Where did I say that? Or did you just assume, like you assume things about the books you are discussing?
Therefore, on a deep level you do not comprehend the mistrust parents have for books about witchcraft aimed at their impressionable eight-year-olds, or the contempt parents hold for those who would corrupt their kids under the guise of "literacy."
I see a lot of parents on this thread who do not hold these paranoid objections that you do. I thought because they had children they were experts on Child Behavior and Development?
Read whatever you want. Just don't tell me you understand anything about the mind of a four-year-old, except what you remember from your own childhood, what you've seen on TV, or what you've read in the Child Psychology 101 syllabus.
Hmmm... If I recall my under-grad work in psychology, Intro to Psych was 101, Child Psych was 211, Behavioral Development was 345, and Patterns of Learning and Memory was 440. Of course, if I don't have children, education about development is nonsense; almost like magic, huh?
Because that's not proof enough for most parents that you know what you're talking about, especially those parents who've read Rowling for themselves and find H.P. vapid, derivative and dangerous.
Declaring Rowlings "vapid" and "derivative" shows that either you have not read her writings or you have no ability to recognize good writing. Good Doctor, please quit trying to change the debate when you are losing. I answered your challenges in full and instead of a rebuttal, I recieve a reply full of indignation that I can't understand children. Bad form.
Why am I not surprised?
I've read all H.P. books, and you have no idea of my literary qualifications. Unfortunately, you've shown yourself to be what so many parents fear -- an 'expert' on other people's children.
After you've raised a few kids, we'll talk some more.