ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Lord of the Rings vs Harry Potter

Updated on May 14, 2012

Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, which is more entertaining?

With Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows hitting the movie theaters later is 2010 there's no doubt that J K Rowling will go down as one of today's classic writers. Her books are very well written and with multi-million sales for each book, the series is perhaps the most read series of all time (aside from the Bible).

However, true fantasy fans will argue that while the Harry Potter series is fun and exciting, it really does not compare to the grandfather of them all: J R R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings is considered a classic by all literature experts; it is incredibly well written, featuring some amazing prose and poetry, as well as a writing style that makes Middle Earth simply jump out of the pages. Tolkien's world is far more detailed that the world of Harry Potter, and while it too draws on legends, it can be argued that the Lord of the Rings world is far more convincing and believable than Harry Potter's world.

This Lens explores some of the similarities and differences between the two series.

Do you prefer Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings? - (For Help, read my brief synopsis of each book below this question)

Which is the better book?

Harry Potter - what's not to like?

Harry Potter - what's not to like?

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • anonymous 4 years ago

      Harry Potter is crazy good, Lord of the Rings is alright, just not nearly as good as Harry Potter.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      harry potter s the best

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      I love both series, and it's so difficult to chose just one. I was born in the Harry Potter generation and clearly, with the Internet and modern technology, I learned of Harry Potter first, and read it first. Harry Potter is the classic of our time in fantasy. I learned a lot from it, laughed at Fred and George, cried when people died, could relate to the people in that wizarding world. It welcomed a wide audience of children to adults and has inspired many to write and has brought people from all over the world together. It has caused people to read again, even with all the computers and technology for entertainment.

      And afterwards, I chose to read Lord of the Rings. I could tell that it was the work of a master of fantasy. I could feel as if I was there in Middle-Earth with them, their fear and their excitement. The writing was amazing and the world is rich with detail. The languages, the war, and the history span more than what the Lord of the Rings could tell us. It was deeper and the Lord of the Rings in my opinion, was simply a window into another world. Tolkien has shaped fantasy forever and his work is clearly a fantasy classic.

      All in all, it's difficult to decide which work is best. On the contrary, I think the two series were both meant to be written and that one couldn't compare the two. I love them both and regard them as classics and it's a shame if one of these series were never written.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      HP forever!

    • Cassiecleo 5 years ago

      I know J.R.R Tolkien is a amazing writer, but I never really got into the lord of the rings stories. HP is definably my favourite.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      Harry Potter makes so much more money in the box office, and the books sell like twice as much. So, enough said.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      I love them both. I'm not an idiot - I do recognise that J.R.R Tolkien is a better writer... but then again, J.K. Rowling is an amazing writer in her own right. J.K. has inspired so many people to write themselves, gotten people to read when they'd never done so before, she's instilled beliefs and morals in people, she's taught us fans so much and given us so much to love...

      Whatever anyone says, I am a true fan of fantasy, and I love 'em both.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      I like harry potter (HP) better because for me it has more of that touch to the plot just it's a lot better and it describes the characters and for me HP has more action then LOTR so actually harry potter ftw and another reason why i choose harry potter is that the horcruxes i'm not sure if thats spelled right but the horcruxes or so much better then the rings of power whatever there called because i mean lets say someone get all the rings of power and destroys it and then the whole world is gone simple enough? but horcruxes like if someone kill a person with a horcruxe they have to kill all the persons horcruxes and then kill the person i mean it's so much better then just having a simple the world is gonna end if these rings or gone i mean like it's just like all other amazing books well not most but it's like theres a lot of books out there that have like the same kinda thing like if you destroy this whatever thing what it is then the world ends and everything gets destroyed and plus i just like harry potter better because the books are awesome and lord of the rings doesn't give me that feeling that it's better and that stuff

      and yes sry but i could keep this on forever so bibi

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      I loved both books but I'll have to say Harry Potter.

      I'm part of the Harry Potter generation so that does make me biased but still, I could relate to HP.

      1. Not all of them are perfect, like Hermione Granger, she might be all ugly and bucktoothed and she might be the 'Brightest Witch of Her Age' but her mind is closed. She makes mistakes too.

      2. It's fun. The twins, Fred and George Weasley, are like the Kings of Hogwarts or something. They're so freakin' hilarious that I laughed for hours when I read a few of their jokes.

      3. Harry Potter takes in my heart. It's heart warming and adventurous. Don't get me wrong, I love LOTR too but I love HP even more.

      4. People die. In the end, people die. And that's how it is in life. I cried so hard when I read Fred Weasley died. He's my freakin' crush! And in the words of wise old Dumbledore, "Death is but the next great adventure."

      5. And of course, LOVE conquers all. It's a bit cliche but I like it.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      harry potter.,,,

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      I prefer Harry Potter but I really really love Lord of the Rings as well and I understand that heaps of the stuff in Harry Potter seems like it has been copied from LOTR

    • Angela F 5 years ago from Seattle, WA

      While I enjoyed both, I'd have to say the Harry Potter series.

    • anonymous 5 years ago

      Harry Potter because the theme is love conquers and vanquishes all

    • anonymous 6 years ago

      1. I find it easier to relate to Harry's world.

      2.Tolkien is very conservative. Elves are superior, Men from the West are superior, you are mean and evil if you don't have a great hierarchy, Orcs are uniformly evil, whereas HP addresses discrimination of race, gender and champions the individual rather than his/her purity of blood.

      3.LotR characters are grand and epic, but HP characters are more familiar, approachable- endearing, lovable(the good ones) or people you want to tear off(evil ones like Bellatrix or Umbridge- I've never hated an orc so much as I've hated these people).

      4.LotR engages my brain, HP engages my heart. While I admire the world of LotR, HP just sucks me in.

      I posted comments in the other polls too, after several refreshing, they're still not showing up. I wonder why.

    • Tahamtan 6 years ago

      Hard comparison but I would say Harry Potter. I think it is more creative no offense to Tolkien :)

    • anonymous 7 years ago

      hp, always!

    • anonymous 7 years ago

      I think Harry Potter is the best movie in the world!!!

    • anonymous 7 years ago

      Harry Potter is better!!!

    • anonymous 7 years ago

      Harry Potter is so much better and about the battle of good and evil!! LOTR Is more about the search for things!

