Lord of the Rings vs Harry Potter
I once got into a heated debate over how only an idiot would think Harry Potter wins in a comparison with Lord of the Rings because the writing is so superior. Me? I was on Harry’s side.
To some readers J. R. R. Tolkien drones on and on about the details of a leaf when we just want to get to the story, while J. K. Rowling has readership with children barely in their double digits as well as with their grandparents with equal success.
So what is the definition of ’superior writing’ exactly?
As with my previous blog entry, Star Trek vs Star Wars, I do not want my opinion to further cloud this comparison, as I see great strengths in both franchises. Let us begin then, as before, with a quick history.
LORD OF THE RINGS
The Lord of the Rings is an epic fantasy series written by Oxford University professor J. R. R. Tolkien. The story was a sequel to Tolkien’s earlier children’s fantasy novel The Hobbit (1937), written in stages afterward mostly during World War II.
Tolkien intended the work to be one volume of a two-volume set with The Silmarillion, a large history book, in a sense, about the LotR world. Instead, the publisher left out The Silmarillion and published LotR as three books rather than one, assuring more money would be made from the series, and that readers would actually be able to lift the already thick books.
LotR has been called one of the most popular and influential works in 20th-century literature.
The main story for the trilogy revolves around the Dark Lord Sauron, once in possession of the One Ring to rule the other Rings of Power created to govern the many races, most notably the humans, elves, and dwarves. Sauron went rogue from the other world leaders in LotR’s distant past and meant to take over Middle-Earth with his One Ring, but was defeated.
Generations later, Sauron hopes to reclaim the ring and return, and must be stopped by a varied group of adventurers including humans, hobbits, a dwarf, an elf, and a wizard. It is the first campaign party of its kind and tells an epic story of perseverance and sacrifice.
Three film adaptations have been made. The first was the animated J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (1978), covering The Fellowship of the Ring and part of The Two Towers. The second, The Return of the King (1980), was an animated television special by the same people who had produced The Hobbit (1977).
The third, and most notable adaptation, is Peter Jackson’s live action The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002), and The Return of the King (2003).
Return of the King won a total of 11 Oscars the year it came out, including “Best Picture”, “Best Director”, “Best Screenplay”, and “Best Musical Score”.
HARRY POTTER
Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by J. K. Rowling. Rowling says the idea for Harry and his magical world came to her in 1990.
“I had been writing almost continuously since the age of six but I had never been so excited about an idea before. I simply sat and thought, for four (delayed train) hours, and all the details bubbled up in my brain, and this scrawny, black-haired, bespectacled boy who did not know he was a wizard became more and more real to me.” -Rowling
In the books we follow the young wizard Harry Potter, along with friends and fantastical companions through their training at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and through an impending war with evil wizards.
Lord Voldemort (this already sounds familiar, doesn’t it) killed Harry’s parents during his first quest to conquer the wizarding and human world, but was thwarted when he attempted to kill infant Harry, supposedly destined to destroy Voldermort, leaving only a scar on the child’s forehead and losing all of his powers in the process. As Harry slowly learns to become a proper adult wizard throughout the series, the fight against Voldemort and his followers begins.
Several successful films, video games, and too many other products to mention have been based on the series. The first book came out in 1997, the first film version already coming into the picture in 2001.
We await only the seventh and final film for Harry Potter (well, final two, since the book is being split in half to accommodate everything that happens, and undoubtedly make that much more money) set to come out in 2010 and 2011.
The book series has sold well over 400 million copies and the last four books set records as the fastest-selling books in history thanks to the series’ rabid following.
The franchise is worth billions and is still going strong, making a name for several young actors in the films and bringing together readers of all ages.
COMPARISON
Both of these fine series have RiffTrax for some of their films, just like with Star Trek and Star Wars, though not for all of the movies quite yet (coming soon, I hope).
I would also like to mention that I was mistaken about when the riff track came out for Star Trek, and I apologize. It did not come out the 17th with the release of the DVD and Blueray, but on the 19th. You can now go, purchase, and enjoy.
Comparing these two franchises as impartially as I can, it must be stated of course how much older LotR is, decades older than Harry Potter, having stood a true test of time. Even before the films boosted interest LotR was still a well-known series occasionally even studied in universities in whole classes devoted to it.
Harry Potter has not yet had the chance to prove if it can stand that same test of time, especially since the films started coming out so quickly after the books’ success. It has, however, been a worldwide phenomenon almost since publication, and has just as rich a world, in my opinion, as LotR.
The Harry Potter series has seven books, LotR only three (but then more than that, really, counting companion pieces like The Hobbit that came first and The Silmarillion).
