> It's interesting to note how ravenous the publisher and the public are for the next book; usually there is a period of a year between when an author completes a book and when it first hits shelves.

I don't understand the instant elevation of the HP series to "all-time classic" status, and the disproportionate amount of public enthusiasm for the books.

I mean, they're fairly good books, the sort of thing I read when I've got a cold and really don't want to have to think too much. They're like episodes of Star Trek - instantly identifiable character archetypes, straightforward story arc, and with a good dollop of fantasy thrown in to fire your imagination.

But it's all a little *too* obvious. To paraphrase Richard E. Grant, the thing about good writing is that you feel like if you lived in the same circumstances as the people in the story, you'd definitely be best friends with them. I can see that people would experience this with the Harry Potter books - but J.K. Rowling isn't very subtle in her approach. To be fair, they are children's books after all, and the blatant hooks and heavily-telegraphed twists are probably spot on for keeping a child with a 10-second attention span glued to the book.

It's funny - I can see how the books attract readers, but I just can't see why people fall for it.

Bo"Mind you, I don't get why LOTR is so popular, either - straightforward fantasy tale broken up by pages and pages of DULL."urne

(and seeing as I've probably dug the hole too deep to climb out - didn't anyone else think that "The Two Towers" was a bit over the top to be really good, and that the battle for Helm's Deep was more like Zulu than anything else?)