Fogor, you have not stated a single problem or inconsistancy in Rowling's works. Rowling is extremely consistant, well plotted out, and she builds things up, setting a foundation for things that will happen later.
What you are doing, again, as I keep having to say this, is putting your EGO into everything. Nothing you have said is valid, because nothing you have said is objective. All you are doing is putting forward your PERSONAL TASTES. You are making up lies (rowling gave harry the broom to make him more popular, Rowling never plans her books ( here is jk rowling in a old interview talking about plotting her books: http://video.the-leaky-cauldron.org/video
There is a difference between taste and quality. I loved the R. L. Stine 'Goosebumps' books when I was younger. I can't read them today for two reasons: one, they are no longer my taste (subjective), and they were fairly shoddily written and plotted (objective).
You have now moved onto claiming things that are of your subjective taste as problems, yet readers (and literary experts alike) do not view those things as problems, because Rowling meticulously sets her stories up in a way so that fantastical things have a solid foundation in the world before they truly become important, or serve their purpose (I.E. plot devices, which are used to do specific things, or represent specific ideas.) You are not listing problems or inconsistancies; you are listing things you as a reader are uninterested in/did not like. they things are not inconsistant, because Rowling prepares you for them. They also, because she sets them up ahead of time, are not pulled out of thin air (an accusation you made to her i think last weekend, but never once provided a legitimate example, because they technically dont exist, and you have proven not to be a very deep reader so far, so you probably did not notice the setup in the first place *not everyone is a careful, thoughtful reader, and its just a fact of literature*).
You really need to learn to seperate your personal tastes from literature... otherwise, you really are not equiped to be able to actually comprehend what is good literature and what is not.
I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code for what it is: a fast paced, emotionally charge thriller that tackles some controversial ideas. However, it is in no way great literature... it is a good read, but the pacing and flow of the story is designed to move you quickly through the story, not tell a thoughtful story. it asks a few what if questions, but by the end, while you may have enjoyed the ride, you ultimately are not going to get much else other than the questions to ponder and a since of wonderment that eventually fades. The writing is fairly basic, and at times over done, or in need of tightening (tightening is something few writers escape the need for), and the characters are caricatures, as the story is paced so fast that you really can't develop them, as it would slow the story down so much that its flaws become even more apparent.
I can enjoy the ride (taste, as sometimes I just like to read for fun, not to think too deeply), but I can also seperate my taste to see what works and what doesnt in it (the objective and quantifiable).
Rowlings books, while not perfect in terms of writing, are near flawless in their storytelling. She paces them expertly, allowing for character development and growth to become the driving force behind the world, while crafting a rich, and varied world filled with nearly 300 characters, each with their own personalities, backstories, allegences, and ideologies.
When one learns the highschool level lit skill of being able to seperate the subjective fluff from the objective foundation of literature, then one becomes capable of beginning the long journey of understanding what constitutes good litereature.
Alot of people hate mark twain, but he is one of americas most celebrated writers for good reason: he knows how to tell powerful stories that capture and teach about moments in time, human nature, and our shared history, while poeticly using language expertly, and using a highly underutilized skill in today's literary world (Rowling uses it with great sucess) dialect and voice.
When Huck tears up the letter, and says "All right then, I'll go to hell.", Twain so perfectly summed up the characters journey.
Alot of people hate him.
However, every defence of twilight is based purely in the subjective realms of taste. It is not defended in the objective because objectively, you have to lack comprehension in literature and writing to think that twilight is even passable.
Romance is divided unequally into two spheres: there is the rare, one out of a thousand romance novel that is well written, imaginative, and formula-breaking. Then, conversely, there is the dime a ten-thousand formulaic, unimaginative, poorly written romance tripe novel. Twilight is the latter, not the first. Meyer is not the first person to write a paranormal romance involving vampires, nor the first person to pit vampires and werewolves against each other. She is not the first person to have a human girl become the object of obsession/fall in love with a paranormal creature.
She is not even the person who did it best... not by a long shot.
She found a niche with a narrow audience not known for thinking things through. tweens and immature adults are impulsive, and given the extremely impulsive nature of the books (written by a impulsive writer who says she writes what pops into her head as she goes along, and doesnt plan), and so it spoke to them.
but the writing and storytelling is still objectively and quantifiably horrible.