Category: book Nook
I love all books, but Lord Of The Rings Kicks all their asses.
by "their" do you mean Tolkien's or just a lot of books you've read? I have to agree with you though! I just finished Return of the King so I'm ready for the big day 9 days away! Gandalf rules!
Harry Potter is better!!
can't get through them the legnth or sometin
lord of the rings kicks harry potter's ass. although i do love harry potter books, they're just not as good as lord of the rings.
I don't happen to agree with that last post. I'm still trying to think in my head which is better out of Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings, but I think Lord of The Rings comes a close second with me. Though the Lord Of The Rings is good, it has a lot of sadness, loads and loads of battles and fights and Middle Earth's almost taken over by the baddies, the orcs, pirates, balrogs Etc Etc while the goodies are left treading extremely carefully anywhere they go, for fear of provoking one of the baddies and getting killed off in a really horrible way. The films were pretty good, but I thought the end of ROTK was a bit too visual for the storyline of the book and there was too much music and other noise to make out what was actually happening on top of Mount Doom and then back in The Shire, and throughout all the films, every other scene's either a pub brawl, a party or a raging battle, which is not following the book at all. I have both the 38 tape version, the 13 tape dramatisation and also, an unabridged version of The Hobbit, as well as all three films on video and DVD. The Harry Potter books show both good and evil, but there's a lot more good and excitement in them, so they're better than Lord Of The Rings in their own way.
Hmm, well, I may have possibly agreed before harry potter 6 came out, but in my opinion, the series went down the drain at that point. It is true that there is alot of war, battles, and evil in LoTR, but I actually like that. It's not as good if the good too easily triumphs. But HBP could have been alot better in my opinion. It was too rushed, and too OOC, and just written in a completely different style than rowling used previously.
i have never read a book of the like of LOTR, and i don't think you will find it's tru likeness anywhere. it's almost believable, not that i believe in it i don't of course, but what i am sayingis that take LOTR and the Silmerilian for example, both very detailed books, so detailed that you really can see the world and know all the characters in the books. that is what amazes me.
Very true. I think that the only book that comes close to touching LoTR is wheel of time. But it's only a close second, it would take a true genius to beat any of these series.
i like both hp and lotr, but hmmmm, l o t r, a lot of good characters, not that i'm saying that there isn't in hp, but i like them both the same i think, i think it's unfair to say one's better than the other, as they are completely different in story line and stuff. i agree, the rtk was very visual at the end.
Yeah, I like both. DH gave us some Lotr moments, though.
Didn't it just? lmfao!
Jen.
agree with post four. I like hp but lotr is better.
The HP books are all right. I like them better than I thought I would when they first started coming out. However, I think LOTR is far superior. For one, Tolkien is a better writer. Yes, his writing is more difficult to read, but he wrote in a different time. While his language may be more difficult to read, I think there's a beauty to it that Rowling could not capture. I think Rowling and Tolkien wrote for different age groups, too. Someone on another thread on this board said that Rowling wrote to get younger kids into reading, and hopefully they would jump from her books to other things. I totally agree with that.
Lol! I am fifteen, and I have been in to Hp since seven.