4. Digestible Length and Complexity
It may be that The Lord Of The Rings, is better written than Harry Potter and I think it’s true that Tolkien possessed more writer’s craft than J.K Rowling herself possesses. But I couldn’t care less about that. Furthermore, The Lord of The Rings films may be better made critically but once again, who cares about that? After all, I myself am not a critic. I read Harry Potter with abundant more pleasure than I did The Lord Of The Rings. I appreciated Rowling’s work infinitely more because it is not overly convoluted or hard to follow and likewise, it is not too slow-paced and long winded.
In contrast, I read Lord Of The Rings as more of a chore rather than to get enjoyment. I almost read it out of a sense of duty to Tolkien to show my appreciation for the world which he has fashioned. The trilogy is so chock full of irrelevant place names and character names that don’t contribute towards the furthering of the plot, that at some points in the novel, it is impossible to absorb and process everything that’s going into your head. The Lord Of The Rings is also designed to be a children’s trilogy. It’s a miracle how any child could possibly read and digest such a complex and wordy novel. I know I’d much rather plump for Harry Potter over The Lord Of The Rings as a bedtime story for my child.
Even The Lord Of The Rings movies are suspect to these weaknesses. All three films consist of a ridiculous amount of running time (at just under 3 hours per film) and furthermore, any gripping battle sequence that features in the trilogy is preceded by hours and hours of lengthy build up, so much so that many adults as well as children will undoubtedly lose focus and concentration. In comparison, the concluding Harry Potter movie for example was 120 minutes only. This helped in fashioning a fast paced action thriller that drove the franchise home brilliantly.
We are currently seeking Harry Potter contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Harry Potter contributor, click here.
66 Comments
I didn’t bother reading this but judging by the name of the article I assume its a joke.
Give it a go, Quowala! It contains a lot of very good points.
I with you on this one Quowala.
Interesting article as a fan of both franchises. However theres a franchise that can wipe the floor with HP and LOTR… A song of ice and fire. Talk about not being afraid to kill off main characters…
Pretty useless argument, since LOTR made HP. As much as Tolkien ripped off a bunch of various influences HP ripped off LOTR which makes it superior.
LOTR is wrapped up nicely in 3 installments while HP drags on and on. So much so, that I lost interest after Order of the Phoenix.
In the end those are some interesting points but they don’t dictate which one is better. Enjoyment does!!! And I enjoyed LOTR more.
I have to disagree. I loved Harry Potter all the way through. I lost interest in LOTR 100 pages in to the first book when they STILL hadn’t left the Shire. And no, HP didn’t rip off LOTR. They actually both explore some pretty different fantasy worlds. LOTR creates a new fantasy world based on traditional Welsh and British folklore. HP is based on traditional mainland European folklore, adapted to modern Britain. Do you see Hobbits, Tolkien style Elves, or Dwarves in HP? No. Their origins? Wales and Britain. Do you see Werewolves, Hippogriffs, and Vampires in LOTR? No. Their origins? Mix of Germany, Romania, and Scandinavia for Werewolves, Italy for Hippogriffs, and Eastern Europe (can be said to be Romania specifically) for the Vampire.
You are mistaken, LOTR has vampires and werewolves in its lore. By the way, did JK Rowlings spend her entire life on her work? Absolutely not. But Tolkien was still writing histories on Arda when he died. If you’ve read the Silmarillion (a compilation of the history of Middle Earth) you’d know that.
And Harry Potter does not have very many backstories, it is quite barren when it comes to history. In Tolkien’s work, everything is intricately woven into one line of history, where everything has an origin and a story to it.
There are actually werewolves in the land of middle earth. They just don’t play a part in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. They are mentioned in Tolkien’s silmarillian.
That’s like saying that all of modern literature is useless because they’re adapted from ancient myths and oral histories.
Harry Potter didn’t rip off LOTR. There is ABSOLUTELY NO resemblance, accept that HP is much better. I like LOTR, HP is just better, even more original
That and Hermione would get it everywhere
You are comparing apples to oranges. The series may both be British fantasy series, that doesn’t mean they are comparable. Many of the differences you wrote about, such as the number of female characters and the elements of good and evil, are less of a style difference and more a sign of the time periods in which the series were written.
The only reason I can’t agree with this is because Jo constantly decides to have Voldemort appear in June to duke it out with Harry. No, seriously, look at the timeline of each books, around the end of a normal school year, Voldemort decides “NOW!”. Good article though!
Wretched articles like this seem par for the course these days.
How is this wretched? It is far more original than the majority of articles that go up on this site
Regarding this statement:
“Voldemort has the full support of a whole group of human villains (Death Eaters) that do his bidding, yet Sauron simply has the “support” of a horde of Orcs. So clearly, such is the influence and presence of Voldemort that he can command the support of many more people than Sauron.”
Makes me wonder if you’ve actually read the LOTR books or even seen the films. Because surely then you’d know about Sauron’s human allies, such as the Easterlings, Corsairs and Haradrim? With such ill-informed statements like that you’re bound to go a long way with your ‘journalistic career’.
I think this a very interesting article. You make some very valid points and I have to agree with
quite a few of them
First of all I would like to point out that I am a huge fan of both franchises but I do prefer Lord of the Rings.
I would point to Boromir as a very morally conflicted character and Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel as a strong female character. Also, there are no weak links in LOTR whereas the first two HP movies were just ok and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 was an awful paced mess, although part 2 more than made up for it. Watching LOTR all the way through s more enjoyable because of this whereas with HP you are sort of obligated to sit through the weaker parts for continuity.
I must disagree with you; the first two Harry Potter films are the best of all the films. I would say 3 was just ok and it is number 5 that was a mess. I must admit that I understand why one would dislike Deathly Hallows part one; it is rather slow at times but for someone who has an unhealthy obsession with the books…it was incredible. It followed the first part of the book perfectly and Dobby’s death scene was one of the saddest moment in the whole film series.
I find it laughable that you say watching LOTR all the way through is more enjoyable; they are so long and drawn out!It’s hard to not feel bored.
“I find it laughable that you say watching LOTR all the way through is more enjoyable.” What? Harry Potter was 8 movies, how’s that less “long and drawn out” than a well-explained and well-presented LOTR?
