I don't think so.

Isn't there a religion that strictly prohibits reading or coming in contact with anything magical? I know people like that.

I'm sure people of this religion take up a big population, while Shakespeare is more a play where people can watch and read and with very "real life" (for back then) situations.

________________

Click the Pokemon.

I'm not sure what to vote for in the poll.

If JK Rowling writes more, and produces more acclaimed literary works, then, maybe.

I found Lord of the Rings somewhat dull, to be honest.

Then again, Shakespeare was a playwright and poet. His works have survived the times.

It's too early to tell.

________________
http://eofusion.googlepages.com
http://360.yahoo.com/axisofoddity
http://axisofoddity.googlepages.com/

it's not too "early" .
She 'll never be his equal. And please stop with this nonsense about "they're different , the lived at different times bla bla bla" .... When scholars want to compare two writers they do it .The argument is so weak that each time I have the unfortune to read it I feel really disappointed . This is not the point .

The fact is that a bit of success doesn't make you a new shakespeare (especially since it has nothing to do with success).
Otherwise why don't we call all the great writers we had so far Shakespeare?
We didn't say it about fitzerald , nabokov, scott , beckett , joyce , borges , bronte sisters , vargas , hugo , camus , kafka, goethe , schiller etc... and god forgive me for all those great writers I forgot . Without even talking about the difference of style , genre ,etc... there's a gap so huge between Shakespear and Rowling that everything I say appear to me an understatement.

I think some of you guys just don't realize the unbelievable boldness of such a statement!!! She' s just an other success writer in the wake of dan brown and other for god sake while he's a writer whose work is refered in about 1/3 of english litteracy!!!
Last point : why shakespeare ? there are a lot a writers . Why him ? except because he's so famous and thus make feel HP fan good . Obviously the retarded who are saying that have no fucking idea of what shakespear's work is , except through compulsory readings in school and digests.....Go back on school benchs boys.

Scholars, historians, and archaeologists can only discern what has been left behind from the past, but ONLY that which survived the ravages of time.

Provided of course any of this survives the next 200 years. If Rowling's work is the only few literary works left indicating the time period, it could very well become the next shakespear in terms of fame.
It really doesn't matter if the story is good or bad, or if you like it or not, history will be history, and history only records what's been left behind. If shakespear's works didn't survives time, then we wouldn't even know he existed. Same will apply to everything, so start burying your harry potter books and articles about Rowling if you want her to be the next shakespear.

Seriously, a lot can happen in 200+ years, heck, just look at what happened the past 200 years...

________________

I sure hope the HP don't become Shakespeare-like in hundreds of years to come. And in any case, the comparison is off, simply because he never wrote any 7-piece book like her, showing the actual growth from little brat to, well, older brat. Besides, he actually had a huge scope of not only characters, but also human behavior insight, even if perhaps as he wrote his pieces he didn't think so.
I read somewhere in the posts that the HP books are being studied in Universities? So? You can study anything at Unis. ANYTHING, so it's not really an awe-worthy thing.
I personally voted that the LoTR books (and all of Tolkien's books) will be, in hundreds of years, like Shakespeare. Why? Characters with flaws and a flow to the story - those of you who voted "yes" are actually gonna say that JKR is consistent? REALLY consistent? Even if I've only read (so far) the translated versions of her books, I don't think it's a problem with the translation, but rather with her - she didn't write the seven books and released them over the course of so-many years, no. And if she says it, she's a damn liar. Because it's so obvious she started to change stuff up as she wrote the books, changed the way of the characters as well as little details. Maybe the films, maybe whatever else made her change her mind, but, the fact remains, the seven books may be a body of work, but they aren't necessarily, you know, a sequel/prequel to the other because some stuff said in one book don't match up with what she said in the books before (can't remember any examples at the moment, but I've noticed them in the past)
And also about Tolkien, he created an actual world, full of details so extensive that few people can grasp everything he came up with, even to this day. JKR? Don't make me laugh. A lot of stuff don't make sense or are just too weird, crazy. She totally didn't think of the whole picture, and by that I don't mean that she didn't have a plot (though maybe she didn't much), no, I'm saying she neglected A LOT when she wrote, thus making the reading of the books limited. Info that would compliment the world she built is maybe just in her head and she didn't have the literary talent to be able to put it in the books, or just didn't feel like writing them down and adding to them (like Tolkien did), or she just didn't feel like thinking about such minor details, period.

