"Of course, our freedom to reimagine the world, or to imagine other worlds, is not without limits: We cannot, for example, imagine a world in which love should be evil and hatred good; for the supremacy of love is not a mere contingent fact about the created world, but is an eternal and immutable fact about God himself. It’s one thing to rewrite the order of creation in fiction (since God could have chosen to create the world other than how it is), but quite another to rewrite the nature of the Creator himself (since God cannot be other than who and what he is)."

I would add an eighth hedge, though, that, though moreso with Tolkien, they are different with the distinguishing between what I'll call epic magic, rather than what I'll call dark magic or trivial magic.
For some defining of terms, "epic magic" is the type of magic which is found in works such as Lord of the Rings, The Inheritance Cycle, or Star Wars, where the magic has a very other-ness sense and is primarily used for "epic" purposes. To further define what I mean, this is in opposition to "trivial magic," where the magic is used for light purposes and is so ingrained in the community that it is the source of pranks, small needs, or other small things. Although I haven't read the series, from what the articles said, Harry Potter has trivial magic in it, as well as the Septimus Heap series, which I've read. (Dark magic is the type of magic in this world with seances, ouija boards, etc.)
Having defined terms then, I think that trivial magic is more endearing than epic magic because epic magic has a sense of other-ness to it that I think trivial magic minimalizes, as well as making it seem more attractive to the reader.