There's a snippy article in today's Wall Street Journal ("The Battle of the Books," Brian M. Carney) saying that Harry Potter books can't be very good because The Lord of the Rings is much better. Doesn't seem like a logical argument to me...however, ObB7:

"When Socrates wanted to examine whether the just or the unjust man was happier, he employed a myth in which a man finds a ring that allows him to become invisible and so, if he chooses, to commit terrible crimes with impunity. Tolkien (belatedly) takes up Socrates' inquiry by attempting to show that the man who uses such a ring--even the good man--is worse off than he who would destroy it. [...] Thus Tolkien's ring is most dangerous to its wisest and most powerful characters--princes and wizards who can be made to believe that they will wield absolute power benevolently."

-(Y)