53 Himanshu // Apr 22, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    HP is a very good book(I personally enjoyed it very much),but face it guys,LOTR is an epic.Most of the characters and plot elements of HP universe are inspired from LOTR-the locket,dementors,older wiser mentor figure(aka Dumbledore),spiders,coming of age quest,magical sword(Gryffindor’s sword)…..list can go on and on.
    However endearing,replica can never equal the original.
    PS-This is not to say that Rowling is a bad writer,but Tolkien is the father of modern fantasy.

  • 54 Overlord // Apr 22, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Harry Potter was a cheap book.I read all the parts and they were hastily(rather crappily) written,Whereas Lord of the Rings easily is the most epic novel ever written.J.K Rowling only copies what the great author J.R.R Tolkien wrote
    Result:HP=-0% LOTR=99999999999999999%

  • 55 LOTR IS THE BEST // Apr 27, 2011 at 11:53 am


  • 56 READ THIS POST NOW. // May 9, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Ok sure, everyone has their own opinions, but remember, the books are unlike each other! Harry Potter is better if you want one of those books that you can get into easily, whilst LOTR is one of those books that you have to devote some time. I admit I had a hard time reading those first few pages of LOTR, but as soon as I got the story, I couldn’t put the book down. I had to find out what happened next. If Harry Potter fans say that J.K Rowling sold more books, sure it did. But how many enjoyed it more then LOTR? Plus, their both aimed at different audiences, Harry Potter is aimed at kids to Teens. Whilst LOTR is aimed at adults. Most people who commented that HP was better were kids to teens (Don’t try and lie, I caught many people who lied about their age.). IMO: Lotr is better because the storyline was very interesting and I loved how the story played out.

    TO ALL LOVERS OF LOTR: Read A Song of Ice and Fire, it’s a GREAT book. Not AS good as LOTR, but it was almost as good.

  • 57 Caroline // May 30, 2011 at 12:04 am

    LotR is great, but Harry Potter wins. I love the world of LotR, but the characters in LotR are black and white compared to the characters in the HP novels. Harry Potter talks more about the emotions of the characters and does an exemplary job describing what LIFE EXPERIENCES led to the people that the characters are. (Snape, Voldemort, Draco Malfoy etc). It shows how much of an impact experiences can have on a person.

  • 58 son of Aragorn // Jun 10, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    wtf wtf!!!??? u f*ggot! harry potter is a stupid hormonal teen who waves around a d**k shaped stick after being orphaned because his parents commited suicide because he was a nerd! Frodo Baggins is an everyday hobbit who is suddenly taken to war because the whole world is doomed. Moldywart is only a freak who doesnt have a nose and tries to kill a kid and his band of old hags and nerds!

  • 59 Muffin Prat // Jun 13, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Oh my god…stop bashing each series, it’s honestly so sad to see :(

    I think that (as a series) Harry Potter would be better. The characters are MUCH better made, and they have actual personalities.

    But as a whole world of fiction, J.R.R Tolkien simply cannot be beat! He made a whole world and described EVERYTHING about it, from it’s history, to it’s species, to it’s geography! He even made languages about it!

    Also, don’t give any BS about “hastily written Harry Potter books”, J.K Rowling took years just to craft a storyline and spent the next decade adding more and more onto it. It does pale in significance to the time put in by J.R.R Tolkien, but PLEASE don’t say that it was hastily written…just don’t.

  • 60 Muffin Prat // Jun 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    And Himanshu, Frodo was over 33 years old when he went on the quest :/ Hardly “coming of age”…

  • 61 FB123 // Jun 18, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    Both books are absolutely amazing. It is a very difficult decision, but LotR is better. It is a much more epic adventure. A whole world is created. As much as Harry Potter stirs emotion, I feel that LotR does so even more. Frodo has so many opportunities to turn back, but even though he wants to, he keeps going on because everyone is counting on him. Moreover, the fellowship gives everything to help the quest, especially Sam. Both Sauron and Voldemort are horrifically amazing villains. Harry Potter is a kid’s book-a great one-but a kid’s book. It reignited my love of reading, so it’s still an amazing book. Love them both :)

  • 62 Fred // Jun 24, 2011 at 7:39 am

    First off, I would like to point out that branding the Harry Potter series as something only kids can be bothered with is inaccurate. The percentage of Harry Potter readers who are adults is around 40% (it varies slightly depending on who you listen to).

    Another thing I would like to point out is that just because someone is a professor does not mean their work is automatically superior. In fact, it clearly doesn’t mean anything if the work of someone with little to no qualifications, but a passionate stance towards writing can be compared in any way.

    A third thing I would like to point out is that saying Harry Potter is a rip off of LOTR is also inaccurate. LOTR or any other Tolkien book can not be considered a first of it’s kind. Fantasy novels had existed long before. What LOTR did do was make fantasy a commendable genre by bringing a higher level of quality and depth to the genre.

    Speaking of depth, LOTR may have immediate depth, such as lengthy descriptions, but Harry Potter has a level of secondary depth unmatched by LOTR. Secondary depth is basically character and plot depth, when things throughout can be linked like a web. Those experienced in literature, like myself, view stories/series’ not as a linear system, but as a web. The main plot line lies at the middle of the web, and many lines stretch to this centre point from a number of starting points with a number of aspects linked along the way. If you chart the many aspects of each series, what you get is LOTR as a linear system and Harry Potter as a web. A web is considered a more advanced level of writing than a linear system for obvious reasons.

  • 63 Idrial // Jul 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Seriously HP fans, you are saying that HP is better than LOTR but you give no arguments. I’ve read all the books and the point is that LOTR is much better than HP in many ways: better writing, better characters, better plot and much more emotion and twists, HP is the occasional nice but LOTR is simply much better and if you give me (and perhaps other LOTR fans (not gonna happen)) that HP might want to get as good (obviously not better) LOTR you must give reasons and not something stupid like go and say HP ROCKS and LOTR SUCKS!

    P. S. LOTR Rules! Why?
    Read my post it again!

  • 64 Idrial // Jul 7, 2011 at 5:51 am

    Here are my arguments:

    LOTR is better written in many ways, Tolkien was a linguist and knew everything so well in a sense to stop and he did so while he described each stone in Middle-Earth and everything else you get what happened (as you have a little imagination) a sort of 3D movie in your head, while it is NOT boring it is just way to describe what makes it fun and there are many more”expensive”words.

    The characters are better in many respects, first of all the characters have a history and a genealogy second, even the characters are individually better than HP in terms of better courage, bravery, humor (not all), strength and emotion in terms of Tolkien also created racial surely among the most famous: the Hobbit, he also invented the Nazgûl, the Mûmakil, the Balrog, the Uruk-Hai and many more.

    The plot is better, because that’s the little Hobbit Frodo
    Must destroy the One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom. HP fans would say, “Yes, but Harry Potter must also defeat the great evil”artifacts”and”the destruction that is true, but that’s (at that case in the first 5 books) are not the main line of the story while in LOTR that it continues, because even though the Fellowship broken and they continue to think of Frodo as they fight they fight against Sauron that must be destroyed.

    The Emotions: In HP are very few emotions, and a bit more like LOTR: In HP is the only emotion that is in them when someone dies, and sometimes if someone is very happy, but LOTR is more then that ordinary emotions as normal, angry, sad, glad, happy, etc. and LOTR is better written, for example: When Harry to cry because his parents are dead, I am nothing and that is because some when I was 9 my mother died and now I’m only 14, but when Sam misses Frodo simply I get a sad feeling, and so there are more examples.

    And then finally the twists: It’s simple HP is just too predictable, while in LOTR you really should see what happened or just to skip to the next chapter.

    These were my arguments, now you HP-Noobs!


  • 65 Lyra // Jul 8, 2011 at 8:28 am

    I will try and give an unbiased opinion, since I did read LotR first and only just started on Harry Potter. First and foremost, I did not enjoy HP as much as I did LotR. No, it wasn’t because my loyalty is only given to Tolkien; it simply did not thrill me as much. I tend to read books that are slightly heavy, so HP just didn’t give me much satisfaction at the ending of each book. It was nothing like the journey that you would experience while reading a book like Les Misérables or LotR.

    Having said that, I would admit that HP /does/ have better characters. They are three-dimensional and believable, and that’s what I really liked. Also, Rowling writes scary scenes quite well; I never got frightened just by reading LotR (though many people claim to). The books grip you, and that’s a good thing.

    On the whole, I enjoyed HP, but it wasn’t on the same level as LotR. Both plots are complicated, but LotR is just on an epic scale. Tolkien’s writing is far superior to Rowling’s, and his dialogue is elegantly and thoroughly crafted, unlike the very in-your-face dialogue written by Rowling (”MIND THAT TREE!”).

    Fred: I would just like to point out that no reader of literature in their right mind would actually say they are well-versed in it. It is simply too vast a subject, and the very fact that you actually think yourself to be very experienced in it says that you aren’t really.

    Any literature is dangerous unless taken in extremely large doses, which very few people have.

  • 66 zakk112 // Jul 11, 2011 at 4:52 pm


  • 67 zakk112 // Jul 11, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    LOTR is understatedly better than HP in such a way that it is very easy 2 describe…harry is a 17 yr old who’s is basicly an english version of edward from twilight, while aragorn is like a cross between hugh jackman and silvestor stallone with a hint of david carusso!

  • 68 zakk112 // Jul 11, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    how can u argue against such odds???!!!

  • 69 Idrial // Jul 12, 2011 at 4:56 am

    I agree with Zakk112, but also he gives no arguments so if he self is such”adult”must he also give his arguments which strikes me so much against a LOTR Fan.

    P.S. I’m Dutch so my english sucks sometimes.

  • 70 greenheaven // Jul 15, 2011 at 4:56 am

    I just have concern for those kIDS and tEENS saying ‘LOTR sucks’…its like saying 70s and 80s music suck and justin beiber rocks…regarding my view I felt that HP was Ok…at times I felt rowling just didnt want to invest much time on the story and just get her books published and make money…of course she has copied a hell lot from Lotr and who knows may be from other less known books…the thing is she is not creative as tolkien who used his own imagination to bring up such an epic…some people may like hp more than lotr, for some otherwise including me, for some hp may SUCK :P problem with all these catogories but those who say Lotr suck are ignorant FOOOOLS…

  • 71 Person // Jul 15, 2011 at 9:27 am

    I don’t see how Lotr and Harry Potter can be compared. The quality literature in Lotr is obviously better however Tolken has tendencies to go off on a tangent, perhaps spending pages and pages describing a tree. Not everyone has patients to read something like that which is why people may say it is boring. The HP books are more about the plot and the characters, who are easier to relate to that the ones from Lotr as they are not all perfect and they all have there own flaws which makes them seem more human. Both Gandalf and Dumbledore are obviously based on Merlin. All wizards wear pointy hats. This does not mean J.K. Roaling copied Tolken.

  • 72 Andrew // Jul 15, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    Honestly, I prefer Lotr. But I also love hp. But I don’t think they should be compared because Lotr was written decades before hp, and was for a different audience. But for all of you out there who say Lotr sucks, maybe you should actually read it before you make stupid comments like that. And just because it’s harder to read doesn’t mean its boring. I also don’t appreciate all of you who are making fun of hp because it’s a ” childrens book”. It is not a childish book. It actually gets just as many adult readers as kid readers. I’m sure neither of the authors would be proud to have fans like you. And thank you for the reasonable people who said good things about both books.

  • 73 Anonymous ;) // Jul 16, 2011 at 6:31 am

    Hey, you know, I’m not trying to pick sides here but I think that LOTR is much better than HP hands down.
    I read all the HP books when I was about 9 or 10 and I absolutely fell in love with it but when I watched the LOTR movies last May or so that made me change my feelings about the two.
    After I finished watching ROTK, I just kept on roleplaying it and roleplaying LOTR and roleplaying it! Much more than what I did with HP.
    I’m reading FOTR now and I’m just captivated by Tolkien’s work.
    If any of you HP fans would say that HP is better then fine with me. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion but mine is LOTR all the way.
    I just wanna go to Middle-earth when I die. :)

  • 74 Idrial // Jul 17, 2011 at 10:58 am

    First of all: it’s nonsense to say that LOTR and HP can’t be compaired because we’re doing it right now.

