Harry Potter: Its all over

It's a poor writer indeed for whom "magic" is synonymous with "convenient excuse for deus ex machinas"; in the best tradition of fantasy, magic operates by rules.I wouldn't say that Rowling's magic doesn't have rules, but they're never clearly elucidated, and I found myself wishing I could teleport into the series with a copy of the Player's Handbook and say "Avada Kadavera? Avada Kedavera? You people are getting picked off by a ranged touch attack death spell - and none of you thought to roll cleric?"There's a part where Ron shoots a spell with three wands at once, and that seems like such a powerful technique that I was surprised that nobody else had thought of it, or ever did it again. But maybe I just liked it so much because it reminded me of another work of fiction I particularly enjoyed.I didn't care much for the ending, I guess. I mean, did George wind up running the joke store, or not?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

You're talking to someone for whom Foundation, Lord of the Rings, and Song of Fire and Ice (the first one or two, anyway) were "kids books" - books I read as a kid, anyway - so I don't really appreciate the distinction. Kids aren't idiots and writing for them isn't an excuse to be half-assed.If kids can play Pokemon they can handle an elucidated, rigorous magical system. Haven't you ever seen a ten-year-old talk about dinosaurs? I could have had a master's degree in paleontology when I was 12. Now I can't even remember the difference between brachiosaurus and diplodocus. It didn't really hamper my enjoyment of the book, it just gave me some "uh, what about..." moments. Clearly, though, it's enough of an issue that some people didn't enjoy the work. I assure you, not liking Harry Potter isn't an indicator of being a soulless automaton - it's an indicator that one likes a great deal of rigor in one's magic.

Well, there's your problem. If you gave up after the second one, you didn't see the third one - the best they've made, so far. The most recent is nearly as good. (The fourth, not so much.)The first two were plagued by slavish devotion to the source material and too much time spent oggling the wacky stuff that happens at Hogwarts. They more than get over that by movie 3. I highly recommend it. Just see it and see if it doesn't rekindle a little interest in the films. I nearly didn't bother to see HP5, HP4 was so bad, but the memory of 3 (and the promise of more Gary Oldman, why do I find him so much fun to watch in movies) was enough to get my wife and I into the theatre.

Maybe that's why he doesn't like it. Not everybody likes morality tales and coming of age stories. Some people like fantasy the same way they read bridge columns; they're interested in how clever people use tools and take advantage of rules - or even cheating - to solve problems.

If you're familiar with this use of the term, would it be fair to say that Snape was a Nice Guy?I caught on that he was being set on a redemptive arc, etc., but I was dismayed that the way it worked out was that his sense of male sexual entitlement was so big it drove him from the Dark Lord. Uh, yeah, that's a real redemptive story there.