> The use of character archetypes (however blatant it may be) isn't what I'm contesting - they are well written books (for the most part), but the thing is that they require no real effort to read...

If this is true, literary enthusiasts must have been right about Ernest Hemingway (whose greatness among most other respected writers studied in high school literature classes I've questioned for years now), because his books take a LOT of effort for me to endure.

But I think I gather what you're getting at:

> My personal "classics" are those which have evoked a genuine emotional response from me, the sort of books that leave you pondering what happened in them for hours afterwards.

This I can certainly respect. However, I would submit that this comes down to a matter of personal taste. Although the Potter books do not carry a lot of emotional weight and study humanistic ethical dilemmas, they *do* actually inspire me to think about how these actually complex tales come together. It occurs to me now to liken the Potter books to "Back to the Future," a movie that is utterly without "substance" but so wholly devoted to the entertainment of the viewer that every nuance, every detail, every subtle little thing plays a role in delivering the story, such that one can notice something new with every viewing. It's rare for a story to be as tightly told and richly detailed as this.

Potter works more or less on the same level. It uses archetypal characters and weaves them together in intriguing ways and cranking up the mystery and humor, not to mention placing them all in a highly original world.

This is what great entertainment is all about, really. There are no new ideas, only new ways to use them. Archetypal characters are archetypal in the first place because, when used properly, they work -- for some reason, they resonate with the human psyche. Whether one enjoys one story or another depends not so much on what something is about but how it's packaged and delivered. The Potter books are relentlessly creative and tightly told, and every last word is in whole service to entertaining the reader.

That's Rowling's part of it. The rest all comes down to the reader and his or her personal taste. You didn't find the humor funny, are apparently not inspired by the creativity of the world, and would prefer to read something with more intellectual content. Great. That's not a problem. But if you are questioning why the Potter books are so popular and revered, as your original post seems to wonder, this is why.

> >I thought Rowling's writing is well above the level of the average modern children's book for subtlety.
>
> Perhaps, if you're including "The Hungry Little Caterpillar" in there, and all those trashy "horror" novels.

The Hungry Little Caterpillar is great writing, but it's on a wholly different level and hardly comparable. When was the last time you browsed the children's/teen's section of a bookstore? It's almost universal crap. That doesn't make Rowling better, but I do think she writes well and is incredibly inventive.