• Both is amazing, but...

    In my opinion, Harry Potter is better because it has mystery, thriller, adventure, and romance which is fantastic because it does not only revolve on one side of the story. Every scene is spectacular. You never know what happens next, and everything's a surprise. It's not all about magic and wizardry, but it teaches love, trust and friendship.

  • Harry potter yes

    Although it is fantasy you can relate to it much more what it feels like to be in school trying to fit in. How true friends will be there no matter what. Going through the awkward teenage years afraid to approach the opposite sex. I think younger generation can relate to it more

  • All hail "The Chosen One"... And owls.

    I like LOTR. And YES, I read the books years before the movie came out (because my father made me...). I enjoyed them, but there is no comparison to the Harry Potter series. That series was my childhood. I was literally 11 years old when the first book came out. I read it in time and in context with the exact sort of teenage angsty nonsense going on in my real life.

    But more importantly, I like that racism (I suppose it's more like speciesism) is addressed in Harry Potter and called out, where in LOTR it is practically glorified. "Let's everyone stick to their own species here, no mingling, barely willing to cooperate"-LOTR, "It's S.P.E.W. , Society for the Protection of Elfish Welfare" and "The Dark Lord probably offered them better rights and territories, which the Minitstry of Magic has denied them for centuries, so you can hardly blame them"- Harry Potter.

    LOTR is a beautiful story, but it was written in a time when black soldiers had to be in seperate barracks from white ones, never mind the fact that a black soldier's blood is just as red. So I understand why it's this way, but I don't agree. I mean, they make Sauron out to be this totally insane embodiment of evil. The dude is just as evil and power hungry as Voldemort, but at least Harry Potter admits that it was the failures of the Wizards, who had mistreated their magical brethren(werewolves as metaphorical orcs anyone?), that led to those creatures choosing the side of Voldemort. HE offered them freedom and equality, lie or not, and they totally cop to that being the reason they couldn't get the giants to join them for example.

    I love that they both have happy endings too, certainly Harry Potter has a happier one, what with the destruction of the Shire and enslavement of the Hobbits and whatnot.

    But the end all be all for me, that makes me choose HP is that Harry fights his own damn battles. You can sing the praises of Brave King Aragorn all you want, but he is no hero without the thousands of ordinary men who fight on his behalf. Frodo and Smeagol both fail under the power of the ring and it's only destroyed by happy circumstance. Sam's the only one worthy of the title hero imo. Harry Potter is about love and it's power over evil. Notice, I didn't say good over evil, because love is admitted to cause some terrible things too in the books, I said love. In all it's glory, and all it's purity, and all it's forms, wins. And while that might not be true in reality, as LOTR definitely wins that title (the blood king becomes...King? Realistic), I do not read fantasy to find reality, I do so to escape reality. Harry Potter is the far greater escape. It has everything LOTR is good for, plus so much more.

  • I like both but Harry wins

    The problem with Lord of the Rings is the books drag on. I have tried several times to get into it, but it has far too many details and pays more attention to the setting than the names of the characters. Also Harry Potter had a better plot and I think it did a better job of showing off all of the magical things that make the book special. Harry Potter is just better plus the characters are far more developed

  • Harry Potter was written in a style I can more easily appreciate.

    Although, appreciate Tolkien (especially his LOTR prequels) I found the LOTR series to be somewhat tedious. I felt that the majority of the subplots add unnecessary convolution to the story rather than heightening the reading experience. Tolkien's brilliance becomes lost in the poorly executed complexity of the LOTR, rather than shining forth as it does in the simplicity of The Hobbit.

    The Harry Potter saga, like The Hobbit, is elegant in its simplicity.

  • There is no comparison

    Even though Harry Potter is a great young adult novel, but The Lord of the Rings (and other works by J. R. R. Tolkien associated with it) is the greatest masterpiece of fantasy literature, it's not just a good story, but it also makes up a incredibly complex lore which is so well developed that has become an almost necessary influence to every posterior work on a similar genre - including Harry Potter itself.

    Comparing Harry Potter with The Lord of the Rings is like comparing Disney's Hercules with Homer's Odyssey.

  • Lord of the Fantasy Genre

    LOTR is the best fantasy series out there. It's epic, ultra creative, detailed and most importanly it's one of the first of it's kind - maybe the first.