    • anonymous 7 years ago

      i like both but i mostly say HP but im gay so i love frodo harry ron and draco

    Lord of the Rings all the way baby!

      0 of 8192 characters used
      Post Comment

      • anonymous 2 years ago

        As for my opinion Lord of the Rings is the BEST!

      • anonymous 2 years ago

        Lord of the rings is awesome Harry potter is good 2 but does not beat LOTR

      • anonymous 3 years ago

        Lotr=creator of all modern fantasy

        Up=meh

      • anonymous 3 years ago

        HARRY POTTER is a very entertaining series and I have to say I was impressed by all the similarities between LOTR and HP. LOTR has much more depth behind it and Tolkien wrote the books with no intention to make money but to simplify his world for himself. He didn't even intend to sell the book at first. Rowling seemed like an "orange out of juice" at the end of Deathly Hallows and seemed like she wanted to wrap it up quite quickly. Tolkien pumped out the Silmirillian and the 3 Lost Tails books and the Hobbit and the Children of whatever and a bunch other books. Plus the LOTR movies are so much better than Harry Potter.

      • anonymous 3 years ago

        I have grown up in a harry potter crazy time with my sister and me loving the harry potter films and books thinking that it was the best things ever but then I watched The Lord of the rings and WOW it was soo well made and you could tell that it took a very long time to film winning 17 oscars it was amazing both me and my sis then started reading the books and this is my answer

        best book - LOTR ALL THE WAY

        Best film - LOTR ALL THE WAY

      • boa11kfh 4 years ago

        I first read the Fellowship of the Ring in Year 5 and it took me months to do so. It's brilliantly written and once you get into it is a very good read. However, I did find it quite hard going, aged 9. Lord of the Rings is ingenious in that it is set in its own world with a backstory, history, cultures and languages. However I do admire Harry Potter too, and I love its characters better than the LOTR ones.

      • anonymous 4 years ago

        Without Lord of the Rings there wouldn't be a Harry Potter, LOTR is the key to most if not all of any other fantasy book out there.I love Potter but LOTR is some place that I wish I could go visit more than anything. To see Middle Earth in all it's glory and grandure would be the greatest. You go through and feel with all the characters of LOTR, Potter can get kind of annoying at times being a winny teenager and everything. Someone should make an amusement park just to LOTR.

      • anonymous 4 years ago

        the lord of the rings

      • anonymous 4 years ago

        Lord of the Rings is far more awesome than Harry Potter. Its just super boss.

      • anonymous 4 years ago

        I know I shouldn't and have no right to, but I sometimes feel offended when I see Tolkien names, references and terms in Harry Potter because they should not be there. For example: Butterbur-Butterbeer, Bagshot Row-Bathilda Bagshot, Wormtongue-Wormtail, Longbottom Leaf-Neville Longbottom, Old Man Willow-Whomping Willow, Frodo's scar which hurts when Sauron speaks to him and makes him see flashbacks-Harry's scar,Galadriel's Mirror-Pensieve, etc. It just feels wrong; but then again, Tolkien borrowed some names from Norse mythology and Arthurian legend, so there's really no argument there...

      • anonymous 4 years ago

        @Daniel Have you even read LOTR, or at least watched the movie? What on earth are you talking about? There's no end of the world if the Rings of Power are destroyed. It's good if they are destroyed; The purpose of the quest is to kill Sauron by destroying the One Ring, which I feel Rowling "borrowed" in the case of Voldemort. The 19 other Rings were presented to powerful beings as gifts, only for them to be betrayed by Sauron, who made One Ring to Rule Them All, to try and control Middle-earth. So, long story short, they took of their rings, except for nine men, who fell into evil. So, since you have no idea what you're talking about and you can't even use punctuation marks or capitalization, your argument is invalid.

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        Lord of the Rings are more grown up than Harry Potter. And i think it have a better plot. But both series are very good.

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        I love Harry Potter, so much. More than I can even describe. But, Lord of the Rings is more exciting and adventurous. I never get bored! I do love HP and LOTR, but Lord of the Rings all the way baby!

      • JLemay 5 years ago

        I love both series, but the Lord of the Rings just has more of what I like. It has maps(which I love), it makes me want to find out more about Middle-Earth, not just the geography, but the people as well. Tolkien can mention a name and it doesn't feel like he is just throwing it in there. In Harry Potter, JKR throws in names as well, but it doesn't make me want to get to know that character more.

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        You have CLEARLY never met a hobbit.

        Such better company than you humans!

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        Definitely LOTR! The movies are better than HP books, which is pitiful. LOTR also has so many life lessons and creativity and also a religious sense. J.R.R. Tolkien will always win against J.R. Tolkien.

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        Lord of the Rings is much better. This book has left us lessons we can apply in our life. Harry Potter does not teach good morals. Tolkien is a better writer because he inspired a lot of people even until today. Harry Potter is full of black sorcery and witchcraft; it teaches you that it is ok just to kill people whenever you feel like it.

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        The Lord of the Rings is the greatest fantasy adventure of all time! No questions asked.

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        I have read both, and enjoyed both immensely. But if I were to go into all of the details of exactly why The Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter, I would have to write a book of my own. What you find most enjoyable is up for subjective opinion. Simply put, The Lord of the Rings is a classic literary work, Harry Potter, while enjoying vast commercial success, will never amount to anything more than a profitable formula fiction franchise and will never have any possibility of achieving classic status. There is a reason for this. In fact, there are mutliple reasons. The most obvious being that The Lord of the Rings is simply much better written. Tolkien is a literary genius, and while Rowling is not necessarily a terrible writer, even she will admit that she cannot hold a candle to Tolkien. Also, the richness and authenticity, he created a whole world and history to explain the origins of his many functional and self-created languages. He dedicated most of his life towards it. It was his passion and his primary goal was certainly not to make a quick buck. I must stop for now. I'll never stop. But those are the two big arguments.

      • anonymous 5 years ago

        harry potter uck . lord of the rings is way way way way way way way much better

      Simply put, Harry Potter is a story about the classic struggle between good and evil; the timeless battle the pervades human history.

      In this case, the good is Harry Potter, an orphaned boy who possesses magical abilities, but aside from that has a sense of honor, a feel for what is right and a dedication to his cause.

      Evil comes in the form of Voldemort, a sinister man who cares little for right and wrong, but sees the world as one in which those with power succeed.

