Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings [Pic]




[Via EpicPonyz]





42 Responses to Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings [Pic]

  1. Snake man in LOTR?… I cannot associate right now with anybody, help me out here. Grima Wormtongue possibly? Interesting as in Hungarian translation he was called Kígyónyelv (Snaketounge) as in the picture. Or is the word Worm means something sneaky too? :)

  2. Harry Potter = Poor authorship
    LOTR = Written by a Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Pembroke College, Oxford.

      • You could consider them "amazingly well written" if penned by a twelve year old, if you think harry potter to be well written then maybe you should read some proper literature rather than books aimed at children.

        • It's young adults, not children, people don't die in children's books. Don't act so arrogant just because you don't understand why someone likes something.

        • Harry potter is not aimed at the 20+ range; it is aimed at the 9 to 12 age grope, children.
          As far as people not dying in children's books you really should read a lot more, there are literally hundreds of children's books, fairy tales and nursery rimes in which people die or are about death.
          Hansel and Gretel, little red riding hood and the little mermaid (the original version by Hans Christian Andersen) are just three that pretty much everyone knows.
          Where did liking and disliking come in to it? I know why people like it, but that does not make it well written.

        • The first book of HP is targetting 9-12 y.o. children. But the whole saga is meant to evolve as the children grow up into adulthood (hence the increase in page number, complexity and vocabulary as the books go on). Reading the first book does NOT give you a complete picture of the whole series as far as writing style is concerned.

          In addition, saying that "adult" books are inherently better than "children" books is not a very smart thing to say. That would mean that "Da Vinci Code" is better than "Alice in Wonderland" simply because Caroll wrote it for his niece. Or that any book written by Dan Brown is better than "The Hobbit."

          Now maybe that is not what you intended to say, but that is really how it looks like when I read your comments about the writing style of HP. It is not the best style ever, I'll happily grant you that. But to be honest, TLOTR is not that well written either. I will always prefer (in a different genre) Dan Simmons's Hyperion to the first volume of TLOTR. Is TLOTR well written? Yes, it is written well enough. Is it better written than HP? I don't think so. It has a different intended audience, definitely. That has nothing to do with the quality of the novel. Saying that a 12 yo could have written the HP saga is showing crass ignorance on how the writing process works.

        • The first two are essentially the same book, but with slightly different events.

          The third one gets better (it's what kept me reading. I was going to quit after the second because my 12-year-old self could not comprehend reading the same book a third time and having the characters be just another year older).

          The fourth one is where development really kicks in.

          As an adult, now, I treat the first two as watching Rowling grow into her authority as the narrator, and it makes it all better.

          If you don't have the patience for that, then fine, and you are entitled to your opinion, but there's no need to insult others in trying to make your opinion seem more important.

  3. i dont get the lil mouse with saruman? who is the little mouse? am i missing something obvious, iv seen/read harry potter a million times, but i just cant place the mouse?!

    • @Shell, Peter Pettigrew, he was one of the Marauders, aka one of James Potter's best friends. He turned into a rat and lived as the Weasley family's pet after betraying the Potters to Voldemort but everyone assumed he had died because all they found of him was one severed finger. The crime was blamed on Sirius. The pet rat, Scabbers, always had a missing finger and no one knew why.

      • yaya, i know, i just clicked just now! i forgot he was an animagus. maybe they should have put nagini instead though. i think she is closer to voldomorts bff. pettigrew is more like a manservant/whipping boy.

        • it's supposed to be the evil bff to one of the good guys. Peter/Scabbers was Ron's other bff, and Saruman was Gandalf's bff (read as: trusted advisor). That's why it fits.

    • The birthplace? Really? Fantasy books have been around for thousands of years. The story of Atlantis is a fantasy. Homer's Odyssey is a fantasy.

    • Frodo was sixty…six? I think? …same as Bilbo was in the Hobbit. Apparently they were going by the movie, not the book.

      • FOTR starts when Frodo’s 33, and as halflings go, that’s roughly equivalent to our (normal human) 18-20, if I understand the aging of the various races correctly. So, not as young as Harry, but not quite a fully responsible adult either.

    • Leave it to the little ones is what it says. I read it as hobbits are little guys and the Harry Potter kids were, well, kids.

    • Not trying to be a dick, but it says "little ones", not "young ones". Ya could've just scrolled up to check.

  4. I know I've done a lot of commenting on others' things, but… one last, minor, annoyance.

    In Middle-Earth, we meet the big-ass spiders in the Hobbit, and the Silmarillion. The… creature… in the mountains in LOTR was not technically a spider anymore. She was… more… and less.

  5. I would just like to point out that in the LOTR books, Gimli was not a "bearded, funny uncle-like" guy. He was actually a pretty serious character.

    That Peter Jackson turned him into Scottish comic relief is one of the bigger problems I have with the LOTR movies. (The other being Faramir temporarily being evil – but that's a whole 'nother rant…)

  6. You forget the 1) dead people in the water, 2) orphans Frodo and Harry, 3) carrying it (ring and locket) corrupts you , 4) underground greedy people (Gringotts goblins and LOTR dwarves), 5) invisibility (by cloak or by ring) and 6) an epic coming-of-age fight with a troll. But honestly, they both borrow from old imagery that pops up in literature and folks tales. Yet, both strike very different emotional chords that resonate with us. One is a lament of the loss of nature (the exodus of the elves) in the face of industrial revolution (Sauron and Saruman and their factories, and the coming age of man). The other is a story about building your own family (through friends and fellow magicians who understand you better than your own family) in order to turn away growing evil in the world.

  7. It's pretty cool how the fantasy genre all weaves into itself. They can take many of the same concepts that were popularize din LOTR and turn them into something fresh and interesting.

    I happen to love both LOTR and the HP series. I don't need to bash one or the other to make myself feel superior in my nerdom. I figure I'm already awesomely nerdy enough liking both. ;)