Its unfair!!

[AbacusTafai]

Let see... I hate people who think that Harry Potter is much better than Lord of the Rings. Rowlings story is watery, poorly concieved, and downright corny. (yes, I have read it unfortunatly) Compared to Tolkiens work, its worse than childs play. How some people can even begin to compare the two is beyond me...

I just needed to get that off my chest

[Ñólendil]

It's probably unhealthy to hate people based on their tastes .... Anyway I wouldn't say Harry Potter was better than the Lord of the Rings, but I can understand that opinion. I myself love the Harry Potter books, I feel they're one of the few 'fantasy' works that come close to the quality J. R. R. Tolkien achieved. I quote 'fantasy' because J. K. Rowling does not feel Harry Potter belongs to that genre -- understandably, as modern fantasy is quite different from the magical world of Harry Potter. I think the series is closer to what Fantasy ought to be, and what it might have become had that certain 'something' used by Tolkien survived and gone on its way down the years.

Other authors in this category I think include Stephen Lawhead and Tad Williams.

[AbacusTafai]

May contain spoilers for those who have not completed the Lord of the Rings







Hmm, yes, I was wrong to say hate... but I still don't see how they compare. In LotR, I went crazy when Gandalf died, and became depressed when Frodo 'died' (I gave up for the night because I was too depressed). I was sad when even Boromir died. I connected with these characters on a cellular level (if that is the correct phrase to use), but in Harry Potter, they just pissed me off. I thought that the characters were poorly developed and generic (Dopey sidekick with financial troubles, and goody too shoes sidekick that always studies dispite her background, and the main character that everyone loves except for a few that turn out to be the villain most often.)

[Ben]

I love both series.

Abacus, have you read the entire series? As it progresses, the plots get darker and more complicated, and the characters acquire much more depth. Book 4 is incredible.

Book 1 and even Book 2 are kind of like the Hobbit - the fluffy intro to the series. But each book represents a new year, so Harry continues to grow and mature with each new tale.

[hama]

I've never read any of the Harry Potter books. I always assumed they were more "childrens books". Are they worth a read?:confused:

[Ñólendil]

Definitely! They're wonderful books!

J. K. Rowling was actually surprised when her publishers told her Harry Potter would be marketed for very young people. She didn't write it for children, like Tolkien, she pretty much wrote it for herself. As such, people of all ages can enjoy them.

I myself was reluctant to read them, for it didn't seem to me that I would like any sort of 'mainstream story' on Rosie O'Donnell's book list. But my dad started reading them and told me how great they were, so I started on them. I've read the four now that have been published, I consider them real treasures.

I think each book was better than the last too. I definitely like the fourth one (Goblet of Fire) the best.

[IronParrot]

Oh no. Not one of these discussions.

Over at the Star Wars board I moderate, there's discussions like these all the time. LOTR and Star Wars. Hmm, let's compare one of the two great mythologies of the twentieth century with the film adaptation of the other, because they open within six months of each other. Hmm.

Anyway. I'm usually wary of treading into a "versus" debate because many people on one side are often so ignorant of the other, but here I go:

First of all, I like LOTR more than Potter.

But, that's because I think LOTR is the greatest novel of all time and am totally prepared to defend that statement.

However, the as-yet-unfinished seven-volume Harry Potter saga is turning out to be possibly my second or third favourite piece/cycle of fantasy literature ever, and I am also totally prepared to defend that statement.

Next, I simply don't believe in comparing stories in terms of "quality". I believe in comparing stories in terms of how they handle certain common facets or themes, which of course leads to "quality". So bear with me here.

First, the matter of originality. Always a major factor in analysing the greatness of a work. LOTR shows influences in mythology: Norse, Greek, Arthurian, et cetera. And, expanding upon the warm-up effort of The Hobbit, it pulls off such a complete overhaul of every concept there is that dictionaries should update their definitions of the words "dwarf" and "elf" just to account for the fact that their modern perceptions can be traced back to LOTR, if such a thing hasn't happened already. The narrative style, especially the literal "parallelism" in Books III, IV and V, remains inimitable to this day.

