Harry Potter: Its all over

Obviously everyone here is a very mature and serious minded person with no time for things like entertainment and childrens books. Otherwise how can one explain the massive dearth of any sort of Harry Potter related thread in any of the EvC forums, especially now that Book 7 has come out and completed the series.I just finished the last book on Sunday and I really enjoyed it. It might have been a bit heavy on exposition for some people but personally I love backstory and infodumps so I had no complaints. Some of the plot twists required greater recall of the previous books, particularly 'Half-blood Prince', than I was able to muster straight away, but I think reading them back to back might clear things up a bit.All in all I think Miss Rowling has produced a very enjoyable and readable series. The harry potter books may not be great literature, but then wouldn't say that many classic childrens books and series would count as that either.I'd certainly rate Harry Potter over the Narnia series in terms of depth and enjoyment, even though Narnia was what I grew up with at home and on the telly.I don't want to go into any spoilery plot details, so what are other peoples opinions on the last book in the series, or of the series as a whole?TTFN,WKP.S. If you have already read the book or don't care about major spoilers then I would recommend the Potterdamerung parody, actually a very good, although not brief, precis of the book. While this isn't slash fiction or anything I wouldn't recommend it for younger readers as it has strong language and suggestive material. Don't give this to your kids as a Cliff Notes for the book!! Edited by Wounded King, : Added parental advisoryEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

By this logic are the best works of fantasy the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms books? I mean you might as well just be reading the sourcebooks half the time for some of them, and I think at least a few were based on actual campaigns. By the way Crash do you read 'The Order of the Stick'?TTFN,WK

I've just been thinking about the genetics of magic in the Potterverse. I think there is a pretty clearly implied genetic basis, but as with so many things the details are fuzzy.It seems obvious to me that Magic use is a recessive trait since we see a number of magic users with muggle backgrounds (i.e. Hermione, Lily potter, the Creevey brothers).Perhaps the more interesting question if we assume magic use is a recessive trait, is the origin of squibs. Squib characters seem to be rarer than muggle born wizards, so perhaps squibs are the result of de novo mutations which compromise the function of the magic using gene.In a wiki article on blood purity it quotes Miss Rowling describing magical genetics, "Squibs are rare; magic is a dominant and resilient gene." I can't see any way in which this actually fits with the facts as we know them. Magic use seems much more likely to be a recessive trait, if it is a simple trait.TTFN,WK