However, the true lasting legacy of LotR is how every fantasy book/film/game, etc. today takes a cue from the way Tolkien chose to present things. Elves almost always have bows and live among the trees, Dwarves are short and bearded and drink a lot, and humans are generally the all around dicks of the world, assuming superiority over the other races.
I have recently become addicted to BioWare’s new dark fantasy rpg, Dragon Age: Origins, which follows with that same Tolkien theme. In the Zero Punctuation review of the game that came out last Wednesday, Yahtzee gave a warranted complaint on how those same details are always the norm instead of attempting something original:
Whether or not it is good to have a norm like that take such precedence in various media, the influence of those character archetypes certainly proves that LotR has had a lasting affect on writing and society. But then so has Harry Potter.
Shall we get to the real comparisons then?
Voldemort vs Sauron – These two villains actually have alot in common. Both are evil lords, both have items (the One Ring and horcruxes) that if destroyed prevent their true return, and despite both having lost their true forms for a time they are still considered the most powerful and evil beings in their universes. Sauron, however, wins here because he has a real army to back him and is evil to the bone, while Voldemort has a sympathetic past and fails mostly because of his own shortcomings.
Dobby vs Gollum (or should it be Legolas): LotR wins regardless, since Dobby is basically a Jar-Jar in disguise, annoying and pointless in how the movies portray him. But then this is about the books, and in truth Dobby is a redeemable martyr while Gollum gave into his obsession in the end of LotR despite readers/audience feeling sorry for him. If it’s Legolas instead, well, captain obvious never wins many popularity contests with me anyway.
Dumbledore vs Gandolf – I have to go with a draw. Go ahead and say that Gandolf is more powerful purely because he ‘came back from the dead’ and Dumbledore stayed that way, but Gandolf was never truly dead. Dumbledore was also always playing his own hand behind the scenes to make sure Harry followed the right path, while Gandolf seemed less so with Frodo. But then Gandolf is the first true wizard of his kind and deserves high praise. I love them both.
There are spoofs of both franchises in movies like “Epic Movie” that I highly DO NOT recommend, and as I have said LotR has so many followers in theme and archetypes that I couldn’t even begin to name them all.
While Gary Gygax said LotR minimally influenced him in the creation of Dungeons & Dragons, the similarities speak for themselves.
Countless role playing video games, book series, etc. follow the example Tolkien started with elves and dwarves and all the rest. Dragon Age: Origins, as I mentioned before, is just one example.
P.S.
I will be doing a blog entry entirely on the phenomenon of BioWare’s masterpiece, Dragon Age: Origins after the versus series is over. The game is AWESOME.
Both Harry Potter and LotR have their own video games as well, there being at least one to accompany each Harry Potter movie, and the MMO Lord of the Rings Online for Tolkien’s work. Nothing spectacular for either franchise in that, so we’ll call those a draw too.
CONCLUSION
Harry Potter is often looked at the same way Nintendo mistakenly is, as “kiddy”. I beg to differ. Sure, my (then) nine-year-old nephew read through all of the books, but so has my siblings, ranging from early 30s to 40, as has my mother and many other adults I know of varying ages.
LotR is out of the limelight for now, at least a bit lesser than when the films were out, but not for long with the new Hobbit movie soon to release. Even without that new film to refresh fan activity again, LotR has a legacy that continues to thrive even in mediums and fandoms other than itself.
The fans for both franchises are equally crazy, there is equal fanart and fanfiction out there to be found in droves, and both have their fair share of slash (HarryxSnape anyone? How about GimlixLegolas?)
Oh, crazy fangirls.
But still, these are two very different series that simply are both fantasy with liberal amounts of magic and fantastical creatures that people tend to compare because both are also book series made into movies.
My stance? While I do not think one is truly better than the other in any overall sense, I think Harry Potter is more enjoyable on the book side of things because the writing is phenomenal, as good as Tolkien’s just in a different way, and it appeals to all ages, while the LotR series isn’t quite as universal. LotR had much better movie adaptations, however, hands down.
Can we still all get along on this one, folks, or am I doomed to suffer flames?
~G³
So, New Moon beat out box office numbers for actual good movies, did it? Next week “The Vampire Chronicles vs Twilight“. As far as being impartial this time, I promise nothing.
Thanks for tuning in.
