4. Digestible Length and Complexity
It may be that The Lord Of The Rings, is better written than Harry Potter and I think it's true that Tolkien possessed more writer's craft than J.K Rowling herself possesses. But I couldn't care less about that. Furthermore, The Lord of The Rings films may be better made critically but once again, who cares about that? After all, I myself am not a critic. I read Harry Potter with abundant more pleasure than I did The Lord Of The Rings. I appreciated Rowling's work infinitely more because it is not overly convoluted or hard to follow and likewise, it is not too slow-paced and long winded. In contrast, I read Lord Of The Rings as more of a chore rather than to get enjoyment. I almost read it out of a sense of duty to Tolkien to show my appreciation for the world which he has fashioned. The trilogy is so chock full of irrelevant place names and character names that don't contribute towards the furthering of the plot, that at some points in the novel, it is impossible to absorb and process everything that's going into your head. The Lord Of The Rings is also designed to be a children's trilogy. It's a miracle how any child could possibly read and digest such a complex and wordy novel. I know I'd much rather plump for Harry Potter over The Lord Of The Rings as a bedtime story for my child. Even The Lord Of The Rings movies are suspect to these weaknesses. All three films consist of a ridiculous amount of running time (at just under 3 hours per film) and furthermore, any gripping battle sequence that features in the trilogy is preceded by hours and hours of lengthy build up, so much so that many adults as well as children will undoubtedly lose focus and concentration. In comparison, the concluding Harry Potter movie for example was 120 minutes only. This helped in fashioning a fast paced action thriller that drove the franchise home brilliantly.