Rowling, however. First of all, we shouldn't really judge the Harry Potter saga until it has been completed. Secondly, we haven't even given it some time to sink in, and see how well it stands up to the test of time. My guess: very well.

Rowling's influences: the traditional and glorified idea of witchcraft in wizardry, previously exemplified by L. Frank Baum; just as Tolkien was influenced by elements of classical and medieval mythologies. A writing style of a levity that can be traced back to Lewis Carroll. And how about the originality? Well, take this into account:

Harry Potter is the first unified mythical saga of its kind. I hesitate to use the term "for children" - it is no more "for children" than The Hobbit... in other words, the "children's literature" label is really a term of accessibility.

Let's look at previous fantasy sagas clearly accessible to children. Lewis' Narnia? It's hardly a continuous cycle; some portions are very disjunct, and beginnings don't match up exactly to endings. It's definitely a "series", not a "saga". Baum's Oz? Oz was serialized until his death, and as a result of that open-endedness it continued to be serialized by other authors of lesser talent. Cooper's The Dark Is Rising? It's a highly neo-Arthurian work, and of a tone different enough from Potter that they are not entirely comparable... also because of its much higher degree of "Earthliness".

Now, with Potter, we have an unfolding saga that keeps on thickening, darkening. For the first time, a modern literary mythology accessible to children. (I say "literary" because otherwise, Star Wars would undoubtedly count.) Sure, Rowling draws on many past influences, many of which can be considered "stereotypical". But so did Tolkien! So do all fantasy authors who wish to make their works accessible! It's a matter of balance, a matter of how much to use and how much to create. And all written with a sharp tongue.

Speaking of writing styles: Of course you can't compare Tolkien to Rowling. You might as well try comparing Arthur C. Clarke to Douglas Adams!

I have more to say but I'll save it for a later post. Remind me to come back here and finish this up.

[Finmandos12]

I agree totally with you, Abacus.

Inoldonil, how can you say Harry Potter isn't a children's book? It is about a middle school, even if it is a magic school! All it is a watered down pseudo-fantasy book. It steals most of the creatures from classical mythology. It has bathroom humor! How can you call this a great work of fantasy?

[Ñólendil]

Great post Iron-Parrot!

Finmandos, psuedo-fantasy books. I imagine people who have 'read Harry Potter' and disliked it have only read the first book. For who would read more of a series they dislike? Philosopher's Stone is not a children's book, less so than the Hobbit, because it was not intended specifically for children. What are 'children's books' anyway? Just what we see fit to feed them, I think. We've ruined classic fairy-stories that would frighten children in order to market it especially to them, for some reason I do not quite understand. We've taken a heap of classics and locked them in the nursery, to be forgotton by those who would really enjoy them in their original form.

But, as has been said here, Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Askaban and Goblet of Fire are all more 'adult' (if you like that term) than the Philosopher's Stone. You have to be of a certain age to read or to be read the first book even, and older people enjoy them.

I would personally hesitate giving Book 4 to a child under the age of 10 (or therabouts), but it can readily be sold to anyone of any age upwards. Some ten year olds would have trouble reading it themselves, maybe. It's not a children's book, it's not a children's series, they're novels for anyone who like novels.

[ragnor]

to me there is room for all. some of my friends rave on Salvatore or Brooks. i've read them all and find that each in their own way are significant. LOTR is tops for me but i enjoy the rest as well without comparing them to each other they are fun in their own right.

