OnlineBookClub.org

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?

Kchirgwi 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?

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. haha

Most creative? Rowling was very creative. But it certainly wasn't the first time the idea of a school for witches was thought up. More in depth definetly. But not exactly a new idea.

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.

Well, I'm all for Tolkien but that is because I have been a LOTR fan my entire life. Rowling is still wonderful, but I think that Tolkien did a little more. He created an entire world as well as a language that people learn even today and can speak in fluently. Rowling did create words for spells, however its mostly latin i believe.

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.

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 think imho that both authors have created highly detailed and complex worlds as vehicles for their novels. However at the risk of being flamed by the limitless number of Potter fans, that the world of LOTR is far more complex. I mean the languages, the races, the history, Potter does not really come close. I love Harry Potter, I have all the books, they are great reads but I don't think they stand up to well when compared to LOTR. (Let the flamings begin )

Either, Either. I respect both authors in there own way.

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'm just interested. Can you give us examples of these plot holes, inconsistencies in the world's mechanics, and downright cheesy elements?

---

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.

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

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

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.

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 :]

Tokkin is and shall be one of the best. The Harry Potter books are written for kids. They are written so they understand the story lines. The lord of the rings is pretty much written with adults in mind and the books are more complex.

I would respect your decision that Tolkein, not Tokkin, would be the best. But It would be ignorant saying the premise: Since Harry Potter is written for kids and LOTR is written for adults. And Adults>Kids. Then LOTR>HP.

Also keep in mind that Rowling's world is only half-original, since a large portion of that world is just our current day society, while the other is the 'wizard world'. In that sense, Tolkien's world is more unique and engrossing. Pure fantasy, really. Tolkien wins.

Butterbescotch wrote: 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.

His name is Gollum, or Smeagol. The "precious" is the magic ring.

^Sorry about that. They always say precious when referring to that creature.