also, I could tell you a lot about Bilbo from that Hobbit, how be develops, is cautious and conservative but will rise to the occasion when needed.  I can tell you why he is brave.  

When trying to characterize Harry Potter characters, it's kind of frustrating.   What is Harry actually like?  He's kind of just an element that the reader can use as a vehicle to imagine themselves in a fun world.  And this is... Fine, I guess.   But all the other characters kinda suffer too.   Hermione is a girl.  And she's a nerd.   That's.... Kinda it.  Ron is .... Loyal?  I guess? and poor?   He's kind of just a stand in for Harry to access whacky hijinks.   But after hundreds, if not thousands of pages, these are beloved protagonists that I sincerely can say very little about.  Honestly the only character growth I can really think of is with Malfoy, and it was basically "he was a nasty little jerk, but actually by the end, he was quite vulnerable and human, by which I mean he was a sobbing little bitch who couldn't cut it as a death eater, haha what a little bitch amirite?" 

The times that are most profound are either trite truisms (the only thing more powerful than magic is love.... Okay that's nice but.... What does that mean....?  Why did Harry survive?  Like.... You don't have to explain it but if "love" is a valid defense in the arsenal of magic battles I kinda have some questions), or they are kinda downright shallow and ugly (the fat mean bitch was bad and she lost to the good guys because they are good and she is bad!  Doesn't that feel good? No?).  

I just..... I really hate Harry Potter.  

ALSO haha sorry. 

You know what else I hate?  Turkish delight. 

Based on what that little glutton was willing to do to get it I assumed for years as I just that Turkish delight was the most rarified, delicious substance in the world.   And by how I could never find it in the American grocery store this Vernon l belief was super reinforced.    

Boy was I disappointed when I finally ate some.  Dessert equivalent of pastel crayons.  

I see what you are saying- and mostly I just want to make sure we aren't relegating children's literature to being necessarily bad or nonsensical.  

I think suspension of disbelief hits the nail on the head- but I think there is a little more nuance.  

There has to be some internal sense and cohesion.   Things can be as outlandish and nonsensical as you like, but it has to feel plausible in the larger framework provided by setting, characters, themes, plot elements, etc.  

Series of unfortunate events was constantly extremely hyperbolic about everything.  I don't remember them too well, but I do remember that simple hyperbole was the beginning and end of everything in those books.  Sunny could bite anything.   That could be used in any possible way you could think of.   It was internally coherent.  (Incidentally, you absolutely can burn down a house with a magnifying glass, and lenses left on in sight of sunny windows are not a terribly uncommon source of house fires).  

I think the Hobbit does, mostly, hold up to scrutiny here too - there are some inconsistent and jarring things.  Coloquial English language and references.  A lot of explanations of characters that you kinda just take for granted.  But it's all pretty grounded.   I can't think of anything that really defies explanation or requires the reader to go out of their way to make it make sense.  

I don't like Harry Potter.   I do, think that it is shit.   But I have what I think are some pretty good reasons for this, and the big one, is these internal inconsistencies.   But fair warning.   I do think it's shit.   I don't think all kid's books are shit though.  And again, incidentally, I think le Guinn or Pullman is very comparable if not more accessible than the Hobbit or Harry Potter.     Pullman further follows a similar trajectory to Rowling where each successive book feels more targeted at an older audience.  

They are constant, and egregious, and I think that they stem from Rowling's adamant refusal to engage critically with her materially, and more speculatively, with reality or herself as a person.  

Where other "great" fantasy might be inconsistent with logic or reality, it still "makes sense", internally.  

In HP, I'm constantly hit with these weird contradictions the are pretty obviously a consequence of not bothering you think it through.  

Like, instead of explaining or inventing perfectly "reasonable" limitations to time travel, or even just writing them off as "it's magic okay, don't worry too much about it", Rowling goes out of her way to logically explain it away instead, and paradoxically arrives at the most jarring, nonsensical explanation possible - "Neville just trips and breaks it all okay?" 

It does nothing to resolve previous questions created by the time turners, but more than that, it destroys suspension of disbelief.   They aren't just magic, subject to the inexplicable mysteries of magic.   No, they have to be logically explained, in the most ham handed and stupid way possible.  

HP is full of shit like this.   And it results in some pretty bizarre shit, especially in the later books.  

Early on, the house elves are kind of just this weird, whimsical thing.  Hermione bringing up ethical issues about them is kinda fun and interesting.   But boy does Rowling get in the weeds on this.  Every single book explores more and more how the house elves are this big important piece of the wizard economy, and how some wizards are good slave owners, and others are bad slave owners.   It's just.... It's kind of the opposite of what you are defending.  It would be so easy to gloss over and dismiss, except that Rowling doubles down every book and keeps trying to explain it logically and ethically, and it pulls these elements out of the magical world, and exposed in the cruel light she has put them in, they are so, so out of place and jarring, and sometimes downright ugly.  

Have you tried rereading Harry Potter as an adult, and rereading some of these other books as an adult?   Some children's books really hold up.  I actually find that the first 2-3 Harry Potter books hold up pretty well, incidentally, mostly because they aren't trying to explain everything, be something they aren't, tackle more complex subject matter, etc.  But especially passed 4, man do they start to fall apart.

But I don't think books, especially that are fantastical, or for kids, have to strictly adhere to or engage with reality to suspend disbelief by any means.   But I do think they have to engage critically with themselves.    And Harry Potter doesn't do that.   It's constantly at odds with itself.  

The break from being whimsical to try to be grounded and realistic is actually a great example of this, and why I think most readers barely remember anything that actually happened in the series passed the fourth book.   

Like wtf even happened in order of the Phoenix?

I could tell you a shitton of things about 1-3- they were internally coherent and memorable at least.  

And some stuff about 4 - dating sim and big contest with other schools.  But passed that? 

5- I think Harry inherits a house?  I vaguely remember more world building outside of the school, but it was all pretty incoherent and man they should just go back to school, I can't remember a damn thing.  

6- I had to look this one up.  I wasn't sure if it existed.  I remembered there was an order of the Phoenix, and that there was a last one where he beats Voldemort but wasn't there one in between?    Okay, yeeaaaa this one, I think they are back at school now.  It's revealed that snape is a secret good guy.  I think that's this one.    I remember literally nothing else.   Is this where she tries to explain everything about the wizard politics and economy maybe?  

7- they are out of school again and running around in the woods.   Everything is very surreal and deep, but not really, because none of it makes any sense.  Harry falls in a pond and gets hypothermia and has some kind of vision that's very important.  Why?  Who the fuck knows.   They beat Voldemort and Harry has another deep vision where Voldemort is like.... A little crying baby or something?  Is that right?  Wtf is happening?  Who gives a shit, they all live happily ever after and get married and join the government and become police officers or something or other.  

I don't think it's complaining at the puppet show- I think it's pretty egregiously bad, and poorly executed, and doesn't try to engage with itself very well.