The first book is nothing to go by. The greatest thing about the series is that the books are getting better and better, that is to say more "grown-up". It is nice, because the kids who read them are growing up, too, so the books don't stay behind their readers. But if, as an adult, the first book did not hook you up, maybe you will not like the other books either. I cannot wait for July, though.

I hope I never outgrow a good story. And that is all the Harry Potter books are, good stories built around good vs evil, the need for acceptance among your peers, growing up as the "different" kid, etc.

There must be something specially English to this global success - going backwards to Alice, Three Men in a Boat, the Rings etc. (back to Shakespeare?). I don't recall the parallel of other english speaking countries. Could it be the english sense of humor and fantasy? I use english only for reading and internet, and once started studying french for it's literature. I won't have time to read french anyway.

I have a special connection with Harry Potter, as my grandson looked exactly like him in the movie. Suddenly everyone noticed him.

Until Harry Potter bangs Hermione your James Bond analogy is dead in the water. =D

I was reading a piece in the Hollywood Trade paper Variety a few weeks back, which was discussing the outlook for the various Hollywood studios. About Warner Bros, it simply said that "As long as nothing goes wrong with the Harry Potter movies, Warners remains in good shape regardless of what it does" and pretty much left it at that. So the Harry Potter business is carrying one of the two largest Hollywood studios pretty much by itself. The merchandising that goes with the films is enormous, DVD sales are gigantic, and most importantly there are no "first dollar gross participants" (ie people entitled to large amounts of the money) other than JK Rowling herself. (Directors, producers and actors can eat up a large portion of the profits on many movies). The films are being made by directors who are other in the second tier of Hollywoods pecking order or who are talented but relatively inexperienced presumably to keep profit share down and because they will likely do what they are told.

(In this way the Potter movies resemble the Bond movies quite a lot. The Bond movies are also directed by second tier or young and talented directors for exactly the same reason, and Pierce Brosnan has recently been sacked from the title role presumably because he had been in it for sufficiently long that he was becoming too expensive and was starting to do things like ask for particular directors).

And there is very little chance indeed of there being any more Harry Potter movies once the seven books are filmed. JK Rowling apparently has an unusual amount of creative control written into here contract with Warners, and she certainly has a veto over such things. And she has been pretty clear about seven books being the end of the story.

Good luck to Rowling, and I'm further impressed by M.Jennings's revelations about her shrewd deal with Warners. But although I've taken my son to see two of the movies, and enjoyed them moderately (albeit with Nabokovian mixed feelings about the budding Hermione) I find the books unreadable.
I've read some children's literature as an adult with great applause: Philip Reeve springs to mind, author of Mortal Engines and Predator's Gold. But Rowling is turgid stuff indeed, leaden, hackneyed, utterly uninspiring. And to anyone brought up on the traditional British children's literature of boarding school adventures, it's entirely predictable too - but still nowhere as good as Stalky & Co, say, and without the lightness of touch & good humour of the Jennings series. Sorry to be a killjoy - but then, it is Christmas.

As I recall, the James Bond books were without magical toys and a good read. As for being a battler against evil, Bond earned his '00' as an assassin.

"God knows, she can afford it."

...until NuLabor introduces a "super-duper tax" on people who make gazillions of dollars, and she flees to Monaco as a tax exile.

Of course, she could always build her castle there... less chance of it being confiscated by the Scots, too.

I don't like James Bond. He cheats at bridge.

Seriously, I'm hoping that another author does with the HP books what George MacDonald Fraser did to Tom Brown's Schooldays with his Flashman novels. Draco Malfoy and the Second Iranian Revolution perhaps?

I havent read any of the books myself, but my wife has and is a huge fan. The first two films were ok, but I'm sure much better if your a child. I was rather impressed with the third film though, which was seemed much darker than the others, and therefore more to my own taste.

If your looking for a truly above average fantasy/magic read then try the recent 'Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell' by Susanna Clarke, which I have just finished. It makes JKR look facile by comparison. But dont give it to kids. Its far too dark and disturbing.

It's worth noting that the HP books really get good with the third book, Prisoner of Azkaban. The first two were cute; PoA was gripping. It remains, in the opinion of many, the best book of the series.

Books Four and Five are good as well.

It should not be forgotten that Ian Fleming, author of the James Bond series, also wrote one very good tale for children, later adapted for the screen, namely Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
Maybe J K Rowling will turn to writing for adults when she is throug with the Harry Potter books(whom, I at least thoroughly enjoys?)

A Rowling-ized Q Division could be quite fun.

I agree that Harry Potter series became much more interesting with 'The Prisoner of Azkaban'. This is one of my favourite from series. The other is 'The Goblet of Fire'. But I don't say HP is going better with each next novel, as I find 'The Order of the Phoenix' a bit worse, and the sixth, 'The Half-Blood Prince' I finished a few days ago, seems to me significantly worse than previous parts. But may be I'll change my mind after re-reading it.