Which is better: Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings?
84
Which is better?
See results without voting | Amazon Price: $44.48 List Price: $86.93 |
 | Amazon Price: $14.88 List Price: $31.96 |
Which is better? Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings?
With Harry Potter books breaking all records, some are suggesting that it is the best fantasy book ever written; however, Lord of the Rings has sold huge amounts of books and continues to be one of the best selling fantasy books ever. So which is better?
Many point to the fact that Harry Potter isn’t really a true fantasy book when compared to the masterful Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter is a great story, but is not as in depth as Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien infused his books with classic poetry and some amazing prose; his English is immaculate and it is quite rightly honored as a literature classic. Rowling is more of a story-teller; her books rely on the excitement of the plot to keep the user going rather than intricate descriptive English; in fact at times her grammar is poorly constructed – her books are unlikely to be listed as literary classics.
So what do you think? This hub explores this and compares some of the major heroes and villains.
Lord of the Rings
Lord of the Rings takes a deeper look at evil and good. While the underlying struggle is the same, we see the challenges of Frodo involve a far deeper struggle than simply winning a few simple struggles.
Frodo has to struggle against his inner demons as well as his compassion as he struggles towards his ultimate goal. We see more of the weakness and fragility of ‘good’ throughout his journey and understand that the struggle is not easy and often near impossible.
Evil comes in the form of Sauron; Sauron is more sinister and evil, and although his struggle is also about power, it is also one of creating chaos and destruction, rather than gaining sway over the world. Its far more pervasive and the evil creeps into everything.
Harry Potter
Harry Potter takes the classic theme of good v evil and aims it more at a teenage audience, helping the reader identify with the younger characters and understand the challenges they face in a more mundane way.
Harry Potter is the hero; he is an orphaned boy who possesses magical abilities. He has a sense of honor, and always tries to do the right thing as his dedication to his cause mostly prevails.
Voldermort represents the evil in the book; he focuses more on power, and the journey to get to that power regardless of the damage or hurt he does to get it.
The book discusses the fact that Harry and Voldermort are similar in many ways and the line that defines good and evil is very thin; it comments that the battle is continuous and often there really isn’t a winner.
On meeting Harry, we see a bullied young man seeking for a way to escape from his tormented world; as he grows and we watch his adventures, we see a slightly flawed hero, who relies on friendship and love to get him through his challenges. It’s through this friendship that we see the main difference between Harry and Voldermort.
Who is the better Hero?
See results without votingHARRY v FRODO
So what makes a better hero?
Harry is stubborn, he refuses to let anything stand in his way and often disregards the advice of others. He bends rules to achieve his goals, and while he pities enemies he does not let this affect his choices as he strives to destroy them.
Frodo is full of courage and determination; he is honorable and respects and pities his enemies; this often changes his choices. He listens to his friends in adversity, and despite the odds being stacked against him endeavors to succeed.
For me it is Frodo’s compassion that makes him the better hero.
Differences:
- Harry wears Glasses
- Harry can cast magic;
- Harry has a female companion as his close friend
- Harry destroys his enemies; Frodo takes pity on his enemy.
- Harry knows he will meet Voldermort face to face; Frodo doesn’t know what will happen
- Harry is a great at sports
Similarities
- They discover their destinies after a birthday: Harry after his own, Frodo after his uncles (Bilbo)
- The are reluctant heroes. Harry hates the adoration he receives; Frodo reluctantly takes on the quest when the Rivendell council cannot come to agreement.
- Both are courageous and honorable: Harry puts himself at risk to save Fleur’s Sister; Frodo refuses to blame Boromir, and shows compassion to Gollum.
- They are both orphans.
- They both have a nemesis who is a ‘dark lord’
Who is the better Wizard?
See results without votingDUMBLEDORE v GANDALF
So what makes a better wizard?
Gandalf is an amazing wizard and is constantly in the action, fighting orcs and goblins and generally causing mayhem with his huge fireballs. He is the leader of the ‘fellowship’ and has a great influence on events in the world of Middle Earth.
Dumbledore is also a great wizard but takes more of a backseat in the struggle using hints and suggestions to guide Harry rather than getting involved directly. He does get involved occasionally and shows an iron spirit.
For me Gandalf is the ultimate wizard although he does have an advantage – he’s almost a demi-god; Dumbledore is a mere mortal.
Differences
- Gandalf uses magic as well as a sword; Dumbledore only uses magic.
- Dumbledore directly faces The Dark Lord ; Gandalf does not.
- Dumbledore has a brother; Gandalf does not
- Dumbledore is more compassionate; Gandalf has to be more aloof.
