I have to respond to Joyce Cassar's rant.

She goes on and on at great length about magic, black and white and all the shades in between (I prefer the euphemistic "world-of-make-belief") and the effect this has on children (I have yet to know a child who does not resort to a fantasy land, largely using this as a learning experience - girls drooling over dolls, all demure and submissive, and boys, well, not quite drooling, over toy cars and such like, certainly not demure, heavens forbid, and groomed for aggression. We condition them from early on).

Vulnerable children - you bet! At one point she says it would be pretentious for anybody to decide which children are vulnerable to a diet of fantasies (the negative supernatural) and which not (having forgotten that, in the previous sentence, she did just that). To be fair to Ms Cassar, what she is saying is that "traumatised" children are attracted to the occult and the rest (the well-adjusted) are conditioned to the positively supernatural. Many would say that the occult and all the words that define it (they are but words) include also what Ms Cassar terms "the positive supernatural".

Personally, all I know of Ms Rowling's literary output is the crushingly boring posters, etc. that are all over the place. I have a fair idea of what it is all about - how can it escape me, how can it escape anyone?! - but I would not demolish it simply because it deals with the supernatural.

It is no more than a little fun - maybe sinful but certainly a big money-spinner. The fun in sin? Of course, abuse of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, people, i.e. power-chasing, food, you name it... What matters is that one must be mature enough to be aware of the consequences of one's actions and the supernatural - the "carrot-and-stick" kind of gobbledegook type - does not come into the equation, not at all.