[fatclown]

It is quite unfortunate that people can spend their energies quarreling on such topics. The legacy of Tolkein will never be threatened. Obviously The Harry Potter series is more appealing to a younger audience demanding contemportary reads filled with easy to understand action and magic. But Tolkein's books will always live on. They set the basis for all things fantasty. Dnd, warcraft, pern, dragons, great novels of elves and dwarves all were inspired off tolkeins works. He is the grandfather of all fantasy and will never be overtaken. I even read a book that starwars was influenced by LOTR. He has sold copies all over the world (even has a huge community of fans in russia). Also is the debate of which of the two movies will get more veiwers. I dont think this is a huge issue. Not only is the movie NOT HIS ENTIRE EPIC but if you enjoy the movie great, this isn't a poplularity contest. Besides lotr has sold and estimated 5 billion copies worldwide :P.
May all the people proclaim: HAIL TOLKEIN HAIL TOLKEIN!

[IronParrot]

[Harry Potter] steals most of the creatures from classical mythology. It has bathroom humor! How can you call this a great work of fantasy?

1.) Yes, Rowling "stole" witches and wizards and unicorns and dungeon trolls and the rest. Just like Tolkien "stole" dragons and elves and dwarves.

2.) See Shrek. I find it to be a good example of a case where alleged "bathroom humour" does not at all detract from a story's surrealist magic.

3.) I personally think Harry Potter is going to last, and that Rowling will become recognized as a very significant personality in the development of "children's" literature. It may seem like a fad, but that's only because it's been brutally overcommercialized to the point where people begin to reject the artistry of the series solely based on the veil of materialism that surrounds it.

Of course, my ultimate judgment on Harry Potter will stand on how it all ends in Book Seven. I find that the most memorable fantasies are cases where it's not so black-and-white as "Meet good, meet evil, see how good defeats evil." LOTR and Star Wars come to mind immediately... I speculate, note, speculate that Harry Potter is going to ultimately become a redemption story. Seeing how J.K. Rowling is taking the saga so far, I severely doubt it's going to be as clear-cut as Harry overwhelming Voldy in a wizard duel.

Really, that's what's going to make or break the saga.

So save your judgment until it's over.

The commercialism and hype around it won't last. The actual story will. I expect the same to happen with Star Wars, actually... the films will last, and the surrounding commercialism that disguises the story's artistry will perish.

Anyway, I think I'm beginning to get off-topic. :)

[IronParrot]

I'm going to respond to fatclown:

First of all, you're right in that "the legacy of Tolkien will never be threatened." Absolutely right. I think he's a far more influential author than Shakespeare ever was or will be.

I would not go so far as to assume that Harry Potter is only for younger audiences. That's like saying The Hobbit is only for younger audiences. And if you look closely, in terms of tone, The Hobbit is actually not too far off from Harry Potter...

About Star Wars being influenced by LOTR - thematically, yes. One of the reasons why I think Star Wars is the second greatest mytho-fantasy of all time, maybe even tied for first, is because of how it presents all the themes that worked so well in LOTR; and also because of how in terms of environment, it's completely original. Meanwhile, other authors keep trying to imitate LOTR's environment without capturing its themes, and in that respect I feel that they ultimately fail to become legendary.

And I agree that what's really sad is how some people have some sick desire to create ignorant competitive animosity between SW and LOTR, just as some people do with LOTR and Potter.

[ringbearer]

Could it be that all of us "lovers of Tolkien" are just a bit biased!
I have not read "Harry" yet...but I find myself offended, when another author comes along that gets any kind of 'notariety" in the fantasy genre. It is one of my "human" flaws.

[IronParrot]

Could it be that all of us "lovers of Tolkien" are just a bit biased!

Hell yeah.

But fans of all the other series are equally biased, so we're all even in the end. A reasonable degree of objectivity is attainable through thorough experience with all parties involved.

[ArwenEvenstar]

i've read both seris and i like them both, but if I had to choose i'd probally pick LOTR because it's the best!

Potter's ok, but it's kinda of dumb................. (if someone asks me i'll tell why)

[Comic Book Guy]

Why?

[Agburanar]

there's no real comparison. Book 4 of HP is great but I still prefer Tolkien or I'd have signed up to an HP site.

