which one is ur favourite

yer maw (H)

Yes, well, if you're going to compare the two :p

i couldnt but HP IS better (HARRY POTTER)

St Johnstone

?huh?

Books? neither. both are too longwinded. LotR, the guy was ****in insane. he was more interested in his fake little language, and the history behind the story, that he never got around to telling the story. and when he finally did, it was a long-ass story, that i couldnt be bothered to finish.

HP? just too damn long, and filled with silly ****, like Harry Potter going through puberty. If i wanted to read a "coming-of-age" book, i could do that without the 700 million pages in 5 books.

movies? LotR defintly.

the thing is, is not that i can't read a long book, its just that story telling is about flow, and for the most part, LotR and HP lack flow. Harry Potter is better written, and I did manage to read all 5 books, whereas, i kept losing my page in the LotR, because i couldnt keep the events of the book straight.

the hobbit was better written then all of the harry potter books though.

well i say that lotR is better

You're wrong about lord of the rings. The fact that the story resides in a totally ficticious world is totally intriguing, and it is this that makes it such a popular novel. It is all that history and languages that gives you the sense of being a part of middle earth.

Personally I have read the lotr book and I must admit it is really good, even for a story written 50 years ago. The story is really long, but truth to say I wished It had been longer. A lot of the stuff had been changed for the movie, but that was quite ok.

If you could bother to read through all 5 books of harry potter, why don't you give lord of the rings a try.

PS. I'm subject to my own opinions and so are you. And this was my lengthiest post in SG ever :ewan:

well i did say i now like lotr & iam going to see the new movie

Originally posted by Pferd
Books? neither. both are too longwinded. LotR, the guy was ****in insane. he was more interested in his fake little language, and the history behind the story, that he never got around to telling the story. and when he finally did, it was a long-ass story, that i couldnt be bothered to finish.

HP? just too damn long, and filled with silly ****, like Harry Potter going through puberty. If i wanted to read a "coming-of-age" book, i could do that without the 700 million pages in 5 books.

movies? LotR defintly.

the thing is, is not that i can't read a long book, its just that story telling is about flow, and for the most part, LotR and HP lack flow. Harry Potter is better written, and I did manage to read all 5 books, whereas, i kept losing my page in the LotR, because i couldnt keep the events of the book straight.

the hobbit was better written then all of the harry potter books though.

Couldnt keep the events of the book straight? You're what? 10 years old?

Originally posted by Pferd
Books? neither. both are too longwinded. LotR, the guy was ****in insane. he was more interested in his fake little language, and the history behind the story, that he never got around to telling the story. and when he finally did, it was a long-ass story, that i couldnt be bothered to finish.

HP? just too damn long, and filled with silly ****, like Harry Potter going through puberty. If i wanted to read a "coming-of-age" book, i could do that without the 700 million pages in 5 books.

movies? LotR defintly.

the thing is, is not that i can't read a long book, its just that story telling is about flow, and for the most part, LotR and HP lack flow. Harry Potter is better written, and I did manage to read all 5 books, whereas, i kept losing my page in the LotR, because i couldnt keep the events of the book straight.

the hobbit was better written then all of the harry potter books though.

Put down the remote and pick up a book.

both books are great...the LOTR films are better though...the first book was way too long winded....so i saw the film instead...but i read the two towers and return of the king...so its all good.

Lord of the Rings by far, the story is much more interesting in my opinion..

where did u get this idea from??

Originally posted by LaBrujita
Put down the remote and pick up a book.

(Y)

Anyway, I still can't see how or why the two should be compared. Sure they both contain elements of fantasy but then Hogans Heroes and Saving Private Ryan are both about WW2. But then they can't really be compared because ther target audiences are different etc. etc.

harry potter cause lotr sux ass

Lord of the Rings :)

yay! :crazyboy:

I agree 100% with the good doctor...

LOTR and Harry Potter shouldnt be compared...

They both contain magic, and were both firstly books, and then movies, but apart from that, they are almost entirely different....

I will say this: I enjoyed reading the Harry Potter books more, BUT enjoyed watching the LOTR movies more...

I could go on forever about hw the HP books arent written for children, but there are too many teenagers here, who are much too concerned with personal image to even contemplate reading the HP books, so of course theyre passed off as gay, or childish...

