Something to Keep in Mind

Welcome to the longest blog post you will ever read.
    With the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 fewer than twenty-four hours away, I suppose that I, like everyone else, should say something about the series.
    Unfortunately for you die-hard fans, this post will not be in favor of Harry Potter. There will be no sentimental schmaltz.
    While I am still a fan of the series, I am extremely indifferent to the release of the final Harry Potter movie. I just don't care anymore because I'm sick and tired of Harry Potter this and Harry Potter that.
    No, this will be about the great Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is clearly superior to the Harry Potter series in almost every aspect.
    I have thus far conceived fifty-seven reasons why the trilogy directed by Peter Jackson is superior to the series directed by four different people. No, I will not give all fifty-seven reasons. I will condense it as much as I can.

Part I: Frodo Baggins vs. Harry Potter

There is no contest here. Frodo is a much better hero.

    For starters, Frodo is more humble and, unlike Harry, does not attempt to seek attention. He does not talk about his accomplishments, let alone boast and brag about them (although in Harry's defense, neither does he ... that often). Also, Frodo never speaks about his sufferings. When he returns to the Shire, he does not say what he experienced, and no one asks him what he experienced. In fact, I'd say that it is probably too painful for Frodo to recall everything that happened to him.

    Because there is not a lot of damning evidence, I hesitate to call Harry arrogant. That said, I feel like Harry sometimes enjoys that he is the Chosen One. He seems to enjoy the attention he gets from women. He doesn't love being the Chosen One all the time, but his occasional indulgences make him a lot less humble than Frodo. Also, I feel like Harry adores calling attention to himself. "Hey guys! I saw Voldemort return! Listen to me as I tell you my tale of woe for the dozenth time!" It's really annoying. It's like he's trying to be a prophet, but he's failing miserably at it.

    Frodo and Harry are similar in that once they make up their mind, they usually don't change their decision. However, Frodo is definitely open-minded whereas Harry is single-minded. This is because Frodo actually listens to people when they give him advice. You can tell that he values others' input, and sometimes he will change his mind.

    Harry, though, is stubborn. He is very impulsive, and many of his decisions are illogical. If one of his friends (usually Hermione) gives him very good logical advice, Harry almost never follows such advice. In fact, I wonder whether he even hears it. I don't even know how many times I have wanted to slap Harry in the face for his single-mindedness.

    Then there's the relationship between Frodo and Sam compared to the relationship between Harry and Ron. Frodo would never take Sam for granted and would never deliberately hurt Sam's feelings. Frodo does occasionally become angry with Sam, but Frodo very quickly regrets his words and gives a warm, sincere apology.

    It's a different story with Harry and Ron. Harry blows up at Ron all the time, and I don't think Harry ever regrets his words, let alone apologizes. Harry even blows up at Ron after Ron comes to his defense! In one scene in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Ron defends Harry after Seamus Finnigan doubts Harry's woeful tale about Voldemort. Afterwards, Ron asks Harry if he's all right; Harry says he's fine. Ron then starts talking about what an idiot Seamus is. Then out of nowhere, Harry shouts, "I said I'm fine, Ron!" Geez, Harry. Where's the "thank you"? And you later complain that no one believes you? Hmm...

    Finally, Frodo undoubtedly has a stronger will than Harry. Something tells me that if Harry were entrusted to bear the Ring to Mordor, Harry would succumb to its power in seconds. After all, he bears the locket Horcrux for only a few days, but he is in a fowl mood the whole time. It's almost like something is possessing him. Hmm...

    Then there are the dreams. I suppose the human mind is more vulnerable to possession when one is asleep, as both Frodo and Harry are tortured in their sleep. (In the book The Return of the King, Tolkien mentions that once in Mordor Frodo has terrible dreams every night.) Whereas Harry practically becomes evil after one dream (although that corruption does not happen most of the time), Frodo awakens no closer to corruption than he was when he fell asleep.

    Now to talk about Frodo's will. Whether people want to believe it or not, Frodo has an iron will. For example, there's the wounding at Weathertop. Any man would succumb to the evil of a Morgul-knife in moments, but Frodo fights it for seventeen days. And here's something more impressive: Frodo is unconscious for two and one-half of those days. Also, while any man (except Aragorn) is instantly tempted to claim the Ring for himself, Frodo bears the Ring for months before he finally succumbs to its power. And he succumbs in the place that would have the most evil power: the Cracks of Doom, where the Ring was forged. Plus, Frodo fights constant torment during those months. The Ring literally grows heavier with every step. In Mordor Frodo can no longer recall any happy aspect of his old life. By the time he and Sam reach Mount Doom, the Ring is so heavy that the chain is drawing blood, and it takes all of Frodo's strength to crawl a few yards. But still he fights the Ring's power. Still he remains on the good side.