Images taken from:
http://nimg.sulekha.com/Entertainment/original700/harry-potter-2009-7-23-16-12-30.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01132/arts-graphics-2008_1132757a.jpg
http://media.komonews.com/images/070722_harry_potter_reader.jpg
http://houseput.com/img/Books/lord-of-the-rings-illustrated-3-vol.jpg
http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/2001/images/FellowshipOfTheRing_poster.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hS1X0xGwrRY/SoMZoLgbZtI/AAAAAAAAAHM/vouaCWtXa2A/s400/Metrodome+copy.jpg
http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/wizards-tournament-560×330.jpg
http://gameaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/dragon_age_cover-shot.jpg
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=5268872&CID=96EC9F6A91314ABAABBAEAA4A0E8623B&PPID=1&search=120497&f=c&FindID=120497&P=1&PP=1&sortby=PD&cname=Twilight+Saga%3A+New+Moon+%282009%29&SearchID=
I have to say, I think the aims of the franchises were very different. Tolkien’s Good vs. Evil fable was really just a framework to allow him to build the world–from what I’ve read, he really wasn’t that interested in the story so much as he was in building the mythology.
Rowling, on the other hand, builds the mythology to suit the very specific story she had in mind. So I think that in many ways, her work is more accessible from a reader’s standpoint; she just wants to make the story happen, and writes in a very straightforward style.
Tolkien’s writing is much more formalized–he wants us to feel like we’re reading history.
I tend to like Gandalf better than Dumbledore. Dumbledore is charismatic and smart, but I prefer Gandalf’s air of steely competence. He lets the armor down occasionally, but at no point does he ever allow even the slightest hint that he doesn’t have a backup plan. My preference has nothing to do with relative power levels or any of that geeky stuff, which is irrelevant anyway
I just like his character.
I question your comparison of Dobby to Gollum, though; I think they serve VERY different purposes. Dobby is downtrodden, yes, but not tragically; he’s a model of optimism and perseverance. Gollum’s purpose is one and one only; to show the tragedy of a soul who has been utterly defeated by his lust.
Gollum’s arc is really interesting, especially considering that his ultimate purpose is to unwittingly save the world through his desperation. To me, his death is a powerful statement about purpose: even something broken and evil can be used for good. It’s a great picture of Tolkien’s faith in God’s plan.
@Blaise: I totally agree about the book styles, as I think the reason I enjoy the Harry Potter books more is because Rowling is more straight forward and I tend to care more about story and specific characters than the overall world.
I love both those wizards equally though, and in the movies they were played by such great actors (Well, Richard Harris, anyway, I’ve never really warmed to the new Dumbledore).
And I see just what you mean about Dobby and Gollum. I suppose I chose to compare them because they are both small creature characters that help and hinder the main protagonist depending on the circumstance, they are both outcasts, etc., but you are right that they serve very different roles despite having some similarities. I actually like Gollum more personally for the very reasons you gave that make him unique.
I really enjoyed this blog entry, as I have often been torn in the LOTR v. Harry Potter debate. Also, just two days ago I had an annual LOTR marathon with a group of friends, so it’s fresh in my mind. That said, I was first introduced to Harry Potter in middle school, and turned to reading LOTR while waiting for more Harry Potter books to come out. In terms of readability, Harry Potter wins, hands down.
When it comes to LOTR, I’m a mythology junkie, so the fact that Tolkien created this entire mythos really hooked me. I read The Silmarillion and loved it, in spite of its archaic language.
I love them both, really. J.K. Rowling is superior in terms of writing style and overall characterization, but I love the richness of Middle Earth, and the epic scale of Tolkien’s stories. At the end of the day, though, I think Middle Earth stays with me more.
@Ashley: Thank you so much for such a great response! I think your opinions on these two fandoms captures exactly what each author was striving for too–Rowling more that flow and characterization, Tolkien more the history of a vast world and that great mythology, as you said.
I guess I might have to agree that something of Middle Earth sticks with you more because the world seems so much more realized and possible. If I had to choose one to live in, it would be a hard choice.
I have to say that I equally like both series in there own right. LotR a great series that is now the where all current cliches and basic standardization of the medieval fantasy genre: party containing 2x human, 1x elf, 1x dwarf, and 1x umpa lumpa on a quest to go to some lord of evil’s lair and destroy them with some magical artifact or a sword through the chest. There is amazing detail in the writing, but I admit losing interest when it takes an entire page or two to describe a tree.
HP(not the computer) does a great job containing the story with its wizard class only policy allowing a more personal feel. However HP is a bit more confined in scope where LotR affects its entire world, HP is mostly the wizards in England that will eventually change the world when its big bad is done having their tea and the football game is done. Overall HP is more accessible of the two so I believe that it will years down the road spawn cliches of its own…..I’m looking at you X-Men: First Class movie series.