    Harry Potter is a easy-to-read young adults series.

    There is no comparison here, and I have read both. Lord of the Rings is like the Beatles and Harry Potter is like the Rolling Stones. Somebody else could have done Harry Potter but there could only be one Lord of the Rings. It invented the tools that JK Rowling used to make Harry Potter.

  • Different Stories Entirely

    Harry Potter is a very well written story that encompasses mystery, drama, action, comedy, and slight moments of horror, but it isn't really fair to say that it is better than the Lord of the Rings series. Harry Potter is more of a young adult, coming-of-age story, while Lord of the Rings is a fantasy adventure story. They have completely different messages, and are meant for entirely different audiences. In my personal opinion, I believe that Tolkien has a slightly more conversational writing style. Finally, as the Lord of the Rings series was written long before Harry Potter, it is not unreasonable to suggest that LOTR has some role in helping to create the Harry Potter universe.

  • Not Even Close

    Harry Potter is a young adult novel and an easy read. LoTR is the kind of book you have to sit down and have to want to read it for it to be good. And its beside the point to say that LoTR is a classic and Harry Potter is not.

    Posted by: efez
  • A hard decision but LOTR takes it.

    I love both series but what I like more about LOTR is the complexity of the world it is based in. The languages, geography and history are only some of the factors that make Middle-earth a place where I wish I could live. There is so much more to LOTR than just the books. The books are only a small part of what people love about them. I've read them countless amount of times but there is always something else to learn about this vast world. It runs so much deeper than just a simple book series with a beginning, middle and end. It touched so many ideas: good, evil, greed, loyalty and treachery that it becomes a book of great significance to readers of all ages.

  • Liked Both, but this was better

    Though i enjoyed both series very much, i felt that LOTR was suppereor. First of all, if somone was to ask the pure definition of fantasy movies, this would be my example. I felt that The Potter universe mainley foucuses on magic and not really anything else that foucuses on a fantasy world. Middle Earth has magic to, but also epic battles, vast amounts of races, and more. Second, Middle Earth is very vast compared to Hogwarts. Plus it really gives you the sense your travilling the country. Or continent for that matter.

    Also i felt board sometimes with Harry Potter. I just felt like so long before
    anything exiting happend. Here, i felt exited all of the time.

  • JRR Tolkien practically created the fantasy genre with LOTR...

    Before I read and watched Lord of the Rings at the age of 15 I was a massive (and obsessed) Harry Potter fan. However since reading and watching the LOTR films I have never ever watched or re-read Harry Potter simply because it in no way can be compared or live up to the Lord of the Rings (and I also believe JK Rowling borrowed many ideas for Harry Potter from LOTR). JRR Tolkien created a world (and a new language) with a range of developed characters, a rich storyline that evokes so many different emotions, and highlights in his books many values that are even important for modern society today. Therefore, compared to LOTR, Harry Potter is mediocre...

  • Harry Potter- british

    He is the brain child of a british woman who made all of our childhoods, and at 11 we were waiting for our owl to say we had gotten into hogwarts. Lord of the rings is hard to read and harry made people who hate books like books. It is like is divergent a copy of The hunger games. Well it is blatantly obvious that it is yes. No one can deny harry potter made us better people. "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure"

  • No, and by quite a huge gap

    Well, The HP series is good story-wise but it doesn't really bring anything new to literature or the novel as a storytelling medium. I finished all 7 books in 2 days and it was an easy digest.

    Tolkien's middle Earth series is way better, because of the amount of thinking and work put into it. I mean, tolkien made over a dozen languages, although most of them are based on old english, french, norse and runic. And has better world-building, took me a month to fully comprehend the story.

  • Gotta Love Middle-Earth!

    I for one watch movies, anime and tv, play video games, and read books as a way to look into another world and experience that. I think I solely like LotR more because of the setting. The enormous landscape of middle-earth baffles me, while London is London and Hogwarts kinda reminds me of that hotel in Banff. Plus, I think I've had a little more experience with one than the other.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Beginner says2015-01-11T03:17:11
I notice some of the people who choose Harry Potter over Lord of the Rings either simply did so based on text density: a Lord-of-the-Rings-is-worse-because-it-is-longer-than-Harry-Potter attitude. That makes me sad for some reason. :'(