- Dumbledore has the ability to become a ghost once he dies; Gandalf does not.
- Gandalf rides horses (Shadowfax) into battle; Dumbledore doesn't ride horses.
Similarities
- They both like to interfere: Gandalf 'persuades' Bilbo to help the Dwarves; Dumbledore 'guides' Harry through his life.
- They are both courageous
- They both fight fearsome enemies: Gandalf tacklesh a Balrog, Dumbleodre battles Voldermort.
- They both are unmarried
- They both have long beards and wear robes. (Don’t all wizards?)
Who is the 'worse' Dark Lord
See results without votingSAURON v VOLDERMORT
So what makes a 'worse' Dark Lord?
Voldermort uses terror and power to dominate those he commands; he is concerned with power and will do anything to get it, despite the pain or suffering it will cause. His humanity makes him understand this pain thus making his desire to cause pain very callous.
Sauron is pure evil; he wants total power and to reign over a land of chaos. This desire is more aloof and he doesn’t think in terms of human suffering but rather uses this as a tool to gain the domination.
For me Voldermort is the ‘worse’ Dark Lord as he knows what it is like to suffer as a human and this makes him more determined to succeed and cause suffering.
Differences
- Voldermort has a body (most of the time); Sauron is a floating evil eye.
- Sauron does not leave Mordor; Voldermort travels the world.
- Voldermort's uses other wizards (Deatheaters) to control the world; Sauron relies on armies with the help of his wizards (Nazgul)
- Voldermort talks to his enemies; Sauron simply searches for his enemies.
- Voldermort has split his soul; Sauron has not (if he has a soul at all!).
- Voldermort has only one main enemy: Harry Potter and his friends. Sauron has a war on multiple fronts – the fellowship, and Saruman.
Similarities
- They both want to dominate the world.
- They both are powerful wizards.
- They have no respect for life and have no remorse.
- The both followers to spread their evil. Voldermort has his Deatheaters; Sauron invades middle earth with his bands of Orcs, Goblins, Trolls and Ogres.
- They are both evil incarnate.
CommentsLoading...
I love the Tolkien books moreso than the Potter books. Even my children agree that they are both presented for different age groups. I think they'll both survive but Tolkien will be the more respected writer. Great review! :)
What a fun hub! I've never seen Lord of the Rings and only saw the first two Harry Potter movies -- haven't read either of the books. Someone told me today that the publisher for the Harry Potter books relies on them to break even for the year and any year they don't release a HP book, they lose money. Sad.
I'm ashamed to admit that I never read Lord of the Rings, but did see and thoroughly enjoy the movies...
However, I have read all the Harry Potter books (they are great, I just couldn't put them down!) and I've seen the movies - which are good but nowhere near as good as the books of course.
I love the Harry Potter books because they are for 'everyone', if you understand what I mean? (Dare I say that there does seem to be a bit of 'snobbery' and 'elitism' with Tolkien and the Lord of Rings...) I am sure that Harry Potter greatly helped a generation of children to grow up reading and enjoying books.
In fact it's a shame in some ways that they made the Harry Potter films, because now the children go to watch them and don't bother to read the books!
I went to a local Harry Potter event, the night the final book was released at one minute past midnight - and won first prize in the raffle! A special first edition of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - which remains sealed and hidden away... It may be worth something in a few years time! :)
So I vote for Harry!
1974: I couldn't agree more! Tolkien got the ball rolling with Fantasy - he didn't invent it but he made it main stream!
Dame Scribe: Agreed - Tolkien is a master at the English Language.
Loriamoore: I'm sure it's true and they are probably hoping that Rowling does some prequels!
CrystalStarWoman: I agree with you - even at 18 my daughters went with us at midnight to get the final book - it was the one constant over the last 9 or ten years that always brought us together - we even go to the movies together too! Now I have a grand son on the way, we have a whole new generation to introduce Harry to! HP is a great book to get children reading! I do understand what you say about LOTR, but I would definately advise most children to at least read The Hobbit as it is fun and aimed at children!
I'm not sure you can really compare the two books. They're written for far different audiences by vastly different authors writing for different purposes. I enjoy both -- but I don't think they can be accurately compared.
SimeyC this is an excellent article that brings to clear light the differences and similarities between these two great fantasy stories! I have found that it is very interesting to examine the authors of these two great stories. My personal favorite is The Lord of the Rings and I recently published a hub about Tolkien's use of symbolism in his novels. I think you would enjoy reading it and I would be pleased to hear your opinion on what I wrote.
Jarrod1240: thank you for your kind words...I'll be checking out your article shortly!
