So I have a challenge for you guys. I want you to try and prove to me that "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" are works of comparable literary merit to works such as Shakespeare, Poe, Verne, Wells, Lovecraft, Twain...etc.
You can use whatever you want to try and prove it, but I would suggest looking for awards, references and themes inside the books,and how they changed literature.
Okay, Go!
Arguements:
MoreGamesNow wrote:
Well, the main thing that Harry Potter did was get kids reading again, but that is a pretty short-term effect (in my opinion). I think what really sets Lord of the Rings apart is the extreme complexity and completeness of the world that other authors can only envy and attempt to duplicate. Perhaps the only comparable "universe" is the hundreds of Star Wars books, which is a vast collection written by many authors.
scimonster wrote:
Lord of the Rings is quite difficult to read and understand, much like Shakespeare.
veggieman001 wrote:
Lord of the Rings is a challenging comprehensive six part epic. It was influential in several ways: writing, culture, and others.
The best, most indepth, arguement by Monday the 9th wins a cookie, and I will put whatever they want into my sig for a week.
Good Luck!
Last edited by TheSaint (2011-04-28 16:19:11)
Offline
They issued a change in books, and got a rising tide of fans quickly, and that's all I got.
Offline
Well, Harry Potter does not exactly fit into the category as much. All of the other authors had a deeper meaning behind their words...I can't type that much right now, so I'll edit this later.
Offline
Lord of the Rings is quite difficult to read and understand, much like Shakespeare.
Offline
whatever we want?
Offline
Lord of the Rings is a challenging comprehensive six part epic. It was influential in several ways: writing, culture, and others.
Offline
I was hoping for a little more detail. Make comparisons between books. Say why it is complex or difficult, not just stating that it is...
Offline
Well, the main thing that Harry Potter did was get kids reading again, but that is a pretty short-term effect (in my opinion). I think what really sets Lord of the Rings apart is the extreme complexity and completeness of the world that other authors can only envy and attempt to duplicate. Perhaps the only comparable "universe" is the hundreds of Star Wars books, which is a vast collection written by many authors.
Offline
They aren't because Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter is bad.
I don't like them.
Shakespeare is much better. Sorta.
I'm not quite into reading, but I have to say, modern works don't compare. (some do, but those two don't)
Offline
MoreGamesNow wrote:
Well, the main thing that Harry Potter did was get kids reading again, but that is a pretty short-term effect (in my opinion). I think what really sets Lord of the Rings apart is the extreme complexity and completeness of the world that other authors can only envy and attempt to duplicate. Perhaps the only comparable "universe" is the hundreds of Star Wars books, which is a vast collection written by many authors.
I like this, it wasn't something I had thought of prevoiusly. Very well done!
Offline
Really what they have in common is the captivation of audience members. Just like Shakespeare captivated people with his intriguing works, J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkein captivated people and fascinated them with their work. What really makes them great reads is that they capture the human emotions. They do what other books couldn't accomplish. They make a plot so thick and enchanting that you must read on. Just like Shakespeare, their books were new ideas, that captivated audience members and made a mark in their memory.
Offline