And the only HP movies worth watching twice were the last two.
Oh please make another article entitled ’9 Reasons Why Harry Potter Wipes The Floor With The Twilight Saga’!. Will be so much fun to read.
It would, but there’s no point on doing things that are clear. Twilight sucks, HP rules :3
Haha I could think of a hundred reasons as to why Harry Potter is better than Twilight!
There are some serious flaws with the arguments mentioned in this article. Firstly Harry Potter is not funny, it’s just incredibly cheesy. (especially the 6th one) Also, you make the point that Lord Of The Rings is too long and complex, even though Tolkein manages to refine his material into 3 relatively short books, compared to 8 awfully slow-paced books that Rowling produced?
The 3 books might be short in your mind however when i was reading it, it felt like very long and drawn out. In the first book of lotr it takes more than 100 pages to leave the shire and all the parts when they walk from place to place are drawn out and when something finally happens, it is over a page later. I was actually tempted to skip a few pages every now and then but i didnt and i grudged through it. It was so dull in parts that the book was only read for school homework. Also, the most important chapter of the book is only 20 pages and it should be longer considering everything that happens in that chapter. J.R.R. Tolkein could have taken away the long drawn out walks in which barely anything happens and give a little more information in the eventful parts. It was boring to read at parts but when I read Harry Potter I couldnt put the book down. So in a sense the lotr books can feel longer than the hp books because the long parts are absolutely dull in lotr. Oh and by the way you clearly have not read hp because if you did you would know that there are 7 books not 8 so please know what you are talking about before you post a comment
8 books? Are you sure about that mate?
I know that people actually thinks this is rubbish. I’m not agree with most of it, but this makes me so happy. I’m a true potterhead, I’ve grew up as the first generation of potter-readers… but this is weird. You have to see that Tolkine wrote in a very different time… and a writer always put it’s own time in it’s words. So perhaps he didn’t developed his characters as Rowling did, but he did it marvaleously… and second, you article will face a lot angry comments and it’s because the LoTR had been in the literature culture for a long time…. looong, so a lot people sees it as a part f human history. Give Potter a while more, and you’ll see it will too, but not right now. Good writing, farewell!
I dont understand why you need to compare these two at all? They are completely different series and as “a fan of both series” can’t you just enjoy each one for what is?
I think this makes a few good points, however with your “more characters” point, its because J.K Rowling has written more material and so she has more of a chance to create more characters. In being concise, Tolkein hasn’t the chance to keep on introducing new characters.
She actually didn’t write so much more than Tolkien did if you consider the fact that the first three HP books combined are less than any of the other ones. Also, the format of the pages adds pages so the 757 pages are probably inaccurate compared to that of LoTR. So in total there’s probably only a couple hundred extra HP material which, considering that they’re are 7 books, probably accounts for exposition and setting up the next book.
That makes no sense. Did you consider Unfisnished Tales, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Fellowship/Two Towers/Return of the King and too many characters to count? (Examples of Significent Characters: Finwe, Fingolfin, Morgoth, Gogmosh, Sauron, Frodo, Aragorn, Feanor and his seven sons, Eol the Dark Elf and his son Maeglin…just to name a few)
Look, you really can’t compare the two, they have completely different tones, which is why I have to disagree with your argument about lighter tone and the digestible complexity, because those are some of the qualities that I find enthralling about the Lord of the Rings. It’s the buildup and the darkness and the immense scope that makes the trilogy so intense and the battles even more epic and significant, while sometimes the tone of Harry Potter seems a little too lighthearted for the immense moral complexity and frighteningly believable life-endangering threat that’s always there. But for most of the piece, I agree. My main criticism of Lord of the Rings would be that Tolkien’s characters lacked in psychological depth and they seem incredibly one-dimensional at times, especially in the books. So kudos to you, you’ve put forth some points that I wouldn’t have put forth myself in this argument, which occurs quite often among my friends.
I love both series, but you brought up some very solid points. I agree with this.
The books are the purest case of apples and oranges. I love and have read Rowlings and Tolkiens books several times, and strongly feel that they are an unfair comparison when it comes to womens issues.
Lets consider the times that both authors lived. Rowling is living in an era where women are at the forefront and are more empowered than they have ever been at any time in history. Where women can be CEO’s of companies and run for the highest office in the land. Tolkien mentally began creating Middle-Earth while in the mud soaked, rat infested trenches of Northern France during the First World War, when womens issues were slowly coming forward, yet were not in the forefront of world opinion. Yes, suffrage was coming and many important changes were happening, but, quite frankly, women being viewed as the type of character who is smarter, exceedingly brilliant and more powerful than the majority of her male counterparts was an idea that few people in mainstream society would have subscribed to when Tolkien’s books were written. Most large publishers in the 1950’s (who were mostly men), would have undoubtedly scoffed at the notion of a character like Hermione Granger. Not saying that I agree with that point of view, just looking at the historiography of womens issues in early 20th century literature.
In Tolkien’s defense, I think it speaks volumes of him, being a man of the day he was in, that he chose to have a woman kill the Witch-King of Angmar, when he could have easily have written the story to have had any number of male elves, men or dwarves do it.
I also feel that if Tolkien had published The Hobbit in 1997, (when The Sorcerer’s Stone was published) instead of in 1937, then I would say it would be a fair question as to why he did not make women a much stronger part in his story. Until then, I still say that their respective works are the purest case of apples and oranges.
First of all, I do want to state that I am a fan of BOTH Harry Potter and LOTR, and always will be. I do think the Harry Potter books are better than LOTR the novel and that the LOTR movies are better than the majority of Harry Potter films.
That said, “The Lord of the Rings” was NOT written to be a children’s book. Not even a book for entertainment’s sake, so the issue of irrelevant place names and lack of comedy that you found in LOTR, as well as the droning tone (which I do definitely admit is usually not enjoyable to read) is not valid. “The Lord of the Rings” was written as a fictional mythology, with completely different intentions than “Harry Potter.” LOTR is certainly not meant for children; “The Hobbit” was. As for the missing moral complexities, I believe you will find them in the Lord of the Rings movies.
Really nicely written article. I never do this, but I’m about to write a pretty lengthy reply to this, not to try and one up the author, but because my love for LOTR compels me. If anything, maybe it will help unlock the treasure of the Lord of the Rings to whoever reads this for the first time.