    Second: I also think HP is not a ”childish” book it’s alone so that LOTR has more adult readers then HP.

    Third: This is personaly, Person, you’re saying: J.K. Roaling but not J.R.R Tolkien, way?

    Fourthly: Anonymous ;) , you’re giving comments before you have finished all the books.

    Fifth: I personaly think J.K. Roaling has copied some things from J.R.R Tolkien but not all of it and there is some own creativity in it.

    Sixth: I want to go to Middle-Earth BEFORE I die.

  • 75 Idrial // Jul 17, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Sorry, Person: Why?

  • 76 Mr Anonymous // Jul 17, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    It depends on which way you look at it. HP has alot of character depth while LOTR has alot more of detail. Also you should not compare them because they were written at different times and aimed at diffrent audiences. I find that the text in LOTR is alot more complex and so for people who are more patient while HP is alot more eaier to get pulled into.

    P.S HP is not just for kids!! Many adults read it.

  • 77 lotr // Jul 19, 2011 at 6:32 am

    LotR is so much deeper, richer and more influential than HP will ever be, and HP just ripped off tolkien genius! (dumbledore, the gay wizard, to gandalf, the invincible, omniscient, battling wizard who is super human)

  • 78 BUMALOU // Jul 19, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Harry Potter in essence is just a rip off of Lord of the Rings

  • 79 madeline // Aug 16, 2011 at 9:52 am

    i know i haven`t read lord of the rings but my brother tellls me every detail i can predict every word thet will come out of his mouth!!!!
    and death eaters have WAY cooler faces then orks!!!Dumbledore is much more powrful till he dies and harry potter is much better then frodo as a charecteur in every movie because he is much more real and intreaging then a frodo (yes frodo is a good actor, one of my favorites)but i dont wanna say lotr sucks because is dosenet harry potter just has a better story and if you read #3 then you will know that is a mystery, murder, magic(MMM)and some arent but by far the 3rd book is best harry potter book and it`s not predicable

  • 80 Jarred Velky // Aug 18, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    The when Someone said a blog, I am hoping that this doesnt disappoint me approximately this place. Come on, man, Yes, it was my choice to read, but I just thought youd have something fascinating to mention. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something you could fix in the event you werent too busy interested in attention.

  • 81 boring // Aug 19, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    yep. i’m boring too…

  • 82 SuperShotgunn // Aug 31, 2011 at 4:08 am


  • 83 girl // Sep 5, 2011 at 3:20 am

    Lord of the Rings is superior to Harry Potter?????????

    I would never used the word superior, LOTR and HP to me are on the same level (yes feel free to shoot me for saying that)
    In terms of substance, realism and credibility Harry Potter wins for me….(PLS FEEL TO YELL AND SHOOT ME AGAIN)

    1. First of all Lord of the Rings came out first so that gives it an advantage, second of all the name ‘THE LORD OF THE RINGS’. sounds so epic and intimidating, However to me that is where it ends, I think the rivalry between LOTR and HP is based on opinion.

    2. Lord of the Rings is set in medieval times…they have swords ,bows, arrows and ride on horses ,lord of the rings are more like bible stories. Harry Potter is more modern they have cars, guns and trains. To many people it depends on what fantasy you enjoy if you like modern fantasy you will prefer HP, if you like traditional fantasy you would prefer LOTR.

    3. Both stories are solid…lord of the rings has a Hobbit whose aim is to destroy a powerful ring; In HP A Boy has a quest to defeat the dark lord. (Harry is a stronger character than Frodo)

    4. HP has Death….good and innocent people die sometimes for no reason, sometimes for love or sacrifice) In LOTR, good people hardly die. The ‘Death’ theme is also fleshed out in HP and more realistic. The consequence of killing a person is no difference from what we human beings think of it, for instance in Half Blood Prince, Slughun gives probably one of the most powerful speeches in any HP film, when he tells a young Tom Riddle that ‘‘killing rips the soul in half it is a violation against nature’’. Whenever I hear those words ,I understands more, the teens that massacred there classmate in Columbine and other people who go on massacre and then kill themselves in the end. When you take a life you technically no longer have a soul and you automatically become a monster. A perfect example of another fictional who became like Tom Riddle is Faith from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The ‘Death and Killing’ theme is LOTR isn’t as in depth as HP or as realistic.

    5. HP unlike LOTR has politics and government corruption that is no difference from the real World we live in. Politics/Corruption in the sense that some people are aware that Mr Malfoy is a Death Eater, however no one says anything or even bothers to investigate him because he donates money to Hogwarts and the ministry of magic. It wasn’t until he got caught and arrested at the end of order of the phoenix that the M.O.M had no choice but to be locked up.
    6. LOTR could be seen as racist because all the good guys are white and light looking, the Orcs and wicked men are all dark skinned and look like native African, Muslims or Arabs. Aragon even referred to himself and his comrades as Men of the West. HP characters are just so diverse there are whites, blacks, Africans, Asains, Indians and more.
    7. HP unlike LOTR has racism and prejudice…In the HP world calling a muggle born a mudblood is like calling a Gay person a Faggot or a Black person a Nigger.
    8. HP racism, prejudice and intolerance of others also extends to the Death Eaters who are like the KKK, they dress like them and love to kill Muggle and Muggle-borns just like the KKK liked the kill blacks.
    9. HP racism/prejudices also extends to slavery to elves like Dobby, slavery in the HP world is not that different from what it used to be in America, In fact there is the Slavery Rights Acts in HP (thanks to Hermione) which is very similar to the Civil Rights Act the 14th amendment if the USA constitution.

    10. In HP you have economic and social class issues and the privilege or consequence that comes along with it, perfect example of this are the Wesley and Malfoy family

    11. In HP you have WAR…LOTR also has WAR but HP WARS are MORE BRUTAL AND REALISTIC, good people die, Voldemort is lIke a HITLER figure and his evil army are like Hitler’s NAZI army.

    12. Also in HP both men and woman are equal there are both female heroes and villains in HP. perfect examples are Hermione, Ginny, Dolores Umbridge and Bellatrix.

    13. LOTR can be sexist at times. EWOYN went to war not by self will but out of a broken heart, Arwen doesn’t do much and in the battle at Helms Deep the women and children had to be kept in the caves. In HP the girls and women kill ass along with the guys….Hermione, Luna, Tunks, Molly Weasly….I could go on

    14. HP has more complex characters….Snape is way more complex and unpredictable compared to any LOTR character. Apart from Boromair and his Father and may be Gandalf, Almost all Lord of the Rings characters are good and perfect, there is no trace of evil in them and all of them are willing to do good. HP characters are more humanistic and relatable sometimes even the Heroes can be driven by rage, anger and loss which may make them want to do evil things, perfect example is the lead character himself (Mr. Harry Potter) harry sometimes played dirty during Quddtich and he nearly killed Draco and Bellatrix at of anger and hate.

    15. Also HP has Free Speech oppression… a good example of this is in order of the phoenix when the minister for magic using his power to influence the Daily Prophet to smear anyone and silence anyone who claims the dark lord has returned, how many times have we seen this in our society…why do you think USA has the first amendments rights and EU has ART 10.
    I think in term of substance, realism and credibility..HP is the better series. Tolken wrote Lord of the rings from a direct point of few, Its is pure fantasy with a happy ending, HP and Star Wars in particular present a more compelling view of our world. I don’ know why it is forbidden to say no other series is better or can be better than LOTR, however this is not true.

    I don’t get mad when people say HP or STAR WARS is better than Lord of the Rings as long as they can give valid argument and good reasons.

  • 84 baggins // Sep 13, 2011 at 4:34 am

    HP just like a diary of one boy,not a fantasy novel.maybe just a little boy have dream to have magic.but LOTR is the true fantasy,with all creatures in middle earth.LOTR the best.!!!

  • 85 Peter Kenobi // Sep 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    I have read all the Harry Potter books and all the LotR books. I love them both. However, I would say LotR is better and here is why.
    LotR isn’t just a story, it’s a whole world with languages, culture, history, religion, and much more. LotR really tells the story of an entire universe. This makes LotR a fantasy that you can dream of and imagine. Harry Potter is a mystical world very much related to our own. Most people in Harry Potter live just like regular humans. However a select few people live in a secret wizard world where magic is used in their daily lives. This allows the reader to really relate to the characters in Harry Potter. All in all, Harry Potter is good to connect with characters, but LotR is much better at allowing the reader to escape to a whole other world. LotR is much deeper thinking because there is an entire fantasy world versus a secret society in the modern day world. LotR is very complex and has very deep meaning.
    You can take very good messages from both stories. Harry Potter shows that you should love your friends and be loyal to them. It shows that you should always stick together. All of Hogwarts had to stick together and fight Voldemort. It also shows that you should persevere. LotR shows a lot of the same ideas. It also shows that you must stick together and be loyal. The Fellowship failed and therefore the journey was made harder for Frodo. However Sam always stuck to Frodo’s side. When Frodo left the Fellowship to go to Mount Doom, Sam came. Sam saved Frodo from the giant spider and from the orks. LotR also shows that you need to persevere. Frodo went all the way to Mount Doom and even though he could of turned back, he didn’t. On their journey Sam says to Frodo:
    “I know. It’s all wrong. By rights, we shouldn’t even be here… but we are. It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come, and when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you, that meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.”
    “What are we holding onto, Sam?”
    “There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.”

    Overall, I like both LotR and Harry Potter, but LotR has a much deeper meaning and a richer world.

  • 86 ANONYMOUS // Sep 23, 2011 at 6:36 am


  • 87 TROLLBUSTER // Sep 23, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Does it have to be a lame competition? I like both. I remember having this argument in the playground when I was like eight years old, I have since grown up, I thought everyone else had fdone the same. Apparently not.

    OK, so there are obvious similarities. Rowling clearly ‘borrowed’ ideas from Tolkien, but didn’t Tolkien ‘borrow’ ideas from ancient folklore etc?

    Also Tolkien wasn’t writing for the child/young adult market like Rowling was, so don’t get too up yourselves when you say his books are ‘better’.
    I’m not saying I prefer either, as I love both. Both have their good and bad points, but these stupid arguments just get on my nerves. Everyone’s different, so they’re gonna have different opinions. Accept that and grow up.

    P.S. ‘Anonymous’, stop ranting. I can see a bit of drool running down your chin.

  • 88 Silver Assassin // Sep 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    i can’t decide. sarun isn’t even there, he’s a F***ing ring, voldy wins Bellatrix is the best villian ever. but what about Strider. he has everything and Elves can kick anyone’s ass. i love them both. and about dumbledore vs gandalf everyone is forgetting the original wizard Merlin

  • 89 Kel // Sep 26, 2011 at 2:18 am

    The appeal of Harry Potter is more vast, simply because it is easier to read. I imagine people dismiss LOTR before reading it the same way people hate Shakespeare before reading it. Elegant prose is diminished to ‘boring’. What you like best is obviously subjective. I loved both, but I found LOTR much more satisfying. It is rich with history (Tolkien created a whole world with histories of different races and languages) and is far more than just a story. It is also a classic piece of literature; there is no argument as to which is better written – beautiful prose. Otherwise, it all comes down to personal preference, which isn’t an argument at all, it’s an opinion.

  • 90 Anonymous // Oct 7, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Harry Potter just CANNOT be compared to LOTR! (Trust me! I read both)

    Tolkien has devoted his entire life creating a whole new world, a history , languages, pronunciations, an imensity of characters, traditions, costumes and so on (those who read LOTR knows what I’m talking about! C’mon it’s an whole new universe!). LOTR is also more than just three books with more or less 400 pages, it’s a whole colection of books. The experience of reading “The Lord of The Rings” doesn’t dries so easily like Harry Potter does, for example, while I was reading Hp, I felt the need of more history, more explanations, and I simply don’t get what I was looking for! With LOTR it’s diferent, if you read it you will have an extremely detailed (but not difficult) piece of art! I’ll give you an example: If you want better understand LOTR ( besides the 3 books and the respective appendix) you’ll have : “The Sillmarilion”, “The Hobbit”, “Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth”, “The Children of Húrin” sum to as about 10 books and more or less 10 small stories.
    LOTR is also an extensive metaphor about the Human condition, our need of power, our inability to content with the “little things”, such as friendship and loyalty. HP fans could say that J.K. Rowling’s books are about this exact theme, and they are! but – it’s wrote for kids! I’m sorry but it’s true, Hp it’s for those who cannot understand subliminal messages!
    I must be honest, I like Harry Potter, since I was a little girl that I like it, but now I only read it and watch the movis when I want to be lazy!
    Hp fans (age of 13-80’s): It´s time for you guys to grow up! Leave Harry Potter and devote your intelligence and time to a GREAT work of a GREAT fictional epic history and you won’t regret! Once you put beside the myth that LOTR is boring you will find it an addiction.

