Popular culture - Harry Potter v Lord of the rings

[montymint]

LOTR films I enjoyed, but the books are dry as tinder IMO.

HP, narrated by stephen fry are a delight to listen to - even if the plot / characters are 'ok'. The films are a lot worse and drop off massively after the third.

There are much better fantasy series out there

 

[200sols]

Easily LOTR. Its the best fantasy world ever conceived IMO.

 

[adolf hamster]

lotr is definately the superior franchise, it's maybe not as directly marketable today as it's been around for a while but the influence in a lot of modern fantasy stories and settings is undeniable.

 

[PlacidCasual]

HP, narrated by stephen fry are a delight to listen to - even if the plot / characters are 'ok'. The films are a lot worse and drop off massively after the third.

I think the problem is the books start getting large with lot of additional plot and you can feel that has been squeezed out in the later books. Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince especially.


In general despite reading LOTR as a kid and Harry as an adult I think both cinematically and in book form HP is more enjoyable. LOTR was written by a languages professor and it feels like it at times. Loved LOTR and especially Hobbit books, The Hobbit films looked great but were thin gruel padded out unnecessarily.

 

[Lysander]

LOTR all the way, read it as a kid, and also loved the three films. Fellowship of the Ring is also one of my favourite cinema viewings of all time. I literally didn't want the film to end.

HP is good for what it is, but it's aimed at a different crowd: it's primarily for kids and teenagers. That's not to say that kids shouldn't read LOTR though, in fact, it's probably better that they do.

Also you have to look at what LOTR has influenced - Game of Thrones, Elder Scrolls, basically an entire legacy of books, music, games and fantasy genres would not exist without it. It's one of the most influential books in modern history. HP probably wouldn't exist without it either.

 

[Rids]

As I lover of fantasy I've surprisingly never been able to read either book series. LOTR I reached the Tom Bombadil bit and tapped out, Harry Potter I doubt I made it past 50 pages, I'm just not the right audience for it.

 

[SPG]

Easily LOTR. Its the best fantasy world ever conceived IMO.

No, it was only the first and it pulled in lots of western myths, personally i found the entire trilogy pretty boring and only read it/watched due to genre.

Besides "the warlock of firetop mountain" was way better.

 

[DampCat]

LOTR was never supposed to be popular culture. It was conceived by a linguist who was trying to build a mythology, not kids stories. He had to have his arm twisted to release the books after publishers applied pressure following the success of The Hobbit, which he had written for his kids based on the works he had already been doing. He was much more interested in finishing the elder days, loosely released as Silmarillion. Tolkien wasn't even an author by trade, the whole thing was a pet project he was doing for himself.

HP was the opposite. It was written for kids and sold off for rights and theme parks etc.

 

[Bigpops]

Loved the LOTR films. They replaced Star Wars (the proper ones) as my favourite trilogy for a while.

Harry Potter I was never bothered by. I watched the first film, didn't bother with any more. Tried to read the book, couldn't get into that either, but I'm not very good at reading fiction and much prefer factual.

 

[Semple]

Love them both but as a complete package I'd say HP is "better" simply due to the books being far more readable. Tolkien really wasn't the best of writers despite having such a great story to tell.

Pretty much what i would have said.

 

[CircleFaust]

HP does seem to have taken on a huge life of its own. my GF is a massive fan. all the books are here, hogwarts this hogwarts that. i put batteries in a HP colour changing potion pot light thingy the other day for her!
i can't really comment on the series. i read a few of the books years ago but it's not my thing. it could actually be a good read for some people??
the luxury HP has, its author is still alive and the story can continue to evolve and stay fresh

i always wonder what JRRT would have come up with next for the middle earth universe. would love to have had one more epic story from him
btw yes i am a LOTR fan, is still the best book ive read. love all the films (hobbit series was CGI OTT but still like it)
i'm all for more LOTR stuff

 

[DampCat]

the luxury HP has, its author is still alive and the story can continue to evolve and stay fresh

Honestly that seems to be half the issue. She keeps retcon-ing ludicrous stuff in.

 

[alexakasloth]

I loved the HP books when I was in school and continued to read them up until the last one came out, I have yet to finish a LOTR book as I find them tedious to read.
It's similar for the films as well.