Replies, in order:
9: I have no reply here at face value. This is a great point, Harry Potter is a great character and we see him grow over a longer period of time than Frodo. Once we did a little deeper, however, I disagree with the author’s moral judgements made towards Frodo, however, in regards to Frodo’s care for only the Shire vs. Harry’s care for his friends. While Tolkien is clear that LOTR is not an allegory in any way, we do Tolkien an injustice if we don’t look at the context in which he wrote. One of the main aspects of Tolkien’s personal context is the horror of WWI in Britain, furthermore, his Christian worldview influences him in a certain way as well. As a result, Frodo’s longing for the Shire is not merely a longing for a return to a comfy chair to put his feet up. Its a longing for the world to be set right, for people to be at peace with one another, for the earth to be green and flourishing in contrast to Mordor’s barrenness and waste. It is a longing for a restoration of an Eden of sorts. This certainly contrasts with Harry’s dedication to his friends and his parents, as well as (to some extent, because of old Voldemort’s designs) the world at large. But it certainly is not lacking in comparison. Also, this statement trivializes that variety of main characters in the Lord of the Rings. Frodo is not the main character in LOTR. He is a very important one, but it really is Aragorn, Gandalf, and possibly Sam, alongside Frodo that make up the “main character.” Part of the complexity of the Lord of the Rings is that the evil in it is so huge, so powerful, that it cannot be faced by one character alone. We’ll come back to this shortly.
8. This is definitely disagree with for a few reasons. First of all, Voldemort is (unfortunately) a prime example of a character that has really been ripped off from LOTR. His bodily return and the Horcruxes (versus Sauron’s Ring) do a little more than “echo” LOTR. We could talk a lot about all the things that Harry Potter rips off of LOTR, and instead of wasting time doing it, I’ll just point you to this handy little Sporcle quiz so that you can indulge yourselves on your own time (http://www.sporcle.com/games/QuizMaster20/LOTR_HP). But the bigger problem is that the author simply doesn’t know enough about the LOTR world to make this assessment fairly. Is the author familiar with the history of Sauron, as Morgoth’s right hand man? Is he familiar with the cunning and guile he used to trick the elves into forging the rings at Eregion? Does he know that before suffering a grievous wound he could shape shift, and would often do so into the form of a Wolf? Is he familiar with the colorful cloak and handsome face he donned to trick the men of Numenor in the 2nd age into taking him to their Island Kingdom, whereupon he poisoned and destroyed the Kingdom single handedly from the inside out? Is he aware of his standing in relationship to Gandalf as a Maia from the land of the Valar? Sauron’s history is rich and varied, playing on the personal as well as the cosmic evil. He is bent on the domination of the world but he never forgets personal scores. And finally, to speak to a specific point the author makes, he certainly commands more than minions. His deception of the elves and the Numenorians, his claiming Sauruman, a wizard of greater rank than Gandalf (initially) to his side, and not to mention his command of the Nazgul (former Kings of men, and the greatest of them to boot!) show that this is no slave driver of mindless orcs. This is a great, deep, vile, personal evil that has the servants to match.
7. Moral Complexity. The author is a little out of his depth here. Even more so than Harry Potter, LOTR speaks to not only the moral complexity of the story, but the moral complexity of human life. There are no “good” or “bad” characters in LOTR, save Morgoth and Sauron. How many characters switch sides? The Nazgul, Sauruman, the evil men of Dunland, just to name a few. Furthermore, Tolkien does something in how the ring affects his characters that Rowling doesn’t touch in her story: Tolkien shows that the dividing line between good and evil cuts right in between ourselves. Not issues, not factions, not leaders, but us. No character that comes into contact with the rings remains unscathed. Gandalf won’t touch it. Galadrial has a major power trip when she realizes she could be an evil queen. Boromir loses his mind. Frodo, after everything, can’t even throw the Ring into the fire. Gollum is completely perverted by it. Sam desires it. Sauruman throws away his position as the top of the order of the Istari to pursue the Ring. Faramir almost falters at the sight of the ring. Not a single good character is “safe,” not even Gandalf, the character the author states is a “good guy.” And I won’t even go into all the Kinslaying and infighting that goes on between not only the Elves and Dwarves in the 1st and 2nd ages, but amongst the Elves themselves, and the Elves and Men! While in Harry Potter sometimes you don’t know who to trust or who is on what side, at the end of the story everything is made clear. “Ah, yes, Snape was always a good guy. He was just cranky at the same time, so we could never tell.” In LOTR, even the good guys have to fight against themselves to not become bad guys. Talk about moral complexity.
6. Not much detail to go into here except to say that LOTR has just as many rich and varied female characters. Galadrial, who I have already mentioned, is a great one, and her story goes all the way back into the first age and the Silmarillion. In fact, she might be the most powerful being on Middle Earth, right up there with Sauron and Gandalf. Arwen is a love interest for sure, but she is far from a damsel in distress. She saves the day when she out races the Nazgul to the Ford of Brunien and fights the standard of her people and chooses the hope of love and a family with Aragorn over immortality and peace with her people. And don’t even begin to say that Eowyn is only a love interest for Aragorn. Talk about a badass girl that rides into battle with a hobbit on her back and beats the hell out of the Witch King. Not someone that is to be trifled with at all. I won’t go into female characters in the extended Tolkien literature, but surely Luthien wins major points in the story of her and Beren. Finally, talk about a bad-nasty female bad guy… Shelob, and her unholy mother, Ungoliant. I’ve had nightmares for years about Ungoliant darkening the lights of Valinor, and Shelob gobbling up goblins in her foul belly.
5. This is, I think, the strongest point the author makes, and it is certainly valid. Harry Potter has had incredible appeal to my generation, unlike that of any popular fiction that has ever been released. I want to make a few points about this, though: First, Harry Potter had the HUGE aid of mass media, marketing, and a far more international community than Tolkien had at his disposal in the 1930s. Furthermore, Harry Potter is written specifically for that generation. It is written in a style that appeals to a certain group of people. It remains to be seen whether or not HP will stand the test of time like LOTR has, traversing not only various generations but literary styles, which as the author has mentioned a few times, is a large barrier between himself and LOTR. Also, while LOTR did not have the advantages that HP had during the time of its release, it certainly blew up in its day in its own right, probably very relative to its own abililty, as HP did in the context it blew up in. Finally, LOTR has done more than shape a generation: It has shaped multiple generations. LOTR is the greatest fantasy epic ever written. It might not have the mass appeal that HP has in its current context, but before we dethrone the reigning fantasy epic for the last century, we need to see if the popularity of HP lasts into the next decade.
