YES!!!!

How did you even find this meme?

Browsing.... And sometimes I check profiles of people... Truth is... I *am* a Harry Potter fan and posting in the PotterHeadsUnite stream.... Now I can take a joke.... (Although unlike HP I didn't read the LotR novels, but I know the story from the movies, and being the ex-boy-friend of a Tolkien fan who DID read the books, I do know the books... a little).

Ah, ok. I was just confused, since you aren't following this stream, and I don't think you're following me, so I was wondering how you saw this meme. But be sure to read the books at the next opportunity, they really are better than Harry Potter!

The LotR books better than Harry Potter? I don't think so... Rowling doesn't spend 6 chapters on a flower next to the road, and Harry Potter has more plot than LotR. Rowling manages many times to get the reader to think in the wrong direction, only to find out when you read the novel again, that you were stupid to fall into the traps she set... In LotR, I never found those, and I've read the first novel, and it was a terrible experience.... Harry Potter is written in a style that I have trouble putting the book down. In that perspective Harry Potter really outclasses LotR on many fronts... Harry Potter suffers from the fact that the books were marketed as children's novels. And I can agree that Harry is not the best protagonist out there, and that may have struck you a little, however the plot around him, is really high quality, not to mention that you must not underestimate how well though-out Voldemort is as a villain. Rowling even got praise from people such as Stephen King, which is quite an achievement.
I'm a writer myself, so I can view this thoroughly. Where it doesn't maybe is world building as Tolkien put a standard that goes really far on this, and is even an inspiration to the world building in my own work. When it comes to character development and unexpected plot twists.... I prefer both Rowling and George Martin (A song of Ice and Fire aka Game of Thrones).

Did you read the second and third novels in LOTR? Those might clear up some of your issues with the storywriting. Also, since my qualms with Harry Potter are mostly from a religious perspective, I guess I can't really argue... but what I've noticed is that Rowling took a lot of ideas from both LOTR and Chronicles of Narnia, almost to the point of ripping them off. Just a thought I had. You're welcome to disagree.

Unfortunately Tolkien and Lewis also didn't bring much new on that perspective. People stare themselves blind on those two, while nearly everything you can find in Tolkien's work comes from ancient folklore and mythology, and Lewis is the same story. Since Rowling has dug in the same folklore and mythology it's easy to think the ideas were stolen from Tolkien and Lewis, but they are actually as much of thieves as Rowling is. Sorry to burst that bubble. The only thing that is actually believed to be Tolkien's own idea is the Hobbit people, and even that is subject for debate. Elves are from Nordic folklore, Dwarves are from Germanic folkore, and Dragons are found in many kinds of folklore in as well Germanic, Nordic and Asian folklore, and in all shapes and sizes. When it comes to Narnia, Aslan is directly based on Jesus Christ, as a matter of fact, Lewis even gave slight hints in interviews that Aslan is a new form of Jesus himself... Can you deem that a rip-off from the Bible? Fauns, centaurs and many other things in Narnia are also based on folklore and ancient mythology.
What made Tolkien really revolutionary were his standards of world building that now form a kind of a high standard that many fantasy writers (myself included) have to follow, and Harry Potter is also affected by these standards. I would not compare Tolkien's Elves to Rowling's Elves for starters, and the world of middle-Earth is much more of a medieval world where magic and real things come together in a more harmonic way while in Rowling's wizarding world things are approach from a different perspective, also set in the recent past (the 1990s to be precise).
Of course, similarities between multiple writers are always found. I can't say Rowling got some inspiration from those who came before her, but that is nothing new, and humanity is so old that coming up with something really 100% original is impossible (and already was in Tolkien's time).
Many fantasy writers are accused of ripping from from Tolkien... But if they are guilty of rip-off then I'm afraid that Tolkien himself is equally guilty.... He just happens to be the one who got most famous with that... But he was definitely not the first to use the elements he used for his work. Sorry about that, but I must ask Tolkien fans to face reality on that one.

