Ridikulus!

Erica Wagner at the British paper The Times thinks Harry Potter was slain by his popularity, "slain by the hype that now surrounds him."

Wagner's article has a couple of good spots, like her speculation that the massive media converage of J.K. Rowling had to have had an effect on her, and therefore the books as well. I tend to agree, though I still doubt that the books suffered. Wagner's most interesting connection by far (which I'm not sure about) is that the character of Rita Skeeter is Rowling's revenge on a rabbid media. Of course, Rowling had the entire story planned out before the first book was even written, but I don't know how detailed it was or whether it was just a concept that left wiggle room for new material, etc.

Some of Wagner's other assertions are just plain wrong. Apparently I know a little more about Rowling and Harry Potter than she does...

The books kept growing. Fatter and fatter they got, and their devoted readers devoured all the pages Rowling could produce. But should she have written so many? Hard to think so. The trouble is, once an author becomes an Author, the pressure to produce the books, once a manuscript has been delivered, is intense.

Once again, Rowling had seven books planned from the start.

...as the books have grown they have, too, somehow become smaller, lesser. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix could have been improved immeasurably if it had been cut by half.

Let me check. Uh, no way! I devoured every page of Order, and there's no way she could have fit everything in there on any less trees. I frankly can't wait for the next two, especially their length. And did I mention that I believe Rowling "smuggles the Gospel" into her books in the same tradition as Tolkien and Lewis? Read this book to understand what I mean.