    REQUEST TO HARRY POTTER FANS: Please! Start presenting some arguments! I’m getting tired of your comments: “Hp is better because it is!”. I guess this forum is to discuss arguments, not to present you opinions!

  • 91 WHICH ONE IS THE OLDEST? (LOTR) // Oct 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Evil sorceror referred to as “Dark Lord” who desires to regain physical shape:


    Wise old mentor with a long gray beard and a wizard hat:

    A birthday sets off events:
    -Harry’s 11th
    -Frodo’s 33rd and Bilbo’s 111th

    Inherited invisibility device:
    -Ring (although the Ring takes you to a different ‘world’)

    Dog named Fang:
    -Owned by Hagrid
    -Owned by Farmer Maggot

    Evil, creepy hooded creatures:

    Deceased parents:

    -Harry’s parents were murdered
    -Frodo’s parents drowned

    Taken to live with uncle
    -Harry lives with his Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia
    -Frodo lives with his Uncle Bilbo (film version – second cousin once removed in the book)

    Giant Spider:

    Bad guy with a “wormy” name:
    -Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail)
    -Grima (Wormtongue)

    -Neville Longbottom who excels at Herbology
    -Tobold Hornblower from Longbottom who knows much about herbs and pipe-weed

    Fight with a troll:
    -Harry, Ron and Hermione fight a troll on Halloween
    -The Fellowship of the Ring fight a troll

    Dark forest
    -Forbidden Forest
    -Old forest just outside of the Shire

    “Elves” describing a race of people:
    -House elves act as servants
    -A race of peoples from Middle Earth

    Small, pitiable creature who talks in third person:

    -Run wizarding bank Gringotts
    -One of the evil races of middle earth

    Holder of the keys:
    -Hagrid (Keeper of the Keys)
    -Hurin (Warden of the Keys)

    Mischievous pair:
    -Fred & George Weasley
    -Merry and Pippin (film version)

    Forbidden language:
    -Saying “Voldemort” -
    -Black Speech of Mordor

    Dangerous willow tree:
    -Whomping Willow
    -Old Man Willow

    Basin of seeing :
    -Galadriel’s Mirror

    Powerful, life-saving swords:
    -Godric Gryffindor’s sword

    Scar on forehead :

    Do not disturb water because of…
    -The giant squid
    -Watcher in the Water

    Longed for safe-haven:
    -During the summer Harry wishes he was back at Hogwarts
    -On their quest, the hobbits long to be back in the safety of the Shire.

    Scar from Evil forces :
    -Harry’s scar on forehead
    -Frodo’s scar from the Morgul Blade

    IT’S ALL SAID!!!

  • 92 Chris // Oct 9, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Ok, for everyone saying teens do not understand lord of the rings, please reconsider. I am 14, and read both series and seen both movies trilogies/sagas. And, i’ve gotta say, i love both, but, no person in this world can compare to tolkien. Lord of the Rings is far superior, it is also much more mature, it’s fans are more devoted then some of the HP fans. i do love harry potter, and it does have a very special place in my heart, but, we Lord of the Rings fans care for our series’ more. look at all the HP comments, 99% of them simply say “hp forever!” while we provide examples and arguments. I’m a J.K Rowling fan as well as Tolkien, but, NOBODY in this world can compare to Tolkien.

  • 93 Alexandra // Oct 24, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    I Love Both of the series! But if i had to chose one it would be Harry potter everytime!!! though i’ve never read lotr books so i’m not sure who wins there :L But By The looks of the comments Lotr wins but only by a bit.

  • 94 Berkay // Oct 26, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    OMFG!! I cant believe that 14 year old kids are comparing Lotr with stupid HP.J.K Rowling stole the whole characters in LOTR.LOTR has the best soundtrack ever made,its the best movie ever and its the best book ever written.

  • 95 kalya // Nov 19, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    I just read the LOTr, and i was disappointed. In HP, harry is as to overcome many more challangeces, most by himself. As where Frodo is more cooridly and easily controlled by the powers of the ring. Hp also as a more epic war, than the three combined in LOTr. Tolkien is more orginal, but i find JK’s story more epic than any ever written by Tolkien.

  • 96 Anuj Jain // Nov 21, 2011 at 10:21 am

    well after reading all comments i would say that those who have read lotr first will prefer it i havent read lotr yet but see tolkein made a whole new fictional history so didnt bother for making it realistic but rowling created a whole new harry potter universe parallel to one already existing of muggles that gave her the right impetus for realism and one thing noone can deny (those who have read it without any pre made self statement that lotr is better ) is that hp is till now most obsessive and addictive world ever .you simply live and grow up with characters (one of the best thing about rowling ) and those who say that its only for teens it exemplifies great emotions of love sacrifice friendship and standing up against evil . dont believe me lotr fans ? then go read it again without any biased view . dumbeldore alone explains all of them with his extremely deep and short statements they are worth thinking over . he is the best character i have ever come across .and last but not the least hp holds some of the best qoutes and one liners ever .

  • 97 Anuj Jain // Nov 21, 2011 at 10:28 am

    one thing i forgot to mention : hp was released in 70s an era of movies and was so strong that made people switich of tvs and take up books if any other book that was read by good handful of people after that well i daresay that the owe it to HARRY POTTER and if iever read lotr it might be because of HARRY POTTER !!!!!!!!!!

  • 98 Bilbo // Nov 25, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Lord of the rings is much more influential and spirited and witty than harry potter. And harry potter just copies Tolkien’s Genius. I mean Gandalf/Dumbledore homosexual/ SAM homosexual.
    The longbottom river/Neville Longbottom.

    And do you even know how dumb it sounds when you run araound your house wearing your mom’s dress, shout Expelliarmus.

  • 99 Bilbo // Nov 25, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    HOLY S*** Anuj jain
    Have you even read any book ever?
    Harry potter came out in 1996
    So learn to read.

  • 100 Dieble // Nov 25, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    I have the 100th message

  • 101 Ringo // Nov 26, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    I personally find that Harry Potter appeals more to the masses because of its writing style. It’s a much more “raise a question, and answer it” technique than LOTR. I’m not saying it is poor writing, but the very fact that Rowling can connect events is not brilliant. Improvisers do it all the time in shows that they make up in 20 minutes. It’s a skill that can be honed. LOTR, however, has a much larger scope and history than HP and, therefore, relies more on the storyline of the world, and not the story of a character, as its catalyst. To include all aspects of a world and its history in one culminating journey requires a much more intimate knowledge of the world created than harnessing one character’s history and showing the other other events in relation to that character. I’m just saying that Tolkein has a more complicated balance of character dynamics WITHIN the world of Middle Earth. Whereas Rowling has a complicated story WITHIN the world of the character of Harry Potter. The two are different. I prefer Tolkein’s approach, as it is much more scholarly in its approach.

    And, as a purely fan-based argument, and not a writer’s argument, the wizardry in HP marginalizes the integrity and wisdom of the LOTR wizards. To explain, the wizards in HP are given formal schooling, years of it, along with myriad other wizards. However, the wizards in LOTR are few and require an in depth knowledge of the world, as well as necessity for survival to expand their knowledge and power. To put it simply: in HP you have classes and homework to gain power; in LOTR you pretty much have to die defeating a Balrog to gain power. Who’s more of a BAMF?

  • 102 Christian Ayer // Nov 27, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Im honestly not sure. I love HP and the wizarding world, but Tolkien’s books are filled with elves and dwarves and old times with a hard journey ahead. This is also why I like the Inheritance Cycle books. If you ask me who is the better villian, I would say Im not sure. If you asked me who the better hero was, I’d say Harry: Seriously, Frodo passes out half the time and almost dies because he wouldn’t guve up a ring set out to destroy him.

  • 103 Emily // Dec 4, 2011 at 2:20 am

    I think that both are great! If you think about it though, Harry potter is more about politics within a world being taken over but lord of the rings is about a villain who cant be controlled by rules. I would comPare the ring to the Horcruxes. Both drive man and creature mad in the hunt for them. The ring has to have a magical power to control people but the Horcruxes rely on the inner workings and weaknesses of man to control them. Both have something about them which drives an entire war. Villains: souror (spelt wrong probs) he has no real motive apart from a ring which has magic which is a powerful concept, but not as thoughtful as jk rowlings voldermort. He’s better because his very name is feared. He has a human motive. Dear, voldermort is terrified by death and so he will kill the innocent and become inhuman justto avoid it. He has a better backstory too. Goodies: Harry and frodo. Harry is brought up by cruel people who give him a rough time. Hes then thrust into a world where he’s liked and welcome. But he’s suddenly told he holds the key to an entire worlds safety, which shouldn’t mean as much to him because none of his family is left, but he finds himself caring. Of corse he has help, he’s 11! If he did it on his own it’d be unrealistic. Frodo is within the comfort of a family( bilbo) and is pulled out of that. He’s weaker than Harry, too many times does he give in to the ring. However he has amazing amounts of sympathy and love ( golom). On this both are as good as each other.

  • 104 Anuj Jain // Dec 14, 2011 at 11:09 am

    ok sorry about 70s thing ! it is 90s
    but it was the media era !

  • 105 Brock // Dec 20, 2011 at 2:30 am

    For all those comments where people have said that Harry Potter has a much more epic war, and that Lord of the Rings sucks because the war is not believable, LoTR’s wars are based on World War One. Harry Potter’s wars are derived from J.K Rowling’s imagination. For the ones who said that LoTR had no emotional value, have you even read the books? There is so much emotion in them that you could cry, laugh, and throw your book at the wall all at the same time. Lord of the Rings is much better than Harry Potter. J.R.R Tolkien has created not only a secondary world, but also a complete history, going back thousands of years, whereas Harry Potter is merely a secondary world. I think people have to start to remember that there IS actually government in LoTR, contrary to what some Harry Potter fans are saying. This is set in Middle Earth (i.e. the middle ages) when there was a different system of government.
    I think that Harry Potter is a lot simpler to understand, and J.K has made it very, very obvious what the characters are feeling. Tolkien, on the other hand, has made it difficult to tell, until you’ve been with them a fair way.
    People who say that one series is better without reading the other have no idea about literature.
    Lord of the Rings is better in so many ways.
    Harry Potter is better for lighter reading.

  • 106 Devansh // Dec 20, 2011 at 4:04 am

    Emily, you are entirely wrong on the point that people don’t fear to say Sauron’s name.

  • 107 Devansh // Dec 20, 2011 at 4:30 am

    Anuj Jain, you have not even read LOTR so how can you even say anything about LOTR vs. HP? And also, when it comes to LOTR vs. HP, LOTR stands out as the best. Take the main villains as an example. Sauron has a personal land for himself, control over a volcano, a gigantic army and powerful men allies while Voldemort has to stay in hiding all the time with his death eaters until the last book when he is can show himself freely but only for a short time.

  • 108 Vick // Dec 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    They are both different stories, whenever you see someone who hate Harry Potter, he then must be a LOTR fans. If I’ve to choose, it would be Harry Potter, not the movie, the content, well I am a LOTR fan too, so don’t get me wrong. LOTR is stunning, but Harry Potter is better with me, like a potential boy, live under a bad family, discovering his background secret, Harry Potter’ve got very rich storyline, that is what LOTR loses at, LOTR is amazing and perfect, I agree, but poor storyline, too few for me to discover with, besides I get bored easily, all you’ve saw on film was just the surface of it, you will discover more if you read Harry Potter’s series and explore its very own wikipedia:, it’s real that Harry Potter owns a better background story and content, you can compare LOTR’s and HP’s via their series wikipedia:,, it’s okay to accept new thing, if you insist to compare LOTR with HP, it’s okay too, but you will love HP until you discover all of it. I was a LOTR fan too, until Harry Potter release its sixth book. It’s fine if you still prefer LOTR series. Hmm, one last thing, I said it above, all you’ve saw on film is just the surface of it, little screen with big background, so don’t judge anything or overexaggarate anything blindly, or else you will get scold. And LOTR fans, please stop using harsh word to attack Harry Potter, I’m so curious that how could people compare it, it’s just like comparing Louis Vuitton with Hermes, depends on people’s hobby.

