What do you think are the better aspects of the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter series that triumph over each others aspects and those of many other works and make them such great phenomenons around the whole world even after they have been completed?
What is it that sets them apart so much from many others ?
(P.S- don't talk about what others might think etc, just give a personal opinion of what those aspects, elements or reasons are)
Ops I like Harry Potter. Lord of the rings a bit long but I did see it in a London show and woo it was very good.
Lord of the Rings is awesome, Harry Potter is crap!
I read and liked the Hobbit (when I was about 11 or 12) but, despite wading all the long way through it, I found The Lord of the Rings hard work to the point of being tedious. Robert's observation of the excess detail might be one reason.
Does Tolstoy count as a writer of epics? He's not bad - and he should count as much more dated than Tolkein or Rowling... and it's not the genre - I have read miles of Science Fiction - Heinlein for one writes "mini-epics" (not my taste now/ any more though).
Do Terry Pratchet's "Disc World" books add up to an epic? I can use those as general anaesthetic (if I have a long wait at the dentist or similar) - but - like Rowling he takes too long to build toward a conclusion - which can be figured out light years in advance without much effort.
Not watched the films? Don't bother. I have had them imposed on me - and both HP and Frodo were extremely poor renditions of the books - in my (not very biased) view... The HP were worse - they couldn't even be bothered to come up with decent CGI monster snakes or spiders... My impression - "done on the cheap" to catch onto the bandwagon - if they were as good as people claim they should have been given a James Bond size budget and had all the trimmings. (Bond - except the last few "Bang-Crash" versions has been entertaining to watch - as a GA again - but the books were appalling).
Where did I put that Chekov...?