      In some ways the two are alike, with similar backgrounds and a link that goes deeper than similarities. Their strange kinship ensures that they are destined to continually meet and battle throughout Harry's tenure at Hogwarts school.

      When we first meet Harry Potter living at his Uncle's house in a cupboard under the stairs, we do not yet realize what the future has in store for Harry. All we see is a weak and bullied young boy seeking for an escape from his horrifying world.

      When Hagrid, the half giant grounds-keeper of Hogwars school, rescues Harry, we begin to see a glimpse into the world that Harry now belongs.

      As Harry meets his friends, Hermione and Ron, and begins to forge a friendship that will help him achieve his goals, we realize that the foundations of success are being planted.

      As Harry embarks on small quests and adventures, and somehow succeeds where many would fail, against odds that seem insurmountable, we get a sense of destiny building. As Harry faces Voldermort for the first time, like a lamb waiting for slaughter, we cannot help but feel that there is something strong within Harry that will help him face his challenges.

      It is hard to give a full synopsis of Lord of the Rings without giving too much away. There are so many plots and sub plots that most readers will read the book several times.

      When Bilbo Baggins decides to retire he holds a huge birthday party. Reluctantly he gives his nephew, Frodo, his ring, which just happens to be the One Ring. This Ring was created by the Dark Lord Sauron and is the controlling ring over all other magical rings in the set.

      Frodo, being a stout hobbit, sets out on a quest to destroy the ring. Gandalf, a mighty wizard, has advised Frodo that the ring is very dangerous and must not fall into the Dark Lords hands. It seems that the only recourse is to destroy the ring. Pippin and Merry (Frodo's cousins) join him on the journey as does Sam (his faithful servant). Other members soon join the party ranging from a grouchy old Dwarf (Gimli), a mysterious elf (Legolas), a huge bear of a man (Boromir) and a mysterious human ranger (Aragorn).

      Leaving the shire they travel through Middle Earth. Travelling through forests, over land, under mountains and on water they encounter many creatures; some of these are allies some turn out to be enemies. Perhaps the most dangerous of these are the Nazgul, the Dark Lords servants; these hideous creatures were once great kings, now they only exist in a strange nether world. Their touch is enough to kill most men.

      As they continue their quest, great armies mobilize as several people vie for power. The once good wizard 'Saruman' has decided to recover the ring for himself and use the power for his own gain. Sauron, with his armies of orcs and goblins and his Nazgul servants is determined to win back his ring.

      Without giving too much of the plot away, the book tells the story of the party and the dangers they face. It is an exciting book, that does drag at times, but is well worth the effort of finishing. To get the best out of this book you will need to read it several times.

      There is no doubt that it is a literary classic; it is very well written, has some amazing poetry and has a depth of detail that is exceptional. Of the two books it perhaps creates the most believable world.

      Similarities between Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins:

      * They discover their destinies after a birthday: Harry after his own, Frodo after Bilbo's 111th birthday party.

      * Harry and Frodo are reluctant heroes: Harry has a hard time with the adulation of others, especially the press coverage. Frodo only steps up to take on the quest to destroy the one ring at Rivendell when the council cannot come to agreement.

      * Courage and honor is very important for both characters. Harry demonstrates both when saving Fleur's sister. Frodo refuses to blame Boromir for his troubles.

      * They are both orphans.

      * They both have a Dark Lord enemy.

      Difference between Frodo Baggins and Harry Potter:

      * Harry wears Glasses; Frodo doesn't.

      * Harry can cast magic; Frodo cannot.

      * Harry has a female companion as his close friend; Frodo only has a bunch of men, elves and dwarves as his closest companions.

      * Harry destroys his enemies; Frodo takes pity on his enemy.

      * Harry is destined to meet his adversary head-to-head; Frodo does not know whether he will ever meet his nemesis.

      * Harry is a great sportsman; Frodo does not play competitive sports.

      So who makes a better hero, Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins?

      Harry is steadfast and determined and won't let anything stand in his way; he values his friend's opinion, but usually goes with his own ideas. He is a rule breaker, and often uses this 'skill' to achieve his goals. While he does have pity for some of his enemies, he doesn't let this get in the way of destroying or defeating them.

      Frodo is courageous and also determined. His honor and his ability to respect and pity his enemies can be seen as a weakness, but perhaps are a profound strength. He pursues his goals, allowing his friends to help, even when despair takes over. He is a valiant warrior, defying the odds many times. He is clever and cunning, and unusually for a Hobbit, doesn't covet riches, merely wanting a quiet life.

      In my opinion Frodo is the better Hero if only for his compassion shown to Gollum.

      Do you think Harry or Frodo deserve the accolade of best hero?

      Harry - he's a poor little orphan boy.

      Harry - he's a poor little orphan boy.

        0 of 8192 characters used
        Post Comment

        • anonymous 4 years ago

          i chose LOTR for best book but srry...the heroe goes to harry...he did not fail at the end whatever the cost and how hard it was for him...but frodo...to bad he failed bu that is thee good thing about LOTR.not everything can turn out to be pink for the heroe...tnx to smeagul he made it

        • Cassiecleo 5 years ago

          Harry is heaps better. Oh, and he dosn't destroy his enemies, I don't think he ever killed anyone. Voldemort actually killed himself at the end - it rebounded off Harry.

        • anonymous 6 years ago

          LotR and Harry Potter are completely different genres- one has an old Anglo-Saxon setting, another is set in the contemporary world, one is epic, the other is urban fantasy- because of its time- LoTR is a lot more conservative in its depiction of society (Tolkien is brilliant & everything, but the whole 'elves are superior, numenors are superior, hobbits are patronized' lines a re a little racist) while HP takes on a lot of contemporary issues such as slavery, racism, gender, various modes of discrimination- in many ways it is a comment upon contemporary society. Because of the change in scale- HP is a lot more approachable in terms of depiction of family relationships and friendships. While I like LotR a lot- I've never been much attracted to Frodo as a character- I find the antics of Merry and Pippin, the arguments between Legolas and Gimli, scenes with Aragorn more interesting. As a character, I feel Frodo Baggins is very very unidimenesional while I find Harry Potter far easier to relate too.

