I am reading the HP books now with great enjoyment and I must say that, while not perhaps great literature, it is FAR superior to the LOTR (to say nothing of C.S. Lewis' "Narnia").
Some reasons:
1). Ron vs. Sam: the #1 hero is the kid who inherits lots of money from their parents in both cases, but unlike Sam who is very happy to be a servant all his life, there is a very good reason why Ron's family doesn't have much money, and both he and his parents are extremely important characters precisely *for* that reason.
2). Hermione is a female character that actually matters. In general, female characters matter, and *act* female -- that is, different but not inferior to the male characters. Tolkein couldn't create a believable female character to save his life. Of course, the author being herself a woman surely helped...
3). The combination of "real-life" problems (growing up, first kiss, etc.) with the fantasy is done very skillfully in the "Potter" books, and naturally has absolutely no equivalent in LOTR. Similarly the relationship between magicians and non-magicians.
4). The idea of a school for magic is pure genius, but, more to the point -- makes the increasing power of the magic as the stories evolve seem logical. In LOTR it is never really clear why the all-powerful Gandalf doesn't do much more much sooner.
5). The nature of the "opposition" (Sauron vs. Voldermort) is much clearer. The Nazgul, for example, or Sauron himself for that matter, hardly play a part in LOTR except for the climax (and Frodo hiding for a few minutes from them doesn't count).
6). There IS "deus ex machina" in both books, of course, but in a way that is more reasonable in the "Potter" books.
7). Suspense is kept in a much more sophisticated way in the "Potter" books, especially in the richer secondary characters, whose "side" is sometimes not clear. The reasons for complicated characters' development (Snape, Hagrid, etc.) revealed gradually and make sense. In LOTR there is little chracter development at all.
8). Comic relief done very well; Rowling has an excellent sense of balance between "serious" chapters and "funny" chapters (and how to tie them all together). Almost none exists in LOTR.
9). The characters mature believably also in the physical sense of entering adulthood, not just in having more powerful magic.
10). On the whole and in general, Rowling has a much better imagination than Tolkein. It's the easiest thing in the world to imagine an all-powerful lord of darkness whose eternal minions will overcome the world with all-powerful magic until the one hero saves them. But to imagine the numerous small details, the little daily magical spells, the annoying or funny magical creatures in a way Rowling does -- that fits into the story, however, that takes a lot more.
11). Tolkein stole the idea for the story, more or less, from Wagner's "Ring" cycle, which itself is based on Scandinavian mythology. Hogwarts is, so far as I can tell, a purely original creation.
Some reasons:
1). Ron vs. Sam: the #1 hero is the kid who inherits lots of money from their parents in both cases, but unlike Sam who is very happy to be a servant all his life, there is a very good reason why Ron's family doesn't have much money, and both he and his parents are extremely important characters precisely *for* that reason.
2). Hermione is a female character that actually matters. In general, female characters matter, and *act* female -- that is, different but not inferior to the male characters. Tolkein couldn't create a believable female character to save his life. Of course, the author being herself a woman surely helped...
3). The combination of "real-life" problems (growing up, first kiss, etc.) with the fantasy is done very skillfully in the "Potter" books, and naturally has absolutely no equivalent in LOTR. Similarly the relationship between magicians and non-magicians.
4). The idea of a school for magic is pure genius, but, more to the point -- makes the increasing power of the magic as the stories evolve seem logical. In LOTR it is never really clear why the all-powerful Gandalf doesn't do much more much sooner.
5). The nature of the "opposition" (Sauron vs. Voldermort) is much clearer. The Nazgul, for example, or Sauron himself for that matter, hardly play a part in LOTR except for the climax (and Frodo hiding for a few minutes from them doesn't count).
6). There IS "deus ex machina" in both books, of course, but in a way that is more reasonable in the "Potter" books.
7). Suspense is kept in a much more sophisticated way in the "Potter" books, especially in the richer secondary characters, whose "side" is sometimes not clear. The reasons for complicated characters' development (Snape, Hagrid, etc.) revealed gradually and make sense. In LOTR there is little chracter development at all.
8). Comic relief done very well; Rowling has an excellent sense of balance between "serious" chapters and "funny" chapters (and how to tie them all together). Almost none exists in LOTR.
9). The characters mature believably also in the physical sense of entering adulthood, not just in having more powerful magic.
10). On the whole and in general, Rowling has a much better imagination than Tolkein. It's the easiest thing in the world to imagine an all-powerful lord of darkness whose eternal minions will overcome the world with all-powerful magic until the one hero saves them. But to imagine the numerous small details, the little daily magical spells, the annoying or funny magical creatures in a way Rowling does -- that fits into the story, however, that takes a lot more.
11). Tolkein stole the idea for the story, more or less, from Wagner's "Ring" cycle, which itself is based on Scandinavian mythology. Hogwarts is, so far as I can tell, a purely original creation.