  • 109 #replying "WHICH ONE IS THE OLDEST? (LOTR) " // Dec 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Evil sorcerer referred to as “Dark Lord” who desires to regain physical shape: Voldemort, once regain its own physical shape, able to harm world.

    Wise old mentor with a long gray beard and a wizard hat: Dumbledore, greatest sorcerer in Harry Potter’s universe, most famous for defeating the previous Dark Lord Gellert Grindelwald, Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Order of Merlin – First Class, Supreme Mugwump of International Confederation of Wizards, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot headquarter. Dumbledore became the only wizard that Voldemort ever feared.

    A birthday sets off events:
    -Harry’s 11st and Dumbledore’s 115th

    Inherited invisibility device: The Invisibility Cloak, one of three deathly hallows, able to hide from death, if wear it without taking off, immortal.

    Dog named Fang: Hagrid’s fatty, coward pet dog, nothing special.

    Evil, creepy hooded creatures: Dementors, former guards of Azkaban wizarding prison, teamed with the Dark Lord’s side while Second Wizading War, Dementors feed off human happiness, and thus cause depression and despair to anyone near them. They can also consume a person’s soul, leaving their victims in a permanent vegetative state, and thus are often referred to as “soul-sucking fiends” and are known to leave a person as an “empty-shell.”

    Deceased parents: Harry’s parents were murdered, but Harry’s mother, Lily left a Love magic between the Dark Lord, causing Harry Potter immune to the Dark Lord until 1994.

    Taken to live with uncle: Harry lives with his uncle Vernon, bullied all the day.

    Giant Spider: Aragog, owned a forest of spider.

    Bad guy with a “wormy” name: Wormtail, traitor of James Potter and Lily Potter, betrayed Potter family to the Dark Lord.

    Longbottom:-Neville Longbottom who excels at Herbology, later became a professor at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizadry, fought and survived at Second Wizarding War, destroyed one of the Dark Lord’s horcruxes.

    Fight with a troll: Harry and Ron fought a troll by levitating the troll’s club.

    Dark forest: the forbidden forest, dark forest beside Hogwarts Castle, thousands of creature living there.

    “Elves” describing a race of people: House elves, magical creature which is devoted and loyal to the one designated as their master. Serves old wizarding family, possesses very powerful magic, even more powerful than a wizard.

    Small, pitiable creature who talks in third person: Dobby, protects Harry Potter until the very end, being murdered by Bellatrix Lestrange while apparating after saving Harry Potter and his friends.

    Goblins: Run a wizarding bank called Gringotts which located miles away under London city, highly intelligent race, possesses a few magic.

    Holder of the keys: Hagrid (Keeper of the Keys), notified and revealed Harry Potter’s truth. Friend of Harry Potter.

    Mischievous pair: Fred & George Weasley, well known for their sense of humour and pranks, Fred’s dead, given Harry the Marauder’s Map which helped him and his friends to defeat the Dark Lord.

    Forbidden language: Saying “Voldemort”, define the speaker’s courage, Taboo-ed word after the Dark Lord takeover the Ministry of Magic (Taboo means a extremely powerful curse which embedded on a word, once someone speaks the word, the caster will be notified immediately the location of victims.)

    Dangerous willow tree: Whomping Willow, The Whomping Willow is a very valuable, very violent species of magical plant. Whomping Willows attack anyone and anything that comes within range of its branches. A deciduous plant, its limbs function as arms and any damage to them must be treated in much the same way, planted due to Remus Lupin’s werewolf transformation, allowing him to transform to a werewolf in privacy.

    Basin of seeing : Pensieve, the Pensieve is an object used to review memories, memories can then be viewed from a third-person point of view.

    Powerful, life-saving swords: Godric Gryffindor’s sword, the sword of a famed wizard Godric Gryffindor, made thousand years ago. It is one of the few things that can destroy a Horcrux

    Scar on forehead/ scar from evil forces: Harry’s scar is the result of a failed murder attempt by Lord Voldemort due to his mother’s loving sacrifice protection.

  • 110 pedro penduko // Dec 22, 2011 at 2:14 am

    LOTR. It is a fine finished literary gem. And I agree that the story was made out of love and passion. Mr. Tolkien has written the story for the love of his children, unlike JRowling: for money (she has to finish the succeeding books because of it).

  • 111 anonymous // Dec 22, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    This isnt even worth being called a question. Ofcourse lord of the rings is better. OFCOURSE. Movies..lets see they dominated the oscars while harry potter barely made an appearance and the films are just more spectacular. Books..well this is just simple. Tolkeins works are a masterpiece. Who are any of you or even JK Rowling to try to match or challenge. It’ll be a long time before anyone takes Tolkeins throne.

  • 112 Devansh // Dec 31, 2011 at 5:43 am

    Vick, how can LOTR have a poor storyline?!!!!!
    If it would not have been having a rich storyline, how could it have been so famous??? And when talking about background of LOTR, there are the rich appendixes and 2 more books (The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales).

  • 113 Hermione // Jan 3, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Well don’t yell at me just yet. I promise to write back as soon as I finish the other series.

    I just finished reading the Harry Potter series a month ago. The best series or books I’ve ever read. They are so interesting and heart meting. It almost made me cry when it was over. I can say I love Hermione. The books are farway better than the movies. In opinion the only good movies are 1-3. My favorite books are 4 and 6. 4 has a surprising twist and has action the whole book. 6 has an adventourus ending. My least favorite was 5. Quite boring really. But no worry Lord of the Rings fans, I plan on starting this series next. I am upset at all the crude comments toward Harry Potter. Half of you never even read this but watched the not as good movies. Well this is my conclusion: I’m obsessed with Harry Potter. If you’re aloud to read it, I’d advise you to attempt it. I promise to write again as soon as I finish Lord of the Rings.

    Please no bad comments back unless you agree with what I’m saying. Thankyou for you’re review on both series and I’ll be writing back soon.
    Hermione :)

  • 114 The Unknown? // Jan 4, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    Honestly not that I’m saying anything at all against Harry Potter (Go Luna Lovegood, BOO Ginny (the worst nick-name in the world, who wants that name?) Weasley!!! :P ”), but in The Hobbit in a song last sentence on page 22, it reads ‘gems on hilt of sword.’ J.K. Rowling totally stole that from J.R.R. Tolkien for the sword of Godric Gryffindor because the sword has rubies at the end. Rings was wrote before Potter. Am I honestly the only one to piece this together? If I find more comparisons, I’ll reply, sorry Potter people but that’s a burn toward you. :)

  • 115 Saruman the Grey // Jan 7, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Harry potter is just an another version of the lord of the rings. Read the two>

  • 116 Zero // Jan 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    TBH… i agree with alot of the Lotr fans here… HP is written more for Younger audiences if your a Kid (btw tween is such a retarded word -.-” your either a teen or your not theres a reason why your called twelve and not twelveteen…) anyways the point is… Harry Potter, Dont get me wrong i liked the story… but the plot in every movie is almost so predictable and very repetitive in so many ways for instance… Harry goes into a dungeon… walks around the corner OH CRAP TROUBLE!… the Camera angle gives it away so much, you know sumthing bads gonna happen, Now onto the book ive read all of them and i really enjoyed them all… but TBH thats when i was like 12… I never really liked lord of the rings untill i was 15 and once i read the books and watch the movies i was hooked… The plot was great the movie scenes were the best! The book leaves you thinking after each page like … Damn how the hell is a small hobbit supposed to walk into mordor and Reach to mount doom!! Frodo as small as he is he doesnt let that get the best of him… he carries the ring makes it in get his finger bit off and comes out like a Boss.!!! Harry on the other hand i cant believe throughout the books and movies he learns a few spells… over the course of years you wouldve thought he learned some spells to defend himself instead of relying on other all the god damn time… Anyways…

    LOTR!!! Prevails sorry HP fans

  • 117 Devansh // Jan 14, 2012 at 3:44 am

    Well, to tell the truth the first five books of HP do nothing to destroy the hocruxes of Voldy (except the second one). They are mostly a formality except the scene in which Voldy gets a new body. But in LOTR, the journey of Frodo and Sam continues through all the books. The songs and the poems in LOTR make it more emotional than HP and I was about to cry when Boromir died so I skipped the chapter of his death.

    So LOTR wins, sorry HP fans!

  • 118 Phoebe // Jan 23, 2012 at 10:45 am

    Can I just say a lot of LOTR fans have said J.K Rowling didn’t create a whole new world and have to say, have you been reading the right series? I haven’t actually read LOTR but two of my best friends and neither exactly raved about it (One of them actually hasn’t finished them) but out of four best friends and I, we’ve all loved Harry Potter (None of us felt forced to, cause its a classic) and while we have all moved on other fantasy/sci-fi series, we all hold a special place in readers’ hearts for HP. Also, when people say LOTR is the grandad of modern fantasy, what about Narnia? (Going completely off topic, I think Narnia is magical in its “They’re completely normal way”) Didn’t Narnia, technically come first (If you don’t include the Hobbit), its like when people say Star Trek was the first sci-fi when Doctor Who was first aired six years earlier. Coming back to the topic, its HP, I’ve tried to get started on LOTR but haven’t YET. JK Rowling inspired me to be a author, J.R.R Tolkein didn’t. Also, JKR has said she’s a LOTR fan (I think) so I don’t think she would think highly of either “sides” bashing. Finally, expand your minds so for one to be great, the rest have to be awful. LOTR fans, no offence but as you have still have the Hobbit to look forward to, so gloat about that! Can’t both sides hate on something that deserves it, like Twilight? BTW, if you haven’t guessed, HP takes it everytime.

  • 119 Mere // Jan 25, 2012 at 1:36 am

    While I did enjoy HP as a kid, I was introduced to LotR later and realized I’d been missing out. How can people say things like “LotR’s characters are black and white?” Lets be serious here, compared to LotR HP is just a bunch of stupid teenagers and their stupid drama. The characters in Lotr have history, romance and emotion. They make you feel what it’s like to die for your king, to give up your immortality for your true love, (technically this applies to HP too I’m just pointing it out.) to risk your life to save the world. Tolkien created an entire world with mythology, and politics, art, music, true love and language. All of Tolkiens works were true masterpieces and while HP is fun for little kids it will never be able to come close to being in the same league as Lord of the Rings.

  • 120 fettabsaugen // Jan 29, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Bei der Güteklasse der geeigneten Brustimplantate geschrieben stehen heute ausgewählte Designs zur Verfügung.

  • 121 Devansh // Jan 31, 2012 at 10:25 am

    To the person called “girl”:
    Some of your points are wrong. The reason why all good characters in LOTR are purely good is because in LOTR everything that is evil was good once. This showed sense to the characters that what becomes of being evil. Another reason why this is so because in HP all the characters are men and are corruptible while in LOTR many character’s aren’t men. AND LOTR IS NOT RACIST. Remember the White hand of Saruman, Isildur’s black stone of Erech, the black chair of the Steward of Gondor, the white light of Minas Morgul, the Nazgul appeared White to Frodo when he wore the ring etc etc.

  • 122 osullc16 // Feb 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    I have read both HP and LOTR. I have to say LOTR is the better book due to Tolkien’s superior writing. HP books are really good but the LOTR is a masterpiece. LOTR is a greater original work in which Tolkien was trying to create a mythology for England. In doing so he created a ’secondary’ world filled with distinct landscapes, creatures and people with culture and language. Even Rowling was inspired by LOTR. For example, its obvious the Dementhors were ripped off from the Ringwraiths. I don’t blame Rowling for taking some elements of LOTR and adding them into her own story, because its hard not to be inspired by Tolkien’s great work.

    As C.S Lewis once said of LOTR- “here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron. Here is a book which will break your heart.”

