They are not any different than fairy tales,boos about the Arthurian legend, and any number of other books that children have read , or been read to, for 100's of years.
You have ignored the fact that my main argument against these books is one of preference for superior alternatives, and that anything less than excellent is, as far as I am concerned, a waste of time and in the wrong direction. I note that the consistent apologies for the books that they are "not that bad," begs the question as to why they aren't that good. Meanwhile, I do think judging them as harmless before they are all written is a bit premature. Rowling has promised that they will get (in her words), "darker." As such, to conclude that they meet my standards of excellence would be logically foolish.
Most of the Potter's defenders on this thread are doing so from the perspective of adult readers, which is, in this market, specious reasoning, especially considering that the product is specifically targeted toward young children. Note that few have discussed a threshold of maturity before the material would appropriate. Such an oversight is indicative of their caution and diligence as parents.
As for whether I should follow your example, well, fuggeddaboudit. You assume WAY too much by judging my accomplishments from their harsh beginnings.
I have said, and always say, that the Harry Potter books are very derrivative of other BETTER written, English books for children. That's why I don't enjoy readig Rowlings. I keep hearing the likes of Roald Dhal, and many others , who are / were far better writers. As far as age limits , no, no one has brought that up. I rather doubt that parents are reading HP books to 3,4,or 5 year olds. I wouldn't read " LITTLE WOMEN ", the Tarzan series, nor " HAMLET " to that age group either. Would you ?
You brought up your bad behavior, when you were young. If you don't want it thrown back in your face, then don't talk about it. It certainly was far from relivant, to this thread. : - )