LOTR tho is part of pop culture, and as a book that is written PURELY for older readers (as opposed to HP which is written for all ages) it isnt seen as childish by the "oh so cool" teeny bopper group that I spoke of above...

Thats all...

and we have st johnstone...:evil:

I agree



yer maw (H)

both so i just voted st johnstone (H)

what a stupid question LOTR by far, St Johnstone a hot second! (H) :rockman:

Originally posted by INFESTA
Couldnt keep the events of the book straight? You're what? 10 years old?

13, and im sorry i dont like books longer then the bible. books dont have to be long-ass to be classics. ever read the little prince? thats a ****in classic, and its pretty damn short. read animal farm? its a hundred-page paperback. 1984? not a very long book. anything by mark twain or sir arthur conan doyle?

Originally posted by LaBrujita
Put down the remote and pick up a book.

what have you read that isn't lord of the rings?

I am starting to read the books for the first time and yes they are hefty but the point is not to race through the book.

yeah i wouldnt but the real m.schumacher would at 230mph

Im 14 years old and I can honestly say that i LOVE the harry potter books. Dont call me an idiot, not able to handle the larger plots... I've read almost every tom clancy book, not the ones about the tours of the submarines and crap, but the storys. like Patriot Games, and The hunt for red october. I only have to read two + a half more of them, and then ive read them all... (incase your wondering, the half is The teeth of the tiger[new one, loosely based on the war in Iraq/Afghanistan) and the other two are Red Rabbit(i got it for christmas, so thats gunna be soon, and Cardinal of Kremlin or w/e it is called.) GO HARRY POTTER! LoTR is a better movie, but i like the HP books. Thanks. And like wat3rf0x, this is my longest post ever... by far, if i remember correctly.

whoa & i fough i was the only under 15 here!

Originally posted by M.Schumacher
whoa & i fough i was the only under 15 here!

There are some 12 year olds:confused::S

Originally posted by Pferd
what have you read that isn't lord of the rings?
Would you like a complete list of works that I have read?

Just to satisfy you, in the past few months I've read:

Sailing to Sarantium -- Guy Gavriel Kay
Lord of Emperors -- GGK
Collected Poems -- T.S. Eliot
Dubliners -- James Joyce
The Summer Tree -- GGK
Death of a Salesman -- Arthur Miller
Waiting for Godot -- Samuel Beckett
The Wandering Fire -- GGK
Mrs. Dalloway -- Virginia Woolf
Life and Loves of a She Devil -- Fay Weldon
The Darkest Road -- GGK

and currently in the middle of:

Baudolino -- Umberto Eco
Oryx and Crake -- Margaret Atwood

out of that list, I've only read Death of a Salesman... and it sucked

Originally posted by LaBrujita
Would you like a complete list of works that I have read?

Just to satisfy you, in the past few months I've read:

Sailing to Sarantium -- Guy Gavriel Kay
Lord of Emperors -- GGK
Collected Poems -- T.S. Eliot
Dubliners -- James Joyce
The Summer Tree -- GGK
Death of a Salesman -- Arthur Miller
Waiting for Godot -- Samuel Beckett
The Wandering Fire -- GGK
Mrs. Dalloway -- Virginia Woolf
Life and Loves of a She Devil -- Fay Weldon
The Darkest Road -- GGK

and currently in the middle of:

Baudolino -- Umberto Eco
Oryx and Crake -- Margaret Atwood

i hope you dont think i was making a personal attack, but i really hate fanboys.

Originally posted by Pferd
i hope you dont think i was making a personal attack, but i really hate fanboys.
What's a fanboy?

Someone who is a fan of something?? lol. :p :crazyboy: :p :crazyboy: :confused:

A fanboy is someone who loves something and will have nothing else, and will NEVER accept something being superior to what they love.

You see alot of video game console fanboys.

Originally posted by Ljungberg08
A fanboy is someone who loves something and will have nothing else, and will NEVER accept something being superior to what they love.

You see alot of video game console fanboys.
Gotcha. Figured something like that.

No, I'm not a fanboy.

Yep Video game consoles are the major one...

Thats why the inferior PS2 has done so well....

quite :mrpimp:

I love watching console fanboys fight at gamefaqs...they get so into it, it's like someone insulted their mothers or something.