[arynetrek]

first off, i have not yet read any of the Harry Potter series, so i'm writing strictly as a Tolkien fan.

Tolkien's writing triggers a lot of powerful emotions for me (and because of it's popularity, i'd assume for a vast majority of readers), and one criterion of mine for any good author is how they call up & use the emotions of their readers.

calling a series "lesser" for its use of common stereotypes (wizards, etc.) makes no sense at all. first, all writers to some extent use stereotypes. look at tolkien's use of "black" for evil and "white" for restoration & rebirth, for an obvious example. and really the only difference between a stereotypical symbol & an archetypal symbol is the audience's acceptance.

aryne *

[FrodoFriend]

the Harry Potter is a really great series, i love them and i can't wait for the next book to come out....

BUT,
it is nowhere near as good as LotR.

Harry Potter is a good children's book, it's original and funny, but it's not a "great" book, it has a number of annoying plotholes, and it just doesn't have the depth of LotR. there's no comparing the two, LotR is just better every way.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

The comparison is much like that of chess and candyland

[Ñólendil]

Personally, I like Harry Potter little less than the Lord of the Rings. It's my second favourite fantasy (if it is fantasy, the author doesn't think so). One point I must bring up about the 'children's' label is that J. K. Rowling did not write any of her books for children. She wrote them for herself, like Tolkien did.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

I do not condemn the books for the quality of writing. It is simply not my taste in content. The fact that little kids can read it and understand it makes it less apparrently intellectual. The fact that it is in England makes it a little to real a little to close to home. Like a Tom Clancy novel. It doesnt maintain that fantasy aspect.
It's a thing of taste and I do not doubt there quality. However Rowling comes no where close to the absolute rilliance of Tolkien and It is such a ludicrous comparison. I want the fans of the Harry Potter fans to understand that the chess-candyland comparison was not to have a Deragatory conotation towards Rowlings series. Tolkiens works were just far better

[Renille]

I, also, am a huge Harry Potter fan. But they really can't be fairly compared to Tolkien. Rowling made a series in a place we recognize; our current civilization. Tolkien made a world; a whole and complete legacy of imaginary beings. So of course, his writings are more complete, make alot more sense, and seem to draw you in to the world he created. But Rowling's books are pure imagination and fantasy, a drama of the unreal. They are obviously less intellectual than LOTR, but they are about children, written in the children's fantasy genre. LOTR is about a civilization like no one's ever seem before. It was necessary to explain more and go into grinding detail so people could actually understand it! Such a book is bound to be more intellectual. So intellectualism isn't a fair thing to judge Harry by.

Forgive my ramblings...I'm half asleep.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

That is true. You cannot. Although like I said "It is a matter of taste", so that if my taste is a world completely created and fully explained then I can make the comparison based on my taste not on the factors that decide my taste.It is a good point though

[ringbearer]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
Personally, I like Harry Potter little less than the Lord of the Rings. It's my second favourite fantasy (if it is fantasy, the author doesn't think so). One point I must bring up about the 'children's' label is that J. K. Rowling did not write any of her books for children. She wrote them for herself, like Tolkien did.

Inoldonil, have you read the "Amber" books? If you do, I believe it will become your 2nd favorite.

[Ñólendil]

"The fact that it is in England makes it a little to real a little to close to home. "

Although it doesn't effect your point at all, Hogwarts is supposed to be located in Scotland.

No, I haven't read the Amber books. I haven't heard of them either, what sort are they?

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

If you mean that my point was off because they were in fact in scotland not england...I live in oklahoma...That does not make it any more fantastical than england... If you simply don't think it was used in the right context.-They were reasons, reasons I liked LOTR better than harry potter
and since my point was to prove that.It fits perfectly with what im saying. Out of all my ramblings surely you could attack something
other than that! Obiously you are angered by my first message chess- candyland comparison. I explained it in the latter message.
That I do not dislike harry potter, I like Tolkien to ludicrous extemes .
My apologies to you for offending you i hope you see reason in my reasoning

Edit---lol i reread your message and saw what you meant.
Again my apologies i mixed up your wording.
Im sorry...
:o

[Ñólendil]

Ah, we all get tired.

