Why compare?

If the two series aren't competing against one another, how can you, or anyone else for that matter, make a claim as to which one is better? There are so many attributing factors that go into both novels and movies and so many subjective concepts that directing requires that it's almost impossible to compare the ideas of Rowling to those of Tolkien or Lucas to Roddenberry. I think it's stupid that we consistently find the need to qualify things like this so that one always has to be greater than the other.

Again, these forms of art are so open and broad in their styling that comparing two vastly different styles is rendered ultimately pointless. It's like trying to compare classic rock to ghetto rap (which I wouldn't mind doing in another blog post if possible). There are a few common elements that you can qualify, but everything is done in such a different manner that there is no reason to qualify them.