I recently came across an article written by Mr. Harold Bloom, a professor at Yale entitled, "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes". He wrote about how the Harry Potter novels aren't classics and aren't written well. This is a response written specifically to Mr. Bloom.
Dear Mr. Bloom,
I have just read your article from the National Post titled "Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong? Yes" and I just have a couple comments going off some of the points that you have made in the said article. You mention in your first paragraph that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is not well written and I personally disagree.
A little background on myself, my major is Secondary Education for Language, Literature, and Writing. That being said, when you look at the books in the series that were published when you wrote this article, I would argue that the thought out plot, character timeline, and background to the story make this a well-written novel.
The complex idea of magic comes from Ancient Egyptian mythology ideology. With a bit of research, you can find that one of the classes being taught at Hogwarts is "History of Magic" and the magic that is used in the Harry Potter series has a well thought out history. What makes this a great novel, in my opinion, is that you can track J. K. Rowling's story all the way back through history to Mythology itself.
You also say "I will keep in mind that a host is reading it who simply will not read superior fares, such as Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows or the Alice books of Lewis Carroll." Now because this statement is not saying that everyone who reads Harry Potter will not read these novels, I cannot argue that this is a false statement. However, I can attest that I have read many pieces of literature that are deemed "classics" before I read the Harry Potter Series.
On my own time, I have read things like Lord of the Rings, Shakespeare's plays and sonnets (many of them), Edgar Allan Poe, Wuthering Heights, etc. When I was in fifth grade I had the option of reading Harry Potter or the Inheritance Cycle (Eragon), which is a far more complex series, and I insisted on reading Eragon instead. It's not that readers as a whole will not read the "classics" or "simply will not read" one novel over another, everyone has their own choice to read something or not, and I believe that it shouldn't be ridiculed or criticised.
You mention that Rowling never clarifies why Harry is given to the Dursley's for the first portion of his life and he suffers due to it. Yes, Harry suffers and doesn't know the truth about magic and how his parents really died, but to be quite frank, Rowling explains her reasoning on why Harry is given to the Dursley's within Dumbledore's conversation with Professor McGonagall as it states "'It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?'"
Within the story, the reason for leaving Harry with the Dursley's is so that he won't know that he is famous. But with deeper thinking, one could argue that it is to protect him from the potentially still alive Voldemort. Or because he was with them and comes from an unfortunate situation, it gives Harry a bigger appreciation and wonder to the wizarding world.
With in-depth thinking towards the Harry Potter series, you can really imagine anything is possible in that realm. Yet the characters are relatable, and that is why everyone loves the series, whether it is children's literature or not. I hope you take my opinion into consideration. I don't expect you to change your mind, just to think about the opposing opinion every once and a while.