LOTR vs. Harry Potter?

It truely has been a long time, hasn't it? There hasn't been much for me to say, as it has all pretty much been said before. You know, same ol', same ol'. Well, onward!

LOTR vs. Harry Potter?

Who will win? Well, obviously...it's not as cut-and-dry as you might think. They really can't be compared too much. One is a fantasy story in a fantasy setting. The other is in a world much like our own, with the same political system, same geography. Harry Potter depends on magic to do just about anything. Can the wizards solve any of their problems without magic? Harry can't even handle his non-magical family without magic (which, by the way, he's not allowed to do). The government controls magic and magic users. There are a few holes in the background history, such as what of magic users in wars? In other "secret" organizations, such as MI6? Is there a magical equivilant of James Bond?

LOTR takes place in another world. It cannot be subject to those sorts of questions. Magic in the sense of Harry Potter magic is not a major part of the story. Even Gandalf the Wizard only uses his magic in the most dire of circumstances, with the exception being the fireworks at Bilbo's party.

The main characters cannot be much compared either, at least not on the same level. Harry, and the other Hogwarts kids, are easier to identify with than the characters in LOTR because of the fact that they are teenagers, going through much of the same problems that we all have to go through, while most of us don't go on epic journeys to save the world...Frodo (although not depicted this way in the movie) is a fifty-plus year old Hobbit from the Shire, far away from the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the Fellowship consists of princes, and the rest of the Hobbits are relatives in some way to Frodo, who himself is a celebrity, a kind of prince. Not everyday fare, no?

There are a few places where the arguements are much better put than here. Go to here and here.