Firstly, Tolkien's elves came primarily from Celtic mythology, and secondly, Tolkien didn't just steal ideas from the mythologies he drew from. He used the elements from them with care, making sure that he didn't misuse those pieces of the story for something they weren't meant to be. He had, you might say, a certain respect for those mythologies which he drew from. In fact, he had a distaste for the Chronicles of Narnia, since Lewis seemingly combined Roman, Germanic, Celtic, and Middle Eastern mythologies, as well as Christian beliefs, arbitrarily. And both of them were extremely careful with the symbolism they used. Rowling wasn't cautious about it at all. And while you may think that's insignificant, it is a VITALLY important part of the story. It's what really makes a story stick with someone, even if they don't realize it. It's the way that a story influences a person's thought pattern, for good or for evil. LOTR, for example, was carefully written to be a story that conveys hope, that one day evil will be ultimately defeated. Narnia was the same way. H. P.? Not so much, I'm afraid. It kinda conveys the idea that, once the excitement is over, life becomes the boring, same thing it's always been. It doesn't offer hope. It really is just a story about some kids who play with magic and manage to destroy a sorcerer in the process. And after that, they kinda just fade into the background. So, in that case, LOTR really does have a better plot. Not only is it about destroying the villain; it's also about restoring the King to his throne, and healing the hurt the villain caused. I'm not going to pull the theological issues card, since I don't know if you are religious or not. But, nonetheless, I'm glad we're having this discussion. It's really made me think.

If Tolkien didn't "steal" then neither did Rowling or many other writers accused of doing so. This is the entire problem I've detected a lot within the Tolkien society. Deeming everything Tolkien does as "holy" and deeming any other fantasy writer a "rip-off" from Tolkien's work, while Tolkien did nothing more or less than the other writers, including Rowling, did. And all writers give these things their own insights, as a writer should. When it comes to battle of good and evil, and hopes that evil will be defeated? Not present in Harry Potter? I guess you have not really understood the person of Voldemort then and even less about how Harry ultimately defeated him. There is a high crap-load of philosophy in that one and trust me, and the only reason you come up with "just a story to amuse children" means that you really don't know this philosophy and how Rowling thought this out. Not to mention that Rowling actually dedicated an entire book ("Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince") about what Voldemort was and how he came to walk to path of evil, and also mentions most of all the weaknesses of Voldemort and why such a brilliant and dangerous and rightly feared villain is actually an idiot, although you won't easily give that to him, and many H.P. fans needed to read the entire series twice to find out what made him such an idiot. And not to mention Harry's horrible teacher Severus Snape. He played a very dubious role from the very first book, and just when I thought I had understood him in book #5, he does something in book #6 that nobody expected and the shocked entire H.P. and when in book #7 his true role is revealed and you get to fully work out his relationship with Voldemort and Harry, you'll see this philosophy once more. Not to mention that in HP the important of accepting death as a part of life, is brought as an important thing. The fact that Harry accepted death and Voldemort did not, as one of the important key parts that enabled Harry to defeated Voldemort.

I deem it likely that Tolkien did seek more in religion than religion, which is also given the decades in which he lived more likely. Rowling is younger and very likely raised in a less religious background. But that doesn't mean that she didn't write Harry Potter with less wisdom and philosophy. Harry Potter suffered under bad marketing, and frankly Harry himself is not the best character in the book... He's flawed, and at many times an idiot, but then again... Aren't we all?

You weren't paying attention to what I was saying. Tolkien had an extreme respect for his sources, and was careful in the way that he treated the ideas he took from them. Rowling, although probably more being inspired than ripping off, as you said, didn't have that level of respect for her sources. An irrelevant observation? Perhaps, but maybe several writers could do well to emulate Tolkien's example.

Also, Tolkien was definitely inspired by God to write his works. That's why he fretted so much over having it absolutely perfect. Rowling? Nary so much.

When did I say that there wasn't that element of hope in H. P.? Every fantasy novel gives hope that the villain will be defeated. What I was talking about was that LOTR gives hope that Evil itself will be one day defeated, for good.