But, reading the other posts, well, it's true, no one can say for sure what will survive in a hundred, two hundred years. Maybe HP will and LoTR won't, who the hell knows for sure? But if anything, at least the repercussions of HP and LoTR will live on forever.

________________
“What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact” - Don Williams, Jr.

Not a chance in hell

________________
Listen here
Livin just to keep from dyin

Wow according to the poll there are 11 people who are literary idiots. Comparing Rowling to Shakespear is like comparing a five year olds drawing to Van Gogh. It's funny as a joke, as a serious comparison...there is none.

My vote's still with the 1000 monkies with 1000 typewriters.

________________
Sites for reading manga
mangafox.com
mangavolume.com
mangahut.com
onemanga.com
anime-eden.com
manga.bleachexile.com
mirror1.homeunix.com
rootmanga.com
mangarooter.com
groups.msn.com/planetxynx/tod.msnw
thespectrum.net
mangarun.com

Thanks, for everyones help, that should be enough site. Remember manga is a joy to be shared with everyone.

The fact that people actually think it could be anywhere close to equivalent is causing me physical pain. Seriously.

First off, Rowling isn't even that great a writer. She obviously has a great imagination, but in the end the books and characters had no real depth, despite the large number of plot twists and mediocre attempts at establishing it. It's just a children's story- a good one, but just a children's story.

Shakespeare has both linguistic depth and emotional depth for all of the characters. Comparing his writings to Rowling's is like comparing the Genji Monogatari to a light novel. You just don't do it.

________________

Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
Your awesome!!! - Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

I can't believe that people are already comparing Shakespeare with JK Rowling, I mean, I understand fanaticism, but everything has it's limits.

There is no way in hell that they could be considered equal, even a kid would know that JK Rowling is way better than Shakespeare.



________________

THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST......IT'S ALL IN YOUR IMAGINATION

id like to say harry potter will be like the next lotr but you really cant compare it to Shakespeare. i dont mean it worse then Shakespeare its just they dont really fall in the same category.

________________
http://narutofever.com/naruto-characters/pictures/anko-sig.gif


we are all of the creed
the creed we worship rules us all
the creed of okutoness forever
that and when the next flight to japan

Rowling made a good plot. (Well, not that I care, but it made cash.)
However, she described the characters wrong.
What comes to Shakespeare, he is boring to me, but
he is part of the western culture,
thus he wins the round.

Can't believe there are illiterate n00bs who think Harry Potter will be the next great literature book.

Heck, you can't even compare Harry Potter to Jane Eyrie or Frankenstein. Shakespeare's books are a step above those.

Harry Potter books are only read for entertainment. They have no literature value at all, and the emotions of the writer don't carry at all, unlike Shakespeare's novels.



Indeed. Shakespeare is much better then Rowling.

________________

The fact that you can even compare the two means that there's something wrong with your head.

________________
Glados is a bitch. She made me kill the companion cube, the only friend I'll ever have. :cry:

Chibidoro-sama=Neko-freak

You are right, is just too obvious that JK Rowling is better

________________

THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST......IT'S ALL IN YOUR IMAGINATION

haha so true MajorMarmot so true XD

________________
"I rebel; therefore I am" - Goblin Kingdom (novel)
"I won’t tell him not to envy, but that man sure is a bag of b*tchery" - Sevens (novel)
"Well… let’s just have some fun with it." - Sevens (novel)