[ringbearer]

Originally posted by Inoldonil


No, I haven't read the Amber books. I haven't heard of them either, what sort are they?

Go here (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1530) and here (http://www.tolkientrail.com/entmoot/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1849).
Should answer some of your questions, it is a series of 10 books(each around 200 pages) about beings who can basicaly create any type of world they wish to with their mind and travel there.

There is an edition called the Great book of Amber, which contains all 10 books, for around $20. Eveyone I have recommended this series to have enjoyed it to the extreme, so check it out...it is a
must read!

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

Should answer some of your questions, it is a series of 10 books(each around 200 pages) about beings who can basicaly create any type of world they wish to with their mind and travel there.

Sounds like the Myst series

[ringbearer]

Originally posted by CardenIAntauraNauco


Sounds like the Myst series

There are some similarities. Amber came out before Myst, though. I love the Myst games!

[jerseydevil]

I don't think there is any way to actaully compare LOTR with HP. Middle Earth has an entire history - from beginning - to the age of man, along with languages, religion, everything.

HP is a fun read. With LOTR, you can get completely engrossed in and research the histories, peoples and languages. Very few, if any other, fantasy books comes close to LOTR in this respect.

[bropous]

Quite simply, the Harry Potter books are children's books, and the Lord of the Rings is SERIOUS literature. Harry Potter is fine for kiddie-winkies, but I must agree with my highly insightful friend, Carden: "The comparison is much like that of chess and candyland."

And no, calm down, fellow mooters who have read and enjoyed Harry Potter, nothing against ANY of you who have enjoyed the Harry Potter books. we all have different tastes in reading. I thoroughly enjoyed Michael Moorcock's "Elric of Melnibone" series, and you folks might find those really lightweight in comparison to LOTR. To each his/her own. I just don't care for Ms. Rowling's writings.

Tolkien created an entire world, something like nine different languages, an entire mythology, and painted the entire creation in such magnificent detail as to make it the greatest work of literature of the twentieth century. To me, there is zero comparison between his works and those of Madame Rowlings.

[Wayfarer]

You think that's unfair?

I'll tell you what's unfair.
One of my friends was telling me about a conversation she and some other friends of mine had last week. She said that

Direct Quote:
They spent the entire hour bashing Harry Potter even though none of us has actually read the books.

Now, tell me, which is worse. Claiming (however unjustafied you may be) that one book is better than another, or flat out deciding that 'this sucks' even though your only knowledge comes from a third or fourth hand source. I.E. From your parents, who read about it in a magizine article, written by someone in thier sixties, who heard about the book from this other person they know who has an acquaintance who may or may not have read it.

I, personally, doubt that the Harry Potter books will even make a scratch in my favorites list. I just don't see a series that debuted less than five years ago displacing the legendarium of a man who spent the better part of his eighty year life working on it, or a husband/wife team that spent several decades apiece on various worlds (the eddingses, who wrote my second favorite works).

On the other hand, Rowling would be hard pressed to do worse than a few authors I've read. Robert Jordan, for example (sorry Dylan) just seems to get worse and worse the more he writes. And even he isn't that bad when compared to Frank Herbert (who'se recurring motif seems to be 'sex, drugs, and politics, and whom Jordan seems to have gotten his bad traits from) or Stephen R. Donaldson (who'se Chronicles of Thomas Covenant made no sense whatsoever, and sounds like something I might have written when I was badly depressed and suffering from mild psychosis)

All in all... I plan on waiting until the marketing frenzy dies down, so I can read the books without casual fanboys (who couldn't possibly match me in literary fervour) trying to comment.

Who knows, I'll probobly like them.

[bropous]

Who exactly are the "Eddingses", and what books did they write? I'm curious.

