> Compared to the first book, I'd say "Chamber"
>is a bit ho-hum, though I really like some of
>the atmosphere. I think you'll find
>that "Prisoner of Azkaban" is more interesting,
>though it also takes a while to get going.

Don't *all* British novels take a while to get going, though? I'm still not entirely convinced "A Tale of Two Cities" *ever* actually "gets going".

As I see it, Chamber, as you said, it easily the weakest of the four books. Prisoner and Goblet are respectively the tightest plotted and the best so far.

I predict that Iss will like the as-yet-unpublished last three books in the series more than he liked any of the first four, if the way Goblet sets up the story arc for the remainder of the series is any indication. I get the feeling that things will start taking much less time to set up and the "point" of the story will be more immediately apparent. Then again, I could be wrong. It's been known to happen.

On a side note: Sam, you're a total wuss for not having read Goblet yet. Come on, you're going to read Goblet and Phoenix together in less than a week and *still* have to wait at least a year for the sixth book, so what's the point? No matter how long they are, they're still kid's books, and they're still easy reading.

-- Dave