When did I say that H. P. was a children's story? I recognize that there is plenty of philosophy in it. But does that make it a good story? Not necessarily.

And, actually, if you're thinking that that giving the backstory of how the villain became evil, and showing his idiocies somehow makes Hairy Potter special, prepare for a rude awakening. Sauron, Saruman and Gollum were all given relatively detailed backstories, and each one had their weaknesses and pitfalls described fully well.

And having a character play a dubious rôle isn't anything special either. Gollum was fairly consistently torn between his draw to the ring and his devotion to his, "master," often throwing a first-time reader into confusion.

And, by the way, the element of the hero commiting himself to death, only to have the one who pursues immortality die in his place, isn't unique to Hairy Potter, either. It's something that you'll find in just about every epic fantasy novel/series.

Am I blaming Hairy Potter for being unoriginal? No. I am merely pointing out that everything that you are saying makes Hairy Potter so incredible can also be found in LOTR. Does that mean Rowling copied? No. But everything that you claim makes H. P. so unique, really isn't that unique at all.

Oh, and I'll add a couple more points: if Hairy Potter is so great, and LOTR wilts before it, then why did NONE of the eight H. P. movies get any Oscars, while The Return of the King by itself got E L V E V E N?

Another thing is that the way the story is written isn't my main issue. For me, it's the aforementioned theological issues that really cheese me off.

I think you did make some valid points, nonetheless. Have a good one!

"Harry Potter has more plot than lotr" . . . I don't even know what to say at this point . . . . have you ever heard of the Silmarillion? I used to be a harry potter fan before I saw lotr and I was *really* proud of that and, trust me, I regret it so bad now that I've seen what real a story is.

I said PLOT.... Not world building and alternate histories.... The Silmarillion is not a story and not even meant as such, so if you call that a "real story" I guess you missed the entire point of what the author was doing. The Silmarillion, is quite an achievement to set up, as I know nobody deemed it possible to write such a work as that, but it was never meant to be a story, which Harry Potter is meant to be. Tolkien has always been putting more emphasis on world building anyway. Frankly he didn't really care about the story, which explains the lack of a true plot in LotR. He only wrote that because his editor wanted a sequel to The Hobbit, and wasn't interested in a work such as The Silmarillion. It's also the misguided thought that the Silmarillion is a story that so many people think the book is beyond terrible, by the way and why reviewers bashed it to the ground (and if you judge that as a "story" they were right too, but if you judge it for what it truly is you may draw a different conclusion). My ex-girl-friend had a copy of the Silmarillion so I did have the possibility to read a few portions of that.
A real story... Definitely not! And I'll say it again... if you call that a story to top all stories, I'm afraid Tolkien failed to do his job well in your case. It was also never meant to be a book to be read from first page to last, like you'd normally do with a book. And it's actually some hardcore Tolkien fans who told me this, and from what I've seen of the Silmarillion myself... Comes right there. I've already said that Tolkien did put a new standard to world building... And that is what the Silmarrilion proved.... When it comes to good story writing.... Nope, and that was not even what the Silmarilion tried to do.... Alternate history and writing a story plot are two different disciplines. The Silmariilion is neither better nor worse than Harry Potter... It's like comparing cars to aeroplanes, or rather like grapes with Juggernaut trucks.

LOTR has no real plot? Now you're just being stupid. Silmarillion has no real plot? I can see your point (it WAS meant to be read as a history book), but you're still somewhat mistaken. Maybe try reading through the WHOLE thing next time, and you'll see my point. As for LOTR, I don't see how you can say it has no plot, unless you haven't read the whole thing. Is Tolkien very descriptive? Yes, especially in FotR. But LOTR, at least, has a very strong plot, fortified by several sub-plots. For example, the overall plot of LOTR was to destroy the Ring, since it was the one thing Sauron needed to conquer all of the Earth. Throughout the story, the sub-plots transition from getting the ring to Bree, to getting to Rivendell, to journeying towards Caradhras, to going through Moria, with all sorts of mishaps and adventures along the way... you get my point. So I don't see how you can say that there is no real plot in LOTR, unless we are working with very different definitions here.