          "In my opinion Frodo is the better Hero if only for his compassion shown to Gollum." - Frodo's compassion towards Gollum is certainly admirable, but Harry stops Sirius and Remus from killing Wormtail and later on he tries to save his life again but fails. Harry also saves Draco Malfoy from being burnt alive risking his own life. He even gives Voldemort the chance to show remorse and retaliates only when the latter is about to kill him. Frodo on the other hand encounters only Gollum, he is never actively in the war as Harry is. Harry suffers, he makes mistakes, he has his doubts and frustrations, he loses control and yet ultimately never gives up. Not saying Frodo ever gives up, but Harry comes across as more real.

          Finally, if you really want to compare something with LotR, I suggest you choose Eragon. Paolini literally lifts Tolkien's world and puts in some dragons and jedi warriors into it.

        • anonymous 7 years ago

          okay, I gotta say i'm a total hard-core LORT fan, i mean read my rant on the last page, but Frodo SUCKS. Like seriously, I hate him. He is boring and totally useless and they should've sent Legolas instead (i know the Ring would totally mind-rape him, but still he's cooler). Harry is a better hero, but LOTR is the better book.

        • anonymous 7 years ago

          harry potter, durh!

        • anonymous 7 years ago

          i love hp over lotr, but lotr felt more dire to me, like the evil was more pressing and sincere. in hp, it felt that the evil was only in europe, while lotr it is the entire world and there are constant battles and deaths. but when reading hp i just feel comfortable and warm. jk rowling writes amazingly and harry himself seemed more like a hero then frodo becasue a true hero doesn't let anything get in his way. not saying frodo is weak or anything, but idk, hp is just better for me. its sad, happy, warm, dark and epic.

        • anonymous 7 years ago

          Harry Potter is waayy better because he can actually cast magic. He has very close friends and he sometimes listens to them. he also has many adventurous adventures through all of the books.

        • anonymous 7 years ago

          Harry Potter is better than Frodo!

        • anonymous 7 years ago

          Harry is way better than Frodo.

        • anonymous 7 years ago

          HARRY! HARRY! HARRY! HARRY!

        • anonymous 7 years ago

          harry

        Frodo - how many other heroes have hairy feet?

          0 of 8192 characters used
          Post Comment

          • anonymous 3 years ago

            Come on harry ok he needed to kill the dark lord but frodo is the best here LOTR ALL THE WAY

          • anonymous 4 years ago

            harry is more powerful, but frodo had to carry the Ring almost all the way from Hobbiton to Mordor walking, fighting whith orcs adn trying to resist the rings evil influence

          • anonymous 5 years ago

            Frodo is a humble and amazing hobbit. He love his friends, and he want to help those who are weaker than them. He do not want to take the task, because he know that he wont survive it (but he does, thanks to Sam). Frodo have humor too, Harry doesn't in the movies...

          • anonymous 5 years ago

            I am a huge HP fan, i've been reading it since a child and i am 22 now, it's part of my teenage years and i adore it! But lately i came into terms of doubting some things about HP! As much as i adore Harry and as much as i cried when he willingly sacrifisied his life, i have to admit that Frodo suffered a lot more than Harry. I am really sad for saying that but it's true. And the reasons are:

            1 Voldemort killed Harry's parents, taking away all sense of family from him and his death eaters killed Sirius, Harry's only link to his parents. Harry is far more involved to the story than Frodo, Voldemort influenced Harry in a way that no matter if there wasn't any profecy Harry would want to take revenge! There was no way out for him, he was too involved in the story.

            But Frodo didn't have to carry the ring and destoy it, it wasn't his burden, he willingly choose it and this is far more difficult and heroic thing to do

            2 Harry has to face lots of deaths, his godfathers, his favorite 'pet's dobby's, his mentor dumbledore's, his friends (fred) etc etc but most of the time Harry was a teenage that had teenage problems i mean in his sixth year after Sirius death we don't see a highly devestated Harry, it wasn't like his world ended and he didn't find any reason to live, he went back to school and played quidditch and cared for a freaking game!!! he snuggled ginny, he was obsessed with draco, he spent the whole year obsessing with draco than mourning for sirius and wanting to take revenge for his death.(he had to want to take action, to want to punish his enemies, to fight than obsessing with malfoy)

            also at the end harry marries ginny and has a family and friends surrounding him, but Frodo as Kel said was so broken, that were was no way back for him, he was broken inside him, damaged and he never recovered! which makes him suffer a lot more!

            3 Harry is compassionate, cause he saved Draco's life and he forgave Snape, he also saved wormtails life but Frodo believed in the Gollum and it was a far more evil and dangerous enemy than Draco. Draco Malfoy was a prat that believed in his family's purity but he wasn't the biggest enemy of harry, he was just the bully of hogwarts, Also Harry forgave Snape because he saw that he always loved his mother and did everything to protect him, i don't think that he would name his children or forgive snape if he didn't know that. And for me it's awesome that he says to voldemort that he gives him the chance to feel some remorse for his actions, but Harry ALREADY knew that he was the master of the deathly hallows, he knew that he would win, it's not like he knew that he wouldn't win but still he mercied Voldemort. He didn't mercy voldemort, ever, even when he learnt for his terrible past.

            One thing i just need to note about Harry and Frodo, is that even though Frodo always had to 'fight' the tempation of the ring and his inner demons and stay always good no matter how much evil surrounded him, AT THE END, he decided to put on the ring than destroy it, but Harry didn't want the power of the elder wand or the deathly hallows, he didn't want to keep it for himself.

            of course this shows that even frodo is human and has flows, same way the cruciatus spell harry used showed his humanity and that he is not perfect

          • anonymous 5 years ago

            Frodo. I have read both, and have watched both. I have actually given this a lot of thought. When I was younger, I probably would have said Harry. And for the record, no one should be making an argument if they havenât read both Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings.

            Look, both are heroes, but to me, Harry is a bit too perfect and is more of the typical clichéd, heroic protagonist, whereas Frodo has a quiet inner strength that I think speaks louder volumes. He is simply a hobbit, not the âChosen Oneâ or âThe-Boy-Who-Livedâ. I have five main reasons (in no particular order) why I believe Frodo is the better hero.

