There were many who had no connection to Miller that believed the end was near. Literalist belief extends back to German, Dutch and English expositors from the 17th Century. Belief in the near advent of Christ was not unique to Miller. It was the characteristic belief of most in Christendom both before and after Miller. Millerite Adventists were in the minority among belevers in the near close of the age. If you really had read Russell's Studies in the Scriptures you would have seen that he never read anything Miller wrote. (He says so, and it's obvious from content.) Russell was an Age to Come Literalist. He spent the years from 1870-1876 associating with them and believed their distinctive doctrine. Literialist doctrine is not Adventism.
That you associate all end of age belief with Miller suggests that your research is very shallow. By 1876 Barbour was no longer an Adventist. He left that belief for Mark Allen's Blessed Hope theology. Russell, Barbour and their associates did not expect end-times events to be what Millerite Adventists expected. They owed their expectations to a trail of expositors that took them back to the German Piscator, and the Baptist Whiston and others none of whose theology is remotely similar to Millerite Adventism.
Russell's sole connection to Miller was the belief inherited from Barbour that the 1843 movement, though doctrinally flawed, woke the virgins to serious study. All of Russell's doctrines come from sources other than Adventism. For instance, Russell's "fair chance" doctrine came from other sources and was rejected uniformly by Adventists.
If I misunderstood your comment, I am sorry. My point remains the same. Russell was not Adventist in doctine or outlook. His end of the age teaching owed more to Presbyterian expostors and One Faith belief than to any other movement.
Besides ... I like the Oz books.
Glasses? Yes, I turn 98 in a few months. I use glasses.