Why I Like "Harry Potter" Better than "Lord of the Rings"

I'm not arguing that "Harry Potter" is actually -- in some objective sense -- better than "Lord of the Rings." (If it even makes sense to say "in some objective sense" when you're talking about art.) I get that "Lord of the Rings" is probably Great Art, and I'm not sure that "Harry Potter" is. (Talk to me in a hundred years, when we see if kids are still reading it.)

What I'm saying is that I enjoy "Harry Potter" immeasurably more than "Lord of the Rings." With "Harry Potter," I eagerly look forward to each new installment in the series. I re-read the books frequently and with pleasure; I have an extensive memory of the story, and can discuss its finer points at length; and I have an elaborate and probably unhealthy fantasy life centering around the Potterverse.

"Lord of the Rings," on the other hand, I slogged through twenty years ago out of a sense of duty. I found it tedious and unengaging, and skimmed through long sections of it; I've never had the slightest desire to re-read it even once; I have only the vaguest memory of the general outline of the plot (ring, Mordor, lots of battles, yada yada yada); and I couldn't tell you the names of more than four or five characters -- and that only because those names get tossed around so much in conversation. (Yes, my friends are nerds.) "Lord of the Rings" is like Wagner or Bob Dylan to me -- I recognize and acknowledge its greatness, without actually liking or enjoying it.

And I think this is a defensible position.

So I'm going to defend it.

Here's what I think "Harry Potter" has that "Lord of the Rings" doesn't.

1. Moral complexity. I may be being unfair here -- like I said, I have only the vaguest memory of "Lord of the Rings" -- but the characters in LOTR seemed to line up into clearly distinguished Good Guy/Bad Guy camps. Who then proceed to fight each other. For three long books. With the exception of Frodo -- and are we ever really in doubt that he'll do the right thing? -- the battle of good against evil is always external. Evil is Out There, and you kill it with an axe or something.

"Harry Potter," on the other hand, has genuine moral complexity. The battle against evil is often internal, and the right thing to do isn't always clear. Good people do bad things, and not always for good reasons, and sometimes with serious consequences. Bad people turn out to have surprisingly decent and sympathetic sides to them. And perhaps more importantly, there's a continuum of good and bad. There are people who are jerks but aren't actually evil -- and in some cases who have strong and important good tendencies, or who are at least understandable and somewhat sympathetic. And there are people who are likable but weak and selfish, and who screw up a lot. Forget comparing it to other juvenile literature -- there's more moral complexity and shades of gray in "Harry Potter" than there is in most adult fiction.

2. Political relevance. There are times when "Harry Potter" reads like Chomsky for kids. In "Harry Potter," people in government ignore real threats that they don't want to deal with; magnify fake threats to make it look like they're taking action; use fear-mongering to solidify their power; make alliances of convenience with people they know are evil; serve their rich friends instead of the people they're governing; manipulate and even censor the press; and use the education of children as an opportunity for propaganda. The book is like a civics lesson at the most left-wing junior high you can imagine.

"Lord of the Rings," on the other hand... well, I suppose it's not fair to critique the books for creating an entirely fresh and imaginary world. That's one of its strengths, after all. But I didn't feel that LOTR shed any light at all on my life and the world I live in. This is just a personal preference, but I strongly prefer fiction -- including fantasy/sci-fi -- that has some relevance and connection to me and my world. Sure, I like escapism, I like being taken out of my life... but I like being taken out of my life for the purpose of stepping back and getting perspective on it. I didn't get that from "Lord of the Rings"... and I get it in trumps from "Harry Potter."

3. Female characters. There's been some debate about whether the Harry Potter books are sexist. And I'll grant that the female characters in "Harry Potter" -- and their place in the story -- have some problematic aspects.

But here's the thing about female characters in "Harry Potter":

It has some.

More than a couple, even.

And those female characters aren't just sidelines or afterthoughts. They're central to the plot, they're in positions of strength and authority, and they take an active role in making things happen. There are times when "Harry Potter" is a bit of a testosterone-fest... but compared to "Lord of the Rings," it's freakin' Adrienne Rich.

Anyway. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. What do you think? Arguments, agreements, questions, outraged objections, and other comments are cheerfully encouraged.

Comments

[Azkyroth]

Greta, if you do decide to reread LOTR, you'll be pleased to note that huge swaths of "Book" 1 and 6 have not a damn thing to do with the story and can be guiltlessly skipped (as the film adaptation did).

