# TLOTR vs. HP Debate



## Sarah (Jan 11, 2003)

I met a Harry Potter fan on-line and we got into an argument over which was more realistic (or which one one can identify with more.) The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. We decided to do this formally, so we are going to have an official debate. We are holding it over aim on January 24th, at 7 pm Eastern Time. After it's over I will save the convo. and paste it here. Any ideas on what I should bring up?

(BTW, in case you couldn't tell I'm taking the side of TLOTR)


----------



## Beorn (Jan 11, 2003)

Umm...the thread is right here, which at the moment is two threads below this.


----------



## Sarah (Jan 11, 2003)

right right, I know. I just wanted to make this visible to everyone. Because I know that sometimes I don't read a topic if it has a few pages to it and I haven't been reading it from the start. It's just too many pages to read at once.


----------



## MacAddict (Jan 12, 2003)

Harry Potter is dumb and LOTR is Awesome. Nuff Said.

~MacAddict


----------



## Celebthôl (Jan 12, 2003)

i believe the correct quote is "nuff said" but i wont judge u as your statement was 100% accurate!

Thôl


----------



## Valdarmyr (Jan 12, 2003)

No doubt in my mind that LOTR is more realistic. Some of the magic that happens in HP could happen, but you just know that Gandalf and Saruman have years of experience behind them, and strength of character, to command the forces of nature and make their magic happen. I suppose they're more believable because they're written that way.


----------



## smeagol444 (Jan 26, 2003)

I just want to state my absolute intolerence of this thread--
the debate over which is better is just stupid---why does one have to be better than the other??why can't you just let people like what they like without critism? you can respect either one for different reasons. 
I am a huge fan of both--both for diff reasons. You people who say hp is 'dumb' you just haven't been given the magic like the rest of us. and ditto for lotr. 
I'm really pissed off right about now. lay of eachother and grow up.


----------



## Sarah (Jan 26, 2003)

I said debate, not argument, not violent, no blood-shed, just a simple calm, _fun_ debate. Honestly, that's all it is. Fun. I enjoy Harry Potter as well, but it's always fun to debate and see how much I really know about the topics.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jan 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MacAddict _
> *Harry Potter is dumb and LOTR is Awesome. Nuff Said.
> 
> ~MacAddict *



As simple as this sounds, I must agree with it. I find HP of little or no interest at all.


----------



## Sarah (Jan 26, 2003)

*the debate*

Sorry it's late but here it is. To respect the privacy of the other debater I will replace her user name as Friend.