No you are being stupid by denying that and even debunking your own statement in the process. Frankly the story is just a chain of events, the only true unexpected twist was the way in which the ring was destroyed, that was the only thing I didn't see coming, and in the book that only thing was even rushed, where the movie made it a bit more spectacular. That was a bit of an anti-climax also. Plots are things you need to think about before things are being revealed you are clueless about what is gonna happen next and where you even didn't see things comping. Tolkien never fooled me during the course of the story, nor did things ever get truly complex. With "adventures" you are more on track of what is happening. Frodo is having an adventure... An adventure that is a heavy one, which takes the best out of him, and could even have killed him, but still an adventure. Harry Potter on the other hand is not having an adventure. Although it's clear from the start that Voldemort is the main enemy, every novel leaves you confused at first and most of all about which people are in Voldemort's camp and which people are not. The books are written in a way that you'll easily suspect the wrong people and if you read the books again you'll discover yourself for being an idiot for missing all the important hints. Not to mention Voldemort was not easily defeated by merely destroying one ring. Even when that ring can only be destroyed in the middle of the enemy's stronghold. Adventure and plot are two different things, so you actually debunked your own statement. Rowling was writing a plot, Tolkien was writing an adventure. Adventures are nice to read, and very entertaining, but writing plots is a completely different discipline and forces the reader to be a kind of detective. And Martin's work (Song of Ice and Fire) is a class on its own, but Martin is also more going for plots to puzzle out, in which the true identity of Jon Snow (most of all who his mother is), is one of the most remarkable examples. LOTR is more a chain of events that make a nice ADVENTURE. Although when I take a look to Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas fighting for Helmsdeep and Minas Tirith, I cannot really speak of an adventure, but more of a war story. Nice, enjoyable, but not really requiring to think things trough. And if you're still going to read Harry Potter, then you should pay most attention to the role of Severus Snape. The way that character goes... THAT is plot.

I see. We're working with very different definitions here. In New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language (1993), plot in this context is defined as, "The plan of events in a novel, play, etc." LOTR definitely has that. So does Hairy Potter. So does every other story book ever written. What you are saying makes LOTR inferior to H. P. is merely a difference in writing styles. Tolkien wanted to have his audience be able to read his works in a way that didn't utterly confuse them. Rowling didn't.

And also, if Tolkien's works are so inferior to Hairy Potter, then why is it so much more popular and iconic than H. P.? Everything from how many Oscars their respective film adaptations were awarded (LOTR: 17 H. P.: 1) to overall popularity, it whips H. P. in just about everything.

So, here is my conclusion, based on the evidence: despite the fact that Rowling "put more effort" into H. P. than Tolkien did into LOTR (and that statement is rather dubious), LOTR still way outclasses Hairy Potter. Not only in content, but there is something about Tolkien's works that captures reader's hearts in a way that Rowling's could never quite achieve. Does that mean that Hairy Potter isn't popular? No. But LOTR is still the greater Classic, and I bet it still will be when the H. P. hype is long over.