@Janskoller: You know the point you make sort of goes the opposite as Sean, how the story being so nicely contained is why it is so accessible and good, instead of saying LotR is better for having a vaster world. I do think that LotR will continue to shell out copycats more than HP, but HP gets its fair share too.
Another great article, but I’m sorry. I have to plant my flag in Tolkien’s camp. I freely admit that part of my bias is nostalgic; I was introduced to the series by my uncle, and that was the first time I read a high fantasy novel. Before, I thoght fantasy meant fairy tales, Roald Dahl, and the glut of simple power fantasy that overwhelms the young adult section, and then came Tolkien, with his hobbits and One Ring and a whole bunch of elves. And yes, some of JRR’s writing is a slog, and he gives out more information than is required, but I had become used to Dickens by then (and lemme tell ya, Tolkien was long winded, but he had NOTHIN on that guy), and when Tolkien was good, boy, he was GOOD. So LOTR has a place in my heart nothing can dislodge as a result.
But none of this is of course to say that Rowling is bad. I accept her writing is more accessible, and I absolutely adore her style pacing, character development and Dialogue: my god, have you read other YA fiction? It’s like no one else knows how to talk, or heard other kids speak. But with Rowling, you can totally believe in the characters humanity by the way they talk to each other, and she doesn’t do that ridiculous “fill up the diologue of kids with hip slang and references to show how COOL and WITH IT we are” thing that a lot of other writers do (most of whom are in comics) and I love her for all of that. However, she just isn’t as good as Tolkien is at making her story acessible to the rest of the world, and other religions than Christianity (which is a shame, because she was doing so well, and then the Seventh book happened); and there exists some unresolved discrepancies with the story as a whole, such as:
- the technology thing. What, the wizarding world is so isolated from the rest of the world that they have no idea how to use a telephone or the Underground, and yet there’s things like the knight bus, and the train, and the flying car, and Sirius’ bike? I know, I know, the Rule of Cool and all that, but it took me right out of the work. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have had there things, I’m just saying that it should have been better explained.
- The way magic works. Rowling has her main characters working with magic every day, but it’s still kind of nebulous about how everything works. We barely see the kids at school learning any theory of magic: how it works, if there are any schools (er, areas of magic I mean, and their rulus, y’know alteration, conjuration, etc), what magic can and should be used for, why the Unforgivable curses are bad, and stuff like that. Yeah, it would have taken some time, but it would have avoided pitfalls like power creep, and why the kids use the same magic as the adults, but maybe I’m alone in that.
There were more things here and there which took me out, but those are the two main things.
There is one thing I like more about HP though, and that’s Dumbledore. I think I like him more thematically than Gandalf. Yeah, Gandalf was awesome, with his unbelievable power used sparingly and his too-damn-old-to-be-polite personality and the fact that he was the biggest go getter in the series, and he came back from the dead. But the thing is, nothing about him or the wizards were really explained in the story; I learned later that he and the other wizards were Maiar (sort of like demigods or angels) and in fact, could not die until the Vaiar (gods) called em home. But then you have Dumbledore, who’s smart enough to be a wizard (that’s where wizard come from, “wise one,” and their strength has never been magic so much as simply knowing a lot of stuff, notice how gandalf barely ever did any magic? But I digress), and charismatic enough to be a mentor, but has no divine power. But we come to know him, posthumously, and we get to know him in the story. His entire character arc was pretty much The Fantastic Mentor Deconstructed, and I think it’s really amazing. So a point in HP’s favor for dumbledore.
So, in conclusion, between the two, I’d prefer Tolkien’s world to Rowlings. That’s what he gave fantasy, in the long run; Rowling way tell better stories, and the themes of LOTR have been around forever, and the myth of the thing happens again and again if joseph campbell is to be believed, but ol JRR gave us world building, and God bless him for it.
@Sean R.: Sorry for the late reply, Sean, I didn’t get an alert for this. Bah.
Well, I have to agree that Dickens takes the cake on the long-winded, and I really wish I had been able to give Tolkien a fair chance when I first read The Fellowship (maybe I will give it another go sometime). And it is hard to compare Rowling’s fantastic YA fiction with Tolkien’s trilogy that usually has an older audience.
I think something that could make Rowling more competitive against Tolkien then would be more history and theory of magic, and some insight into the rest of the world and how all of this affects it. Obviously there must be American wizards. Wouldn’t the Death Eaters have gone there too, etc. Tolkien definitely created a more defined world, which I think is one of the reasons it is so lasting and why other mediums borrow his archetypes so often.
Well said, as always, Sean.