BBC has what is know as a Visionaries Debate going where two great people are pitted against each other, to slug it out, to see who is the better visionary (BBC Worldwide Visionaries). The latest one is Charles Dickens versus JK Rowlings. Now, I don't think either writers are visionaries in that they wrote fiction which is in the realm of imagination. Visionaries are those who do things, who are leaders and can see ahead and lead others to an idealistic goal. So BBC have you erred somewhere?
JK Rowling's success was mainly based on the marketing muscle of her publisher. Not to mention pre-release publicity hoopla of her books (does Harry Potter die?, etc). Also, pliss to note that her books are not affordable to the common-book-reading public. In this respect they are like an expensive brand of perfume, to be flaunted than read. I consider Enid Blyton a better writer than JK Rowlings. Enid wrote more books than Julianne and her books are loved by children and adults of all ages throughout the world. I still read her books, if for nothing more than reliving the guilty pleasure I had while reading it hidden within my textbook in class.
In my humble opinion (IMHO), though I admire both these writers, neither of them qualify for the position of a visionary, so my vote goes for naught.