4. This one I don’t need much space to reply to, because frankly, it isn’t a very good reason. To say that Harry Potter is better because it is more “digestible” doesn’t reflect on the quality of the work of HP or LOTR, it in fact reflects on the ability of a society to take in diverse, complex works, and what kind of attention span and comprehensive ability they have. It is like saying that “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby” is a better movie than “Dances with Wolves” because its length and complexity is “more digestible.” I understand that analogy trivializes it slightly, but the point is still made. We have to remember that we live in the most overstimulated culture since (quite possibly) the Roman Empire. Just because a work is more easily accessible to our culture now doesn’t mean it is better than a work written 80 years ago. The only conclusion we can take from it for certain is that our society simply can no longer digest works of substantial length or literary complexity. And that certainly is no bar to compare works by.
3. I’m not going to comment on this one because it is so contextual and reflective of the goals of popular media that there really isn’t anything to say. Actually, I lied, I have one thing: LOTR has tavern songs. That are about how good the beer is. No such songs in HP. Beer songs vs no beer songs. Case closed. :)
2. This one also is a mix of the author not understanding Tolkien and character appealing to context. In terms of contextual appeal, just because our society desires more and more characters that have lost their minds in order to be entertained doesn’t mean the work is better or worse. It is simply a reflection of society. This is reflected in our television programming. We have plenty of “whimsical” characters in shows like Hoarders, Grimm, Big Bang Theory, almost any CW show, and heck, I’d even argue those clowns on the Jersey Shore. Does it mean our TV is higher quality, or is it a reflection of what society needs to be entertained? Furthermore, Tolkien has not only a vast variety of “whimsical” characters, but even better, he has a lot of sane characters that have whimsical sides. Song is all over LOTR, and while modern day readers skip over them, those songs were Tolkien delving into the culture of a people and bringing them to life. The dwarven songs, the songs about the Green Dragon. Aside from song, many evil characters are full of wit and riddle, such as the great worm Glaurung, and then the classic example being Gollum and Bilbo in the riddle scene in the Hobbit. Don’t forget the wit and humor of Merry and Pippin, hilariously contrasted next to the dryness of the Ents, and then, of course, Gandalf, who says everything with a twinkle in his eye. Whimsical? Maybe there are more in HP, and some good ones at that. Who doesn’t like Dobby? But does it mean anything about the quality of the work versus LOTR? Not really.
1. The main thing to bring up here is that the author isn’t familiar with the extended Tolkien literature. The LOTR trilogy begins in age 3. Ages 1 and 2, recorded in a variety of other works, are basically all about the good guys getting the crap kicked out of them. They all die. Turin, Fingolfin, Beren, Feanor, Finrod, Glorfindel, Isildur, Ecthelion, Turgon, basically all the Kings of Arnor and all the Dwarven leaders, the entire realms of Numenor, Gondolin, Nargothrond, Doriath, Khazad-Dum, Arnor, and Erebor are sacked by the forces of Evil, not to mention the notables the die in the third age such as Haldir, Boromor, Theoden, and Gandalf (who was not brought back because Tolkien “couldn’t let his wizard die”). The price that the good guys pay in finally bringing down evil is AMAZINGLY high. The amount of death that occurs is staggering. Tolkien is clear: There is a high price to may when fighting evil.
Here ends my insanely long post. Thanks again to the author for writing, and I hope that my reply does not come off as snarky or demeaning in any way, that is not my intent. My intent is solely to bring to light the brilliance of the Lord of the Rings, as it has had a profound impact on my life. Hopefully this inspires at least a few people to delve into the literary treasure trove that it is.
THANK YOU FOR WRITING THIS. I wrote a pretty lengthy comment as well, but yours sums it up much, much better!!
Wow, that is the amazing assessment that I could never put into words. You must be related to Tolkien (:
I love you for finding the time to do this. All I want to say, you have encompassed here.
Very good points! However, the problem is that to argue against the author of the article, you have to bring up material outside of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I mean that this actually just proves the authors case.
For the most of your comment, you simply bring up events and characters that do not feature in the actual novels. Just because Rowling has not released an encyclopedia over her own universe does not mean she does not sit on an immense amount of material. Have you had a look at Pottermore?
Some have made the point that Rowling has had more time to develop her characters. I do not agree, because of what I stated above. Rowling succeeds in bringing her rich cast of morally complex characters through in her story, while Tolkien does not. He needs thousands of pages worth of notes and backstories to show his character’s and story’s complexity.
For example, you answer to the number one reason of the author by naming deaths in the 1st and 2nd ages. By doing that you show you missed the whole point: deaths only matter if they happen to characters the reader cares about. You mean that because some characters we merely know by name died thousands of years before the events of the books, that compensates for almost all the good characters surviving the actual story of the destruction of the ring? Not to say Frodo and Sam’s struggles does not bring forth emotions but, do we really feel they could die?
I’m a big gunner too. Unfortunate season we’re having yet again.
You make a few fair points, but you’re incredibly unfair to the Lord of the Rings. Maybe you should have included The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and his other works pertaining to Middle-earth? For starters, you really cannot compare which is objectively “better” as both series are hits in their time, and we just so happen to live in the Harry Potter time. I grew up reading the series and it truly got me into reading, and I personally love it more than LotR, but I can address the weaknesses in Harry Potter and the great strengths of LotR.
On women. I believe Andeddu explains it well enough.
On deaths. You have to remember that these two are writing at very different times, for very different audiences and very different stories. Tolkien is talking about the human race’s redemption after serving The First World War, where he, and the rest of the world, had seen vast amounts of people die. He imagined middle-earth when he was serving the military in WW1. Imagine being a soldier and being able to escape from the horrors of war with your imagine. (Very) Shortly after WW1, there was WW2–the time at which the books were released. As a writer in that period, to see death strewn everywhere with bombs and weaponry overhead, a book that allowed the human race to rise once more was needed.
