People who say LOTRs is a classic, and Harry Potter isn't, should consider the fact that LOTRs has had time to become a classic, it's nine years since the first HP book was published, and about 50 years (?) since the first LOTRs book was published. The last in the HP series hasn't erven been published yet.I just think HP is better. For those who say HP is for children, yes it is mainly aimed at children, but millions of adults around the world do read HP as well. HP has brought together huge numbers of children and adults on a scale that no other books have done. Having said that, I have great respect for JRR Tolkien's works, he was undoubtedly one of the great fantasy writers of the twentieth century. When people say fantasy books/films aren't worth reading/watching because they're a load of rubbish it does annoy me. If they can't open their minds to a bit of imagination then that's their problem, but I do feel sorry for them. Also, I think both JRR Tolkein and JK Rowling inspire people, perhaps JK Rowling more at the moment because her books are stiil being written, so people are still getting 'fresh' material every so often. But that's obviously not JRR Tolkien's fault.I think it's a pretty good review, quite fair to both authors, although with a leaning towards LOTRs. But good job.

Nice essay.

Hmm...Let's see...I like Lord of the Rings better than I liked Harry Potter. Yes - I have read the books from both authors. Let me start with LOTR first before I wander off and get sidetracked.

1) LOTR - it's very detailed, imaginative, descriptive and religious in a way that all people can appreciate (I hope) And there is old English in LOTR that not many people see in books these days...If you look around, the word: Mordor is another word for Murder. Also, the characters express their emotions so powerfully that it makes you cry - reading and watching the movie.

Whereas...

2) Harry Potter does not strike me when it comes to movies. I seem to find them rather weak. And the boy who plays Harry Potter was weak with his crying...though I shouldn't be too much of a critique. That's a hard act. Secondly, people are arguing over the fact that JKRowling stole ideas from Tolkein. Look on muggle net for the similarities.

All in all, LOTR will always remain in my heart. Harry Potter second. Both have good morals, and both are loved by everyone; children, adults and the elderly.

i've never really seen or read a Lord of the Rings movie or book, but i am a fan of the harry potter movies

i disagree with RandonRanter about what he said. i don't know about Lord of the Rings, but Harry Potter isn't only a children's book. people of all ages watch/read the movies/books, so i think it can be compared with an adult's book.

good job, well written

Well my oppinion is that HP and LOTR are both great shows. I like Harry Potter because the characters are cool and when you read the books you can totally understand what JKR is talking Lord of the Rings, I mostly like the movies. Peter Jackson defininetly did a great job of making those movies and making them understandable. But the books...I don't know how but my younger sister read all of them and she understood them. lol

Ack, I love them both, and while HP does have more of an appeal to the crowd because of the time and world, I would have to say I like Lord of the Rings a whole lot more.

Lord of the Rings hits me somewhere in my heart that Harry Potter doesn't. It makes me dream. It makes me cry. The way Tolkein writes fires me up and makes me explode with emotion that fuels my soul's urge to write. To be as good a writer as him spurs me on, and while I look up to J.K. Rowling, she does not inspire me to become the best I can be. Of course her books are amazing, but Tolkein is frankly brilliant. His world had no limits. Rowling has creativity and her books are different from your olde magic, but she has failed to truely step beyond the box that defines fantasy.

This is my opinion. It might be different from yours. Deal with it cause even if the entire galaxy said 225, I would still say 224.

I agree that it is harder to get into Lord of the Rings than it is to get into Harry Potter. I like both but I do think that Lord of the Rings has been written better. Harry Potter is just easier to understand and accessible to all.

However, considering I first read Lord of the Rings (and understood it) when I was nine, I do think you can get into Lord of the Rings and it isn't too hard to understand if you have the patience. Most people nowadays don't and some don't even read. I've got friends who have read the first three Harry Potter books, for example, but they haven't read the fourth or fifth because they were too long. Yet, the HP books don't even compare to the length of LOTR.

Harry Potter has some depth but nothing like Lord of the Rings does. Both have reasonably complex layers of characters and feelings but I think in Lord of the Rings they are that bit more complicated and realistic. Don't get me wrong, I like Harry Potter. I've written loads of fanfiction for it in the past while I've never done anything for Lord of the Rings because it is harder to sum up, I guess. While the Harry Potter books are great, I feel that I could never compare to Tolkien so haven't attempted it. There is so much to the Lord of the Rings that I'm probably too afraid of contradicting something in the actual books. As I've said, Harry Potter is simpler.