Nicely done. LOTR killed off more 'good guys', but HP was directed at younger readers, so we knew from the beginning that pretty much everyone would survive.
Nice hub simeyC, I enjoy both Harry Potter and LOTR equally, but just about side with LOTR, because I am an artist and have drawn some LOTR drawings. They are both a great way of detaching oneself from reality for a while, which i dont think is too bad a thing sometimes!:) Can't wait for The Hobbit either!
HP does not come close to the literary work and original world created by Tolkien. To mention the two and open discuission on a possible comparison between them is like comparing pop idol with the works of Beethoven or Mozart.
Sorry but no, HP is a broomsticks and nonsense piece of pagan based occult junk, aimed at grabbing childrens interest.
Not for my kids, they'll get the hobbit.
Scotsman: I totally agree with you! HP is great for families, but I used it to get my kids reading and then started them on the Hobbit and ultimately Lord of the Rings.
Lord of the Rings is the more complete Mythopeia (a term Tolkien coined himself in correspondence). Where-as Harry Potter relies upon a fantasy world that is nestled away against the Real World.
Far more thought was put into the Mythopeia of LOTR.
While I don't emulate the writing style, I take the breadth and depth of LOTR as a guide to how I write, when I write fantasy. Plus, making maps and designing languages is fun for a nerd like me.
Fascinating comparison! Although LOTR has been around so much longer. Harry Potter got kids all around the globe interested in reading. Both have their place in popular culture.
why are they even being compared? Potter is a childrens book written by a inventive but uneductaed lady, the LOTR is written by one of the most learned professors of the english language there ever was. Thats like putting Dobby in the ring with Gandalf!
cool hub. LOTR is in a class of its own, and even though i did enjoy HP...it simply cant touch LOTR. the time and effort that went into the creation of middle earth, its peoples and languages and cultures is apparent. HP is a good series, like many other good series. but it does not have the depth and character and substance that LOTR has.
One thing, Sauron's 'soul' so to speak was kind of split into 2, some of the power of his being was put into the ring, so he could more directly control & influence other ring bearers, and after he was finally vanquished, the part of his 'soul' that was they eye did actually survive after the ring was destroyed, but without the power to take form again.
Harry Potter and his mates are a way better story then LOTR! Okay so i have made my reasearches and most of the people i know say harry potter is better for all ages. My Grandparents are HP fans, they hate LOTR ! I like LOTR i think its a great story but im sorry its NOT better then HP!
Sauron is not a "floating evil eye" as that fat nutter Peter Jackson portrayed him. Even in the books Sauron is never seen. The eye I suppose only represents his watchfullness. HE IS NOT AN EYE
The 'floating eye'comes from the visions Frodo has when he is moving towards Mordor - he has the sense of being watched and the description Tolkien gives of what Frodo perceives in his waking dreams give the perception of a floating eye - this is why many people (including JAckson) portray Sauran like this - it's a tangible thing that people can connect with and a way to portray him in a movie!
I've come across this comparison too many times. IT SHOULD NOT EXSIST. Basically, watch this clip; it will sum it up for you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuHwwI0QOC4
Lord of the Rings is to Star wars as Harry Potter is to Star Trek.- Saw this somewhere.
Just a few inaccuracies with the 'Lord of the Rings' side of this. First, Frodo also 'discovers his destiny' after his birthday (him and Bilbo share a birthday). Second, Bilbo is Frodo's cousin, not uncle. Third, Sauron was not only a 'floating evil eye'. These are the only errors I picked out, but otherwise this was a very good article.
I'm sorry, but SimeyC you agreed with people who liked Lord of the Rings better and with people who liked Harry Potter better. So whose side are you on?
Gandalf: of course it has to be LOTR for me - the first Fantasy book I read and the only one I've read about a dozen times!
The Lord of the Rings is the second most read book after the bible - in the UK - (not sure about the rest of the world). I really don't know how anyone could compare it with Harry Potter. I also don't see as "Rowling is more of a story-teller" as the writer of this blog says. That's absurd.
Harris Brown: believe it or not I am a huge Tolkien fan and have read the LOTR at least ten times. However if you read Lord of the Rings to your children they will get bored before the story really gets going, the same does not happen with Harry Potter. Tolkien's story telling for the first couple of hundred pages with Tom Bombadil etc is not as flowing as Rowling - once you are 'caught' by the story and characters then there is no comparison - LOTR is the more complete and compelling read.
1974 2 years ago
Without Lord of the Rings, there would be no Harry Potter! I did enjoy reading all the Potter books, but it is a different reading level compared to any of Tolkien's books.