Originally posted by Ljungberg08
I love watching console fanboys fight at gamefaqs...they get so into it, it's like someone insulted their mothers or something.


LOL

Gamefaqs...............................those were the days :mrpimp:

Anyway back to arguing :p

Harry Potter is heaps better just coz, so ner.

hehe, playstation has people brainwashed.

yes Ps2 does, GCN well who knows what they are up to i mean physically it is a better machine than PS2 but there is NO marketing, that is why they are losing :p

Anyway
St Johnstone for the first time in its polling history IS LOSING!!! come on guys at least make it 2nd :p Not even Harry Potter can beat St Johnstone! :p

LOTR has been catalogued the best fiction novel ever, that explains everything, HP well u cant compare them cuz HP is a story for little kids or for people who dont really like reading to much cuz is a very "light" book

well actually you cant compare this 2 story....

Harry Pothead is childish

LotR is more for grownS

lord of the rings wins by far. Way better. I dont like Harry potter

movie: LOTR
book: HP

Originally posted by Pferd
13, and im sorry i dont like books longer then the bible. books dont have to be long-ass to be classics. ever read the little prince? thats a ****in classic, and its pretty damn short. read animal farm? its a hundred-page paperback. 1984? not a very long book. anything by mark twain or sir arthur conan doyle?


I read them all. I read a lot, since I learned how to. I even sort of like reviewed 1984 in this very forum a couple years back.

But I said you looked like you were 10. Turns out there's no big difference in reality, so it's all good. LOTR is too adult for you anyway, so stick with the Harry Potters and you'll be fine for now. ;)
Later on in your life you'll get the need for other sorts of literature and you'll look back and remember this little argument and understand everything.




Wow, wasn't that so Matrix like? :o

I have to say LOTR. Thank god that my friends rented LOTR 1 and 2 a couple of days before I went to the movies to see the third one. Watching the first two films helped me understand the story better and I enjoyed the movie a lot. I didn't read the book BTW

Originally posted by INFESTA
I read them all. I read a lot, since I learned how to. I even sort of like reviewed 1984



i want to read it do u recomend it?

1984? I recommend 1984...

Hugo, I think your whole "LOTR is adult", "HP is Childish" view is very narrow, and very...umm un-hugo?

Originally posted by Mauricio
i want to read it do u recomend it?
its a real good read, no at crap the films and merchandise made it out to be...
do what i did read the book and watch the movie, you can't critzise the film without getting the impression HP is childish, becuase it's not.

Originally posted by Lennon
I didn't read the book BTW

I didn't either... it's so friggin complicated that i didn't try.
But many lotr readers say the movie was spot on so i won't bother trying to read it again

NONE

well that was very intriging :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mauricio
i want to read it do u recomend it?

Of course! A visionary book. Scary how it looks like today's world. Now that I think of it, it looks like today ever since men are men.

Originally posted by Alex
Hugo, I think your whole "LOTR is adult", "HP is Childish" view is very narrow, and very...umm un-hugo?

But LOTR is on a totally different league, Alex. You can't even compare the two; how Tolkien's masterpiece deals with themes that have been on our subconscious since we are men, to intricate issues that a kid will have trouble understanding, various sub-levels of interpretation, whereas HP is so much more child-driven: from the clear-cut story - simplistic enough for everyone to understand - to the wizard/witch/spell imagery, present in every single traditional kid stories. It's a good book for children that also appeals to some adult audiences, but still a kid's plot. The movies are awful, btw. So childish that I can't watch more than 5 minutes.

I hope that was more Hugo-like to you, Alex. ;) :alex:

The movies cut soooo much from the book.
Also Dobby was a disgrace.

neva sin a harry potter or LOTR movie, so St Johnstone i guess for me:D

Originally posted by INFESTA
But LOTR is on a totally different league, Alex. You can't even compare the two; how Tolkien's masterpiece deals with themes that have been on our subconscious since we are men, to intricate issues that a kid will have trouble understanding, various sub-levels of interpretation, whereas HP is so much more child-driven: from the clear-cut story - simplistic enough for everyone to understand - to the wizard/witch/spell imagery, present in every single traditional kid stories. It's a good book for children that also appeals to some adult audiences, but still a kid's plot. The movies are awful, btw. So childish that I can't watch more than 5 minutes.

