Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-25973561-20150216162959/@comment-4750818-20150226144237

Whoa, this thread turned out to be a hot topic in an almighty hurry.

My two cents' on this discussion are that Harry Potter was written in the 1990s (I believe) and that LotR was written in the 1950s; as a result, LotR would use a different style of writing than Harry Potter.

Secondly, LotR was written to be enjoyed mainly by adults, and the Harry Potter series are children's books; this would obviously change the tone of the story.

In my opinion, I would say that Lord of the Rings and Middle-Earth are better books that Harry Potter, mainly because they're much more complex (Rings of Power, a separate world with varied geography & climate, multiple cultures/religions, several different races of humanoids/beasts, etc). Complicated things are always interesting in my opinion.

Lastly, Harry Potter doesn't have the same powerful units that the races of Middle-Earth have at their disposal; they don't have excellent snipers that turn invisible, wolves that can destroy an entire legion with a bang, horsemen that can ride faster than the wind, and Maiar that fling fire at any who oppose them.

Glflegolas (admin) Send a Messenger 14:42, February 26, 2015 (UTC)