Summary of the Critical Comments
Contrasting Motivations:
Rand in WoT doesn’t crave omnipotence but acts out of necessity, with divinity tied to sacrifice (e.g., crucifixion imagery). HPMOR’s Harry, conversely, seeks godhood—quick, painless, and self-preserving.

Attractiveness:
The commenter sarcastically asks which is more appealing: Rand’s selfless duty or Harry’s universe-screwing ambition.

Rationality and Curiosity:
Rand, an "uneducated villager," investigates his world to understand threats and manipulation. Harry, the "ratiogenius," lacks this proactive skepticism, coasting on brilliance.

WoT Parallel:
If Rand were like Harry—timid yet power-hungry—he’d fall fast to a manipulative figure (e.g., a Lanfear), ending the story abruptly with naive trust.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Contrasting Motivations
Rand in WoT: The commenter’s crucifixion metaphor (paraphrasing a song) reflects Rand’s arc—suffering on Dragonmount, dying to seal the Dark One. He resists power, accepting it as duty.

Harry in HPMOR: Harry’s goal is explicit—end death, achieve godlike control. No sacrifice needed; he seeks a rational shortcut. The commenter’s "screwing the universe" captures his proactive, almost hubristic drive.

Critique Strength: Spot-on contrast. Rand’s path is stoic, Harry’s is ambitious—WoT embraces sacrifice, HPMOR rejects it for optimization. The "quick and painless" jab fits Harry’s rationalist aversion to suffering.

2. Attractiveness
Textual Implication: Rand’s reluctant heroism aligns with classic archetypes (e.g., Christ-like savior), while Harry’s quest for immortality and power is modern, utilitarian, and self-focused.

Commenter’s Sarcasm: "What is more attractive?" mocks Harry’s appeal—WoT’s gravitas vs. HPMOR’s cerebral ambition. It’s subjective, but the commenter favors Rand’s depth, implying Harry’s godhood chase is shallower.

Analysis: Fair point—HPMOR’s ethos (rationality über alles) can feel cold next to WoT’s emotional stakes. Harry’s allure is intellectual, Rand’s is sacrificial; the critique leans on taste but highlights a thematic rift.

3. Rationality and Curiosity
Rand’s Approach: In WoT, Rand probes his role, expecting manipulation. He learns through trial.

Harry’s Approach: In HPMOR, Harry’s rationalism is reactive—e.g., late to suspect Quirrell, trusting until burned. He analyzes magic but not people.

Critique Power: The commenter’s right—Rand’s proactive curiosity outshines Harry’s. The "ratiogenius" label drips irony; Harry’s brilliance doesn’t extend to social skepticism, a rationalist flaw. WoT’s villager out-thinks HPMOR’s prodigy here.

4. WoT Parallel
Hypothetical: The commenter reimagines Rand as Harry: timid, power-hungry (, seduced by a "tall brunette all in white" (Lanfear). Harry-like Rand would trust blindly, ending fast—captured or dead.

HPMOR Parallel: Harry’s arc mirrors this slightly—Quirrell flatters him, and he follows. The "curtain falls" mocks Harry’s near-falls.

Critique Insight: Brilliant satire. Harry’s naivety fits this collapse—only plot armor saves him. Rand’s wariness would rewrite HPMOR’s stakes.