> > 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.
>
> However, this doesn't mean that books which use archetypes are of less literary value. The quality of the writing is what makes Rowling's work stand out, to me. This is true of many classic works -- if you gave a dry summary of the plot and characters, sure, the book would appear indistinguishable from the mountains of dross which are pumped out by publishers annually.

The use of character archetypes (however blatant it may be) isn't what I'm contesting - they are well written books (for the most part), but the thing is that they require no real effort to read - it's the kind of thing you read on a long train journey, or if you're feeling ill.

My personal "classics" are those which have evoked a genuine emotional response from me, the sort of books that leave you pondering what happened in them for hours afterwards. I can't say I've ever experienced that with Harry Potter books. The only time I've ever even laughed at them was at an oblique Monty Python reference in "Goblet of Fire" - the password to Dumbeldore's study being "cockroach cluster", from the spectacular "Crunchy Frog" sketch.

> First, Richard E. Grant is just plain wrong

Really? Well, I suppose he *was* writing about the letters between Henry Miller and Anais Nin, so God only knows what being best friends with those two would involve, but in this case I think he's spot on. The HP books are almost tailor made for that kind of association - who will you identify with most? Will you go for the brave, but ultimately bland hero, Harry, or will you project onto the resourceful, bookish, socially-awkward, outspoken Hermione (specifically targeting a demographic through archetypes? Anyone? Anyone? Data? 7 of 9?)?

>It's a mistake to think that because something's aimed at children, it should be dumber than usual

Did I say "dumb"? I don't believe so, and anyway, it wasn't my point. I was just pointing out that it's gloriously unsubtle.

>I thought Rowling's writing is well above the level of the average modern children's book for subtlety.

Perhaps, if you're including "The Hungry Little Caterpillar" in there, and all those trashy "horror" novels. But most of the reviews of HP books put them on the same level as writing aimed at grown-ups, and in that respect, they aren't subtle at all. And seeing as I'm old enough to read grown-up books, THAT's what I'm comparing her writing to.

>Could you give examples of some of these blatant hooks and heavily-telegraphed twists?

Yes, I could. But I'd have to refer back to the books and make up a list, and as sad as I may be, that's just not going to happen anytime soon.

>Then again, maybe I have a ten-second attention span too. That's always a possibility.

I'm *still not* denying that they are fairly enjoyable books - for what they are. And what they are is an example of the use of character, plot, and setting to grab and hold a reader's attention. It's not a personal attack on J.K. Rowling, Brunnen_G, or anyone else. It's just an opinion.

> >the battle for Helm's Deep was more like Zulu than anything else?
>
> Well, it's an epic battle. Any epic battle is going to resemble any other epic battle to some degree.

I just found the build up about how DESPERATE the situation was in the movie a little too much, and was waiting for Michael Caine to pop up over the battlements. "Oi! Orcs! Keep the bloody noise down!"

Bo"Sorry you were late"urne