I hope that was more Hugo-like to you, Alex. ;) :alex:
Ahh much better, giving reasons for your opinions ;)

But I still disagree, except that the HP movies are a disgrace :)

Ill explain: I agree that LOTR goes much deeper than HP (altho HPs story lines are very well thought out, and are often in glimpses a satirical look at our society), but when I read books, I often do so, purely for a good fun read. HP is easy to read, easy to get into, and I enjoyed it the whole time I was reading it. It wasnt meant to be overly complex, because it was meant to appeal to all ages. I do htink HP is more complex than your average childrens book, but its still for the main part, very simple...However whilst it is simple, its still easy and fun for everyone and anyone to read...

So I think HP is better, simply because it appeals to a much larger audience than LOTR ;) (Honestly I dont think either are better, and dont think they should be compared...but I htought Id just contradict you because I can :))...

Now the movies...I didnt mind hte HP movies, but only because I loved the books...I wasnt happy with the parts the movies missed etc, but I liked the way the characters and worlds that Id read about were brought to life :)...LOTRs movies were MUCH MUCH better....

Originally posted by Alex
HP is easy to read, easy to get into, and I enjoyed it the whole time I was reading it. It wasnt meant to be overly complex, because it was meant to appeal to all ages. I do htink HP is more complex than your average childrens book, but its still for the main part, very simple...However whilst it is simple, its still easy and fun for everyone and anyone to read...

So I think HP is better, simply because it appeals to a much larger audience than LOTR ;) (Honestly I dont think either are better, and dont think they should be compared...but I htought Id just contradict you because I can :))...


Appealing to a larger audience doesn't make a book any better, imho; it just makes it prone to have a bigger revenue later on.
But I agree with you to some extent: HP is more complex than your ordinary children's book, but still is a children's book.
It don't think it'll go down on history as a literature classic - more like a sophisticated and overly hyped Enid Blyton-type-of book collection. Whereas LOTR is already a part of our history one can't erase. It came and it stayed, surpassing its author life span. We're yet to see how things will go with HP...

I'd also like to say LOTR isn't an easy read, but it sure is a rewarding one, just like all the great books I've read. It doesn't focus on children nor is it aimed at them, from an audience point of view.

Ultimately, I agree with you on one of the main issues: both books can't be compared - they play on totally separate leagues, aiming at distinct audiences and have a different glow and feel, deal with separate issues and, above all, one of them marks us for life. :)

(Just finished watching the extended DVD version of 'The Two Towers' :rockman: :rockman: )

LOTR by far, Harry Potter's for kids for christ's sake.

Originally posted by Hugo-45-Viana
LOTR by far, Harry Potter's for kids for christ's sake.
hahaha how intelligent..somebody has oviously been reading up, and been reading this thread aswell Id say :rolleyes:

This poll is a joke, right? LOTR easily.

Originally posted by INFESTA
Appealing to a larger audience doesn't make a book any better, imho; it just makes it prone to have a bigger revenue later on.

I wasnt implying it does, altho it is hard to write a book that all ages can enjoy, and this is someething that HP has achieved...

But I agree with you to some extent: HP is more complex than your ordinary children's book, but still is a children's book.
It don't think it'll go down on history as a literature classic - more like a sophisticated and overly hyped Enid Blyton-type-of book collection. Whereas LOTR is already a part of our history one can't erase. It came and it stayed, surpassing its author life span. We're yet to see how things will go with HP...

I disagree, in that I think Blyton books were written for a much more purely young audience, as opposed to HP, which id almost liken to The Simpsons, in the way that it is a book made for adults, to read and enjoy with their children...Blyton was more a "fairytale" writer...
As for going down in history as a literature classic, I think thats something that everyone does wrong...They look at HP as literature...Look at it purely as a fun story. Dont rate it on its literary value, thats not what it is meant to be...Its not Shakespeare, its just a story :)

I'd also like to say LOTR isn't an easy read, but it sure is a rewarding one, just like all the great books I've read. It doesn't focus on children nor is it aimed at them, from an audience point of view.

Ultimately, I agree with you on one of the main issues: both books can't be compared - they play on totally separate leagues, aiming at distinct audiences and have a different glow and feel, deal with separate issues and, above all, one of them marks us for life. :)

(Just finished watching the extended DVD version of 'The Two Towers' :rockman: :rockman: )
Anyway, it seems we agree on most points, and really both books shouldnt be compared...