On Variety Of Whimsical Characters. Tom Bombadil? What is he? is he Eu? is he a god? Merry and Pippin were a whimsical pair! The hobbits of the shire! The dwarves from the hobbit! What is this perpetuating belief that there should be a load of whimsical characters in fantasy literature? It fits the tropes, but stories CAN work without an abundance of whimsy or quirk and MANY fantasy fans, such as myself, can enjoy a fantasy story that doesn’t perpetuate the TH White stereotype. Also, the creme de la creme of acting appeared in LotR too. Sir Christopher Lee, Sir Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Cate Blancett, Hugo Weaving? There aren’t as much characters in LotR as well, but they still had a pretty solid cast.
On Lighthearted tone. This is unnecessary. Not all books need to be done in a lighthearted tone. Also, Potter was geared for kids growing up and LotR was designed to be one book for adults.
On Digestible Length and Complexity. And again, LotR was designed to be one book for adults and not as a trilogy. The Hobbit was for the kids. Tolkien fought for the LotR books to be printed as one, but the publishers ended up cutting it up into three books. The books are written as a sort of history/mythology book. His other books are written even more perversely in the historical context of middle-earth. Might I add, the guy built a host of languages for these books all with their own grammar, vocabulary and structure.
On a reader’s generation. This is subjective. I believe that Tolkien got a load of kids to read with the Hobbit. The influence of Harry Potter is more evident now as it is contemporary literature.
On influential female characters. Please do take in account the time the authors lived in in your comparison. For the Lich-king to be vanquished by a woman, a woman joining an army of men and be good at fighting too, and a woman to hold so much power both in middle-earth and in valinor, was a big step forward for their time. And Tolkien was a male to boot.
On Deeper moral complexity & Complex villains. Please reread Tolkien’s body of work. Check out the lich-king, sauron, saruman, gollum, feanor, etc.
On superior main character. Tolkien has stated that Frodo is NOT the main/focal character. Read between the lines. Frodo was a pansy. See: Samwise Gamgee and Aragorn.
This has gotten quite lengthy and I could write more, but I won’t. I just had to defend Tolkien. I love JK Rowling to bits, but at times Harry Potter can be extremely campy, and the movies (particularly 4, 5, and 6) were terrible.
So i see that a LotR fan before me posted while i was typing… damn my slow typing skills. Anyways… here is my 2 cents:
Ok… Firstly, I am both a HP fan and a Tolkien fan. I have been a fan of the Ring books since 4th grade when we read them in school. Been a HP fan since my wife introduced them to me in 2007. I loved reading both series but I am a strong believer that you have made some poor arguments in this article. Maybe I will just go point by point so it’s a bit easier.
First, I have a hard time believing that Harry is a better main character than Frodo. Harry, in my opinion, is the least interesting person in the entire series. He spends the whole series battling over who he is as a person. Just like every other “Coming of Age’ story ever written. Ever. Most of his anger towards Voldemort through the first 6 books isn’t about saving the world, it’s about hating the guy that killed his parents. Which is why he projects that anger towards Sirius, then Wormtail, and eventually Snape just for being mean to them. He even spends most of book 5 and 6 feeling sorry for himself and complaining about all the bad stuff happening. At least that’s what I got out of it. Also, Frodo started as a scared, weak Hobbit who really grew as a character throughout the books and eventually became a hero. Harry was always Harry… he just figured out what to do in the end.
Second, although Voldemort is a fantastic character brought to life by an amazing actor, you stated that there is not enough told about Sauron to truly understand him. While it is true that not much is written about Sauron in the Rings Trilogy, his history is written about in almost every single one of Tolkien s other books about Middle-Earth. All 12 of them. That’s a lot of books, and there is a ton of stuff about how he was a good angelic being who wanted order and law but followed the wrong guy and eventually fell into darkness himself, then becoming a grand general of evil, then being captured after his masters demise, reformed near to his former self and being set back on the path of the light, then without proper guidance he fell back to his dark ways and grew with dark power in his new plot to control all of the world. He also had the ability to command far more than Voldemort. Humans, beasts, sentient objects, even other “Demi-Gods” at one point.
Next, you claim that HP has deeper moral complexity. Do you realize that your examples are even funny? Sauron… corrupted by his master long ago. Saruman… once a good white wizard, corrupted by the evil of Sauron. Even Aragorn says that the power of the ring might have been too much for him to withstand. Boromir was a great character who lost control and ended up dying because of it. Samwise is even a complex character, he starts the stories almost selfish with his need to keep his friends in the Shire, but by the end of the stories he has grown into a true hero himself that just wants to protect his best friend and those he loves. Golum is a great example of Moral delemna. One part of him wants to be good, the other wants to kill stupid fat hobbitses. I do agree that Snape was a very complex character and I enjoyed watching his story unfold, but I feel that the life of Smeagol was a more morally charged tale. Also i am gonna guess you are quite young as you have used “Teenage Angst” as a good thing for HP. Teenage angst is the main reason why I feel Twilight sucked. I hate teenagers lol… and their angst.
On to influential female characters. Firstly you must realize that the bulk of Tolkiens writing was done in a time when that was not something people looked for in writing. The books were even set in a time when women didn’t take part in the adventuring roles. But assuming that Arwen and Eowyn were the only females and were only here to jump Aragorn is just silly. Arwen was the love of Aragorn’s life. Thoughts of her is what kept him alive many times. She pushed him to be a better person, to always do what was right, even to take back up the crown that he SO did not want. She wasn’t a love interest… she was a motivation. Eowyn, though portrayed in the movies to be all over Aragorn, was actually a very strong willed female that not only saved Faramir from his self doubt, but… oh that’s right… she killed the Witch King. You also left out Galadriel, yeah she was kind of important in the stories what with being an elven queen that pulls the Fellowship from total despair after Gandalf’s fall. Also, there is Rosie… not really a super important character but she does get Sam’s motor goin’.
