Personally, I prefer HP because I *hated* Tolkein's writing style. As a result, I found it easier to immerse myself in Rowling's world than Tolkein's. But I'm a huge fan of both.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a big Harry Potter fan. It's weird, because I love Lord of the Rings. The books are phenominal, and the movie was great. I mean haven't you noticed the many different settings and how each one is different? It's so creative and the story is fabulous, and the characters are so unique. And it does have brief humor in it. Then again, I am easily ammused...

Harry Potter has never really taken a big interest in me. I just don't enjoy the genre. And that's what makes LOTR so great, because even though I'm not into the whole Fantasy genre, LOTR got me into it. It's something that people like me can enjoy.

Now, back on to HP. I personally think it has way too many plots for one book/movie. And not to mention, the beginning is so slow. I couldn't get past the third page. So I decided to indulge myself to the movie. So it is here that I agree with you:

It is a nice all-ages film/book. Not everyone enjoys it more than the other. But having seen HP and LOTR, the latter is more appealing. Remember that almost everything is placed in a genre, including those two. I'm not a big Harry Potter fan, let alone Fantasy. But when you pull out something like Lord of the Rings! The author first made it into a bedtime story for his kids! It's well written, and it has an easy flow to ME. I'm weird like that, it's like the complicated things are easier for me to understand. Except percentages... O.O

I like your essay! It really got me to think... type a lot! Your essays are wonderful, really! And sorry I haven't updated lately... you know, Hurricane Isabel, no power since Thursday... I just got it yesterday afternoon! It's great that in that short time you updated a lot! *sniff* You make me so proud! LoL!

Remember that LotR has withstood the test of time- it is a clssic and still well liked whereas harry potter shall not be as big in fifty years time. LotR touches deeper more important isues then HP.

God Bless

Star

Remember that LotR has withstood the test of time- it is a clssic and still well liked whereas harry potter shall not be as big in fifty years time. LotR touches deeper more important isues then HP.

God Bless

Star

I think both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are great storys. I gets have to know that one to read to fix your mood.

lord of the rings is a for deeper story then harry potter could ewer wish to be. The amount of information about that is going on around you is a rare things but lord of the rings is alittle slow for me. (i tryed reading it. i get 20 minture of lord of the rings and hadn't head of the ring by then i get upset. But i did read half of two towers before the moive came out. had to stop then i couldn't tell that was going in with the 3 points of view at the same time!)

Harry Potter is a more happyer story and more family friendly then lord of the rings but it lacks the characterstion of Lord of the rings and same charater have not change seens the first book (draco) and same have changed so fast that you think 2 years have past in one summer (sorry but i don't see Ron growing up like that we see in OOtP and don't get me started in Harry!)

Ethere way there both REALLY good!

I dunno, I think both books had their faults. LOTR was pretty heady stuff. Sure, there were plenty of descriptions and battle scenes, but the sheer amount of names endning in "rond" and "dil" made me want to flay my eyes. And the Silmarilion was almost infuriating to read. The English used in LOTR is 50 years old however, so it's understandably not what I'm used to.

Harry Potter is decent. The plot's cliched and it's very predictable. The characters aren't well-developed and while enjoyable to read, it won't be remembered a hundred years from now.

After all this consideration, I'd say LOTR is the better read, if only because of it's status as a fantasy classic and the influence it has on the entire genre.

Both series are written very well. I am a fan of Lord Of The Rings, though. I like Harry Potter, but I agree with you on everything about LOTR. Tolkien wrote everything with such vivid expression. The books were phenomenol, all the information and everything, I loved it _

Harry Potter is still a good series, but I enjoy LOTR just a tad more.

~Arayuldawen~

Hmm... Which is better. Thats a tough one. I think there about equal personally, both good in different ways. I did find Tolkien's work a tad bit dull to read (and yes, I ahve read them many times through) merely because he uses soo much description, something I'm not /to/ crazy about in an author, but I also liked the general culture a bit better. Overall though, I'd say its a tie. Keep writing!

Quiet One

It;s hard to compare the two books but the way i feel about htem is this. Simply, LOTR is a classic, Harry Potter is not. But to find the answer to the question, look into it in 50 years time and see if Harry Potter is still around. (I doupt it if all of her books are as bad as the last one. Shame really, I liked the rest but the recent one let her down.)

Somepart of LOTR written in Old English? Which parts? I've read it alot and never seen any old english.

Didn't quite get what you mean about seris, and I was REALLY surpriseed that your English teacher hadn't read LOTR! The definetive turning point of adult fantasy and she hadn't read it! If it wasn't for LOTR Harry Potter would not exist. I'm surprised it isn't in the University sylabus.

For me its Lord of the Rings all the way. The way Tolkin writes is better than Rowling. I still like Harry Potter,and I've scried through parts of it, but it was written to be a best selling book that would appeal to everyone.

I find that I can reach out to the Lord of the Rings characters much more, and Harry Potter has become too much of a franchise.