Now, Harry Potter belongs to the ages and his fans have the rest of their lives ahead of them. So do I. As part of the hoard that took part in the buildup of Harry anticipation, I spent hours talking to various experts and dutifully recording their responses. I learned very little that I didn't already know since I talked to other experts in 2005 for "The Half-Blood Prince."

Little remains to be told about the Potter phenomenon. It's been dissected, probed, stretched and subject to rigorous literary and marketing analysis.

One of the commonly accepted "facts" about the series is that it has drawn more younger readers to books, a conclusion that's inescapable when you look at the huge sales figures -- 350 million in print.

Feeling the strain to do something contrary, the New York Times assigned its publishing reporter to, please, please, find something negative to say about the books.

Motoko Rich's effort, published July 11 got off to a great start:

"... the truth about Harry Potter and reading is not quite so straightforward a success story," she wrote in carefully couched prose. "Some researchers and educators say the series, in the end, has not tempted children to ... curl up with a book."

Note the phrase "some researchers." Not five or three, but "some."

Rich doesn't know how many "researchers" have determined that the books have not encouraged reading. Instead, she cites a poet and former salesman for General Foods as her "expert."

That would be Dana Gioia, who's chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, but, at last check, has no qualifications to discuss reading habits of children.

Gioia, says Rich, has "reviewed statistics from federal and private sources that consistently show that children read less as they age."

Quoth the chairman:

"The trouble is that one Harry Potter novel every few years is not enough to reverse the decline in reading."

Well, that settles the matter.

In the story, Rich and Gioia engaged in generalities drawn from unnamed sources and offer nothing statistical to support them.

It's rumored the NEA will announce the findings of its own study of young readers in the fall, probably in the same vein as its earlier report on a fall in fiction reading among young adults.

Well into her recitation of anecdotes and surmises, Rich finally cites figures from the U.S. Department of Education's regular assessments of academic progress, conducted "every few years."

From fourth grade to eighth grade, kids' recreational reading declines, said the Education Department. The percentage drop is large -- 43 percent of fourth-graders read for fun; 19 percent of eighth-graders do.

Aha, claims Rich, here is proof that even in years when a Potter volume was published, children continued to read less as they grew older. The boy wizard's magic is nothing but a bag of phony tricks.

Balderdash, I say. This study makes no attempt to determine what kids read, when they read it and what influences a specific book carries among children.

I say eighth-graders read more books and other materials for school than do fourth-graders, leaving less time for "fun" reading.

Rich, however, at her moment of deconstructionist glory, must have been struck by a magic spell from Hogwarts.

"Many parents, educators and librarians say," she suddenly announces, "despite such statistics, they have seen enough evidence to convince them that Harry Potter is a bona fide hero."

Gee, these are people who actually live and work with young readers. Their youthful charges are entranced by the books, gobble them up, reread them and, of course, pick up other books.

She then devotes the second half of her article on the Potter persuasion and what a great thing it is for reading.

"Still there is something about seeing the passion that a novel can inspire that excites those who want to perpetuate a culture of reading," Rich says.

Everyone, it seems, has fallen under the spell of Rowling's power -- and she chose the book to let it work its magic.

Smart woman.

First Published: July 20, 2007, 5:00 p.m.