[Aquinasfan]

I think O'Brien identifies the heart of the difference between Rings and Harry here:

Much of the neopagan use of magic is the converse of this. It is frequently used to overwhelm, deceive and defile. In the Harry Potter series, for example, Harry resists and eventually overcomes Voldemort with the very powers the Dark Lord himself uses. Harry is the reverse image of Frodo. Rowling portrays his victory over evil as the fruit of esoteric knowledge and power. This is Gnosticism. Tolkien portrays Frodo's victory over evil as the fruit of humility, obedience and courage in a state of radical suffering. This is Christianity. Harry's world is about pride, Frodo's about sacrificial love. There is, of course, plenty of courage and love in the Harry Potter series, but it is this very mixing of truth and untruth which makes it so deceptive. Courage and love can be found in all peoples, even those involved in the worst forms of paganism. The presence of such virtues does not automatically justify an error-filled work of fiction. In Potter-world the characters are engaged in activities which in real life corrupt us, weaken the will, darken the mind, and pull the practitioner down into spiritual bondage. Rowling's characters go deeper and deeper into that world without displaying any negative side effects, only an increase in "character". This is a lie. Moreover, it is the Satanic lie which deceived us in Eden: You can have knowledge of good and evil, you can have Godly powers, and you will not die, you will not even be harmed by it-you will have enhanced life. There is so much that dazzles and delights in Rowling's sub-creation, the reader must exercise a certain effort to see these interior contradictions and mixed messages.

On the other hand, O'Brien says that the use of "magic" in Rings tends to diminish people/hobbits. I'm on page 50 now and I'm seeing that the ring diminishes whoever holds it. For example, Bilbo stopped aging and was tempted to hold on to the ring, even though he felt like he was withering away.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It would be great if everyone discussing these books had made the effort to read them, as you've done.

The number of parents who see no harm in "Harry Potter", yet haven't read one word, is disheartening.

However, it does explain a lot.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I think the problem is you keep quoting people who have obviously never read the Harry Potter books. They form their opinions from other peoples opinion and so on. They obviously have only a passing knowledge of Tolkien as well. Harry does not use magic for his own selfish purposes, in fact, the books are very explicit when they point out that in Rowling's created world, magic is a neutral force. The application of ethics and morality appear due to the intent of the wielder. Just like in Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Tolkien is deeper, however, because he discusses things like corruptability and the addictions of power, but Tolkien's work is also aimed at a significantly older audience than Rowling's work. Rowling's work teached good vs. evil. When a good character makes a bad choice and does something bad, he pays the consequences. That is a much different lesson than is taught to children through most forms of children's entertainment. Good vs. Evil; consequences of actions; personal improvement through hard work; friendship and loyalty; respecting authority. What horrible things are taught at Hogwart's, huh? The rules of her created world are that magic exists, and it exists as a mechanical action, like chemistry or physics. It's a tool to be used for good or evil, because, as is her rule for that imaginary world, it contains no inherent evil or goodness.