 

[Lysander]

Love them both but as a complete package I'd say HP is "better" simply due to the books being far more readable. Tolkien really wasn't the best of writers despite having such a great story to tell.

Pretty much what i would have said.

Surely it's about contemporary style. The writing style of books from 70 years ago will read very differently to books written recently, as do books 170 years ago. If you look at early 19th century literature it's all written in a similar style which is not representative at all of writing styles in the 21st century. Likewise compare Lovecraft and Poe to Stephen King, hugely different.

There are some books written 200 years ago of which the style was quite normal at the time, but people nowadays would find impenetrable. It doesn't mean one is a "better" writer than another, it's just a reflection of the era.

 

[Rimsy]

Surely it's about contemporary style. The writing style of books from 70 years ago will read very differently to books written recently, as do books 170 years ago. If you look at early 19th century literature it's all written in a similar style which is not representative at all of writing styles in the 21st century. Likewise compare Lovecraft and Poe to Stephen King, hugely different.

There are some books written 200 years ago of which the style was quite normal at the time, but people nowadays would find impenetrable. It doesn't mean one is a "better" writer than another, it's just a reflection of the era.

I know what youre saying but personally I found The Hobbit to be very enjoyable and LotR for the most part (well the first 1.5 books) was generally good.. but then the Ents. He went into way too much tedious detail at the expense of keeping the reader interested. no idea if book three was any good as I never made it that far...

 

[Skidder]

why can't two things be good?

having said that I didn't particularly like the lotr books or films but have a massive wide on for potter

 

[LOAM]

why can't two things be good?

This^

It's years since I read LOTR and I love them but they are a little hard going in places because of some of rather strange side quests, Tom Bombadil anyone? That guy freaked me the **** out.

Harry Potter is much easier going I guess due to its primary audience. I think they are both fantastic series though and bar the first Potter movie acting by the "kids" thought they were brilliant. I can't wait until our girls are old enough to watch them.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

I think the problem is the books start getting large with lot of additional plot and you can feel that has been squeezed out in the later books. Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince especially.

I thought the later ones were better the early were just told from a kids eye "ooh look magic! Isn't it cool!" the later ones i.e. Phoenix were darker (someone dies etc) early on its just treated for laughs (Myrtle haunting the toilets) and there are no real consequences but later the emotional toll hits home as the kids are growing up I thought that side was quite clever though the plotting does have a tendency to tie itself up in knots increasingly and seems to be done for the sake of it the events-that-appear-to-have-little-importance become part of a wider not so obvious plot, except its handled clumsily (she's taking ques from her literary heroine Jane Austen and Emma in particular she names the caretaker's cat after an obnoxious character in Mansfield Park, Mrs Norris) but she doesn't have her mentors finesse. But its interesting to see the effort.

LOTR all the way, read it as a kid, and also loved the three films. Fellowship of the Ring is also one of my favourite cinema viewings of all time. I literally didn't want the film to end.

Heh same here though I think the second is probably the better film. A bit like the Star Wars trilogy (the real ones not the cash-ins that followed)

It's years since I read LOTR and I love them but they are a little hard going in places because of some of rather strange side quests, Tom Bombadil anyone? That guy freaked me the **** out.

That seems to be most peoples reactions there was a reason he was left out of the films lol.

why can't two things be good?

having said that I didn't particularly like the lotr books or films but have a massive wide on for potter

They can? But like you most people have a preference.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

Can someone please explain about HP being at odds with someone with religious views? I like both LOTR/Hobbit and HP. I have read the books for both franchises before seeing the films. However, at one of my previous workplaces, I was slagged off by 2 of the Christian (CoE) bosses for being an HP fan, but they never had a problem with me liking LOTR. They even believed that I thought that HP and magic was real! No I was just a fan but they couldn't get that into their heads and yet it was still ok to like LOTR.

 

[Steampunk]

Harry Potter was literally written for children. It's fine, but it's not high art. The writing is pretty terrible.

LOTR is a timeless story. An academic wrote it to be an ancient British mythology that we might have had or lost after the Romans/Normans/Saxons wiped it out. It's a magnitude greater than HP, and always will be.