  • 123 wow. This is sad // Feb 14, 2012 at 3:03 am

    i can’t believe that people just have to compare everything. it’s odd that people have this inborn desire to express their feelings in the most degrading way. i’ve seen both sides thrash each other and it makes me embarased to call myself a fan of either. anyway (bias alert) i do prefer LotR( the proper way to type the shortcut, as “of the” are minor words) because i read them first. also (do i sound like every other LotR fan?) i believe LotR to be a superior book in terms of literary devices and writing style. now, being a teenager i find harry potter and friends to be easier to relate to, but i also relate to the youthfulness of the hobbits. both books have many things in common i.e. borderline fanatic fans (clearly displayed in this blog), similar plots and characters, and books that got thrashed by their movies (however peter jackson did a much better job w/ the LotR movies than harry potter’s director did). i will say, though, that HP was an excellent combination of magic and the planet we call earth. in my own personal opinion, however, Lotr is a better book and movie (most people agree on this point) than HP

    p.s. both sides: if you havn’t read both series’ then don’t critize, and defidently don’t thrash

    p.p.s. LotR fans seem to have better points/reasons for “superiority”

  • 124 Alex // Feb 18, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    You HP fans are missing a point. J.R.R Tolkien made an ENTIRE NEW WORLD WITH CULTURES AND RACES. All J.K Rowling did was create a large school, a forest, and names of other schools.

  • 125 Alex // Feb 18, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    BTW i did read both the entire HP series and LOTR triligy, and wacthed all of their movies, LOTR clearly trumps HP

  • 126 Madison // Feb 26, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    All right, y’all.
    Let me put y’all right.
    I’m not comparing the two, just responding to the negative comments towards Harry Potter.
    1. J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter as a coming of age book. The first book (not her best work) was intended for young children. As the books develop and mature, so were her readers. Obviously, you only read the first two, three maybe.
    2. J.K. Rowling created a secret world that lapses with the muggle world. (Diagon Alley, Gringotts, Hogwarts, Ministry of Magic)
    3. J.K. Rowling gave each character multiple histories and dimensions. (see point 1)
    I admit J.K. Rowling has used elements of this book, but the plot was very original.
    But “evil people with the name ‘worm’, deceased parents, etc. COME ON PEOPLE.
    It is a matter of opinion, so declaring one as better is wasted. Just a thought.

  • 127 Madison // Feb 26, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    After continuing reading, here are other points.
    4. Saying Harry Potter has no emotional meaning… I guess it depends on how you take the books. I, personally, see it as a book of bravery, of overcoming challenges, and doing anything for love (not the sparkling vampire kind, the friendship/family/love love.
    5. Like I said, Rowling’s world is a world within a world. Developing their own language whilst in a world of the one language would be… odd. Their values are different. Personally, I believe witches and wizards have very high values. Higher than ours, anyways.
    And when y’all say “as a highly educated student majoring SomethingImportant from the University of WhatNot is sort of irrelevent. Steps to enjoy a good book:
    1. Have the ability to read.
    Thanks for your time.

  • 128 troy jack // Feb 28, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Okay, this is what I say: The Lord of the Rings has more depth as the characters are made on much deeper thoughts. Their actions in sacrifice and love is jaw dropping. For Harry, all he does in the entire story is bury a simple elf with a shovel. How can that be compared to the depth-the extreme sacrifices of Boromir, of Eragorn or Gandalf? All of them gave what was needed, then some. So how is it that an inexperienced, Juvenalially written, formless, weak plotted story has caught the eyes of millions? Easy, it is based off of dead metaphors, used ideas and soap-opera drama that Television infested people like to read as they have no imagination other than the over used tripe of TV that echoes in the works of Harry Potter.

    So whats better? Well, thats your choice. Are you a juvenile reader who likes to dwell on childish, stereotypical TV Soaps or are a mature, avid reader who would rather spend his/her time reading the works of exact love and sacrifice, and unmeasured imagination over the repetitive plots of a boy who could only give minimum wage in a total reign of 36 years?

  • 129 pranks // Mar 1, 2012 at 4:12 am

    for all u people out there who say LOTR is linear (Fred mentioned that i think) think again. i read hp when i was about 8 and was also one of those people going gaga over the series. but then i read lotr at 11 and OMG. when i read hp initially i kept re reading it but after a while its charm just started fading. it became boring. when i say re reading i mean in the next one year i mustve read each book about 4-5 times. but not so with lotr. i am 13 now and honestly have read each of the books including the hobbit about 6-7 times. not even that when i finished the hp books twice i never felt the interest to read the third time but even now if u show me lotr i grab it like a dog. and quite frankly hp just dosent have the depth of characters. dont get me wrong i still love hp a LOT but the portrayal of the characters just isint deep enought- the description of human emotions (human is just a loose term but whatever) – the grief,sacrifice and sense of loss is just not like lotr ,in hp. and of course while JK blends the wizard and muggle world tolkein creates a whole new world. and for those who say lotr isint complicated compared to hp, i dont see madame rowling writing huge books describing the history behind each character and explaining in detail about his/her lineage. on the whole LOTR TOTALLY wins and keep in mind that this is a 13 YEAR OLD writing so any of u A*** crazy enough to say lotr is hard to read go piss ur A** off!!!

  • 130 pranks // Mar 1, 2012 at 4:33 am

    oh and 4 those of u who think TWILIGHT sucks go learn the meaning of LOVE first and then come and read the books. it just isint abou “sparkly vampires” or some such thing like some commenter said its about feeling the emoyion when u read the book . and TWILIGHT defenitely ensures THAT><

  • 131 Anglacel // Mar 1, 2012 at 10:48 am

    The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, while they really aren’t that comparable, are being compared, so my say is that LotR is the better. First of all, as has been said before, the sheer scope of Middle Earth is far beyond anything that Rowling has created. The Silmarilion, which is the source of the name I’m using, gives Middle Earth a huge amount of depth which the Harry Potter Universe can never attain. Everything in Middle Earth is named, usually in one of the multiple languages that Tolkien created, which adds to the feeling of another world with another history that you can slip into whereas Harry Potter can never fulfill that. Also, Gandalf is probably the most misunderstood character, he is much deeper than Dumbledore if you have the context of the Silmarilion and the Unfinished Tales. LotR also influenced an entire genre of literature (Harry Potter included) so when reading any sort of fantasy (still including Harry Potter) you are really reading a trickled down diluted version of LotR. So hold your criticism while you think about that.

  • 132 And he replied, "No." // Mar 3, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Well, I must say that the simple act of reading through some of these comments has me dumbfounded.

    What this discussion consists of, to my eyes, is primarily fanboyism/fangirlism. We have statements like “OMG LOTR is like TOTALLY 100000000000000000% better than the SHTOOPID, NOOBISH HP” on one end and remarks like “LOTR SUCKS HP ROCKS” on the other with no explanation of this point of view whatsoever in either answer.

    We get that you enjoy LotR/HP, but seriously, shouting about it will not get your opinion accepted and generally makes you come off as idiotic.

    Now, I agree that LotR was far superior to HP in some places, the most choice example being that of Tolkien’s excellent world-building. He constructed an entire universe called Middle Earth and filled it with societies and dialects and languages. To execute something on this scale and do it successfully is truly something to be proud of.

    This seems to me to be that primary advantage of LotR over HP, and fanboys/fangirls have not hesitate to seize on to it.

    But you have to recognize that while this world-building is impressive and technically superior to Rowling’s superimposition, it does not make for a good story.

    Tolkien crafted a world masterfully, created literally hundreds of characters… and drops the reader into this world and expects him/her to cope.

    Now, many of the Tolkien fans say that this is good because it makes LotR more “adult”, but I personally feel that that’s rubbish. What good is a world that the reader cannot relate to? In the end, LotR was a great story, but its character development and plot fell behind, not due to Tolkien’s neglect, but because of the enormous complexity of this gianormous world he made. It’s enough to confuse anyone, even the “adult” that you people are invoking.

    By contrast, Rowling cleverly made use of magic to produce several “cool special effects”, but her focus overall was not on the world, but on the characters. As a result, the plot and characters got buffed above those of LotR’s, but the world-building is considered inferior.

    It’s simply a different writing style, folks. HP has better characters, LotR has a better setting. It’s up to you as the reader to decide which you like better. That, however, is no reason to come up with comments that contribute nothing whatever to the discussion. Keep your opinion; don’t foist it onto others without the proper explanation.

    As for Rowling copying Tolkien, well, I don’t deny that Rowling took influences from previous works and nor, I’m sure, does she. If Rowling borrowed aspects from LotR, so did a hundred other fantasy writers. It’s the execution, not the concept, that defines the book. Some idiot could have taken the concept of LotR and botched it up so badly that none of you people here would be comparing it to HP. Likewise, Rowling could have started with a blank slate and ended up with so bad a story that it would not stick in half of your memories.

    But stop saying that “copying” parts of another book automatically makes your book worse than that other book just because it’s not “original”. The fact is, Tolkien incorporated many themes that simply cannot be excluded from any good fantasy, and Rowling chose to take some of the themes because they made her series better. Yet no one can honestly claim that Rowling’s work is not completely and wholly her own.

    I agree with Anglacel in that LotR influenced an entire genre. By doing so, Tolkien ensured that all subsequent books of the same genre would “copy” part of his book. Is that bad? No! Value originality, but don’t value it above the actual content of the story.

    As for HP being a children’s book and no self-respecting adult ever reading it, most of you saying that have probably never read past The Chamber of Secrets. LotR was written all at the same level, HP was written to grow up with the reader. If you were eleven when you read The Sorcerer’s Stone, you will be seventeen to enjoy The Deathly Hallows.

    That is why HP will stand up to the test of time, just as LotR has.

    Also, Anglacel, “much deeper than Dumbledore”? Really? In your post, I have not seen any evidence that you have read past The Chamber of Secrets in the HP series. If you have, well, sorry about that accusation, but your comment seems very one-sided, if you ask me.

    I’m not saying that HP is better than LotR, if that’s the impression I gave you. I’m just defending a newer series against the rabid fanboyism/fangirlism of LotR.

    That concludes my opinion. Feel free to challenge any of my points; I will be happy to debate it with you if I have time. But for now, stop mindlessly criticizing Harry Potter, people.

  • 133 Aragorn // Mar 9, 2012 at 1:40 am

    The Harry Potter stories are so accessible largely because they take place in a world very like our own, only with one huge twist; whereas LotR takes place in Middle-earth, which has certain similarities to the world we know, but is mostly wildly different. It is Middle-earth that LotR is really about: the characters and events are mostly important in how they shape the world, and it is the richness of the world that is the biggest reason for the story’s success.But as neat as the H.P.’s world is, it pales against the richness of Middle-earth. H.P. is lighter, faster; but LoTR is harder and heavier.
    When you read the LoTR books you can see clear parallels and allusions to events and ideas that Tolkien was familiar with. The Battle of Pelenor alludes to both the Fall of Constantinople and the Mongol Sack of Baghdad, but with a different result. There is a clear Odyssey parallel, allusions to Atlantis myths and Northern European folklore. Tolkien did not just invent a brilliant world, he tied it to stories and traditions that we all know and made it that much richer and immensely accessible.
    Again Tolkien invented a completely new language, The Elvisg Tongue which had its dialects. Further not even a single race in LoTR didn’t have their own written history.

  • 134 RM // Mar 10, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Let’s face it, LotR is better. Tolkien created new species, languages, songs, poems, and a whole new world! I’m not saying harry potter is for little kids, it just has a lower aged audience. I have read all Lotr, watched all of the movies, read the hobbit, and currently reading the children of hurin. And Lotr can also be for semi- younger ages too. I read the books at age 11, my mom read them at age 12/ 13, and by brother is currently reading them, and he is 10. HP does have have millions of fans, but I think the hunger
    games stole part of their spotlight. It’s like this: you want ramen noodles for lunch, then you want a pbj for dinner. Books tend to loose people’s attention. And when that happens, it turns into dust in the wind. LotR has passed that test. It has been around for almost 60 years! LotR is the true victor!

  • 135 anon // Mar 11, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    I think this is too much like comparing apples to oranges. Despite the number of similarities between the series(which could be argued to be due to influence from LOTR) these are two very different environments. LOTR is about a world, an epic adventure and the archetypes that inhabit it. HP is about Harry Potter, it has complicated characters and a rich plot. HP is about the individuals. The periods during which the books were written must also be taken into account. LOTR was written during and after WW2, it reflects the massive conflicts that took place during that era. HP is modern, it was published in ‘97 and reflects more modern issues and opinions.
    I think both stories have equal merit in the literary world, I personally prefer LOTR, but then that was the one I read first and it has had the greater impact on me.

