J.K. Rowling, the “Harry Potter” author, has zoomed to the top of the list of the richest women in Britain. She earns, for instance, 10 times more than actress Catherine Zeta-Jones. Her total wealth is tremendous after a modest beginning.

Immediately, detractors will dwell on Rowling’s vast wealth and, more out of jealousy than anything else, will run her down in many ways. She’ll be condemned for being no Charles Dickens or William Makepeace Thackery and some will call her sacrilegious or exploitative for describing wizards and magic.

Success and wealth have a way of bringing out such opposition, and perhaps there are some merits to what is offered.

But consider this: At a time when an alarming number of people on this globe are illiterate, shockingly many of them in America, the Potter books have encouraged more people to read. The beauty is that many of these have been youngsters who otherwise might have pursued less positive channels, such as mindless video games or worse.

Supposedly, Rowling now has an annual paycheck of some $177 million. She has far more riches than the queen of her native England, for heaven’s sake. Another woman high on the list of “rich Brits” is entertainer Madonna. Anyone seriously think she has contributed as much to the world as Rowling?

Modern society is beset by people and movements aimed at “dumbing down” the populace. The Harry Potter books may not be the greatest pieces of literature ever, but they have the appeal to make people read. And who knows? After youngsters get involved and realize all the wonderful things that can result from reading, maybe they will discover such treasures as “A Tale of Two Cities” and “David Copperfield.”

So J.K. Rowling got a lot richer than Charles Dickens by trying to lure people to the printed page. Bear in mind, too, that her work may have contributed to the joy of reading for millions of young people.

One can’t put a price tag on that.