            1. Difficulty of the task:

            Both are underdogs, and both receive help, but Frodo has the bigger disadvantage by far. Harry is only a teenager, true, but he can use magic and I feel that he is more of a piece in Dumbledoreâs plan than anything. Voldemort has his Death Eaters and dementors and other evil creatures at his service. Sauron has thousands of orcs, the Nazgul, and many other evil servants. Sauron is much more powerful than Voldemort and his presence is all-encompassing, pervading most of Middle Earth. Voldemort is a highly-skilled wizard, and is hard to kill because of his Horcruxes, but Sauron isnât even human, heâs a sort of demi-god. Harry is mostly safe inside Hogwarts and can decide if and when he meets Voldemort for the most part. Frodo journeys straight into Mordor with only Sam, who is courageous but not terribly powerful, by his side for most of the way. And Frodo alone bears the all-corruptible ring of power. He is more isolated and alone than Harry, although both receive help. Again, I believe Harry is more of a pawn whereas Frodoâs struggle with the ring is his alone. The odds against Frodo were substantially higher. And Harry is on a more level playing field with Voldemort than is Frodo against Sauron and his servants. Sauron a much more formidable opponent than Voldemort, and all of Middle-Earth depends on Frodo, whilst it is the British Wizarding world which depends on Harry. Harryâs task is to find the horcruxes and destroy them and defeat Voldemort. Frodo must dissect his way through Mordor and destroy the ring. Heâs more in the line of fire and facing the danger directly than is Harry. Starving, thirsting, and with the ring eating away at his very core, he must navigate a way over many miles on foot to do what most believe is an impossibility. Frodo is merely a hobbit, there is nothing significant or seemingly special or extraordinary about hobbits; they are diminutive, plain creatures with no exceptional assets other than eating, relaxing, and gardening. Frodo does not believe he will complete his task, while Harry faces less doubt than Frodo.

            2. Size of the burden:

            Frodo endures much more than Harry does. Yes, Harry parents were killed when he was a baby (Frodo, I should note, is an orphan as well although he has a loving uncle unlike Harry, but Harry has plenty of people who love and care for him), but the struggles and trials of Frodo are more difficult, in my opinion. Harry's struggle is quite simply, to survive. He goes to his death which I think is very selfless and heroic. But he doesn't have to deal with his inner self in the same way that Frodo did. Frodo is constantly being tempted by the ring; Harry never really faces temptation. Facing oneâs inner demons and enduring suffering and pain is something that I think constitutes the true stuff of heroes. Itâs not who is physically stronger than the other, it is about the strength of character within. Frodo faces the temptation of the ring every day. As for Harry, I believe he is a bit too unaffected by the deaths that take place around him. I think it would be more becoming if he suffered knowing many were dying, and felt he should be doing more to stop it, as itâs supposedly his destiny. He doesnât have to overcome darkness in the same way that Frodo does. Frodo struggled to remain good amongst so much evil, while Harryâs alienation consisted of the media deeming he was crazy and occasionally seeing through the eyes of Voldemort. Frodo is forced to confront his character deep down to discover what type of person he is in a way that Harry is not.

            3. Sacrifice:

            You could argue that Harry made the ultimate sacrifice by giving up his life. And he certainly does, but I would still argue that Frodo made larger sacrifices than Harry. Harry is already invested in the defeat of Voldemort, as he was the wizard who killed his parents. But Harry doesnât really have a choice, as Voldemortâs main aim is to kill him. The prophecy may not force Harry to confront his foe, but Voldemort has affected his life in such a profound way, he would have to be made of stone to not want to take action against Voldemort. His options are either to fight or flee. Harry does make a huge sacrifice, it is very admirable, but for the majority of the time, he has no idea what is going on around him. Frodo, on the other hand, is fully aware that he will mostly likely not live to see the task through, and almost certainly not after that. He leaves his life in the Shire behind, knowing that he will in all likelihood never return again. He forsakes the simple and undisturbed life of a hobbit â there was no obligation for him to continue beyond Rivendell, but the council failed to come to a decision, so he made it for them. Indeed, no one expected him to take on such a monumental task, but he did anyways. He knows that the quest on which he volunteered will claim his life, and yet goes on the journey to Mordor despite that knowledge. It is Middle-Earthsâ last hope, and a foolâs hope (as Gandalf would say) at that. For the most part, Harry was not faced with difficult choices as Frodo was, he mostly went along with everything until the very end. Again, I donât want to undermine what Harry did, but it comes back to the suffering factor â what it cost the heroes to complete their task. Frodo suffered much more than Harry. Harry came away happy mostly unscathed and was able to live the remainder of his life relatively care-free, marrying Ginny and having a family. Frodo was more like the soldier returning home from war. Nothing was ever the same for him, he couldnât go back to his old life, and he lost his innocence. His days as a happy-go-lucky hobbit were over, he had seen and experienced far too much. Both of them lost friends along the way, but Frodo had to battle his inner demons and was permanently scarred by the fight. In the end, he did sacrifice his life in a way. There was no going back for him, and he was forever haunted by his struggles â even his wound from Weathertop never healed. He experienced horror and terror in a much more profound manner than Harry, it never left him, and that was ultimately why he departed for the Grey Havens. He received no fairytale ending as Harry did.

            4. Compassion:

            Both heroes were immensely compassionate. Harry saved Draco and Wormtail, but Frodo demonstrated far more empathy for his enemies, whereas Harry mostly hated them. For example, I think Frodo would have been quicker to forgive Kreacher. Frodoâs pity for Gollum was instrumental to the story. He also refused to blame Boromir for his problems. Introspectively, I donât think Harry would have shown Gollum the same mercy, and when Harry used the Cruciatus curse, while I think it does a great job of showing that Harry is in fact flawed, Frodo would never have done so. While I think many people might perceive this compassion as a weakness, I think it demonstrates a resolute and fierce humanity in Frodo.

            5. Courage

            Both are immensely courageous. But Harry is almost fearless, and sometimes reckless. In contrast, Frodo is terrified. I assert that courage is not necessarily being void of fear, but overcoming your fears and taking action with that fear in your heart, and finding it within yourself to face those fears. Frodo is against insurmountable odds, he is nothing but a little hobbit, and he pits himself against the powers of Mordor in order to do whatâs right. Frodo could have turned back at any point on his journey, but did not. It took a lot of courage for Harry to die, but Frodo face

          • anonymous 5 years ago

            Frodo Baggins son of Drogo. His compassion for Gollum shows that one doesn't have to be big and strong to be a hero, way deeper than Harry. Frodo reluctantly steps up to a huge task that even Glorfindel wouldn't do, and, although he doesn't succeed, (you heard me right, Tolkien says it was a failure a strength and will.), he does something no one thought he could.