ArwensEvenstar9: Which is more realistic: J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter or J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings?
ArwensEvenstar9: I will start by making the argument that The Lord of the Rings is more realistic because it has a thourough (sp?) written history and maps to it.
ArwensEvenstar9: Whereas Harry Potter does not
Friend: but how are the maps real? They are just as made up as the whole magical world ... that we really cannot argue is completely real, but rather a figment of our imaginations.
Friend: the maps can be drawn easily, and without any problems.
ArwensEvenstar9: True, but it helps the reader to imagine that they are truly within Middle-Earth. Whereas in Harry Potter, one has no idea where Hogwarts is or how it's laid out, only that it exists in England somewhere.
Friend: but thats the aspect of the imagination ... people can look upon a wider storyline however they want, making the story more realistic to the indivial reader
ArwensEvenstar9: And what about the aspect of a history? Along with his son, Christopher, Tolkien wrote a very thourough (sp) written history beginning with the creation of Earth. There is no written history of Hogwarts, or the wizarding world. How did it happen?
Friend: who knows? but seriously, Tolkien made it harder for himself ... there's no need to write a huge history about something to believe that it is real. There is no need for there to be information about something for it to be 'real' in different aspects. However, I believe that JKR made the story better for the younger ages. By saying that, we really need to compare them in the same scene of things. Tolkien created it for older people, far more complex. JKR didn't. We need to set a standard to argue upon, otherwise it can't be fair ... 
ArwensEvenstar9: Not necessarily (sp?) true
Friend: how isn't it?
ArwensEvenstar9: When The Hobbit was first published it was recommended for children ages 5-9. And in many schools it read in the eighth grade, to children.
ArwensEvenstar9: The Hobbit is the prequel to the Lord of the Rings. Without it, the story would have been very confusing.
ArwensEvenstar9: Many people argue that that is too young, but nonetheless, it is still read mostly in the eighth grade
Friend: Harry Potter is more realistic for the younger people of the world, not to mention more popular, as we can relate to what the characters are going through. Even though they are different (Magical powers and the like) JKR has more believable properties - the chance that another entire world existed before the 'world of men' as its called now is completely impossible
ArwensEvenstar9: 'another entire world'?
Friend: yeah ...
Friend: the properties anyway
ArwensEvenstar9: According to Tolkien, men existed just after the elves were born.
Friend: still, there was a whole other world happening before then ...
ArwensEvenstar9: i don't understand what you mean by a whole other world
Friend: A whole other world ... in context ... as if there is a difference between 'our world' and 'their world', to put it metaphorically ...
ArwensEvenstar9: the only difference between our world and tolkien's world (aside from the magic) is the technology
ArwensEvenstar9: remember it's a history, before the technology of today
ArwensEvenstar9: and the magic aspect is much different either
Friend: still, there's a difference between them ... and yeah, I get that ... but even without the technology ... ok ... 
ArwensEvenstar9: One theory about Tolkien's world is that elves, dwarves, hobbits, and other creatures of Middle-Earth all interbred with Men. Which is why we have some people who look like elves, some people who look like hobbits, some people who look like dwarves, etc.
Friend: how do we?
Friend: ok. dwarfs I know ...
ArwensEvenstar9: well you have some people who look like elves, tall, fair, slightly pointed ears.
Friend: no ... not really ... 
ArwensEvenstar9: some people who look like hobbits, short, plump, hairy feet, etc
Friend: hairy feet?
ArwensEvenstar9: some people do
ArwensEvenstar9: as do hobbits
Friend: ok ... things you never knew ...
Friend: Tolkien, despite the length and weight of his LOTR trilogy, went too far into going into detail. It's more believable to think that there is an alternate world of magic running co-erse with ours, rather than having another entire existence of people and races living in a time long before us, as both science and religion proves otherwise.
ArwensEvenstar9: Tolkien stated in The Silmarillion that the first born were elves, shortly thereafter were men, then dwarves and ents. Orcs were mutated from elves. Men were living all at the same time of these races. We were just the ones to survive
ArwensEvenstar9: perhaps because of the theory that we interbred with hobbits, elves, dwarves, etc.
Friend: you're point being?
ArwensEvenstar9: that these races didn't exist before Men
Friend: yet, how is it that we know this? for a fact?
ArwensEvenstar9: how do we know the wizarding world and hogwarts exists, for a fact?
Friend: indeed .... yet it is easier for someone to believe it to be real
ArwensEvenstar9: how?
Friend: because they aren't bringing up a whole new point for people to have to know as Tolkien is. JKR is simply increasing the tale that we have known for quite some time, that there is a realm of magic co-erse to our own existence 
ArwensEvenstar9: what do you believe that 'whole new point' Tolkien is bringing up is?
Friend: that some time ago, we're talking a few hundred years or so, there were different species of what is now known as the 'human' race ... which is going against every known reason for the coming of humans ...
ArwensEvenstar9: it's just a theory
Friend: Fact: Its impossible for just having 'men' survived - Tolkien clearly states that elves are immortal, and may only die as a result of battle or war. So where are the elves that left Middle Earth now, after having no more battles left to fight?
ArwensEvenstar9: one cannot prove evolution. one cannot prove existance through religion.
ArwensEvenstar9: They went to the undying lands
Friend: one cannot prove evolution, nor the whole theory of Tolkien
ArwensEvenstar9: one cannot prove any theory of existence
Friend: yet why is it that you are so sure that this one is correct?
ArwensEvenstar9: i'm not
ArwensEvenstar9: I'm just saying that it's a possiblity
Friend: So where are the Undying Lands? There is no sustainable proof that they exist.
Friend: And there's no point in stating that JKR's world has no sustainable proof of non-existance either as its clearly several non-magic-inclined humans (or muggles) know of its existance, and is properly hidden and kept hidden with measures taken by the Ministry of Magic.
ArwensEvenstar9: how do you know this?
Friend: how don't you know this? thats the very point
ArwensEvenstar9: right it's a matter of believing
Friend: indeed it is ... but think about it ... even without reading, or seeing the movies upteen times, you get the point that the Ministery of Magic protects the knowledge of the magical folk against Muggles
ArwensEvenstar9: like I said, the Elves that did not interbreed with humans (like Arwen did) went to the undying lands, which are not of Middle-Earth.
Friend: thats what you think ..
ArwensEvenstar9: that's what is stated in the books
Friend: JK has set it in CURRENT time ...
ArwensEvenstar9: and like I said before, The Lord of the Rings is a history
Friend: indeed ... however, does it enter into the current time at any stage?
ArwensEvenstar9: I have not finished reading the Silmarillion, nor The History of Middle Earth (keep in mind there are a lot of books) But like I said, the 4th age of the sun is the current age
Friend: indeed there are alot of books ...
Friend: can you explain in detail the basic points that Tolkien has created?
ArwensEvenstar9: what do you mean by points?
Friend: like ... what happens, basically, and why?
Friend: and the scenery and such
ArwensEvenstar9: where would you like me to start from? As I said, I have not read the entire Silmarillion, or the HoME, but i have read the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy
Friend: just basically why you think that Tolkien is more realistic
ArwensEvenstar9: well, just like rowling, Tolkien mixed mortal non-magic folk (men, or muggles), and magic folk (wizards)
ArwensEvenstar9: only Tolkien added more
Friend: yeah
Friend: so? more isn't neccesarily best
Friend: nor does it make it more realistic


----------



## Sarah (Jan 26, 2003)

grr, parents are making me go to bed, will post the other half tomorrow.


----------



## *Lady Arwen* (Jan 30, 2003)

Ahh! The colors are hutting my eyes! 
Were did you debate this? Chat, forum, what?


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Feb 20, 2003)

Here is more info


----------

