Rowling vs Tolkien, who created the most creative world?
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: 13 Apr 2011, 12:31
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Rowling vs Tolkien, who created the most creative world?
What do you think?
- Tip the Bottle
- Posts: 879
- Joined: 09 Jun 2010, 21:06
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I really don't think Tolkein was the first to create a rich world and place his characters in it but I may be wrong. I like how Rowling created a world within a world a fantastic world at that. But I believe you're both correct in your thinking. It sounds to me that your friend likes high fantasy and you like modern fantasy. Nothing wrong with that but I will say I found Tolkein to be boring but I loved the movies. hahaKchirgwi wrote:Well, I had a debate with someone, 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. Plus, her book brings me out of this world, Tolkien's puts me in a forest.
What do you think?

When you're grateful to them for giving you the things you should already have anyway, ask yourself why."
-Lady in Blue, rebel broadcast
- Euphoriameantime
- Posts: 200
- Joined: 18 Apr 2011, 19:54
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Tolkien didn't use original ideas either, however he did invent over 20 languages and many of them very in depth. And used his literary works as a staging ground to use them. That to me wins the debate. But I'd agree with Tip. Tolkien is a very dry read.
- TornUpReaper
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 11:36
- Bookshelf Size: 0
However, I still think Rowling was brilliant and creative in her own way. There is no way to completely compare the two, they came out in different times and everyone loves them in their own ways.
- Gannon
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 14464
- Joined: 17 May 2009, 01:48
- Favorite Book: Pillars of the Earth
- Currently Reading: Heaven's Net is Wide.
- Bookshelf Size: 52

-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 13 Apr 2011, 08:27
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I'm just interested. Can you give us examples of these plot holes, inconsistencies in the world's mechanics, and downright cheesy elements?Jp1978 wrote:I'm sorry, but I really didn't like the Harry Potter series. Too many plot holes, inconsistencies in the world's mechanics, and downright cheesy elements. So I vote Tolkien.
---
I have never read LOTR. Also, I've never seen the LOTR movies. So my decision is subject to dispute.
But I do know one character from LOTR. I think his name is Precious.






-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: 03 Nov 2010, 01:42
- Bookshelf Size: 0
It's been so long since I read it but here's what I remember:
Cheesy elements:
1. Hagrid floating down on his motorcycle, sorry, but I found that really cheesy.
2. The spell names.
Inconsistent Mechanics:
1. Some spells are too powerful, and they are accessible and doable by Harry and friends. Other simple effects are seemingly out of reach even by the most powerful of wizards. If HP were a game it would need a major, major balancing patch.
2. There's no rationale for the existence of the Ministry of Magic.
Plot Holes:
It was so long ago, I can't remember. But I do remember my reaction to them.
Now, Harry Potter is an exciting read. But I'd rank it as "good", not "great". The positive thing about the series is that it got a lot of people to read.
Again, just my opinion
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 13 Apr 2011, 08:27
- Bookshelf Size: 0
No, it's okay really. See, I always see people raving about HP and so I want to see the point of those who didn't like some of it.Jp1978 wrote:Ah, I think I struck a nerve there. Keep in mind that if you like Harry Potter, I'm not trying to stop you.
It's been so long since I read it but here's what I remember:
Cheesy elements:
1. Hagrid floating down on his motorcycle, sorry, but I found that really cheesy.
2. The spell names.
Inconsistent Mechanics:
1. Some spells are too powerful, and they are accessible and doable by Harry and friends. Other simple effects are seemingly out of reach even by the most powerful of wizards. If HP were a game it would need a major, major balancing patch.
2. There's no rationale for the existence of the Ministry of Magic.
Plot Holes:
It was so long ago, I can't remember. But I do remember my reaction to them.
Now, Harry Potter is an exciting read. But I'd rank it as "good", not "great". The positive thing about the series is that it got a lot of people to read.
Again, just my opinion
Inconsistent Mechanics:
1. I think it's just mirror the reality. Like the killing curse compared to a gun. Every wizard can cast the spell. Every human can shoot the gun. But I do agree that the forbidden curses should cost something from the caster except I guess the soul. Because only those who have conscience are affected.
2. They exist for the common good of the human and the wizard. Although, the wizard can provide/produce their own things but they are not really as intelligent as the humans. Perhaps, in the greater scale, the human can be the sole reason why wizard exist.
Thanks for putting insights. I did enjoy reading them :]

- Smblomker
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 20:05
- Favorite Book: so far all of the house of night series
- Currently Reading: beautiful creatures
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 13 Apr 2011, 08:27
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Rest_In_Pieces
- Posts: 155
- Joined: 12 Mar 2011, 16:08
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- TornUpReaper
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 16 Mar 2011, 11:36
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 13 Apr 2011, 08:27
- Bookshelf Size: 0