Places to Chat
LORD OF THE
Chatterbox: Chirp at Cricket
LORD OF THE
LORD OF THE RINGS IS BETTER!
Sorry Harry Potter fans, I think it just is. It has better characters, better plot,better side characters (BILL PLEASE COME BACK), and better details. The enemies seem more lifelike, and you can almost imagine yourself as a ghost hovering over and watching the scene in the book.
So basically, this a thread for LOTRs.
P.S. Harry Potter fans, YOU SHALL NOT PASS!
submitted by Bob R.
(January 21, 2018 - 7:53 pm)
(January 21, 2018 - 7:53 pm)
Is the orange better than the apple?
Is the sword better than the bow?
Is the pear better than the potato?
Is Winter better than Summer?
Is Lord of the Rings better than Harry Potter?
While two things may both be foods, their tastes are so different that it makes them incomparable. Would you argue that a lemon is better than a grape?
(February 8, 2018 - 5:19 pm)
Actually, yes, I would. Lemons are delicious. XD
But I do get your point, and it is a good one.
(February 8, 2018 - 6:40 pm)
Wow, I honestly expected everyone to yell ate me. You have no idea how many Harry Potter fanboys/girls are at my school. Anyways, here are some reasons why I think LOTR is better.
1.The characters. They may be cliche, but they are all wonderfully written and described. Even the side characters, like Treebeard and Tom Bombadill, left an impression on me that I remembered for the entire rest of the book.
2.The plot. Somehow, Tolkien made me hang on at every moment - and in a nearly five thousand page series! Yes, it was sometimes forseeable, but Harry Potter's worse enemy killed his parents. Tell me thats not cliche.
3. The descriptiveness. Everything was described well in this book: the characters, the places, and especially the battle scene. I especially liked the battle scene in the prequel, The Hobbit. That book left a big impact on my now almost disappearing childhood. I already said this in my original post, but this is one of the few books that I could really make come to life.
Well, i've talked about characters, plot, and descriptiveness. What else could I talk about?
4. Poetry.
I hate poetry just as much as you probably do. But Tolkien was simply AMAZING. He actually made me like poetry. To be fair, if you don't like poetry, it accounts for about fifty pages in this book. But it always told stories and rhymes that I somehow found enjoyable.
Well, thanks for posting!
(February 8, 2018 - 8:07 pm)
I have to agree with your point on #1; the characters are very well written. (Treebeard felt very real to me; I especially liked the scenes with the Ents)
Technically, Harry Potter's worst enemy only became his worst enemy because his worst enemy killed his parents...but I do see your point there. However, the reasons why his worst enemy killed his parents, well...those reasons were almost completely unforeseeable.
I liked how descriptive it was; however, fast readers like myself tend to drag themselves through the story, and tend to skip the description and feel lost in the scenes. It's a pity because I have to train myself to go over every piece of detail.
The poetry just makes the piece way more real; it seems like a real world, with its own real songs and poems, some of which have moved me to tears. However, it is arguable that poetry was used far too many times in the book--but is that really a bad thing?
And lastly, I wanted to bring up a point of my own that might stir the thoughts of those who have been partaking in this discussion (why am I using so many big words? ._.)
Both books, while set in entirely different times, have an abundancy of filler text. For instance, while Tom Bombadil was certainly interesting and real, it is arguable that he wasn't actually necessary for the entire story. In Harry Potter we see the Deathday party; while it shows us more about the Hogwarts Ghosts, it wasn't actually necessary to be shown in that much detail. And another point against Tolkien is that someone might actually say that the poetry/songs are filler text (to which, at that point, I would simply stop listening to them, as they wouldn't deserve to be listened to anymore).
This was a pleasure to post on!
(February 9, 2018 - 10:44 am)
I agree with Icy's points. Harry Potter and LOTR are each in a class of their own.
Well! Now that I dumped my LOTR points/rant on y'all, I have more, this time for Harry Potter! More specifically, in defense of Harry himself.
So... I think most people agree, Harry doesn't make himself easy to like in parts of the later books, particularly in The Order of the Phoenix. However. He's human, he makes mistakes, and isn't always nice to be around, just like everybody else. Being a hero does not excuse any not-so-nice stuff you do, but every hero is a human being. They're not perfect.
And part of what I personally love about Harry so much is that he is human, and he's a really well-developed character. Some protagonists are too perfect, and too idealized, (For instance, Link in the Legend of Zelda manga), and too flat and static, but Harry is not. Cedric Diggory dying and all that has a very real effect on him, which is shown in the fifth book when he snaps (almost typed snapes, lol), at Hermione and Ron, and even at Dumbledore. Long story short, it's a fallen world, and Harry is a sinful human being just like everyone else. That is all I have to say.
(February 9, 2018 - 12:21 pm)
I can't exactly testify which is better (because I haven't read Harry Potter) but I do enjoy myself some LoTR! I am disappointed with what they did with The Hobbit movie though :( The rest of the movies were fairly good.
(February 9, 2018 - 7:31 pm)
I agree, Avatar! the LotR films weren't correct, but, as Tolkien himself said, it is impossible to capture fantasy literature in drama. The films are ground-breaking, beautiful, and thoughtful, and I can understand why they made the choices they did.
The Hobbit films on the other hand... I know Peter Jackson et al were in a very tricky situation (change of directorship, no time, props and sets last minute); and I know the Hobbit doesn't lend itslef very well to an action-adventure film adaption, being set in almost a different world from the Lord of the Rings; and I know they needed to appeal to casual moviegoers, and LotR film fans, but-- WHY??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Even taking the Hobbit movies merely as films and not as adaptations, they're not up to scratch. Sorry plot and character development, nothing adds up, and they don't even make sense taken together with the LotR films! It's as though the makers took the imperfect-but-respectable creations they made with the first films, and cheapened them with non-stop CGI action, poor costume-and-set choices, appeal-to-emotion filler characters, and a video-game plot. Of course, the reason Jackson didn't want to direct in the first place was that he didn't want to have to compete with his own films. *sigh* I just wish they'd had more time to plan and write and prepare-- just more time in general.
(February 11, 2018 - 3:02 pm)
Lord of the Rings is a wonderful book that you shouldn't read before bed.
(May 5, 2018 - 10:47 pm)