Rowling's great accomplishment was not in coming up with a bright new original fantasy series. What she did is get kids by the millions to READ!
There is some question about what that actually means in her case. Children who were already reading before they discovered Harry Potter do continue to read other books and authors (as they would have done anyway), but there doesn't seem to be much solid evidence that the kids who never willingly picked up a book before go on to discover other authors. Mostly, it seems to be wishful thinking on the part of adults, who simply believe that once children find an author they love they will go on to find other authors to like. I remember reading an article all about how Rowling started kids reading, and interviewing some of her most fervid fans. But if you paid careful attention to what the kids were saying, the picture was somewhat different. When asked, "Are you reading more now?" the answer was usually along the lines of, "Oh yes, I've read all of the Harry Potter books nine times." So reading
more doesn't necessarily mean reading a variety of books.
Certainly, Rowling (unlike other children's book authors) doesn't seem to be exerting herself to get children interested in reading other books -- she's made no effort in any of her interviews that I've read. She talks about her own books, not about the joys of reading, or about other books and authors that her readers might enjoy. (I have met and appeared at public events with other children's and YA authors, and the difference is quite striking.) And of course she has, quite famously, dissed the Narnia books.
So while I don't doubt that her books
have convinced some children that reading is more fun that they thought, I think her impact is hugely over-estimated. And compared to what it could be, if she cared to make the effort, it's very, very small.
As a Christian, I heartily recommend these books to other Christian parents as excellent for teaching great lessons to kids,
The lessons I most often hear touted are about fortitude in the face of troubles, and loyalty to one's friends. Since you read to your own kids, no doubt you are aware that these are pretty common messages in children's books, so those same lessons could be learned elsewhere. I think of more importance is the harm done by her portrayal of Harry's treatment by the Dursleys and (at least in the first few books -- I lost interest in the middle of book number four) the lack of effort and general ineffectuality of the more benevolent adults in his life to remedy the situation. I think this is a horrifying message to send to abused children, "Don't bother telling your teachers or your friends' parents, because they can't or won't do anything."
So although I am loathe to approve of any decision made by George W. Bush or his advisers (and accusations about the books teaching children about black magic or predisposing them toward witchcraft -- which would bore them silly if they knew any practicing wicca -- are absolutely absurd), I see nothing wrong with denying Rowling another award.
As for Mother Teresa, as DG said, she fed, clothed, and provided medicine to the poor. She devoted her life to doing good works. I am far more inclined to believe that the people she lived among knew more about what she accomplished than a snotty, snide commentator like Christopher Hitchens -- and having listened to him speak on TV a number of times about a number of subjects, nothing he says or writes has much credibility for me.
So I, too, find the remarks about Mother Teresa grossly unfair. If she ardently believed in Catholic doctrine, is this any great revelation? Of course she did. She was a deeply committed Catholic nun. It took Christopher Hitchens to point this out? People are entitled to their beliefs, and they are entitled to express them. It is what one does with those beliefs. She didn't pay her faith lip service, she lived it, and she didn't engage in any holy inquisitions, she simply said what she truly believed. I don't agree with many of those statements myself -- I disagree with most of them quite strongly -- but I wouldn't condemn her for saying them. That would be intolerant.
