[Revolting cat!]

Sure, Agatha Christie is fluff, too. But it is well written fluff. The cliche density maybe exaggerated, as I said, I read random two pages in several of the books. Based on that, and having read some critics who cited persuasive evidence, I think those books are simply badly written, if they are richly plotted (though a couple of critics complained that sometimes she has trouble resolving some of these rich plots.) Danielle Steel for the young ones, you might say.

The mania and fanaticism, and the lack of distance to judge their literary value are a separate topic altogether, and I've said enough anyway.

[discostu]

Well there must be something good about these books. The punchline is simple really, people read fiction for FUN, these books are FUN, therefore there’s nothing wrong with reading them. As for the fanaticism, feces happens. People get fanatical about things, I’ve seen people get fanatical about much dumber things than HP, remember pet rocks? Of course on the other side you’re just as fanatical against the books as the most ardent fan is for them. You need to figure out why you feel this desperate need to go on nearly every Potter thread and tell the world you think they suck. I don’t go on any of the motor sports threads and tell them I don’t like racing (used to like NASCAR but that was a long time ago, I didn’t hit any of the Tour de France threads and tell them bike riding is a stupid sport. I can understand you hating Potter, but it’s not healthy to need to announce it over and over day after day. We like it, you don’t, nuff said.

[null and void]

Shakespeare is full of cliches too...