OnlineBookClub.org

Well, I had a debate with my boyfriend, and he was for Tolkien and I was for Rowling. He argued that Tolkien was the first to create such a magical world for readers so his setting was the best. I argued that just because Rowling came later in history did not make her book any less creative.

What do you think? Is Lord of the Rings more magical, more creative, more out of this world, more intriguing than Harry Potter? OR is it the other way around?

I never read LOTR only HP. But I would like to hear other members thoughts on this.

But of course in terms of world, I guess it will go for LOTR.
For magical invention, I guess it will go for HP.

In my mind (and I'm not a raging Tolkien fan), there is absolutely no contest. Tolkein imagined (and wrote) literally thousands of years of history for the world he created, beginning with its creation! The Lord of the Rings takes place in what is possibly the most detailed fictional world ever created. He was interested in how myths, legends, and history are created, so he set out to make his own legends. In terms of pure scope, Tolkien's fictional world far exceeds Rowling's.

Of course, I'm not trying to convince you that you should like LOTR better than Harry Potter. I don't necessarily think that writing the entire history of a planet is necessary for good fantasy fiction. But Tolkien's Arda and Middle-Earth infinitely more intricately-imagined, and therefore more created or creative than Rowling's hidden wizarding world.

Since they were both written at different times (LOTR 1937-1949 and Harry Potter 1995-2007) I think publicity and merchandising has a lot to do with it. For example, JK Rowling was the first author to release information on the internet and have simultaneous book releases around the world. The scale at which HP was launched internationally far outweighs LOTR which was basically available during WWII in a book-only environment. Therefore, Tolkien was purely and simply a storyteller who let his words do the talking, whereas Rowling had a huge media contingent to propel her towards stardom. So saying, I think she does write a good story yet not as detailed as Tolkien.

I think I would choose Rowling as still Harry Porter seems to me to be the most magic and unpredictable books with so many parts.

Maud Fitch wrote:Tolkien was purely and simply a storyteller who let his words do the talking, whereas Rowling had a huge media contingent to propel her towards stardom. So saying, I think she does write a good story yet not as detailed as Tolkien.

I agree.

HP I have grown up with and love.But I have to say Tolkein.
Look at how many years its been since its release.
LOTR has no time frame.

I'd love to know how Tolkein kept track of his characters considering it was written in the 1950's I think before computers or word processing .... imagine doing the rewrites & editing. Awesome task

Since Tolkien invented an entire language for Lord of the Rings, I would have to vote for him, but all my respect goes to JK Rowling as well. Isn't Voldemort just a variation on the theme of Sauron? Of course, everything is just a variation on the theme of everything else. One other thing for all of you Bolsheviks out there, just because Rowling committed the sin of making a ton of money doesn't mean she isn't great. She obviously appealed to something deep in the human psyche that is shared by all age groups, hence her success.

In today's youth slang:

Rowling is cool but Tolkien is freakin' awesome!

Seriously though, I think it's apples and oranges here. Albeit they're both "little force is screwed and shouldn't win but it does nevertheless", the setting, background, the entire fictional world (the magicians living among regular folk is so not well thought through)... yeah, Tolkien wins.

Must add that Tolkien's descendants made a done of money off of his dead bones, too.

Mel Carriere wrote:Must add that Tolkien's descendants made a done of money off of his dead bones, too.

As I often say: "when you die, you don't care what's going on with your body anymore" - and pretty much same applies to your possessions. If I were Tolkien's relative, I certainly wouldn't be against his inheritance, although I bet I'd use it differently than the current folks.

Firstly, Tolkien wasn't the inventor of the fantasy genre, nor was he the first one to create a magical world. The fantasy genre had existed well before his writings. In fact, he drew a lot from various bodies of mythologies, Welsh and Norse included. Rowling isn't the most original author either; she took "horrible liberties" with British folklore and mythology among others.

However to answer your question, I will have to concede that as much as I disliked going through Tolkien's long-winded and often ponderous prose, I loved the places he created in the movies and as a concept . So for that reason alone - that is world-building - I will give LoTR a plus over HP. However, when it comes down to building characters and developing them, I find Rowling many notches above Tolkien - strictly going by what I'd read of Tolkien from Lord of the Rings and Rowling from the Harry Potter series. But then, that's a different topic for a different day.

I don't think Tolkien's prose was ponderous at all. I think his genius was in being able to dumb his ideas down for the everyman, and the result was a hugely successful financial enterprise.

what is probably the most comprehensive fictional world ever created. He was involved in how myths, legends, and annals are conceived, so he set out to make his own legends. In periods of untainted scope, Tolkien's fictional world far passes Rowling's.