I always find it a bit difficult to discuss art, beyond talking about individual preferences. But nevertheless, I believe there are certain commonalities that 'good' works of art share (be it literature, visual art, sound), and - to my mind - these encompass aspects like complexity of plot, of character, mastery of language, avoidance of trite or common expressions and presence of formulations that appear like fresh snow, a sense of the author having digested prior work, of having a recognizable individual voice. Criteria change, and previous giants sometimes turn out to have been dwarfs on plateau shoes; I certainly won''t claim better vision than others, but if a work of art doesn't surprise me, doesn't trigger some combination of brain & gut reactions, I can't imagine it'll be here for the long haul.

My readings rarely follow the cannon (although some of it matches), and the earlier edification goes out the window, the better (except perhaps in the sense of: expose readers to as many thoughts and moralities as possible, and let them make up their own mind). I don't care whether a work of fiction is 'fantasy', 'SF' or some other category. I do care whether it challenges or bores me, whether it's a quick, forgettable read or something that I will savor slowly, that will stick in my throat, that I'll remember and come back to. I'm attracted by non-linear narrative, magical realism, unexpected hooks, concepts taken to their logical conclusion and then spun on from there (wouldn't want to fill this with my preferred authors, which are anyway listed in my profile), and I found Rowlings first book too linear, too predictable, too straight-forward. The fact that it's hyped... well, to be honest, I *am* allergic to marketing machines, which doesn't necessarily say anything about the qualities of the book, but I think does say something about the mind set of the author. To really emit an opinion on her, I would of course have to read more than I did...

From your description, I should perhaps have a look at Rowlings last book (I probably will, as soon as somebody pushes it into my hands), but the issues you say you have with her tripped me up from the beginning. The whole structure of book 1 (as far as I got) was just too ad-hoc, hey let's magick this into existence, too cheap tricks, too easy. I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, and if people enjoy her, fine. In your case, it seems to have done much more than that, which is wonderful, and something few authors manage for me either. I can only encourage readers of HP to look at alternatives afterwards, who might be able to pull off something similar (or better, I hope).

But perhaps we should take this discussion to another thread - is there a difference in people's minds between 'high art' and 'low art'? Or does it all boil down to 'I like it, so it is true art'? Is there a range, and how does one position a work on that range? Should one even do that? Does mastery of the craft enter into it? Does genius? Does popular acclaim? If a piece of art is created in the forest, and nobody sees it, can it be a masterwork? Does the artist know what she is doing? Does it matter?