Actually, the books I've found which have at least remotely the level of detail and creativity that Tolkien fashioned into his books are the "Dune" books by Frank Herbert, and then continued by his son, Brian Herbert, in collaboration with Kevin J. Anderson.

As for the "Thomas Covenant" series by Stephen Donaldson, of which I have a signed copy of "The One Tree", I liked them as I read them initially, but in retrospect, the fact that the hero/anti-hero, Thomas Covenant, is a rapist, absolutely sickens me. I felt my skin crawling as I read them, and yet I DID cry at the demise of the Giants, and the victories of Lord Foul. They are quite well-crafted, although they are a knock-off of Tolkien, but it just turns me off in my more mature years that I would have not thrown down the first book at the rape of Lena. I don't read books like that anymore. The second trilogy in that series, I found, was a complete let-down, with the Sun-disease and the Rukhs and bloodletting and so forth.

No comparison, again, with the works of The Master. Again, I state that The Lord of the Rings is the greatest work of ANY genre of the twentieth century. James Joyce be damned.

[jerseydevil]

I know David Eddings wrote the Belgariad and Mallorean series. But I didn't know his wife and him collaborated together.

The Belagriad contains -
Pawn of Prophecy
Queen of Sorcery
Magician's Gambit
Castle of Wizardy
Enchanter's End Game


The Malloreon series
Guardians of the West
King of the Murgos
Demon Lord of Karanda,
Sorceress of Darshiva,
Seeress of Kell

These books were really good.

Belgariad Info (http://www.sffworld.com/authors/e/eddings_david/reviews/belgariad.html)

[ChildofEru]

The comparison is much like that of chess and candyland
I love playing chess, I could play for 4 days strait if I could find people to play.
But candyland is still a fun game although I would get sick of it after 2 days.
(NOTE: ChildofEru is quite the obsessive person when he becomes obsessed with a certine thing/game/book/object/person/animal/theory)

[Agburanar]

Erm, seeming like a bit of a thick plank here but what's Candyland?

[bropous]

Agburanar, "Candyland" is an exceedingly simple children's board game, several steps below the difficulty of "Chutes and Ladders".

[Ñólendil]

Robert Jordan, for example (sorry Dylan) just seems to get worse and worse the more he writes.

Sorry because you stole me observation? Ofcourse it gets worse and worse! I didn't even read the latest book in The Wheel of Time, but my dad did and he says he doesn't recommend it to anyone. The Wheel of Time slowly degraded and ... yes! It is a piece of **** now.

I first got Harry Potter (the three that were then available) as a present from my aunts in Oregon. I didn't want to read them because of how mainstream they were. I didn't want to read anything that was on Rosie O'Donnells favourite book list. But eventually my dad told me how cool it was and I started reading and I loved it. I had just got done with what was available in the depressing increasingly slow Wheel of Time series, and HP was refreshing. It's now my second favourites 'fantasy', if that's what it is (the author doesn't think so).

Edited: We really need to fix the filter. C-r-a-p is not a curse word! What do you want me to say? Doody?

[bropous]

"I didn't want to read anything that was on Rosie O'Donnells favourite book list."

Inolondil, I KNEW I liked you right off! I don't want to read anything that cow has even touched...hopefully LotR is over her bovine head. I bet she's "Gollum"!

"Edited: We really need to fix the filter. C-r-a-p is not a curse word! What do you want me to say? Doody?"

Hmmm... Poopie? Caca? Mess? Stinkies? Fecal remanants? How about "Rosie O'Donnell?" LOL!

That's it..."The Wheel of Time slowly degraded and ... yes! It is a piece of Rosie ODonnell now." ;)

[Ñólendil]

Hehehe, I don't dislike her that much. I just really want nothing to do with her book list.

She actually has read the Lord of the Rings, and she loves it. She told Sean Astin when he was on that it's the greatest fantasy of all time, or something along those lines. She seems to be a fantasy fan.