As far as shaping a generation, yeah… I’ll give ya that one. Only because HP came out in a decade when it was actually possible to do everything you stated. When LotR was introduced there was no chance of building a theme park unless your last name was Disney or Knott or… Six Flags?? IDK… but the ability to spread merchandise across the globe is more a show of need to make money than actual quality of story. Harry Potter grabbed hold of so many youths because it was written directed at those youths. Every child feels left out and alone at some point so showing them that even the loneliest kid in the world can get a letter to Hogwarts. We all wanted that letter. Hell, I’m 32 and I still want my damn letter. Middle-Earth was portrayed as a mystical place that may or may not be the actual history of Earth, and the books did an amazing job of making you use your imagination to get there.
The world of Harry potter is easier to digest because it is based on familiar places. Tolkien created not just an entire world… but a whole universe filled with multiple languages, races, deities, and histories. He starts his books with the creation of everything and works forward through all the ages, expanding the world and adding depth to each story. Rowling created a lot for her books but it must be said that she had a lot of previously written works to build from. I also want to know what part of any of the Lord of the Rings books dragged on longer than the first half of book 7. Each of the 7 Potter books seems to spend the first few chapters catching you up, and the last few chapters fighting. As far as length goes… every single Harry Potter book has more pages than every single LotR book. Movie running time was similar in that every Potter movie was over 130 minutes, which you apparently were mistaken about. Most of them were just under 3 hours as well. Also, LotR didn’t break its longest book into 2 parts like Deathly Hallows did. The information in LotR is given to you like an adventure… that’s why they give you a map lol. HP was written like a story book for kids. Easy words to read, funny words to play with, and bright colors to distract you from… ooooh what’s that?
I love funny stuff, and I agree HP has funnier characters in it, but the overall tone of both series I think is near identical. Fellowship starts very lighthearted and fun until danger actually shows itself and then an urgency takes over and peril looms around the group. Just as the first 3 books of HP are quite lighthearted. I would even say that up until Cedric’s death the books had a fun overall feeling. It is to be expected though as the whole of the books, except the first half of book 7, takes place in a school of children. And how can you say that a series has a lighthearted tone when EVERY character dies? I mean really? Fred? Are you kidding me? But in general, both series start light and grow darker as they progress, thereby making this point moot.
I do have to agree with HP having a larger abundance of quirky characters. And I do love them quirky characters. LotR on the other hand has a greater number of characters with in depth histories. From the dwarves and their ventures from stronghold to stronghold, and the elves and their journeys towards the Grey Havens. Every different type of character has a complete storyline from birth to death… or ascension, whatever you wanna call it. Even the different factions of humans each have different stories to follow. Remember it is written by a history professor and as such almost needs to be read that way. As far as the movies go, a lot of the quirky characters were cut by Jackson because they did not directly progress the main story. If that had been done in the HP films I think a lot of side characters would never have been seen… like Peeves. I do enjoy the colorfulness of Rowling’s world though.
As for the last point you make, yes… HP kills off a ton of the main characters. Many I strongly believe should not have been killed, but that is besides the point. And yes, it is true that in the LotR trilogy only 1 member of the Fellowship dies, but when you read em you don’t realize that. Book 1… Boromir dies and Gandalf… friggin Gandalf dies. That would be like Dumbledore dying part way through Sorcerer’s Stone. Yes, he does ascend and return later but you don’t know that at the time. How many people die in the first book of HP? Only the parents who you know nothing about. I don’t think anyone dies in HP until the end of book 4 with Cedric. Book 2 of LotR only kills off minor characters but does split the party down so that they don’t even know who is alive any more. Book 3 has several main characters come close to death and you actually think they are gone only for them to return in glorious fashion. So in all yes, Rowling killed off more main characters, but just doing that doesn’t make your story better. Killing people just to kill people makes no sense. Great stories can resolve major problems without killing everyone.
Sorry this comment kind of got out of hand and rambled for a while. I just had to get my points across. Many of my problems with your stance is that you are basing the success of stories that came out decades ago versus stories that just finished being told within the last few years. Wait 50 years or so before you make a judgment. :)
This is either the dumbest thing I’ve ever read, or the greatest troll I’ve seen in a while.
I think that the judgement of one being better than the other depends on the kind of reading one prefers or associates with each series. In particular, seeing this article made me think of the distinction between good writing and good storytelling. Whereas good writing, in my view, is largely characterized by its appeal to the intellect, good storytelling largely appeals to the emotions. Depending on how you view each series, whether from an academic or personal point of view, I think you will see different arguments and different conclusions. In other words, each series has elements of both good writing and good storytelling, but depending on your experiences (and hence, the criteria with which you carry out your judgment) you may associate each series with one or the other. In my opinion, I think we all need to be aware of this distinction if we are to keep this discussion productive, which we all want, right?
Ok, I don’t know that Harry Potter “wipes the floor” with LOTR. Both are good in their own way. It’s perfectly OK to like both and for different reasons.
Though I will say this: Nowhere in the Harry Potter series did I have to put the book down and take a break due to an overbearing character that just stops everything dead in its tracks. I’m looking in YOUR direction, Mr. Bombadil.
what are you talking about? Tom Bombadil was my favorite supporting character! I was slightly disappointed when he didn’t appear in the movies
There are some very valid points in this article and I probabily shouldn’t be reading it since I am a lover of both series, so it creates some conflicting emotions for me. However, regarding the “No Influential Female Characters” I really don’t thinks that that’s a totally fair point because look at the time periods in which the two series take place in. Lord of the Rings takes place in a middle age type time, so it would be very much a man’s world that women wouldn’t have as much influence in unlike in modern times which in when Harry Potter takes place. So I think that this should be taken into consideration.
Additionally, I’m not sure with the character’s motives things. Yes, Frodo wants to go home to ted Shire. Think about it, it’s the only world he’s ever known and (for me) it’s the symbol of pure good in the series. Harry has been more exposed the other parts of the wizarding world than Frodo has Middle Earth, so he would obviously feel more ‘I need to help everyone’ than Frodo would because, for the most part, hobbits don’t even leave the Shire and the first time Frodo ever did so was for this mission.
However, the wholly good and bad characters is a very valid point. Sauron isn’t really developed, but he’s never actually seen by any of the characters either. I mean, until the 6th Harry Potter book, we don’t truely know how commplex Voldemort’s life has been, and even then he is pure evil. I do love the complexity of Dumbledore and Snape though and how Rowling developed their back stories.
