You must really hate Harry Potter to say that Stephen King is doing better. He hasn't published anything readable in years (although I have fragile hopes for the new Dark Tower books).
The Harry Potter books at least have a sense of humour, and don't take themselves too seriously. They're not patronising, they're never boring, and the attention to detail and continuity from book to book is pretty impressive. The first one is pretty basic, but I think that's deliberate - the books increase in depth and complexity as they go along.
I'm with you on michael chabon, I think he's fantastic, although I haven't picked up his latest yet - I'm too poor, I have to wait for it to make it into the 2nd hand stores. But as for the rest, I have to say, I still think Harry Potter is of a higher quality. Maybe not better than Kundera's best work, but that's behind him, and he's pretty idiosyncratic. The rest are only so-so, especially eggers, whom I must admit I despise - his writing's so unoriginal and formulaic, and so saccharine. He and Proulx are the kind of writers I would give to my mother for her birthday, but don't like to read myself. And Delillo, jesus, I haven't read anything as boring as 'Libra' in years.
I've read at least one or two books by most of the people on your list, and didn't enjoy most of them, so I guess we just have a basic difference in taste.