  • 136 LOTR History for my style // Mar 19, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    You can’t compare HP With LOTR, Tolkien created a new world and began a new era for the fantasy genre. I’m 17 years old and have readed all HP books and LOTR I have also readed: the hobbit, silmarillion, tales from the perilous realm, unfinished tales and soon the book that have more than 5000 pages the history of middle-earth. Tolkien died before he could finish his work, J.K lives and can’t even win a caracter battle, Tolkien was simply too great, nothing can compare to the history in middle-earth, I know the beginning of the world how it was created, how every creater came to the world, they don’t even tell how there can be magicians in HP and how the dragons came or something like that, it is just a story with no history. Tolkien leaded the way to be an author in fantasy, don’t destroy that road it is leading the right way.

  • 137 And he replied, "No." // Mar 21, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    Well, RM, I think I’ve addressed your point in my previous post regarding Tolkien’s world-building.

    Also, HP has a lower aged audience? No, my friend. Rowling simply crafted her story so that it would be easier to read by kids of a lower age. That’s by no means a bad thing! In fact, one of LotR’s prime faults is that it’s too complicated for little kids to follow.

    Really, the greatest challenge is to write something that is comprehensible to children yet has enough depth to captivate an adult. Many people here seem to believe that you can either have one or the other. If kids can understand it, it must be one-dimensional. That’s not true, folks!

    As for HP not standing the test of time, well, I think it’s fair to say that it already IS doing so. After all, the first book was published in 1997, and here we are, still talking about it fifteen years later!

    And about Hunger Games stealing some of HP’s limelight, that’s largely a matter of opinion, so eheheheh, I say let’s wait and see.

    Also, LotR has indeed lasted for sixty years, but you do realize that that is impossible for HP to do as of yet because it hasn’t existed for sixty years yet! We will have to wait to see what the future holds for both series, but from what I’ve seen from HP so far, it deserves merit on a scale equal to that of LotR.

  • 138 Nancy Barnsley // Apr 9, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Well, I have read all of the HP books, and I am in the process of reading LOTR. Although I found it much easier to get into HP, LOTR is much more complex and sophistacted. The LOTR movies are especially good and have amazing special effects. T

  • 139 Nancy Barnsley // Apr 9, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Personally I think that, although I haven’t read all of the LOTR books, the HP books are better. But by no doubt the LOTR films are WAY better then HP. Even though I love them both equally! LEGOLAS IS A BABE, AND HE IS MINE<3<3<3<3

  • 140 Nancy Barnsley // Apr 9, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Ignore the first comment:L

  • 141 Myself // Apr 14, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Both of the series are good, so please don’t go around bashing either of them! (Please, Potter fans…I’m with you but you sound like Twilight fans which really makes me feel sad.) Zakk112: the comparison between Harry Potter and Edward Cullen shows that you obviously haven’t read the Harry Potter books. And for everyone that is arguing on the Harry Potter side, please don’t post here if you haven’t read both (because it is pretty easy to tell that some of you haven’t!) The series aren’t really the same and they aren’t aimed towards the same age groups so you shouldn’t be compared…they have different qualities and different bad points.

  • 142 Alex // Apr 16, 2012 at 9:13 am

    LOTR sucks, is so boring!!!!
    Harry Potter is the best book ever – past present and future.J.K Rowling is really a genius.
    LOTR is only about fight,war and other stuff like that ,and the plot – protecting a ring?Come on ! That’s ridiculous!+boring
    but HP is full of action and is for evrbd!!!

  • 143 Bree // Apr 18, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Now, personally, I like LotR much better than HP. And thats saying something; I read the Harry Potter books seven times! I could go on about how Harry Potter wouldn’t be what it is without LotR, it has a much richer plot, etcetera, etcetera, but I’m going to settle for this: YOU CANNOT COMPARE THEM! Lord of the Rings is a completely different story, and they are both equally amazing in their own ways. I can come up with hundreds of reasons why LotR beats HP any day, but theres no point. THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Its like saying a movie is better than video game. They are two totally different things, with different plots, characters, settings, and all that stuff. LotR is awesome, Harry Potter is awesome. It’s impossible to compare them because there are reasons for both to be better, but it boils down to the fact that they are two different things that each have their pros and cons. There. My rant is over. Continue with your arguing.

  • 144 Lady of the Rings // Apr 18, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    LOTR is so much better. Bree agrees with me. But really, you can’t compare them. They are both relevant stories that make sense and have good plots/characters/film adaptations. I personally prefer LOTR, but both book series were written by literary geniuses. LOTR was around first, and Ms. Rowling probably got inspiration from it in some way, but really, you can’t compare the two series when they are very different. I still like Frodo better than Harry, though.

  • 145 Lady of the Rings // Apr 18, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    And Alex, if you want people to take you seriously, write like someone who actually learned how to speak proper English. And while LOTR is about protecting a ring, it has many other subplots and underlying themes and messages, many of which have been repeated in most literature following it. I don’t think HP is worthy of the praise LOTR has gained so far, but let the test of time show the superior series. And Tolkien created entires worlds and cultures and languages for his books. HP can’t quite match that.

  • 146 Simon // Apr 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Skimming through some of the answers, it’s fairly obvious who the more mature readers are.

    The Lord of the Rings is by far the better read. The gigantic amount of ambient texture that Tolkien has fitted into a single novel is breath-taking. The Harry potter books set in a magical Britain, whereas LOTR is set within Middle Earth- which itself is set within Arda under the creation of Eru Illuvatar. Tolkien’s works encompass thousands of years of history- from the very dawn to the end of creation. He describes everything with exquisite detail. I understand that this can put some ‘adrenaline junky’ readers off but this is like saying that Mozart is boring in my opinion. Tolkien is amongst the best writers ever- and although Rowling’s books may be more action filled (although they have nothing like the battle at the end of the 3rd age, or the fall of gondolin, or the siege of minastirith etc.) LOTR is by far the better of the two. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not been bothered to give the effort to actually read Tolkien’s works.

  • 147 LotR fan // May 4, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    I don’t understand how people compare the two because they are different story’s written at different times… But LOTR is better than HP in my opinion! LotR is about a epic journey, HP is about wizards and a much more of childs story.

  • 148 June // May 18, 2012 at 1:11 am

    Although there are similar themes in the books, they cannot be compared, as a lot of people mentioned already. They were basically written in different centuries, and for very different age groups. To the people trashing either Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings: JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien are far superior to you all (especially as ‘Lady of the Rings’ mentioned – those who can’t even write proper English). These are both extraodinary writers who created new worlds, with an extreme amount of detail therein. Because of this creativity I enjoyed both series, and I know that I will never be able to write anything that ever compares to it.

  • 149 Vijay Varma // May 18, 2012 at 4:22 am

    I think both books are great and realy ful of fantasy ……… but when it comes to comparison i will go For harry potter only because of the villan voldemort and beletrix lustrange

  • 150 anonymous // May 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Please people! This discussion is stupid! Those two is the BEST books ever written! (Well, also Percy Jackson and the Olympians.) They are soooo much different! I like them both so I vote for Percy Jackson and the Olympians coz’ I can’t really imagine comparing LOTR and HP.

  • 151 pippin lives // Jun 18, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    hmmm lets see, frodo loses his parents yet he doesn’t whine about the whole series! he is trust worthy and awesome!!!! and gandalf is MUCH better than dumbledore. just saying!

  • 152 pippin lives // Jun 18, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    but i agree with anonymous. percy jackson is pretty awesome

  • 153 pippin lives // Jun 22, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    oh ya and i’m eleven read all the books of BOTH series and i’m just saying that it seems that HP copied ALOT! but in lotr there is sooo much more deatail! the whole appendics in the back, countrys, family trees, ect! TAKE THAT HP FANS! LOTR RULES!

  • 154 I love BOTH!!! // Jun 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Before I comment, let me just say- I’m thirteen years old, and I have read both series multiple times. Both are amazing series and I honestly love them both, I think both authors are amazing, and I got so addicted to both series. I actually read LOTR when I was nine years old, again when I was eleven, again when I was twelve, and I am now on the Return of the King again. I started reading Harry Potter when I was twelve, and I am on my third read through. (Just starting the Goblet of Fire) Both have drawn me in like no other series have. But altogether I have to say Lord of the Rings beats all. I got lost in the world so easily because it was so real. Tolkien spent half a century on these books, and it really shows. I have just started the Silmarillion for the second time, and am amazed by the scope of the incredible story. I am not saying J.K. Rowling’s series isn’t well thought out, it was amazingly thought out and planned, just not as much as LOTR. So all in all LOTR is my favorite.

    P.S. Honestly guys, it really hurts to see fellow LOTR and HP lovers yell and swear at each other like this. I saw somebody call a HP fan an IDIOT and LOSER because he misspelled a spell. I have seen HP fans call LOTR fans stupid and plenty of “Colorful Metaphors” I wouldn’t use myself. So please don’t bash each other like this. Thank you.

  • 155 Lord Of the Rings // Jul 2, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    No contest, Lord of the Rings. I have read all of the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings series (plus a few other Tolkien books) and the sheer amount of depth and background that has been thought up by Mr Tolkien is incredible. He not only imaginatively unraveled a fascinating and complex story line but also managed to cater for fans of middle earth by creating the entire history of this mystical area plus family trees, whole languages and various other extra details. I do confess that the Harry Potter series have their charm and are very engrossing reads but they appear average and predictable next to the definitive and revolutionary fantasy novel that is the Lord of the Rings.

  • 156 angelika // Jul 16, 2012 at 10:58 am

    ok guys! I have to be honest! I have read neither the LOTR books or the HP books, but speaking objectively do u know HP fans that LOTR books are the 3d most succesful books in history?!!! having sold over 150million copies while each HP book only 10 million copies and only the last book of the saga has hardly reached the 44 million copies??? Did u know that HP fans????? And all these besides the fact that Tolkien is considered to be a genius and the FATHER not just of the fantasy but of the HIGH FANTASY!!!! In addition, his books have been rendered as the “STANDARD” books for every other books of the same genre!! So, I do not even think why some people even try to compare them!!
    As far as it concerns the movies, I have watched them all- from both series (LOTR & HP)!! I won’t even make the hard work to compare them I’ll just remind this to you all HP fans: HP movies are 8 and they have not gain even 1 Oscar (Academy Award) while the LOTR with only 3 films has gained 17 Oscars!!!!!!

  • 157 angelika // Jul 16, 2012 at 11:04 am

    And if this is not enough for u, know this: one of these 17 Oscars is an Academy Award for BEST PICTURE, and it is the FIRST and ONLY time a fantasy film has done so!!!!! I could keep on giving you such examples which are certainly objective, but i think these already mentioned are quite enough!!!

  • 158 LOTR FAN!!! // Jul 16, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    angelika, I couldn’t agree more with you!!! LOTR was, is and will ALWAYS BE the BEST trilogyy EVERRRR! having the THRONE over the world of MASTERPIECES!!!!

  • 159 Jonathon // Jul 25, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    As a literary major, I with a doubt in my mind think Harry Potter is far superior. The Lord of the Rings trilogy has poor character building, and a dismal plot. If it were not for Tolkein’s alluring writing skills, I would say it is just as atrcious as the Twilight series.

  • 160 Jonathon // Jul 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    No doubt^

  • 161 Ayumi // Jul 26, 2012 at 5:59 am

    it’s ridiculous that you fight about which one is better.

    IMO, they’re both incredible awesome.

    LOTR movies are better directed than HP.
    HP books are better written than LOTR.

    (that’s my opinion)

    It has many similarities but also huge differences.

    One can not simply compare the magical world with middle earth.

  • 162 The argument breaker // Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 am

    K guys calm down the answer is clear:
    Lotr was much harder to write than hp, hp is way easier to read but when it comes down to real literature lotr is much better written and composed. Hp was very nice when I read it but when I read lotr I saw much more themes both series are good and almost all modern fantasy books use elements from lotr. Yes we know bewulf had orcs but Tolkien perfected them greatly, he also invented a whole new view of medieval fantasy. He is one of the fathers of Medevil/Norse mythology. Don’t get mad Hp rocks like crazy but lotr deserves more credit.

