Okay. Thanks for explaining; that's quite interesting. We certainly have some differences in our approach.
I am a teen librarian; I know a lot about children's lit and have read a lot of it, and it's just not true that the fantasy genre, more than any other, relies on stupid adults. I'd say that is far truer of the teen problem novel, where kids are left on their own to solve wrenching problems, or even actively abused. I can, off the top of my head, name several fantasy series (both for kids and for adults) in which the adults act responsible and protective and the "kids" grow up. (L.M. Boston, Diane Duane, Lloyd Alexander, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien - not a kids series at all, but kids read it - Megan Whalen Turner, Ursula LeGuin, and Hilari Bell, just for starters.)
As I said above, my real problem with the Potter books is that they fail, in the end, to tell a story. Most fantasies tell stories and have plots. I also think that some of the problems with the books were glaringly obvious, in retrospect, in both POA (where I was repelled by Dumbledore's callousness and the cruelty to Snape) and GOF (where Cedric Diggory had to die of his virtues, not of his faults - I have a paper about that.) GOF also doesn't hold up as a well-plotted novel. Why on earth couldn't Barty Crouch kidnap Harry at any time? It doesn't make sense. And, honestly, most fantasy does make sense. As Tolkien and Le Guin both said, it has to make more sense than almost any other genre if it is to work.
My feelings about the books - like you, once a couple of fellow librarians talked me into reading them, I thought they might be modern classics of children's fiction. I enjoyed them thoroughly, in spite of seeing their flaws, right through OOTP. OOTP gave me hope that Rowling might be aiming for some real emotional and moral depth. Then came HBP, which disappointed me. It seemed flat and boring at times, and I was troubled by the ending - and by Harry's bullying and cheating behavior, which had no repercussions for him. Up to DH, HBP was my least favorite. It was HBP that propelled me into the fandom; I was looking for some assurance that the Christian themes and symbols I'd noticed in the earlier books meant something. Then came DH - and all the things I'd loved in the series were pretty much negated, while the things that had troubled me were confirmed. What a disappointment!
In the end, these books are morally dubious and fail to tell a coherent story.
But, as I said above, if it was Rowling's goal to get her readers to hate fantasy, she almost succeeded with me. That's something - I guess. I still don't like it, if that was her goal, but at least she may have had a goal.
Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC
I am a teen librarian; I know a lot about children's lit and have read a lot of it, and it's just not true that the fantasy genre, more than any other, relies on stupid adults. I'd say that is far truer of the teen problem novel, where kids are left on their own to solve wrenching problems, or even actively abused. I can, off the top of my head, name several fantasy series (both for kids and for adults) in which the adults act responsible and protective and the "kids" grow up. (L.M. Boston, Diane Duane, Lloyd Alexander, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien - not a kids series at all, but kids read it - Megan Whalen Turner, Ursula LeGuin, and Hilari Bell, just for starters.)
As I said above, my real problem with the Potter books is that they fail, in the end, to tell a story. Most fantasies tell stories and have plots. I also think that some of the problems with the books were glaringly obvious, in retrospect, in both POA (where I was repelled by Dumbledore's callousness and the cruelty to Snape) and GOF (where Cedric Diggory had to die of his virtues, not of his faults - I have a paper about that.) GOF also doesn't hold up as a well-plotted novel. Why on earth couldn't Barty Crouch kidnap Harry at any time? It doesn't make sense. And, honestly, most fantasy does make sense. As Tolkien and Le Guin both said, it has to make more sense than almost any other genre if it is to work.
My feelings about the books - like you, once a couple of fellow librarians talked me into reading them, I thought they might be modern classics of children's fiction. I enjoyed them thoroughly, in spite of seeing their flaws, right through OOTP. OOTP gave me hope that Rowling might be aiming for some real emotional and moral depth. Then came HBP, which disappointed me. It seemed flat and boring at times, and I was troubled by the ending - and by Harry's bullying and cheating behavior, which had no repercussions for him. Up to DH, HBP was my least favorite. It was HBP that propelled me into the fandom; I was looking for some assurance that the Christian themes and symbols I'd noticed in the earlier books meant something. Then came DH - and all the things I'd loved in the series were pretty much negated, while the things that had troubled me were confirmed. What a disappointment!
In the end, these books are morally dubious and fail to tell a coherent story.
But, as I said above, if it was Rowling's goal to get her readers to hate fantasy, she almost succeeded with me. That's something - I guess. I still don't like it, if that was her goal, but at least she may have had a goal.