[CW]

@Martha

Yes! Finally, someone else who recognizes how great the Tiffany Aching series is.

Honestly the closest thing I have to a bible, i.e. a book that describes what it is to be a Good Person, is A Hat Full of Sky.

Well, ok, fine. It might have to duke it out with Nation (also by Terry Pratchett).

[Pand3m0nium]

Firstly, I'll just say that without Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter probably wouldn't even be as good. Rowling borrows so much from LOTR, it's uncanny.

Moral complexity: Where do I begin? We have Smeagol/Gollum, who struggles with the good and bad side of himself. Throughout the LOTR trilogy, one wonders where Frodo and Sam stand because one moment Gollum is helping them, and the next he is sabotaging them.

We also have Frodo, who is affected by the ring several times. The climax where he finally reaches Mount Doom, only to succumb to evil and wear the ring shows as much. He may have been the "good guy", but he also struggled with evil.

There's also Grima Wormtongue, a "bad guy" who was bought by Saruman to poison King Theoden. When he sees the army that Saruman has assembled to kill Men, he is visibly shocked and saddened. He sticks by Saruman regardless... and ends up killing him. Another person struggling with good and evil.

Then there's Boromir, son of Denethor, who was a member of the Fellowship and had promised to protect Frodo. He ended up trying to take the ring from Frodo and was "the bad guy". However, he realised his mistakes and died trying to save Pippin and Merry.

There's also Faramir, brother of Boromir, who captures Sam and Frodo and wants to kill Smeagol. After discovering that Frodo has the ring of power, he orders the ring to be taken to his father, Denethor. He has to struggle with trying to gain his father's favour, which could lead to the doom of men, or letting Frodo go and never be favourable in his father's eyes.

I could go on and on about this, but my comment is already too long.

Political relevance: How can you say LOTR has no political relevance in a time when there is so much war going on? Look at Frodo, for instance. Although the Shire has been saved, he says it's not saved for him. Some wounds just don't heal that easily. Can you not see how that could be a statement on the post-traumatic stress or shellshock that soldiers experience after war?

Female characters: Hahaha! Tolkien's females are not an afterthought either.

Arwen helps get Frodo to safety after he is stabbed by the Nazgul. Without her, he probably would've died... and who knows how the mission would've gone thereafter. Not to mention how she convinced her father to remake the sword that was broken, leading Aragorn to his destiny as a king.

Lady Galadriel is in a position of power as well, not some woman just thrust in there.

There's also Eowyn, a total badass who not only helps lead the people to Helm's Deep, but also takes on the Witch-King, whom no man can kill. Fortunately, she's not a man and brings him to his end.

Seriously... if you're going to criticise something, at least make sure you know enough about it, and not from some distant memories.

[mika]

With all due respect, I think there are multi-dimensional characters in Lord of the Rings if you look for them. For all of his treachery, can you really lump gollum in with the villains, considering his back story, and that he does, on multiple occasions, save the lives of Frodo and Sam (whom he detests)--and it's not merely part of a scheme to overpower them in the end. And can you really lump Boromir in with the heroes after he's visibly corrupted by the ring and turns on his own? And can you call him a villain after he sacrifices himself for Merry and Pippin's sake? Those two characters aren't alone, either. Frodo becomes extremely more complex as the ring takes his toll on him.

[kittykat]

Lord of the rings doesn't have gray characters? Ever heard of Boromir? Gollum? Or Denathor? Those three all do good and bad things. And you say that Frodo was going to do the right thing anyway, but he didn't. Gollum did.

[School Essay Topics]

Nice post.This is marvelous.I was looking for the same one.Thanks for sharing.

[Anonymous]

I beg to differ with all the Lord of the Rings fans. You have pushed enough buttons to make me explode with outrage. "LotR better than Harry Potter?" And it is also unfair to compare the LotR movies with the first three Harry Potter films. They started off slow (the latter), but ended spectacularly. I can agree to some people that LotR made me cry with disgust. I absolutely despised the movies, and they did not move me or scare me even once. Harry Potter, on the other hand made me sob approximately ten times. For instance, Lily's sacrifice, Snape's story, Dumbledore's death, the Ressurection Stone, et cetera. I detested LotR from the first hour, both of watching the film and reading the Hobbit, the latter of which had ONE funny section: The supposed invention of golf. I may be judging unfairly, but I wager that more people will be reading Harry Potter at the end of the century than Lord of the Rings. They are superior to each other in different ways, and, though giving my opinions above, I do not believe they can be compared without considerable fault.