Lord of the rings and the hobbit vs Harry Potter

Harry Potter, easily. I read those books so many times. I read the first LOTR book but I could not finish the second book. I was so bored and I thought it was overly descriptive. Good movies though.

@SOedipus: We are of the same mind.The overly descriptive part is what bored me.I have read Harry Potter about 4 times and am on my fifth.

LotR and it's not even close. HP is just about throwing in as much magic crap as possible.

I agree. LOTR, the Hobbit, and the Silmarillion get way too much hate by snobby hipsters. Yet they love overrated and poorly written books like Harry Potter, Twilight, the Da Vinci Code and the Golden Compass.

Harry Potter is just more fun to read. At least compared to LOTR, but The Hobbit is a breeze.

@samanthademeste:I'm not hating,i like it,just prefer HP.I don't like Twilight and the Golden compass and never heard of Da Vinci Code."poorly written" That's opinion not fact.what are snobby hipsters and are you saying that i'm one?

The Tolkien stuff by far.

The irony...lol

Accidentally voted HP, but as far as the books are concerned, Hobbit/LOTR for me all the way. Those books hold a special place, as they were the first books I read as a kid and they really got my into reading for fun. On movies, I would go with the HP films. The LOTR/Hobbit films were a slog. They were great, at least LOTR, but I can't go back and rewatch them like the Potter films.

I've read through both series numerous times. The Tokien world is so much deeper and rich than the Potter books...I mean he made up his own languages, for crying out loud. The only part of the Tolkien books I didn't like was the songs. When people would start singing songs, I always skipped them.

Lord of the Ring has been inspiration for almost every fantasy novel written since. Tolkien basically invented secondary creation as a writing form. The impact he made in the literary world is immeasurable. This isn't to diminish the cultural and literary impact of Harry Potter, it is important, but Tolkien was far more revolutionary and thus gets my vote.

The Lord of the Rings for me, just love the characters and lore so much.

I loved them both, but I have to give the edge to LOTR...

You use to be good at trolling.

What happened?

LOTR is legendary. This shit isn't even close.

I like the Hobbit.

Tried reading Lord Of The Rings but it was all over the place.

Tolkien was a hack.

LotR and its not even close.

@vfighter:

Why?

how so? Just curious, I've never heard anyone mention this.

As for the question, I enjoy both. But I've only finished Harry Potter, found it much easier to read. LOTR...not so much. Read The Hobbit, though, found it mediocre. How they turned that tiny book into a trilogy of like 11 hours of film is beyond me.

Have you got the answer?

@aliesofely:

Nope =(

Tolkien no contest. His world was consistent and success didn't rely on Deus ex Machina like Potter did.

Love some Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but Harry Potter is just more enjoyable for me. Tolkien's stories are probably a little more deeper, but his books just have way to much filler. Still I love both series, and they both hold a special place for me.

Harry Potter series is far easier to read than LOTR. It's easier to relate to it and it doesn't require that much of your imagination I think. LOTR is more difficult to read, but also more rewarding in my opinion. LOTR is my choice, but with that said, I've also read HP series more than once.

harry potter cant be considered literatur

lord of the rings is an esoteric book and on the other hand created the 'high fantasy' gengre wich is core of all the entertainment we have today

the lotr movie is a fail simply because they left out tom bombadil who rescued the hobbits from the barrows relativly early in the books, this fact alone tells how disconected the movie makers are to the source material ...

LOTR/Hobbit wins overall.

But i will say that i love HP and consider it the LOTR of our generation. Its such a huge series that has brought the fantasy genre back into the light for millions of people, including myself. I started out with HP in second grade, and it started a lifelong love of reading and fantasy. Plus the entire culture of it has exploded in the last few years. Its insane what a single book series about wizards has done.

So harry potter has definitely earned its place. Anyone saying otherwise is just being foolish.

If it's books we're talking about, definitely Harry Potter simply because they aren't a chore to read. LOTR has a better overall story and such, but that means nothing because the writing is so dated and tough to get through. But if we're talking purely from a story perspective/ movies, LOTR, hands down. HP is not bad by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not into it like a lot of fans are.

Lord of the Rings, hands down. I couldn't even get through the first Harry Potter book. Even the Hobbit, which was intended for his children, felt less juvenile than Harry Potter.

Harry Potter tells a better story and has villains that have more complexity in their motivations. LotR is a simple story full of one dimensional characters. That said, Lord of the rings, laid the foundation that built a whole genre. Many books have done what it did better since, but it was the first.

"If I saw farther than anyone else, it is only because I stood on the backs of giants". Issac Newton

I don't think simple or one dimensional is automatically bad.

The Conan books are exactly that and pretty awesome.