Just my opinion though.
Firstly, I too am a fan of both authors and their works, perhaps almost equally so. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but both are fantastic, epic stories in their own right.
I’m not going to side with either Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter in this case, but rather point out the lack of journalistic integrity present in this article.
Adam and Carl have already said it best, but this author has very little knowledge or understanding of the Lord of the Rings. Even ignoring the vast amount of material in “The History of the Ring” books, he lacks an acceptable comprehension of the main story. He even states that he had difficulty understanding what was going on, and that is apparent in the many inaccuracies we see throughout the article.
A sound argument or debate needs to come from a place of knowledge and not just the ability to string together thoughts. I was looking forward to seeing some intelligent dialogue with the upper hand to Harry Potter for once. However, I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth as many of the article’s arguments are based on falsehoods, misunderstandings, and short-sightedness.
Furthermore, although I understand the author wanted to compare franchises, the amount of alternating between book and movie was just frustrating. If you’re trying to make a statement about an author and his novel, you can’t randomly bring up aspects of the movie version. A separate entry comparing movie to movie would have been much more appropriate, rather than throwing sporadic examples around, intermingling with those from the book.
It’s clear to me this author is just another blind fan, trying to play favorites to his franchise of choice. That’s a shame, considering the idea was to try to give Harry Potter a fair shot against the many Tolkien fans that previously have shown a prejudice against it. If anything, this article has helped the naysayers to continue their negative beliefs about J.K. Rowling’s work and its followers.
I apologize if I sound overly harsh, but as a lover of these books, journalism, and general debate alike, this article leaves much to be desired.
LoTR and HP are both written in different era, by different authors, who had/have different moral values, experiences and point of view of the world. There is no way we can truly ever compare the two series, as “that would be folly” (said by Boromir during the same Council Meeting).
When LoTR series was written world was entering into 20th Century, with values that are now considered old fashion and down right unacceptable by current society, such as women being household worker, with no voting power and are only considered “warriors” in myths and legends not in reality.
Whereas when HP was written, world was entering into 21st Century, with totally different sets of moral and social values, where women are equal to men in nearly every form of life and does not just sit at home and look after the family.
Another biggest point is the sex of the authors of these two series. Tolkien being a man, wrote the book to show the conflict of good and evil between men. Whereas JK Rowling being a woman, writing a similar theme as Tolkien’s, made the conflict about men and women.
However please note that the article describes “Eowyn and Arwen is as love interests for Aragorn”, while this is true, Eowyn still had a major role, where she fight for her uncle in the battle in front of Minas Tirth, so she was not just a simple love interest.
As for the complexity in the characters that the article argue about, well you need to again considered the era in which the books were written. Today we as audience like to think that we have come to understand all human character and personalities issues and that we know a person has more to one side of their character. Whereas the audience of Tolkien era were still developing their understanding of human complexity.
However please note that Tolkien’s entire LoTR world is as vast as the world of Harry Potter and Tolkien also created several languages from scratch to to accompany his fantasy world.
Also there weren’t as many learned people, as they are now in the world and there weren’t as many medium as there are now in this century. These of course affects the way people come to read the books and understand them.
Also please note that LoTR were written with Good Vs Evil concept, where it was trying to indicate that Good in the “West” which is Britain is fighting against the Evil in the “East” which is referring to Eastern Europe (including Germany, which is east of Britain). Tolkien was trying capture the bigger picture of the world as he saw it during his time.
Whereas Rowling begin writing about a Boy who learned he is a wizard and goes on a journey and make friends and enemies. The HP saga is based on a single character’s point of view and as such it requires much in depth character profile, as suppose to what Tolkien did for LoTR.
As being the biggest fan of both LoTR and HP, I find myself always enjoying both sagas and love reading Fan-fictions stories that combine these two unique world.
The arguments will go on and on until we are turn blue face, like the argument on the HP ships such as Hermione should be with Harry instead of with Ron etc.
As for this article, it is entertaining, thought provoking and one sided analysis of the the argue of which is better LoTR or HP.
I love both HP and LOTR, and though I love HP more, this has to be the dumbest article I have ever read. What especially urkes me is when you say that that LOTR is full of irrelevant names and places. Being someone who has read the Sillmarillion, I must firmly disagree. In fact, for me, these references add depth and enrichment to the text. Tolkien did not just write stories, he built a world with an intricate history and complex cultures. Also, your argument that Frodo destroyed the ring merely for his selfish desire to save the Shire is completely unfounded. Frodo believed that bringing the ring to Rivendell had saved the Shire, yet he volunteers to bring the Mordor though no one expects him to do so.
All you people that bring up Tolkeins extra material such as the Sillmarillion are completely
Misreading the point of the authors article. My reading of this article
Is that it is a comparison of the LORD OF THE RINGS books and not Tolkeins extra stuff which he has written. So the fact that the author hasn’t brought up the Sillmarillion is because he’s not comparing that!! Go Harry Potter woaaah!!!
I am a huge HP fan, but, I have to say I do not agree. Personally I think that you cannot compare these two, as you cannot compare any novel to another one. They are different. Each author has something else in his head while writting, not to mention the differances that time creates. I do not know the exact time period for LOTR but I do know that it was written well before HP. Concequently, each author writes to appeal to people that have grown up with different standards. I will take one thing that you said as an example: the lack of important female characters. Besides the fact that one series was written by a man, who is bound to have some difficulty in portraing female characters, you have to consider that he wrote the books at a time when women were not exacly dominant. I think that that is what plays the greatest role in all the differences: Time. To give you another example, me and my father are like clones. I like what he likes, I detest what he detests. But, he loves LOTR, while I couldn’t even finish the first book, and I am obsessed with HP while he can’t even stand the movies. Why? because we grew up differently. The writting style was different then. There are I’m sure other very important facors, but i feel I am not the right person to explain. thanks for taking time to read my comment, and please excuse any mistakes that i might have made. English is not my moother tongue, and although i have double checked my text, there are bound to be some mstakes.
I don’t think there’s enough space to point out everything that’s wrong with this article but here goes;
One of the central themes of Sauron is that he is able to persuade and corrupt the hearts of men. Hence the ringwraiths, easterlings, corsairs and much more discussed in The Silmarillion.
