When I was a kid I loved Heinlein, Asimov, Piers Anthony, Howard, Lovecraft, among dozens of other then popular scifi and fantasy authors
Heinlein is some weirdo libertarian fascist
Asimov hates women and was a notorious sex creep
Zanthony is a pedophile and his books are full of creepy shit
Howard was staggeringly racist
Lovecraft is also famously racist.
And that's just the ones off the top of my head.
At some point I learned that all these guys were creeps, came to terms with it, and moved on with my life. Like an adult.
So all these people whining that "oh no I can't let go of my childhood!!!!" fill me with contempt. Many of the great shit-head scifi/fantasy writers of the 20th century made great contributions to the field of fantasy and sci fi. Our conception of robots wouldn't be the same without Asimov. Heinlein changed military sci-fi forever. Howard's Conan had a lasting impact on fantasy fiction far beyond what was merited by his mediocre writing. Lovecraft introduced the notion of Cosmic Horror that continues to push back the borders of science fiction today.
Rowling can claim none of that. Her wizard books are extremely mediocre with poor plots, flat characters, and no new ideas. Their popularity is the result of a then unprecedented marketing campaign, not any particular artistic merit. They're entirely pedestrian and forgettable and there's no reason to read them except as a historical curiosity or a case study in successful marketing of children's literature.
I gave up many genuinely influential and talented writers when I realized that they were jackasses. There was nothing riding on it. No one is using Lovecraft to justify violence against Inuit people or something. I just found out they were jerks and said "Well shit. Guess I won't recommend these to kids anymore".
And all these jackasses have the audacity to say that we should respect their love of the mid wizard book beause it's so important to them?
Rowling's first book felt like a straight Roahl Dahl knock off (also, incidentally, highly problematic). Orphan boy escapes his shitty pedestrian life with magical powers and goes on an adventure in a fantasy land both that is both romantic and dangerous. That's textbook Dahl.
I get why people like Rowling. I loved James and the Giant Peach, growing up. I didn't care about Dahl's politics then and I'd still probably read the story to my kids now.
The idea doesn't have to be original. You don't need to be the first person to ever think of a robot or a wizard in order to write a compelling story. Rowling's marriage of the mundane and the fantastic - the suicidally depressing and ecstatically exhilarating - gives HP legs and draws readers on to the next books.
That's good enough on its own merits to read the first few books (although I'd just stop at 4, because they drop off quick after that).
Similarly, I'm still going to read The Color From Outer Space and I, Robot without a pang of guilt. If I find out Brian Sanderson writes all his first editions in baby blood, I'm not going to stop enjoying Mistborn or the back end of Wheel of Time, either.
I don't think Rowling is anything special. But if I did, I would simply pirate the video game.
That is not how I remember Harry Potter, but it has been several decades. I always assumed people liked it so much because they hadn't read anything else, and because the massive marketing push reached people who weren't previously interested in fantasy.
I mean it depends on when are you looking at Harry Potter, because I originally remembered it being marketed not on the merits of its story, but practically as a quasi-pedagogical tool, finally a panacea to sooth the children who cannot click the book. You had to see it to believe it, kids reading books instead of playing Nintendos. And HP probably single-handedly opened the floodgates for YA literature, so there was probably some truth to it. Hell, probably the lord of the rings renaissance and movie adaptations owe something to HP's success. And for what is worth, I do remember them being pageturners when I was like 12, all the way to the fifth book where Harry Potter became too whiny an adolescent for me to want to keep up. I dunno, marketing alone can get you so far.
I think people here like to undersell a cultural artifact so big that it's only comparable to stuff like Pokemon. And they have no reason to, despite whatever qualities HP may have it remains, objectively, a book series meant for children. And their adult consumers remain perpetually arrested to their childhoods, and that's pathetic enough.
I think it was more a cultural artifact of the book publishing industry marrying itself into the entertainment industry successfully and was the pilot for it and what followed (all the post apoc YA stuff, Twilight, etc) was an indication that it was a successful full market campaign. People forget how Harry Potter was fucking EVERYWHERE, news, tv special, radio shows (positive press and negative crazed christian press), and one aspect people forget was the internet via AOL which was owned by Time Warner (oh wow who owns the HP license again???). Just damn insidious and impressive.