          • anonymous 5 years ago

            lol agree with bob

            and frodo is burdened by the ring and was sent to the task without practise or protection (abit in the first film) harry had soo long to get help, friends, advice and more and by the 7th book he still needed help. frodo didnt have any protection..yh maybe a cipule of friens and some war but he wasnt prepaed and didnt have magic and didnt have an enemy right next to him the whole time he wasnt perfect like harry. frodo didnt get a girl he isnt perfect...but still managed to save an entire earth

          • anonymous 6 years ago

            Frodo is amazing he's wayyy better than harry! he's wayyy more goodlooking to haha

          • anonymous 6 years ago

            Frodo and Lord of the Rings defeat Harry Potter hands down. First off the author of Harry Potter is not a genius just an idea stealer. For example, Wormtongue Snape, Nazgul, Dementors, Gandalf, Dumbledor. Not to mention many others. Harry Potter is a jerk whereas Frodo is a caring person. Frodo also shows strength of mind being the only one able to resist the ring for long enough to make it to Mount Doom. He also cared for Gollum. I am not saying I don't like the Harry Potter books. It's just that I find them kinda twisted and copycats of Lord of the Rings.

          • anonymous 6 years ago

            frodo baggins

          • moonlitta 6 years ago

            As a real hero Frodo has his moments of doubt but this doesn't stop him...:)

          • anonymous 6 years ago

            frodo is the best...

          • anonymous 7 years ago

            Frodo. He's a more layered character and he's not as much of a whiny bitch as Harry is.

          • anonymous 7 years ago

            Hmm. I would have to say Frodo. While Harry may be all powerful and gifted and stuff, I just have so much more respect for the person who is nothing special, is thought of as a lunatic, and still drives his will till he nearly dies.

            So Frodo owns Harry. He's much more interesting

          • anonymous 7 years ago

            Frodo!!! He's more interesting and is more complex then Harry. Harry Potter is cliched.

          • anonymous 7 years ago

            Lord of the Rings is much richer and much more in depth than HP. Rowling is good, but Tolkien is simply better. And I feel Frodo is a more interesting character than Harry.

          • anonymous 7 years ago

            frodo to the top, although they both have no personality

          • anonymous 7 years ago

            Frodo of course

          • anonymous 7 years ago

            Frodo

          Similarities between Gandalf and Dumbledore:

          * They both are meddlesome: Gandalf 'persuades' Bilbo to help the Dwarves; Dumbledore 'guides' Harry through his life.

          * Both are courageous often putting themselves in danger before anyone else.

          * They both fight fearsome monsters: Gandalf has a huge battle with a Balrog, Dumbleodre battles Voldemort himself.

          * They both are unmarried

          * They both have long beards and wear robes.

          Differences between Gandalf and Dumbledore:

          * Gandalf fights with sword and magic; Dumbledore fights with magic only.

          * Dumbledore directly faces The Dark Lord Voldemort in a duel; Gandalf does not meet Sauron.

          * Dumbledore has a brother; Gandalf does not

          * Dumbledore seems more compassionate, while Gandalf is a little more aloof.

          * Dumbledore has the ability to become a ghost once he dies; Gandalf does not.

          * Gandalf rides horses (Shadowfax) into battle; Dumbledore doesn't ride horses.

          So who is the better wizard, Gandalf or Dumbledore?

          Gandalf is a more hands-on kind of wizard. He is constantly in the thick of battle, killing orcs and goblins, while casting fireballs at huge trolls. This hands-on approach isn't limited to battle, as he is the leader of the fellowship and has a great influence on events in the world of Middle Earth.

          Dumbledore is more of a background figure who guides with subtle hints and suggestions but lets Harry Potter make his own decisions. While he does get his hands dirty at times, he is more of a passive wizard.

          For me, Gandalf is the be-all and end-all of wizards. He comes out all wands blazing and that is what I expect to see in my wizard!

          Is Gandalf meaner than Dumbledore?

          Gandalf - he changes color!

          Gandalf - he changes color!

            0 of 8192 characters used
            Post Comment

            • anonymous 3 years ago

              GANDALF ALL THE WAY

            • anonymous 4 years ago

              Dumbledore derives from Gandlaf

            • anonymous 4 years ago

              Dumbledore dies like a fool. Gandalf dies heroically like all LOTR protatagonists

            • anonymous 4 years ago

              Gandalf, of course. He came first. "Death is just another path" or any variation of it was a Gandalf line before it was a Dumbledore line. The book description of Dumbledore as an old man with a lengthy silvery beard, a pointy cap, long robes is far too close to Gandalf for me

            • anonymous 4 years ago

              Well, those who say that Gandalf isn't a good role model and such clearly have not read the books; maybe you've only seen the movies. Gandalf sternly warned Frodo to think before acting, and to spare Gollum's life. Gandalf died to save his friends, and, indirectly, that act of falling with the Balrog saved Middle-earth by keeping the Ring safe from servants of the Enemy. And most likely some of those who say "if you ready Harry Potter you'll see it's much better", probably have not read Lord of the Rings or any work of Tolkien; I'm not being biased, I'm just saying this because if that's the entirety of your statement, then your argument isn't really valid...

            • anonymous 5 years ago

              Gandalf fight with a sword, and he kills the balrog. Nuff' said.

            • anonymous 5 years ago

              Gandalf far surpasses Dumbledore in strenghth and wisdom. Dumbeldore may be nicer, but Gandalf is definitely the better "wizard".

            • anonymous 6 years ago

              Gandalf comes back to life, changes colour, is the ultimate wizard, AND is the original. Dumbledore is a copy. I have read Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter sucks.

            • anonymous 6 years ago

              who says gandalf but i agreed because gandalf became more powerful when he resurrected while dumbledore can't because he's a human

            • anonymous 6 years ago

              Gandalf is an angel! He is imortal! Dumbledore is just a human! He is a good wizard but he will die because of his age!

            • anonymous 6 years ago

              Gandalf. Dumbledore told Harry to kill Voldie 'cause he was 2 lazy. Gandalf took matters into his own hands, killed the Balrog, and was reformed into Gandalf the White. Also without magic, Dumbledore is a loaf. Dumbledore's parents are also loafs (with or without magic). Gandalf's dad is a GOD.