    Who would you rather have as your hero?

Part II: Samwise Gamgee vs. Ronald Weasley

Oh my goodness. Sam. Sam all the way.

    Where, oh where, should I start? Sam is optimistic, loyal, and encouraging. Ron is ... well, Ron is none of the above.

    Call me nuts, but I think Ron is a complete ass. I feel like more often than not, Ron has no interest in helping Harry and that Ron is only claiming to be Harry's friend for name value.

    Let me compare Sam's loyalty with Ron's "loyalty."

    Frodo suffers every conceivable torment. He suffers a terrible shoulder wound that cannot fully heal. After Frodo receives treatment for the wound, the wound causes him to suffer excruciating agony twice; the wound pains him on the anniversary of the attack as well. Then he suffers a spider sting that leaves him comatose for hours and that also cannot fully heal. (Look in the appendixes. Frodo is ill on the anniversary of that attack as well.) Then his finger is bitten off. And in the intervals between those wounds, Frodo suffers the relentless torment of Sauron. Yet Sam is with him the whole time. They are separated for a period of time, but it is not because of Sam's will, and they are only separated for about a day.

    Harry's sufferings are nothing compared to Frodo's. He is enchanted with the Cruciatus curse once. His scar bothers him regularly, and that's about it. Yet Ron leaves him for weeks. Why? Because Ron is frustrated that he, Harry, and Hermione are not finding and Horcruxes. Can anyone say "ridiculous"? Oh, never mind. I just did.

    In addition, Sam would rather die than say a bad word about Frodo. In fact, he comes to Frodo's defense on a regular basis. He gives Faramir what-for twice; both times Faramir is intent on getting the Ring from Frodo and Frodo is in a state of terrible distress. (Faramir is the reason the first time, but not the second.) Also, Sam gives Gollum what-for plenty of times, and it is a delight to watch. It is just classic Samwise Gamgee.

    Ron? Well, there's the instant I mentioned in the Frodo vs. Harry section, but that's pretty much the only time he comes to Harry's defense. And Ron says plenty of mean things to Harry. When Harry's name is drawn from the Goblet of Fire, Ron is absolutely convinced that Harry, desperate for "eternal glory," got an older student to put his name into the goblet. Harry and Ron then do not speak to each other for months, and for once I am on Harry's side.

    Who would you rather have as a friend?

Part III: Gandalf vs. Albus Dumbledore

I am not going to rip Dumbledore apart because I actually like him, but I still prefer Gandalf.

    I think that Gandalf has a little more dimension to his personality than Dumbledore does. To be specific, Gandalf has a fiery warrior temperament that you don't really see in Dumbledore. Also, I feel like Dumbledore doesn't really get frustrated, but Gandalf does, which makes Gandalf seem a lot more human.

    I also feel like Gandalf is a better advice-giver than Dumbledore. Dumbledore gives very good, very insightful advice, but I think he can be too cryptic at times. I understand his reasons for speaking in riddles, but I think that such a habit can be a huge barrier. Gandalf, on the other hand, is not as cryptic, and his advice is every bit as good as Dumbledore's, if not better.

    Now for the fun stuff: magic. The great thing about Gandalf is that he does not need magic to kick butt. In fact, Gandalf rarely uses magic. Something tells me that Dumbledore would be virtually powerless without his wand.

    Speaking of which, let's compare Gandalf's staff to Dumbledore's wand. Gandalf's staff is superior because it can be used as a weapon without using magic. Hello? He beats a man unconscious with his staff! How epic is that?!

    I will end this argument with a story from MyLifeIsAverage.com: "Today, I asked my friend who would win in a fight between Gandalf and Dumbledore. Being a massive Harry Potter fan, I told her I thought Dumbledore would win and was therefore confused when she didn't agree and said Gandalf instead. When I asked her why she merely replied, 'Who survived the fall?' Touché."

Part IV: Sauron vs. Voldemort

Sorry. Sauron is superior.

