If she's still browsing the forums, a question for Jenny who writes:

"...from a psychological perspective, J.K. Rowling has taken Harry exactly where he needs to go."

I'm a bit confused by this statement. While I would agree that the angst-riddled path she has chosen take his …more character down is understadable given the various traumas that have occured in his past, I'm also perplexed at the lack of sophistication with which the issue is handled. Sure, Harry's had a bad run of things but I think that it's important to remember the facts of his situation that was presented at the very beginning of the series. Harry came from a home where neglect, derision, humiliation and other assorted abuses were daily events. Harry probably should have been either a lot angrier, completely withdrawn or exhibited anti-social behavior of some kind. But, no - that's simply not Harry, is it? Regardless of all this, he was still a normal, reletively well-adjusted child who got on quite well with others. This is quite uncommon (closer to well-nigh unbelievable) but makes a bold, unequivocating statement about the kind of person he is and it is prominent throughout the first four books.

So, how is it possible that his mindset that has already survived through so much abuse, suddenly evaporate? I would maintain that such a quick and radical alteration of Harry's personality is unlikely due to his well-documented resiliency and that there is no evidence that a single event preceeding this had caused immediate catastrophic trauma to his psyche.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that it's impossible for Harry to change but I think that a subtle, slow burn over an extended period of time followed by a clearly illustrated breaking point would be a lot more believable.

Oh, and lastly, I don't mean to be offensive but to scoff at people who criticize Tolkien's style just because they themslves cannot write something that exceeds the Lord of the Rings isn't fair and more than a little problematic if you stop and consider the ramifications.

Forgive the messy organization of thought... I'm pretty tired at the moment.

In essence, what you're suggesting is that the value of an opinion should be based strictly on expertise. In this system, any opinion that does not originate from a superior source should be considered worthless which effectively renders 99.99999999999999% of all opinions on every subject at every time as such. This leaves about three people on earth who's comments should actually be taken seriously. But wait! Even that is not certain... By who's authority do these people earn the distinction of expert in a particular discipline? In matters concerning physics, mathematics and NASCAR this really isn't too big a problem but what of fields (like writing or other arts) that are, by their very nature, completely subjective? Okay, now let’s backtrack a bit… Because you have already established the bright line rule that, "If you can't do better, who are you to criticize?" then you must also accept that, in reality, the true implication is, "If you can't do better, everything you say, be it positive or negative bears no weight". As I see it, the situation is very tough now. With the negation of public opinion there are no acceptable means by quantification to determine what is a great work and what is utter spew. This leaves us with only the opinion of the great authors themselves but... um... well... We have no way of knowing who they are, remember?

I think that when evaluating the validity of personal opinion one should focus on how well the statement was defended and not simply tossed aside because of their source. (less)

Hmm... When I wrote my review of Goblet of Fire, I expected the first response to be somewhat more venomous considering Harry's enormous (deservedly so, I think) following. All miscalculations aside, I'd like to thank Davina of BookBrowse.com for pointing out a few …more inconsistencies that I, myself have noticed. I too wholeheartedly wish that J. K. Rowling "gets her act together" in the next few books but in all honesty, in the case of such oddities as the "Time Travel Problem", the chances of this appear to be quite small. Rowling's world is fun, whimsical and built to take the reader on a flight of pure fancy but I doubt she has taken the time to carefully construct it and now it's probably too late to back-engineer things to make them logically cohesive. All I really hope for is that, if not the world, then the stories themselves regain solidity.

By the way, Davina, in my opinion, the most glaring inconsistency is the question of the wand to cast spells: Do you or don't you need a wand? In book one, Harry does magic in his "pre-wizard" stage without one and Hagrid points this out as proof of Harry's talent but in the rest of the books it is impossible for anyone to do so much as float a feather without a wand. I mean, if it were possible, wouldn't one of the four have done something to disarm Snape at the ending of book three? (less)

I've read all four of the Harry Potter books and overall, they're very, very good. Harry's world is whimsically charming and Rowling's style is as engaging as any author out there, blah, blah, yada, yada... However, doesn't it bother anyone that Goblet of Fire's plot makes …more absolutely no sense? Since I'm not supposed to give away "crucial plot elements" in this review I can't even begin to explain what was wrong with this book but for those of you who have already read it, I hope you can decipher this: Harry is set up by Someone and has to pass all these various challenges to get him to come into contact with a certain thing that takes him to you know who. Well then, if that's the case, couldn't this Someone come up with an easier way for Harry to come into contact with the certain thing? Why all the hoopla? What purpose did it serve to go through that? Wasn't the entire ordeal completely unnecessary?

The conclusion to the mystery was, in a word, absurd. I hope this doesn't offend anyone but the story was hokey; completely contrived, beyond believability and leaning heavily on one of the cheapest plot devices I've seen in quite a while. Goblet of Fire is simply not worthy of an author as skilled as Rowling. (less)