There is plenty of moral complexity in Lord of the Rings. The whole point of the Ring is its ability to warp people’s morals and perceptions. Just look at Faramir, Boromir, Galadriel, Tom Bombadil, Denethor etc.
Eowyn kills the Witch King of Angmar, how much more influential do you want to be? It is also based in a fantasy world which is male-centric whilst Harry Potter is based is 20th century Britain.
The shaped a generation crap is barely worth responding as is the digestible length and complexity.
The Lord of the Rings is full of deaths. Gollum, Denethor, Boromir, Theoden. Then there are even those who survive are so damaged by the Rings effect that they are forced to leave their land. And all the deaths in Lord of the Rings are meaningful whilst Rowling seemed to kill of characters just to seem edgy.
Why compare two films that have no art in them whatsoever?
In this article: I didn’t read any LOTR and I’m not going to. Seriously how can you include the whole harry potter universe and just section out some of the LOTR universe? If you leave out vital information you can say whatever you want about anything.
Yeah…well…here’s my article as to why the LoTRs wipes the floor with ..let’s say…A Diary of a Whimpy Kid. Now I have not read any of the DoaWK books, but the LoTRs cover art was better, and they are like way thicker books, making one look smarter when they carry them around. And the LoTRs movies are better, b/c DoaWK doesn’t have a movie yet, I don’t think. And where one story has THE standout character of a slimey villian who both creates sympathy and loathing with every dripping line, a creature with a demented soul, twisted by evil and lies, a perverted being with minimal hope of salvation, the other story has Gollum.
So there, I made an article just about as necessary as this one.
You can’t use this as an argument. Lord of the Rings does not have a distinct main character. Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf, and even the Ring to a certain extent could be considered the main character. Sure Frodo wants to go home, but he is also a three foot man in unimaginably large world. You make the point that he is easily consumed by the Ring. He walked from the Shire to Mordor with that burden. A feet that almost nobody could do. It only consumed him after his long journey which could have weakened the resolve of anybody.
Sauron is unquestionably more powerful. Also his existance is explained by Tolkien. You’ve only counted the Lord of the Rings when Tolkien’s world is so much more complex. You’ve left out the Silmarillion; this explains that Sauron is a fallen angel who was swayed that by the promises of greatness by the Morgoth, the black blight of the world. Again there isn’t one distinct villain. Sauron, Saruman, the Ring itself, Gollum, and even Denethor to an extent. You also say that Sauron has no support. He swayed two entire nations, he has the support of werewolves, the wringwraiths, and he swayed the proud and true men of Numenor. You also said that Sauron isn’t as human, that is good because he isn’t.
Eowyn isn’t just a love interset. She goes against cultural bounds, and rides into battle. She takes up Theoden’s sword, and killed the Witch King of Angmar. In the third book she is fleshed out as a character with Faramir as they both struggle against the blackness of the Witch King. Also shouldn’t it be expected to have stronger men characters because it is in a Medieval setting where men were dominant. He was just writing true to the time he was writing in. It seems as if you are basing your assumptions off of the movies, but the if you are than you have the entire wrong idea of Harry Potter. The movies are nothing compared to the books while The Lord of the Rings movies are so much more accurate to the book than Harry Potter.
There have been other series that have shaped generations. If you grew up with Harry Potter as the CENTER of your life that probably isn’t healthy. Sure it Harry Potter is more relatable than LoTR; you also have to realize when it was written and who wrote it. Tolkien had a more classical style of writing. You can’t fault him for that.
Sure Lord of the Rings doesn’t have a theme park, but it was written in the 40′s. Furthermore, the hobbit was written around the same time, and it hasn’t left child reading lists since. You might say that I can’t use this because it isn’t LoTR, but you can’t just look at the trilogy. His world is so much more. If you’re going to criticize The Lord of the Rings, you have to criticize the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and all of his works. You say it doesn’t have much influence, but I can count some series that has taken quite the leaf out of Tolkien’s books.
Let me just say now that I do love Harry Potter. I just love LoTR more. I also don’t agree with your arguments. I feel that most of your arguments are opinion based, and may not apply to everybody. Next time you write an article you should probably not just base it off of one aspect of the story because there is more to Middle-Earth than just LoTR. Some of the things I said were rash and emotion based and
I apologize for that, but maybe you should think about what was good. Encourage both series and have your own opinion because honestly there is no definite way to determine supremacy between the two.
I think both are simply products of their time. I very much agree that Harry Potter is better thought out and has a greater diversity of characters, particularly females. But LOTR was published in the 50s, so it’s pretty understandable that Tolkein didn’t highlight his female characters. We could easily be saying in another 50 years that Harry Potter is out-dated and conservative.
I still much preferred reading HP and found Tolkein’s work comes across as a bit self-indulgent.
Why is everyone going on about this Middle Earth thing??? This article is a comparison between LotR and Harry Potter. Not middle Earth vs Harry Potter.
You say: “there is more to middle earth than just LoTR.”
There may well be, but to discuss that, it would be completely off topic to
The article. You’ve clearly completely misunderstood the article
I am not sure the author actually read LOTR, they make thier point entirely from vague recollections, and make unfair or simply irrelevant points. No strong female characters? what about eowyn who does in battle when no man could ever accomplish? or Arwen who defies all social roles, and decides to give up her immortality to follow her desire to love? Galadriel is undoubtedly one of the 5 most powerful beings in all of middle earth.
The Author also states that Rowling has “bigger balls” for killing characters as if how many characters you kill is the hallmark of literature. However, that point aside i can name quite a few apart from theodan and boromir. Haldir, Saruman, wormtounge, Denethor, Gollum, Sauron. far more if you count the hobbit as part of the series, in which one of the 3/14th of the company dies.
I respect that you can feel harry potter is better, i feel it is too. however, you reasoning is just plain awful.
Regarding the last point about deaths, I think that Tolkien was more willing to bring up the idea that the world would not be the same after the war. He shows the leaving of the entwives and the destruction of the Shire, issues that won’t be fixed in a short time. Although Rowling killed more characters, Hogwarts was quickly back to normal condition and everyone could live happily ever after. Despite the fact that there were less specific deaths, Tolkien was more honest in his portrayal of the world post-war.