    I say this because he never regains physical form, yet he can inflict so much chaos and destruction.

    Sauron is an eye. An EYE. Yet he knows what every enemy nation on Middle-Earth is doing. He holds dominion over much of the world. He tells Saruman what his next course of action should be. Then there's the Ring (which I'll get to later), which corrupts any man except Aragorn.

    Please don't accuse me of calling Voldemort a pathetic excuse for a villain. I'm not saying that at all. Once he returns to human form, he is extremely strong and formidable. Once he's in human form. Before that, he has practically no power whatsoever. Until he rises again in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Voldemort is just a fragile ghost of a body who holds dominion over virtually no one. He cannot even control his Death Eaters until he regains human form.

    Voldemort, however, does have Sauron beaten in one area outside the story: Twitter. I'm not sure whether there's a Twitter account for Sauron, but there is for Voldemort. Whoever created that account posts brilliant sarcastic one-liners on a regular basis. So congrats, Voldy. You actually can beat Sauron in one area.

    Sauron still beats Voldemort because he can cause all kinds of problems as an eye.

Part V: The Ring vs. Horcruxes

Yep. The Ring is definitely superior.

    Before you get all huffy and say "BUT THERE ARE SEVEN HORCRUXES AND ONLY ONE RING!!" let me defend myself.

    First, there is only one way to destroy the Ring, but there are numerous options for getting rid of Horcruxes. Two examples are basilisk venom and Fiendfyre. The Killing Curse probably works, too.

    Second, I believe Harry only destroys one Horcrux, unless one count Voldemort separately. Harry destroys the diary. Dumbledore destroys the ring of Gaunt. Ron destroys the locket. Crabbe destroys the tiara. Neville kills Nagini. Hermione destroys the cup, and Voldemort gets rid of Harry's scar.

    Third, the Ring is a lot more powerful. This is because the Ring holds Sauron's entire soul, not just a fragment of it. This also means that the Ring is more desperate to not get destroyed, so the Ring will resort to much stronger measures to ensure that it is not destroyed.

    The Ring is much more dangerous than the Horcruxes. There is only one way to get rid of it, and it is much more likely to corrupt. Also, the Ring causes much more torment to those who do not fall under its power.

Part VI: Battle of the Casts

I'll take the men and women of Middle-Earth, please.

    There is no contest: The cast of The Lord of the Rings is clearly superior.

    Ian McKellen was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring. The Screen Actors Guild nominated the cast for Outstanding Performance by the Cast of a Theatrical Motion Picture for all three films, and the cast one that award for The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King. In short, the award companies loved the cast.

    The cast of Harry Potter has no such honors.

    Now for personal opinion. I love every single actor and actress of The Lord of the Rings. They all turned in the performances of a lifetime, especially Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, and Sean Astin. They were all amazing. Ian McKellen was robbed of that Oscar win, as was Elijah Wood. Come on, Oscars people. Where's your common sense?

    The cast of Harry Potter, on the other hand? Eh. Of the three leads, Emma Watson is the only one who is really good. I think many supporting actors are very good, but Emma Watson definitely gave the best performance. Daniel Radcliffe is mediocre at best. His emotions feel scripted to me, not real. There's also no chemistry at all between him and Bonnie Wright. Rupert Grint is just bad. There is nothing there at all.

    The Middle-Earth cast clearly dominates over the Hogwarts cast in every way. No exceptions.

Part VII: the Battle of the Academy Awards

Clearly, the trilogy dominates!

    The three films won a total of seventeen Academy Awards. The Fellowship of the Ring won four. The Two Towers won two, and The Return of the King is in a three-way tie for the most Oscars ever won by a movie: eleven.

    In addition, there were 13 nominations that were not awarded: nine for The Fellowship of the Ring and four for The Two Towers. Two of those thirteen were for Best Picture, and frankly, those two should have been awarded.

    What about Harry Potter, you ask? Not even close. The films thus far have not won any Academy Awards, and there have been only nine nominations. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone had three. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban had two. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire had one. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had one. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 had two. So the seven films so far have fewer overall nominations than awards for The Return of the King alone.

    The Academy has spoken. The trilogy is superior.

This concludes my session. I know I have a lot of haters now, but this is how I feel. Yes, I wrote this all in one sitting. That is how dedicated I am.

The Lord of the Rings > Harry Potter. End of story.