  • 163 Lord of the Rings. // Aug 6, 2012 at 1:25 am

    Okay, let me start by saying that I came to this topic expecting intelligent debate and was thoroughly disappointed by both sides, meeting remarks such as, “OMG HP SUX LOTR IS SOOOO MUCH COOLER N EPICER” and “YOUR ALL LOSERS HP IS SO MUCH BETTER OBVIOISLY”
    I think people need to be more mature.

    Let me say that I am only 14, and I read Harry Potter when I was about 9. I was instantly hooked, crying, laughing and living with the characters. I read through the series 5 times and watched all the films.

    Then, when I was 13, I was introduced to the Lord of the Rings. (keep in mind that I am a very high level reader and am ahead of my grade in terms of literature.) I had seen the ‘Weta Workshop’ documentary when I was very young, and had been fascinated by the creatures and lands. I had, however, decided with the help of my parents that I needed to wait to read LOTR so as to understand it better.

    The first few pages of LOTR were a struggle, but as I perservered, the pace picked up, the action became faster and the story became more gripping.

    I have now read through the Lord of the Rings series 4 times, the Hobbit 3 times and The Silmarillion once. It by far passes up any other work of literature I have read in terms of scope, size and story, and its films are quite good too. Master Tolkien spent his life around Arda, crafting an immense world with subtext, culture, languages and species. He helped to create the Orc, the wood elf, the hobbit, the Istari, the Dwarf (most dwarves in previous fantasy works were depicted as vile and evil, not unlike goblins) and the Uruk-Hai. He based the vast battles upon his personal experiences with trench warfare in World War I. He has incorporated literally hundreds of characters, and flawlessly shown us the flawed and easily corruptible nature of Man.

    I do not mean to downgrade Harry Potter. It was my favorite series for years, and I still enjoy to read through it. It just cannot live up to the vast scale set by LOTR.

    Many people have said that HP’s characters are better crafted and better developed, which is true of some. However, many of the main characters in Tolkien’s works have a more subtle and deeper emotional conflict, such as Frodo and Boromir’s slow corruption by the evil of the Ring, and even on a lesser known level Sauron’s turn from the light.

    I may conclude by saying that I am a big fan of both pieces, but LOTR will always outmatch HP in my eyes as a piece of literature.

  • 164 Charmedh2ogirl // Aug 18, 2012 at 10:24 am

    I love both Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings. Both are epic, both will stand the test of time and both have legions of fans. I was 9 when The Fellowship of the ring and The Philosopher’s Stone came out and I have been fan of both ever since. Harry Potter gave me my love of books and LOTR gave me my love boys (seriously LOTR had some really good looking men in the cast).

  • 165 HP LOTR MEGA FAN!!! // Aug 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Now I am going to write some of the sections:
    LANGUAGE… Lord of the Rings is, I agree, an absolute 10 out of 10 while Harry Potter is definitely NOT 5.5 out of 10. I respect your opinion, of course, yet I have to say Harry Potter, as the critics say, has brilliant, vivid language. It is NOT easy to write the way she does. Many people believe Harry Potter is classic literature. I would give Harry Potter 9 out of 10 as it doesn’t have the exceptional way with language Tolkien has but at least Rowling knows when to get punchy even if some parts of her series are incredibly unnecessarily detailed, though both are still captivating.
    Harry Potter is a unique world even if there are noticeable similarities (which Rowling admits openly). Creating a sport is exceedingly hard, in my opinion, and she did: Quidditch, which is wonderful. Hogwarts is a creation of genius with all the secret passageways and the houses and ghosts and classes where she writes wonderfully detailed instructions, histories and the likes. The list could go on and on… However, by the last two books there isn’t too much that’s new except the black cave where the army of the dead lurk, Godric’s Hollow and the dark woods, unless you count the magnificent, twisty story line and the intricate history of the world and characters.
    In Lord of the Rings the originality is so high. Like Potter, the world is fully realized and the world building is electrifying, however, LOTR is superior in this part. The ever-changing landscape is deliciously described and from the peacful Shire to the dark passages of the Misty Mountains to the beautiful Rivendell to the terrifying land of Mordor and there’s more, seriously talk about a WORLD. Along with the rich history and the excellent mysteries. HP – 8.5/10 LOTR – 10/10
    Mmmmmm… “Tricksy” as Gollum would say… Both series have utterly deep characters who face moral struggles… I think I would have to say Harry Potter on this one since some of the characters in LOTR are too perfect, which maybe the author meant to have them like CS Lewis for the Chronicles of Narnia yet Aslan the Lion was God in another form and by one of his twelve names (remember this is a story and a very good Christian one). In HP the characters jump off the page real and flawed.
    Gollum vs Dobby vs Kreature: Dobby is a lovable, loyal, sweet, and abused by the nasty Malfoys, brave and want-him-to-be-your’s-pet kind of character. Kreature is like Gollum in his nastiness and is a hater of Mudbloods but turns out good in the end and is loyal to Harry Potter, I then came to like him but not as layered as the other two. Gollum is a nasty, tricksy, foul, partly evil yet nice, morally challenged, determined-to-please-Master, vulnerable yet still want-him-to-be-your-pet character. I adore Dobby and he is a great character but Gollum wins by miles because he is more than three-dimensional, he represents the personality of good vs evil if it was a character. It made me cry when his evil side engulfed him and in his lust for the Ring turned on Frodo and tries to take the Ring and ended up falling to his tragic doom in the lava.
    Dumbledore vs Gandalf: Oh my goodness, these two are many people’s favourites in both series. Gandalf and Dumbledore are incredibly similar yet I feel Dumbledore is more humane and Gandalf is one of those too flawless characters yet he is so strong as a character. Dumbledore wins this one by just by a swimming pool length. He seemed impeccable throughout the series until the last one where his shocking yet interesting background history is revealed (only worsened by the enchantingly nasty, sneaky journalist Rita Skeeter… I think that Rowling was thinking of journalists when she created this character).
    Harry vs Frodo and Ron vs Sam: Harry and Frodo have both inner conflicts, filled with emotion and are three-dimensional… this I would say is a draw. Ron and Sam… Very hard, indeed… Ron is funny, slightly awkward, brave, deeper than he first appears to be and has low self-esteem at times… Sam is persistent and has many of the same qualities as Ron… I don’t know… a draw!
    Finally, Voldemort vs Sauron: Both evil, remorseless, black but Voldemort wins by at least a mile. Why? There is more information about his background, about the orphan Tom Riddle who is filled with hate and rage at his dad for abandoning his mum to die etc… He is cunning as a snake, even charming and was once handsome but was destroyed physically from his quest for power. He thinks he is the most powerful wizard of all time, but the one spell powerful enough to defeat him is love, something he never had. HP – 10/10 LOTR – 9/10
    Oh another tough one! Harry Potter seems simpler yet still very clever if you read the first six books then the last one… mind-blowing! It was epic and heartbreaking and oh so satisfying! However, it was criticized by the novelist Elizabeth Hand who said that the spectacularly complex interplay of narrative and character often reads as though an entire trilogy’s worth of summing-up has been crammed into one volume.
    LOTR is seriously complex from start to finish yet it is three books and HP’s seven. Both series of scores of unimaginable twists and subplots. The Return of the King was a triumph in every sense of the word. Both of them, as critics say, are narrative geniuses.
    Snape, who was full of hatred towards Harry because of Harry’s father, turns out to be a very complex character with an emotionally powerful end, almost or more than Harry’s fate but that turns out OK, once Harry looks through the pensive. I think him and Gollum are probably the deepest of both series.
    And then Frodo… oh Frodo! He goes with the elves to the undying lands because his wound from the spider he had fought and Sam had saved him from had served fatal. Tragic. Truly tragic. However, it seemed strangely happy even if there was emptiness.
    Let’s see. Mmmmmh… Harry Potter most likely wins this one because JK Rowling has links throughout the series leading the final twist as in LOTR it’s more sudden, there’s not many links. But they still have absolutely excellent plots and twists. HP – 10/10 LOTR 8.5/10
    Overall score – LOTR 37.5 HP 37.5

  • 166 Little jojo // Sep 8, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    i think harry potter is the best series of all time. lord of the rings is too difficult but hp is so original!

  • 167 John // Sep 13, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Harry potter stole a number of things from lord of the rings. like calling Voldemort “he who must not be named”. the people of Gondor in LOTR called Sauron this. just to name on of them.

  • 168 Arien // Oct 21, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    I am loving this review!!! I just have give my opinion. I have had Harry Potter read to me since the age of 4, I grew up with it and I owe HP so much. However, a few years ago my dad showed me the LotR films…… And I am sorry but they blow Harry Potter out of the water!!! Pretty much everything that HP did LotR did better. All this about HP being for kids and LotR for adults is rubbish!!! My dad loved HP when he read it to me and my sister (11years old) has read, loved and understood The Fellowship of the Ring, without even bothering to finish The Philosopher’s Stone.
    To all those people who say that LotR characters are 1 dimensional, I refer you to the character of Smegol/Gollum.
    Once again I am sorry to the die hard HP fans, it was my life at one point, but The Lord of the Rings beats everything in my eyes, no question. End of.

  • 169 Arien // Oct 22, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    And I may also add that I have seen all the HP and LotR movies and read all the HP and LotR books.
    Also I resent the people who say that there is no character development in LotR, there is lots!! Especially in the characters of Merry and Pippin.

  • 170 Nazgul // Oct 31, 2012 at 8:53 am

    When I was around the age of 8, I read Harry Potter and immediately fall in love with it. I re-read Harry Potter about 3 times and then I was quite bored. I found The Fellowship of the Ring at my house and picked it up to read. The first few chapters was very challenging for me but when I reached some part of the book, it was fantastic. I have finished reading the whole series and now went back to read Harry Potter. They were both fantastic series but The Lord of the Rings is way better. The world J.R.R Tolkien created was absolutely amazing. The characters, the plot etc. was completely fabulous. Another thing is that Gandalf said a lot of inspiring quotes such as:

    Pippin: I didn’t think it should end this way.

    Gandalf: End? The journey doesn’t end here. Death is just another path…. One that we all must take. The grey rain curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass… And then you see it.

    Pippin: What? Gandalf? See what?

    Gandalf: White shores… and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.

    Pippin: Well that isn’t so bad.

    Gandalf: No…no it isn’t.

    I am sorry Harry Potter fans but in conclusion, The Lord of the Rings is better.

  • 171 Adi // Nov 4, 2012 at 5:29 am

    I mean really? HP vs Lotr.
    It looks more like Kids Vs adults, and kids are supporting HP.
    HP, kind of whiny, irritating book ( i feel that now).
    Horcrux theme is a whole rip off of the ONE RING. Do i need to explain? Rowling should have thought of something better.

    LOTR was set in a different worl, MIDDLE EARTH, with proper map designs. THAT GUY CREATED A MYTH.
    And talking about HP being more exciting, lol, kids.
    LOTR was written in 1950, and therefore kids will find it difficult to connect to old english.

    Oh and they have voldemort, the noseless guy. LOL. Who was he? A teenage with high ego and hatred against MUGGLES ( i always find this word annoyingly childish), so he goes around throwing tantrums.
    Voldemort was a bit terrifying, until he came back to life (or should i say, got a body) and looked JUST ANOTHER GUY.
    Compared to Sauron, and if you read more stories from TOLKIEN giving his account, he is definitely more awe inspiring. And since he never had a body, his simple EYE was wrecking havoc, he was much more intimidating than your cute VOLDY.

    So Grow up guys. TOLKIEN had created a MYTH, and had this guy written that thing in Greek, i bet people would have easily believed it to be one of the Greek myth, like the Gods vs the TITANS

  • 172 Elvish101 // Nov 6, 2012 at 10:47 am

    don’t quite agree that Lord of the Rings is for adults only. I am 13 and I read them (Admittedly with much difficultly) last year and mildly enjoyed them. I also read Harry Potter obsessivly from age 7 to age 12. Then my dad showed me the world of Middle Earth. JK is responcible for a more open-ended accessible world in which I can very much picture myself amoung the Hogwarts masses, but every time I read the LotR I want to be in the story. I want to walk on snow and count orc kills and, at some points, throttle Gollum for Sam. They both take you on epic journey’s, but Harry Potter has yet to stand the test of time. While it is true JK Rowling has created a magical world with enchanting artifacts and hidden secrets, Tolkien weaves a lush, Garden of Eden like different world with in-depth history for nearly every character and whole different languages for Valar’s sake! They both are wonderful stories, but the fact that Lord of the Rings still has so many fans after all of this time speaks for itself.

