Correction, I love good academic BS that can make a name for itself.
I'm reading a collection of essays called Reading Harry Potter, which contains an essay called "The Fallen Empire," talking about HP as being ambivalent about the British Empire (not condemnatory enough, since Bill and Charlie have obviously colonial jobs, though at least the books pay lip service to other cultures). Among other sins, she points out that it is a British school which "promotes international goodwill, the inspiration for the battle against evil, and stands as the emblem of enlightened thought."
This is apparently a huge sign that the books have neocolonialist leanings.
It couldn't simply be a result of the fact that THE BLOODY BOOKS ARE SET IN BRITAIN. If the center of the conflict was somewhere else, if some other place were the inspiration for the battle against evil, then that's where the books would be set. Ya know? And unless the essayist is suggesting that British writers either shouldn't write heroic fantasy or should never set it in Britain, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. Things have to actually be set in a place, and by definition, that's where things are going to happen.
I'm just sayin'.