LOTR by far, Harry Potter's for kids for christ's sake.
-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
harry potter Vs LOTR
- Thread starter M.Schumacher
- Start date
Marked Man
Youth Team
This poll is a joke, right? LOTR easily.
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...
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
Anyway, it seems we agree on most points, and really both books shouldnt be compared...
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'
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...
C
C-B
Guest
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.
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!
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:
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!
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:
C
C-B
Guest
but many just say its a kids book.
why does that make it soo much worse than LOTR?
It's not a decent argument.
why does that make it soo much worse than LOTR?
It's not a decent argument.
Parra Power
Manager
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 "
Yeah I didnt mean overall better...probably should have phrased that better...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 "
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
is a small a, not a capital 
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
) with a basic story from a wizard, its like comparing bill gates with the developers of fifa 2004u must b a book worm