              I love seeing the Dumbldore lovers who think up nerdy explanations to support him. I give credit to you guys. You know Gandalf is an awsome demi-god and Dumbledore's an oaf, but you still support Dumbledore. So keep fighting. You know the truth anyways.

            • anonymous 7 years ago

              Gandalf, also known as Mithrandir, is a Maia. He is a Demi God. He doesn't even NEED magic to kick ass. He has lived for thousands of years and is far greater in wisdom and strength.

              Dumbledore would grovel at Gandalf's feet.

            • anonymous 7 years ago

              Gandalf all the way. Dumbledore is a total rip-off of Gandalf.

            • anonymous 7 years ago

              Also, Gandalf's magick is always there, just not visible. He wove his entire plot for the war in front of Minas Tirith by using his magick to influence the right people and make them do what he want. And if you people were EDUCATED, you would know that Gandalf is forbidden, as are the rest of his order, from using his powers directly against Sauron. also, he killed the balrog. He has a lightning sword. His magic beats dumbledore. OOH, LOOK, MY PET BIRD BURNS ITSELF TO DEATH EVERY FEW DAYS. I'M SUCH A BAMF.

            • anonymous 7 years ago

              Gandalf would totally crush Dumbledore. A) dumbledore's name is ripped off of Tom Bombadil's song, B) Gandalf is a demigod. There is no comparison. Dumbledore is like "i'm bout 2 die so that this BITCH CHILD can keep his soul!" RLY?! Gandalf. No contest. Plus Gandalf, logic aside, is a way cooler character. Dumbledore has a phoenix (UNORIGINAL), but Gandalf has the king of all horses and is a way more interesting character. I mean Dumbledore is socially awkward and therefore amusing to laugh at, but Gandalf?? FOOL OF A TOOK.

            • anonymous 7 years ago

              There's no competition! Gandalf is much cooler, he actually does stuff unlike dumbledore.

            • anonymous 7 years ago

              don't talk to me about gandalf, dumbledore copped his shit

            • anonymous 7 years ago

              gandalf is meaner than dumbledore

            Dumbledore - he's like my Grandad with a wand!

              0 of 8192 characters used
              Post Comment

              • Cassiecleo 5 years ago

                Dumbledore! He's awesome!

              • anonymous 6 years ago

                For those who are saying Gandalf is better just because he is a maia - please remember, Potterverse is a secular world with a contemporary setting and not Paradise Lost Retold(Lucifer=Melkor) with Germanic heroes thrown in. I don't have a problem with Tolkien writing his own mythology- in fact, i marvel at his imagination, but this kind of logic really irritates me. If you say Dumbledore & his parents are "oafs/loafs" (somebody actuallwhatever for being human, you need to re-think your opinions about yourselves. Or are you not human?

                Someone else said Dumbledore was lazy because he made Harry kill Voldemort instead of doing it himself, well- Harry is supposed to be the one to kill Voldemort, he is the chosen one to kill Voldemort- that is the story. Dumbledore found out the way to destroy Voldemort, he defeated Grindelwald and well, neither Harry nor Dumbledore kill if they can help it because HP is not set in a heroic society where killing can be glorified.

                So yes, Gandalf is amazing, but Dumbledore is cooler for me.

                Tolkien has amazing imagination and craftsmanship, but Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have a fundamental difference. LotR gives a lot of emphasis on family lines, purity of blood, aristocratic descent and all that. HP glorifies who the individual is on his/her own irrespective of birth. Which is a why a person from a non-magic family can become a great wizard/witch. And I love Rowling for that.

                Let's just say, the characters from LotR are more epic and grand, but the characters from HP are a lot more lovable. I've read and re-read all HP books, LotR, Silmarilion and I feel emotionally attached to Harry the way I've never felt to Frodo or Aragorn.

              • anonymous 6 years ago

                Dumbledore is not passive, he fights Grindelwald, he fights Voldemort, he imprisons several deatheaters with one flick of the wand, he fights of a lake full of inferi even when he is weakened and nearly dying, he is the head of the Order of the Phoenix, he wears rich embroidered robes and has a deluminator to put out lights, he is the best headmaster there can be, he has a sense of humour, he likes sherbet lemons, do I go on?-"he's got style"!

                And why should he ride a horse when he can apparate, has a carriage of flying thestrals at his disposal and a freaking phoenix as his pet?

                Not saying I don't like Gandalf, I do- but Dumbldore's more entertaining.

              • anonymous 6 years ago

                READ THE BOOK AND YOU WILL SEE HARRY POTTER IS MUCH BETTER

              • anonymous 6 years ago

                Has this guy even read all the books? Dumbeledore fights with a sword, he is NOT a backgroud character and his morals and values?SIMPLY GREAT! HE is the kind of rolemodel we want- not some fighting,violent Gandlf

              • anonymous 7 years ago

                dumbledore. there is no question. he is awesome. he is powerful. he's queer, he's here (well he's dead but . . .) deal with it. jk. but old bumblebee is just awesome. gandalf is cool, but not really that magical for a wizard. ooh, i got a cool glowing stone of my staff, fear me. no. its the headmaster all the way.

              • anonymous 7 years ago

                dumbledore is the greatest wizard. you can never change that

              • anonymous 7 years ago

                Gandalf is super meaner than Dumbledore!

              • anonymous 7 years ago

                Gandalf is meaner than Dumbledore.

              • anonymous 7 years ago

                the tow

              Similarities between Lord Voldemort and Sauron:

              *They both want world domination.

              * They both are very powerful wizards.

              * They both have no respect for life and kill without remorse or regret.

              * The both hold the world to ransom; Voldemort terrorizes the world with his Deatheaters; Sauron invades middle earth with his bands of Orcs, Goblins, Trolls and Ogres.

              * They are both evil incarnate.



              Differences between Voldemort and Sauron:

              * Voldemort has a body (most of the time); Sauron lost his body and is a floating evil eye.

              * Sauron is restricted to his castle Mordor; Voldemort can go anywhere.

              * Voldemort's uses wizards (Deatheaters) to control the world; Sauron relies on huge armies. (Although the Nazgul have some impact)

              * Voldemort can and does talk to his enemies; Sauron barely talks, simply using his power to search for Frodo and control his minions.

              * Voldemort has split his soul; Sauron has not (if he has a soul at all!).