The films have absolutely no contest for me. I love the Lord of the Rings films and could watch them repeatedly for days on end whereas I've always felt disappointed with the Harry Potter films. I didn't mind the first two but the third one was such a disappointment. It was funny but I felt it was a world apart from the books. The Lord of the Rings films are different from the books but they are pulled off in such a way that you can really feel for the characters. I find this hard to do in the Harry Potter films. Perhaps it is easier with the LOTR films because they have adult actors whereas HP has so many children cast; but still, I felt let down by the HP movies.

It is hard to pit the books against each other because HP is more of a children’s book whilst LOTR is more for adults and more mature people. The characters are more developed in LOTR and far more complicated. HP is also an enjoyable read though, though it is extremely clichéd.

It is hard to compare JK and Tolkien as authors too: In LOTR, Tolkien is a better writer. However he did take a phenomenal amount of time on the books. I guess JK did too but I've always found some parts of HP very rushed and I'm sure she could write it a little better as a book, not a plotline.

Okay... I've rambled for enough now. I don't really think I can decide which is better as they are for different audiences. I guess the real question is will people still be reading HP fifty years from now?

i get where your comming from i like the harry poter books and lord of the rings and while the movies are good they are nothing compaired to the books i like harry potter better than lord of the rings and the hobbit is better than lord of the rings because its easyer to get into, but i dont think if you read lord of the ring that you can say you didnt like it beacause once you get into it it's very interesting.

Both are great but,I think Harry Potter's better.

SO HARRY POTTER! Although LOTR was really good, and I love Legalos because he is Orlando Bloom!

Why would you put HP (a children's book) against LOTR (an adult book) that just doesn't make good sense how could one be better that the other if they are not on the same level?

hey, i like how you sort out the differences between the 2. i haven't really read the lord of the rings before. just like you said, it is long. but i can't help saying that the potter series are really long also. but, i enjoyed rowling's stories because of how i can quickly relate to the story. it starts with the real world as if one could really be in it, feeling everything in it. i'm a kid, and i soon saw pieces of myself in every character. lord of the rings have fantastic characters, but the way they are portrayed didn't just get to me.
i think its not only the matter of age that affects this issue, it can also be a lot of things. maybe if i were an adult, tolkien might have engaged me to an obsession with his series. but for now, i'd stick with harry and follow his journeys while his growing just like me. my main point is that i can strongly relate and that urges me to flip every page with much anticipation. that's all for now.
take care:)

Lord of the Rings all the way...just something about the name "Harry Potter" turned me off and have never even considered any of that stuff since.
Htw

HARRY POTTER ALL THE WAY BABY! LOTR IS BORING! HARRY POTTER RULES ALL!

I've read all the Harry Potter books released and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I must say that Lord of the Rings is by far better.

The reasons you mentioned are true: people are more likely to read Harry Potter because it is shorter {most of them, atleast - maybe even the fifth one considering the page size and double spaced format} and because they were meant for children.

But I find the Lord of the Rings greater because it has messages that Harry Potter fails to give to us. Tolkien not only created the greatest world in literature, but he taught us about hope, failure, faith, and temptation. Although these lessons are also in the Harry Potter books, Rowling doesn't put much emphasis on them, and doesn't let the characters learn from them.

Just a though...

I always liked fantasy and how you can add all you need in one little story with some more to spare. Tolkien did this. He created a world so vast that even more than fifty years after his time we are still reading about him, his books, watching movies about those books, and writing our own stories based on what he started. If i had a say, i would make him a god for creating what i believe him, but that's me.

Now Harry Potter. Compared to Tolkien, J. R. Rowling is mind candy. Her books, as puzzling as they come, cannot compete with Tolkien. There is no way. Her books have action-to some degree-and mind dazzling puzzles that leave us hanging to every word, but it leaves something out. The something for others to build upon. Tolkien, however, left that open to all. Practically all fantasy books are based on what he began!

No pass the books and on to the movies, which you compared too.

The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter rival eachother, true, but if you look on the date of which these movies are coming out after the auther wrote the books, you will find that J. is alive and Tolkien is very much dead.

In this time, we must make the Lord of the Rings (lets just say LoD) by ourselves. We must use the image that Tolkien put into his masterpiece.

But on the other hand, we have J. alive today to add her voice to how the movies of Harry Potter are made. This creates quite a gap.

Sure people don't read as many books as they should, but movies have replaced that. Now, we must use what we have to make those movies, and in that field of magic, Harry Potter rules.

So we come back to your question: Who is most popular in Public. Once we think of it, it comes down to..

..They are the same. Both are popular in their own ways, and loved by their own. To the people that care, we just sit in the back seat and watch the show go on.