However, Id take a punt, and say from a literary point of view, LOTR would be rightly put down as the number 1 book of all time, and by many it is. I know that for years it has been top of the "Australias Favourite Book" Charts...Interestingly, the bible was once number 5 on this chart, but last time I saw it, it was down to 13...John Marsden's Tomorrow Series (an Australian 7 book series, which against isnt written for literature value, but is aimed at a slightly older market than HP) had a few books in the top 10, and so did the HP series...LOTR was ranked first, but as one book, not as the three "sub-books" that make it up...

You're right on all accounts Alex!
One thing i stess to people is:
Do not immeadiately hink HP is a child's book.
If you have bothered to read it you'll find out the plot and ending's are very smart and not expected.
The hobbit was written by Tolkien for children, but its not considered a child's book as it has a complex storyline, so does Harry.
"Harry Potter is for kids"
This isn't a decent argument.
Why is it for kids?
Jeez i reckon you're just following everyone else.

Think outside the age groups.
Think of the book itself not the people who read them.

Hmm, we seem to disagree on one basic aspects: to whom HP was written. Children? Grown ups but also appealing to a younger audience?

Like I said earlier, it is a kids book, but one that a large portion of adults identify with. To those, obviously, it'll never be a kids book. You and captain-beckham seem to be on that lot, and there's nothing wrong with it. I like DragonBall myself! :D
But to the others, it is a children's book, full of images that only appealed to us when we were U14. Simple as that. :Alex:

but many just say its a kids book.
why does that make it soo much worse than LOTR?
It's not a decent argument.

Originally posted by Alex
I wasnt implying it does, altho it is hard to write a book that all ages can enjoy, and this is someething that HP has achieved...

no, you weren't implying, you straight out said it...

"So I think HP is better, simply because it appeals to a much larger audience than LOTR "

:read:

Originally posted by Parra Power
no, you weren't implying, you straight out said it...

"So I think HP is better, simply because it appeals to a much larger audience than LOTR "

:read:
Yeah I didnt mean overall better...probably should have phrased that better...

I meant I think its a big plus for HP over the Lord of the Rings, that it appeals to the larger audience, as its something that is very hard to do......

I think you're right Hugo, we disagree about whom the book was written for...

Rowling has said over and over again, it is NOT a Kids book...Its meant to be a book for all ages, and as far as Im concerned it is...In most cases, the only people who dont seem to think so are those who make a big deal out of the "kids book" image, and seem to think that this makes it a worse book for whatever reason. If it being a book that children can read and enjoy, makes it a "kids book" than it is. But IMO it is not. It seems that the largest age group that doesnt read it, are teens...Theyre going thru the whole 'image is everything' phase at that time of their lives, so of course theyre not going to be reading or advocating HP. It is a book for all ages, LOTRs is a book for Adults only, basically...

This doesnt mean either is better or worse, but I still think that its much harder to capture the huge market that HP has captured, than just the market LOTR has captured...BUT because of these markets, the books shouldnt be compared anyway.

My brother would never read HP, he is 22...But the reason that he wouldnt read it, isnt because its a "kids book", it's because he isnt into that kind of book...

The "rest of you" that call it a childrens book, Im afraid are mistaken, as their are as many adults that read the HP books as children...You can call it what you want...Hell I could say that LOTR is a childrens book if I wanted to, but the general concensus is that it isnt. The majority of those that call HP a childrens book, are those that have either never read it, the idea just doesnt appeal to them, or they saw the movie (without reading the book)...

'nuff said ;)

BTW :alex: is a small a, not a capital :p

I voted for LOTR, though the Harry Potter movies aren't too bad. I haven't read any of the Potter books though. LOTR just has more things I like as far as the battles and such.

hum this is a easy one LOTR its way better then a little wizard kid story, just for argument sake tolkien made a new world and inspire lots of ppl for exemple the ADD stuff, all the games you play like baldurs gate neverwinter nights and all those rpg rules from the fastasy world was based on tolkien mithology, so don´t try to compare a guy that create worlds (a good :)) with a basic story from a wizard, its like comparing bill gates with the developers of fifa 2004

u must b a book worm

nope i´m a sex worm :)