Whether Tolkien or Rowling is better than the other is merely a matter of perspective and what part of fantasy story writing you put emphasis on. Rowling's plots are very complex, sometimes misguiding but in the end always fitting. Compare it a bit to a book about murder where a detective has to unmask the murderer. Quite often you are tempted to suspect the wrong person to be the murderer, but when the detective unmasks the murderer and you read the book again, it all makes sense. That is something LotR never does and HP does it all the time. In that perspective HP is better and that was something Rowling put more effort in. When world building is what you aim for, Tolkien is a big example in my own work as a fantasy writer. Tolkien was more driven to work out languages for several people, and their cultural and historical backgrounds than the story plots. He was rather famous for this way of working. LotR never made me wonder who was good or who was bad and if something odd was to be discovered. Only the way in which the one ring was destroyed was something I didn't see coming, although Gandalf did say that Bilbo's pity on him could shape the future for either the good or the bad, which was a kind of prediction that Gollum was the key factor in destroying the ring, and in the end he was. That does not mean I didn't enjoy LotR, don't get me wrong. I only have a bit of a knack for plots that really tease my brain. And HP has also many subplots that are just as surprising. I mentioned Snape before. At first just an awful man. When reading HP5 I thought I finally understood him, until he does something completely unexpected in HP6, however in HP7 when his role is revealed everything that didn't make sense suddenly makes sense. In HP7 it's also revealed that Dumbledore almost walked the path of evil until a horrible event redeemed him. This revelation also makes that you get to understand Dumbledore as a person a bit better, and why he did a few things he did, and also why he refused some things (like he always refused to be minister for magic). Does not mean that Tolkien is without character development. I liked to see how Pippin was a fool at first, but grows up when being a servant of Denethor, and eventually names his son after Faramir. In the my own family relations I often call myself Faramir, and yes that based on Faramir's relation with his father, and I'd like to keep it at that.
I don't think HP is a short lived hype. It's been around for too long.

Plus, the fact that something lives long and has more awards does not necessarily make something better. The prequel Star Wars trilogy got quite some raspberry nomination (prize for the worst achievements in film) and yet that trilogy still sells. And there are many things out there, books, music, movies, anything, that never got the recognition they deserved. Oscars are therefore not a truthful indicator of how good something is. Especially not when you take into account that some Oscars are given as I think the Oscars could lose credibility if they were not given to certain achievements, and of course due to the number of black winners being very small, controversy is also around them. I also wonder about "Blame Canada" which was nominated. If it won the song had to be sung in the show, however the lyrics contain the f-word and uttering that word on stage during the Oscars is forbidden. And I'm also not entire sure about the commercial interests and manipulation. I'd still be happy if I win an Oscar if I'd be working in a movie production, don't get me wrong, but still, I wonder.
Also many people have placed the name Harry Potter already in the list of "iconic protagonists" along with Frodo, the Pevensie family and Dorothy (and some more names). The "hype" image that hangs around Harry Potter is doing the franchise more harm than good. It is a rarity, but sometimes some good products are actually a hype. In Harry Potter's case it does cause people to deem the series bad before getting properly introduced to it. Rowling did many things in HP of which I even wonder if I can do that too... Of course, as a write I must do my own thing and not compare myself to others. A tip I always give artists in all sorts of art including the "written word".

Hi, I'm a writer too, and yeah, I'm younger and no I am not published (yet) but I've read what you've said here and I want to clear things up.
First off, I think you are thinking of the Morgenstern, not LotR when it comes to describing a flower next to the road. Tolkien had an amazing attention to detail and when it came to the world he built he succeeded exceedingly. It becomes understandable then when his descriptions are that in-depth.
H.P. has more plot than LotR? A lot of aspects of the plot were taken from the Lord of the Rings, actually, and while details and characters and his languages were practically mythological and lingual fanfics, Tolkien's plot was original and different. His narrative questions tackled what the world was trying to understand during WWI, which makes the plot even more interesting. If you are a writer, then you understand the chapter-by-chapter basis of building suspension. Does Tolkien spend time describing small details and including history? Yes, but that makes both the world and the story seem real. But does he continue to answer the questions while keeping the reader continuing to question what will happen next? He does, if you pay enough attention to the book. This was an intelligent and high level of writing, one that I am sad to say is not evident in Rowling's books, making them susceptible to be labeled as children's books.
And really, getting praise from one person, while it may be an achievement, does nothing for you if your book series is not all that is cut out to be. If an art teacher praised a student on a piece of work they did, and this work was very good, but it was not what the teacher instructed the student to do and took portions of other student's work as well, does that make it right for the teacher to praise the student? In my opinion, no, it does not.

Oh hey Jerry