[bropous]

Oh, great, Inoldonil, you ruined my morning, and now I must go vomit, then burn all my Tolkien books! ;)

Just kidding...I'll just vomit. LOL!

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by bropous
Who exactly are the "Eddingses", and what books did they write? I'm curious.

As jersydevil said, David and Leigh Eddings. The older publications are 'by David Eddings' while the newer ones are 'By David and Leigh Eddings'

The Belgariad and the Mallorean are thier best [and best known] work. They also wrote the Elenium an the Tamuli, which arepretty good Psuedo Medieval Fantasy, if you can stand the religious aspect. And, if you want something a bit shorter, thier latest is called 'The Redemption of Althalus' and is incredible.


Originally posted by bropous
Actually, the books I've found which have at least remotely the level of detail and creativity that Tolkien fashioned into his books are the "Dune" books by Frank Herbert, and then continued by his son, Brian Herbert, in collaboration with Kevin J. Anderson.

I have read all the dune books, and I agree with you that the World [or Universe] is quite well crafted. My major problems are the recurring themes (The first few books were about drugs, the last few were about Sex), the lack of anything resembling real characters or character development, and the fact that, like Jordan, his writing is horrible at times.

On the other hand, the recent prequels by his son and co I found to be very well written. I liked them better than any of the originals (although the first and hte last two of those originals were passable)

Originally posted by bropous
As for the "Thomas Covenant" series by Stephen Donaldson, of which I have a signed copy of "The One Tree", I liked them as I read them initially, but in retrospect, the fact that the hero/anti-hero, Thomas Covenant, is a rapist, absolutely sickens me. I felt my skin crawling as I read them, and yet I DID cry at the demise of the Giants, and the victories of Lord Foul. They are quite well-crafted, although they are a knock-off of Tolkien, but it just turns me off in my more mature years that I would have not thrown down the first book at the rape of Lena. I don't read books like that anymore. The second trilogy in that series, I found, was a complete let-down, with the Sun-disease and the Rukhs and bloodletting and so forth.


Those books did have thier good parts, but all in all, they're dull and dreary. Considering the friend at who's suggestion I read them (Morthoron), I wonder why I picked them up at all. I did not read the second series.

I won't argue about Lord of the Rings. I fell for middle earth years agon, hook, line, and sinker. Greatest fiction of all time, and better than most nonficton I've read.

Wow... aren't we off topic? ]: )

[bropous]

Wow. I found exactly the opposite about character development in the Herbert books. And as for "drugs", I never really thought of Melange as a real "drug," with its negative connotations, only the "semuta" music/drug combo.

bit I'll keep the Eddings books in mind. Thanks for the suggestion, and in return, I suggest Michael Moorcock's "Corum" trilogy: Knight of the Swords, Queen of the Swords, and King of the Swords. Also, the Elric of Melnibone series by Moorcock. Not a very detailed world, but VERY interesting. At least for me. The whole "eternal champion" concept I found quite fascinating.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I've read Harry Potter, and I think they're pretty good books, but they aren't even on the same level as LotR--they aren't exactly just for kids, but LotR is so much deeper and. . .Well, I'm just repeating stuff other people have said. . .but basically the only way I think they compare is with the movies in the box office :)

[bropous]

Welcome to the Moot, Eruviel Greenleaf, O Hobbit of the Great Northwest...

[Earniel]

I have only read the first Potter -book so I can only judge it by that. I consider it for mainly for children (but if you say that the later books get more dark I'll have to take your word for that) But it definately wasn't a bad book, I enjoyed although I found a lot of simularities with an other book I once read (I think it was from Horrowitz)

Secondly I don't think they can be compared( and I'm glad most of you agree with it), they are totally different. Tolkien is medieval fantasy and Potter is urban (modern if you will) fantasy

And third (relax, it'll be the last one) This is just my opinion, based on gut-feeling and not on facts: Tolkien managed to give his books a certain debt, reality that I believe Potter will never reach

[Menelvagor]

Another series that's a good example of the Dune/Wheel of Time type is George R R Martin's Song of Fire and Ice. It's a very good story, so far as it's gone (waiting for the third book), but it slowly degrades into the old 'Sex and Violence' routine. Have you every noticed that once an author puts sex into a story, they can't stop, there's always more later?