              * Voldemort has only on real enemy: Harry Potter. Sauron not only has the Fellowship of the Ring to content with, but also has Saruman to fight.

              Between Lord Voldemort and Sauron, who makes a 'worse' Dark Lord?

              Voldemort is a powerful wizard who uses supreme skills and terror to dominate his underlings, and dominate the world. His evil is pure and he is more concerned with power than with human suffering. The fact he is human means that he does understand the pain and suffering he causes and this enhances his power as he seemingly enjoys the devastation he causes.

              Sauron is far more aloof; he has similar goals to Voldemort, but he seems to merely be interested in total power; while he causes suffering he doesn't really seem to understand it in human terms, but merely uses it as a goal to achieve the total domination he requires.

              For me Voldemort is the 'worse' Dark Lord as he understands all the terrible implications of his actions, and this understanding somehow makes it worse.

              OK so they are both dark, and both Lords - which one is more scary?

              Sauron - he's only an eye and is pure evil!

              Sauron - he's only an eye and is pure evil!

                0 of 8192 characters used
                Post Comment

                • anonymous 3 years ago

                  IF U WANT TO KNOW EVIL IT SAURON ALL THE WAY

                • anonymous 4 years ago

                  pure evil?....nuff said...sauron WINS...voldy is good and evill...but he doesnt give me the chills like sauron an his ringwraiths do...but i like HP to and LOTR

                • anonymous 6 years ago

                  Come on it's an eye who only survives because of a ring and can see all. How much cooler can u get. Sauron is also the commander of an amazing army. Moldy Voldy commands a bunch of wimps (not to mention he's a wimp.)

                • musicgurl333 6 years ago

                  Sauron is pure evil...definitely more scary.

                • anonymous 7 years ago

                  I think most HP fans don't even know that Sauron is a Demi-God. He could rip Voldemort's little ass out.

                • anonymous 7 years ago

                  Sauron- much more evil. The only person Voldemort frighten is 3 year old kids.

                • anonymous 7 years ago

                  Okay, I know most of you are ignorant (even you LOTR fans), but Sauron is a god. He is a BAMF and Morgoth's right-hand man. Voldemort is a rude spoiled bitch child who never grew up. Sauron bred an army of demon-warriors and broke the minds of the most powerful people in his world. Voldemort shoots green lasers. Also, he's a giant eye that controls a volcano and is the most powerful force of sorcery in all of Middle Earth (MIDDLE EARTH, not the entire LOTR universe... Manwe is still out there).

                • anonymous 7 years ago

                  The whole idea of Sauron giving half of his essence to the Ring makes him a much more complex character.

                • anonymous 7 years ago

                  voldemort's more kid-friendly

                • anonymous 7 years ago

                  Duh Sauron he has the nazgul with him..

                • anonymous 7 years ago

                  Sauron's much creepier than Voldemort...

                • anonymous 7 years ago

                  sauron is more scary

                Voldemort - that's a no brainer!

                  0 of 8192 characters used
                  Post Comment

                  • Cassiecleo 5 years ago

                    Voldemort - he split his soul into seven! And he's the most powerful wizerd ever.

                  • anonymous 6 years ago

                    Voldemort is not a fallen angel's right-hand man(I am a HP fan and I happen to know that Sauron is Melkor/morgoth's servant). Voldemort is human, therefore we can understand his psychology and hate him for that. We see Voldemort in action, we actually know how bad he can get, unlike Sauron. We see his orcs, we see his riders, we see his men, but never Sauron himself.

                  • anonymous 7 years ago

                    old moldy voldy of course. the dude is a creep and is hecka scary. he kills for domination and though he was destroyed he managed to come back, while sauron is just a floating eye. i love lotr, but hp will always be the best books in the world.

                  • anonymous 7 years ago

                    Everybody would be scared to fight voldemort. he can kill you and sauron is just a stupid eye that just stays in one place

                  • anonymous 7 years ago

                    Voldemort is scarier than Sauron!

                  • anonymous 7 years ago

                    VOLDERMORT IS WAY SCARIER THAN SAURON!!!

                  • anonymous 7 years ago

                    VOLDY WILL NEVER GO MOLDY

                  Who's your favorite Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings character?

                  See results

                  What do you think about this Duel? Love it? Hate it? let me know!

                    0 of 8192 characters used
                    Post Comment

                    • profile image

                      anonymous 4 years ago

                      I've never read the books; only watched the film adaptations. So if I had to choose, I would say Happy Potter because there was always good food on the table in abundance. :)

                    • HarrietC LM profile image

                      HarrietC LM 4 years ago

                      nice lens, but sorry, I'm not going to choose (you can't make me!!! ^_^) - I love both books.

                    • pinkrenegade lm profile image

                      pinkrenegade lm 5 years ago

                      I can't choose which one is better, both are great movies.

                    • lasertek lm profile image

                      lasertek lm 5 years ago

                      Love this duel. You definitely site many similarities and differences in the plot and characters.

                    • SheGetsCreative profile image

                      Angela F 5 years ago from Seattle, WA

                      Well done - interesting comparisons.

                    • profile image

                      LasgalenArts 6 years ago

                      I think you can't compare the two. Tolkien wrote his work creating original languages, creation myths challenging ideas of morality and ethics, races of people with their own histories, detailed geographical areas and more for over 60+ years.

                      J.K. Rowling created a well crafted modern wizardly world with a simple story of good vs. evil. They both have their merits and serve the reader well in their own way.

                      I enjoyed the lens though. Well done.

                    • profile image

                      anonymous 7 years ago

                      lotr rocks, but hp is simply better all around. its just good. i loved the duel, it was awesome. thanks for posting it.

                    • profile image

                      anonymous 7 years ago

                      lotr rocks, but hp is simply better all around. its just good. i loved the duel, it was awesome. thanks for posting it.

                    • profile image

                      anonymous 7 years ago

                      both are good books... i've read them personally... i guess the thing is the HARRY POTTER series caters to all age groups.... even young kids can read and understand them... as for the LORD OF THE RINGS series very much caters to adults.. the complexity of the writings as well as the wordings... well, its just an opinion.... still both are GOOD books...

                    • profile image

                      anonymous 7 years ago

                      loved it.

                      and by the way, LotR is the best.

                      Harry potter doesn't even compare.

                    • religions7 profile image

                      religions7 7 years ago

                      :) another great lens. Blessed.

                    Click to Rate This Article