I did just read the first HP book, and I have to agree with the posts that say it's not really fair to compare the two. It WOULD be fair, however, to compare the Potter books with Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia--which also run rings around it.
I really don't think HP is bad reading, but it is shallower then C.S. Lewis, which is by comparison much more accessible to younger children than LOTR.
...of course I'm not going to discourage my kids from reading any of these when they get a little older--my first one's only 7 weeks old... :)
I would agree with that statement, mostly.
Altho I think in one way, Potter is superior to Lewis.
You sound like me, a hard-core fantasy/swords and sworcery fan. I read LotR in 6th grade, and just ate it up. I loved and played waaay to much D&D. Read the Conan books, Piers Anthony, all that.
But do remember, most people are *not* like us. We absolutely relate to characters who's motivation is to fight great evil. That, to us, is the height of entertainment.
But many people are more like my daughter, or wife, or mother. They enjoy fantasy okay, but don't really 'relate'. They much prefer stories about 'real' people with 'real' problems, problems similar to those that they, themselves, have. Problems that *they* can relate to.
That is where the HP books surpass any of that classic lit, even Lewis. And I think that is the reason for it's success.
All kids absolutely *love* the fantasy of a unhappy, picked-on kid finding out he's a famous and powerful wizard, who then uses his powers to have great adventures and get back at the people who tormented him!
Congrats, but how many others have you had in the last 7 weeks.