[sepulchrave]

Moorcocks "Gloriana" is the best of his I've read, but it was so heavily influenced by the masterpiece by Mervyn Peake, the Titus books, that I'll vote for the latter to stand beside Tolkiens work. CS Lewises scifi "out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra", and "That Hideous Strength" are right up there too, although they are not exactly fantasy in the classic sense. As for Rowlings, I have not read her work.

[luinilwen]

i would just like to respond to the earlier arguments in this thread that jk rowling "stole" her ideas of witchcraft wizardry etc. from earlier sources: shakespeare never came up with original plot lines. he was the greatest plagiarist of all times, but no-one questions his credibility as he wrote some whoppingly good poetry.

as for rowling, i have to whole-heartedly disagree that her works are "unoriginal". rowling too created a whole little world with its wonderful little details and came up with some highly enjoyable stories. would you rather read novels written by some "author" who just creates pale "recreations" of LOTR?

ok i think im gibbering on a bit... ta ta :cool:

[Earniel]

Originally posted by luinilwen
i would just like to respond to the earlier arguments in this thread that jk rowling "stole" her ideas of witchcraft wizardry etc. from earlier sources: shakespeare never came up with original plot lines. he was the greatest plagiarist of all times, but no-one questions his credibility as he wrote some whoppingly good poetry.

Just for the record,I never said that she stole her ideas. It's nearly impossible to come up with something brand new. Even Tolkien took some ideas from myths and other stories. Everything is already written once by somebody. Or that's more or less everything. The art is to give it a new twist ,a new perspective or even a personal touch.

[bropous]

Shakespeare? Will Shakespeare was an illiterate who couldn't sign his own name....don't you mean Bacon?

;)

[athelas]

I have to say im rather slow in responding to this thread, but being both a Harry Potter and LotR fan here's my two cents worth:

Im rather new to the fantasy genre and I find HP unique, nothing like what ive ever read before. Even if there are other books are somewhat similar, the HP books are still unique as no two work of two writers are exactly the same. Different people have different ideas. As to Rowling stealing witchcraft and wizardry ideas, I feel that such things have been existent since medieval times. Its difficult to write about totally foreign things and ideas and expect people to except them. There must be some familiar ground.

But I agree that LotR has so much more depth than HP, and HP will probably never reach its depth. But I feel those 2 shouldn't be compared like this. They're books which appeal to different audiences. Some people might prefer HP to LotR as they might not be able to understand LotR's depth and prefer a more light-hearted. Or maybe they just dislike it, whether they can understand it or not. Its all a matter of opinion.

Sorry for crapping so much. I was just bored.
:D

[JenniferTook]

As a fan of both Tolkien's and Rowling's work, I do wonder why these two are compared so much. I mean, I understand that they're stories have things in common...unlikely hero....evil Dark Lord...etc. But they are so far from each other, it isn't funny. Rowling has wonderful plot twists and interesting characters, but her work could hardly be called beautiful. Tolkien has the twists, the characters and his writing is beautiful, complicated and very adult. I do think that Harry Potter can be for adults, but I don't think that Lotr can really be for children. They can read it obviously, but it would be very difficult to get through. Rowling is a crafty writer, but Tolkien is a skillful writer. Ok, so what I am saying is that I just don't think they are in the same category. I believe they are enjoyed on different levels. I know I did. Harry Potter is extremely fun, but it is not a very complex world and it exists in this world, only hidden from our eyes. Tolkien, on the other hand, invents a completely new world complete with original creatures and languages. Two very different worlds.

Jennifer