(Scholastic Press, NYSE: SCHL)'s Harry Potter won't rank on the New York Times (The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT))' best sellers list. You might wonder how could that could possibly be true. It's simple. In a move which is said to have been a knee-jerk reaction to complaints by the sellers and publishers of more "serious" books, The New York Times banished "children's books" to a secondary list of their own, thus clearing the Harry Potter series from its ownership of three spots within the top fifteen positions on best sellers lists. That was supposedly to open those spots for occupancy by more deserving titles.

How yawn inspiring is that? We all know just how well those Harry Potter books have sold. What the whole thing signals to me is that the book watchers of The New York Times were just too stupidly motivated to stop and think that the Potter-displacing category change would only further instill the obviousness of their palpable impertinence.

The Harry Potter books don't need The New York Times, they never did and they never will. As a matter of fact, good literature never needed the Times. The Harry Potter books made J.K.Rowling the wealthiest author on the planet by virtue of Harry's own magic. Frankly, the Times and their top ten list had little to say about that.

More Harry Potter news

Tom Barlow: The Harry Potter Finance Quiz
Tom Barlow: Harry Potter ending: A water cooler cheat sheet
Zac Bissonnette: With Harry Potter done, is it time for Scholastic to sell itself?
Tom Barlow: Rowling safeguards Potter empire
Zac Bissonnette: Is the last book the end of Potter mania?
Tom Barlow: Harry Potter and the Pots of Gold
Barry Summerlin: Harry Potter doesn't even need Muggle marketing
Julie Tilsner: Not even Harry can save bookstores from their fate
Peter Cohan: Harry Potter and the Pot of Gold
Tom Barlow: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Will Rowling kill off Harry?