  • 173 JM // Nov 18, 2012 at 9:50 am

    It makes me sad to see all the argueing here. Which book is better is a subjective matter, and it’s dificult to argue based on opinion. Honestly, I don’t see why we can’t just accept that both series have their virtues and move on. It would be much more productive to stop argueing over which is the better series, and to start convincing people to read them instead. Sounds a bit lame, but we should be recruiting more book-lovers.

  • 174 LOTR ROX!!! // Nov 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    I really love both of the series, but LOTR rules.

    First off, I do think Frodo is a better main character than Harry. He has way more responsibility! (But I do think HP has responsibility too.)

    The next question is just unfair. I feel bad for Voldemort. I MEAN COME ON!!! HE COULDENT EVIN KILL A BABY!!!!!!!

    Anyways, I think all this fighting about opinion is stupid, I like LOTR better, but love HP too.

  • 175 Kent // Nov 30, 2012 at 6:34 am

    Obviously this site is full of younger kids, so I just dropped by to give you guys a hint: when you are older, and you understand the difference between the words than and then, you will see how Harry Potter is a copy of Lord of the Rings.
    I won’t suppress your opinion, nor insult it, but one day, you’ll regret reading the stuff JK Rowling comes up with, because it’s full of deus ex machina and cliches, dragged into about eight or nine books.
    So, uh, I’ll leave it at that.

  • 176 imladriselda // Dec 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    I’m a fan of both books, I really am. I actually read HP first and changed my mind about my favorite fantasy series after I read LOTR. I just want to point out that two locations in Middle-earth are LONGBOTTOM, a place where plants grow exceptionally well (sound a little like Neville in Herbology), and BAGSHOT Row (Bathilda BAGSHOT, author of “A History of Magic.”) The idea that Harry Potter is in any way better than Lord of the Rings is ridiculous. J.K. Rowling herself has admitted that Tolkien is one of her favorite authors. And names weren’t the only thing she referenced. Both stories have cloaked creatures that can suck the happiness out of you, although admittedly the Nazgul don’t thrive on it like the Dementors do. Dumbledore, the most powerful wizard of his day, was clearly inspired by Gandalf. Both are powerful wizards that have that unfortunate habit of always being around and disappearing the moment they are needed. And Samwise Gamgee is way more loyal than Ron Weasley ever could be, and he was actually able to conquer his fear of spiders when his best friend needed him.

    ‘Nuff said.

  • 177 imladriselda // Dec 17, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    oh yes and for those of you who believe narnia should be the granddad of modern fantasy, note that C.S. Lewis was one of Tolkien’s best friends, Tolkien had been working on fantasy lit since the early ninteen hundreds even if he didn’t get published until the 1930s, and Tolkien actually gave Lewis advice on writing the Narnia series. Don’t get me wrong, I love Narnia, but Tolkien was there first.

  • 178 Propheteer // Dec 19, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    Stumbled across this while browsing, so I thought I’d give my two cents.

    Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Won’t get into how different they are, because that should be obvious. However, there are things that need addressing.

    I’ve read both series. Extensively and lovingly and with fanboyish fervor. Started HP in the fourth grade and haven’t stopped loving it since. The movies only helped. I first read Fellowship of the Ring in the fifth grade, finished the trilogy by the seventh grade, read the Hobbit that year, delved into the Silmarillion (NONE of you can judge Tolkien’s epic without reading this masterpiece), and from then on Children of Hurin, etc. Both are great and genius in their respective manner.

    My opinion on which is better: Lord of the Rings.
    Why: My imagination really began to be cultivated when I first read Fellowship (although admittedly the movies had a huge part in it). There’s something about having a world unravel before your eyes that’s unique and untouchable. Harry Potter is grounded in reality, and there’s a base to step off on. Lord of the Rings is not (Yeah, it was based on a prehistoric Europe untouched by the ravages of man, but let’s face it: Tolkien created a mythos). The description is epic (it can drag on at times), the characters are epic, the plot it epic, and the world is epic.

    And Harry Potter is excellent, don’t get me wrong. It’s a good gateway book into fantasy or young adult fiction, because although the journey Potter takes brings the reader along with him, the magic is facetious and somewhat convenient. Loved it, still. I’d recommend Dresden Files for some more realistic, Newtonian magic. And the main character’s name is Harry as well.

    There you have it. Out of my childhood loves, LOTR wins out. Sorry for the long post, but I do that a lot.

  • 179 Hellogoodbye // Dec 31, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    Lotr is better, oh yes I get it. Its awesome. But please stop bashing HP. I have a soft spot for that series because I grew up with it. While some people might say that it is childish, clearly you have not read past the third book. There is more to the series than a school and a magic forest. I’ll say the whole He Who Must Not Be Named thing is stupid. Voldie was not scary or bad at all. But HP is an epic series and even though I know that Lotr is better, don’t bash HP. Oh and the twilight people need to shut up. Thats just retarded.

  • 180 Lotr 4 life // Jan 5, 2013 at 12:01 am

    has anyone noticed that neither j,k,Rowling or J.R.R. Tolkein have been writere for their profession, J.K.Rowling was a HOBO and J.R.R Tolkein was a linguist and wanted to put his languages he created into a book so they wont be forgotten, when J.K Rowling was a hobo who was trying to make a living, LOTR 4 LIFE

  • 181 Sofie // Jan 7, 2013 at 12:29 am

    Some people, often younger, tend to find LOTR boring when read because of the wealth of words. But remember, this was before the time of the telly, when one was bored, you would read a book or listen to the raido, depth in detail was deeply appreciated. Tolkein being a man of linguistics has wonderful writing, and is less modern than HP.
    This comparison is almost the same as black and white versus colored tv, the younger generation will appreciate the modern until they have become more sophisticated and realize they are both good.
    LOTR, I would have to say, is the more put together of the two, because it is a whole different world that one could be a part of (I myself would love to live in Rivendell with the Elves). Tolkein also created languages, of the Elves, the dwarves, and more!! He carefully thought out the whole series, and it is no way predictable for those who don’t know books/movies created on the basis of Tolkein’s stories. Unfortunately, most of us have read/seen a storyline that is similar to that of LOTR before actually reading/seeing it, so it is not unfamiliar.
    Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have their innumerable differences along with their numerable ones, along with being geared for different ages. Harry Potter is something easier read when grow up with, I think the first one is rather childish in writing style now in my teens and perfect for the age of the character and younger (11-). But when the 7th book came out when I was 10, I couldn’t fully understand it for a while. In that way, Harry Potter is geared to the younger generation while LOTR is geared towards teens on. However, the Hobbit, the book at least, is more appropriate for younger people/generation since it has a fast story line. The Hobbit was read to me while I was maybe 5, and I highly enjoyed it, and still enjoy rereading it.
    I think most of the people who think HP is the better of the two either haven’t read LOTR, don’t have the attention span to read it, don’t have an open mind while reading it, are too young to fully understand it, or for some unknown reason.
    I tend to think of Frodo not as the main character and that there isn’t really a true main character, so Frodo and Harry cannot be compared. J.K Rowling did base several things off of LOTR but made them different, not blatantly copying.
    I would have to say I like LOTR better but it’s all subjunctive.

  • 182 greg // Jan 9, 2013 at 3:10 am

    to be frank… LOTR is far superior than the HP, for Tolkein created a new world ,a new system, and undeniable magical imaginative creatures like the dwarves, elves and sorts.. Not only they were magical but tolkein gave them flesh and bones to make them believable. ‘Lotr is boring’,-no it is not.. every page that will is more fun and learnable .

    As far as I know.. Lotr is only A PART of tolkein’s magical world.. an excerpt OF THE THIRD AGE…. why not read the ELDER DAYS stories (THE SILMARILLION) the UNFINISHED TALES..

    Tolkein created a masterpiece great than rowling.

  • 183 Keith // Jan 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    I have just sat and read the comments here and noticed two things about most of the post by HP fans.
    (This is just a generalization of the comments I have seen this does not apply to all comments)
    Firstly,most of the posts by HP fans are like this: OOOMMMGGG LOVE POTTER!!! LOTr SUX!!!LOVE HARRY POTTER!!!! or Harry Potter best series ever and so original, were as the answer made by LoTR fans are a lot more intelligent and have some kind of reasonable well constructed argument.
    Secondly, it is clear to me that some of the Harry Potter fans haven’t even read LoTR (These are mostly the people who leave comments like the one above) are therefore their argument is invalid.
    I have read both series and did so with an open mind, and before reading them I had no favoritism towards either but I would say that LoTR wins, I’m not saying that HP is bad but it is clear that Rowling used quite a few of Tolkien’s ideas and in my opinion Harry Potter started out as a children’s book but then later I think Rowling tried to make the HP series more mature but didn’t really shake off the child like sense from it. So in conclusion LoTR is better (I am not going to go into the reasons because there are hundreds in other comments) than HP because it cant really be compared with the huge world that Tolkien created.

  • 184 Kennedy // Feb 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    I’ve read both series and watched all the movies in each series, and have to say that, even though Harry Potter was great, I prefer Lord of the Rings. First of all, I read in another article that HP is more “rewatchable”, but I’m going to have to disagree. I’ve watched LotR many, many times, and I’ve often considered going back and rewatching HP, but it just seems too predictable and boring now that I know what’s going to happen. Whenever I rewatch LotR, I always get excited and re-obsess with all the characters like it was my first time watching again. And if we are comparing the books, J.R.R. Tolkien has been called the author of the century. He basically started the genre of fantasy with trolls, orcs, magic, elves, and all the other characters and settings that have appeared in thousands of other movies and books that try to emulate LotR. J.K. Rowling obviously took many ideas from Tolkien, which isn’t bad necessarily because many other authors have done so, too, but it’s hard to compare the father of all fantasy books to such a recent book like HP.

  • 185 LOTRforsure // Feb 19, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Lol harry potter was written by a hobo.

  • 186 anonimo // Mar 11, 2013 at 9:07 pm




  • 187 anonimo // Mar 11, 2013 at 9:09 pm



  • 188 chair // Apr 4, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    honestly, i fell asleep while watching lotr. during hp i was balanced on the edge of my seat, glued to the screen

  • 189 harry potter // Jun 1, 2013 at 11:30 am

    I’ve read both the books and I prefer Harry Potter above LotR. Harry Potter has much more unpredictable persons but LotR has better movies. Tolkien has never affacted as many persons as Rowling did. Harry Potter isn’t a child book. Also, for exeption, gandalf vs dumbledore: dumbledore wins. He can just kill you on at least 50 ways in less then 2 seconds. Gollum vs dobby: dobby wins, he can also use magic. Gollum is just weak. Sauron vs voldemort? This one is one of the hardest to choose. But I take vody: sauron may be a demi god but he dissapeared after his ring was lost and stuff. I mean, voldemort can’t even die? He can just use magic to kill sauron so? what would you choose? I’m a proud potterhead and a proud slytherin.

  • 190 Anonymous // Jul 21, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    To all those who say HP stole from LOTR, let’s take a quick look at that:
    Dumbledore didn’t rip off Gandalf. They were both modeled after the stereotypical wizard.
    Dementors and Death Eaters didn’t rip off the cloaked guys in LOTR. The guy in the black cloak has always been a symbol of fear, depression, and death.
    Fang is a common name in large dogs.
    Tolkien did not invent dragons, goblins, elfs, ghosts, wizards, or dark forests.
    I doubt he invented giant spiders either, but it is a one of the most common phobias in the world, so it made sense to both authors to have in there story.
    Fred and George didn’t rip off Merry and Pippin. In a large, poor family like the Weasely’s where everyone was a Hogwarts prefect, it made sense to have a pair of male twins for comic relief.
    Rowling didn’t steal the term “Dark Lord” from LOTR. Villains throughout real history and fantasy have also been called”the Dark Lord”.
    I could go on all day, but I just want to finish by saying that I found HP way more enjoyable than LOTR, but if you prefer LOTR, fine by me. No argument or comparison could really decide which you enjoyed reading more, so the whole debate is kinda pointless.

Leave a Comment