(no subject)
But I don't get it. What exactly did you feel needed to be "patched up" and what "silly explanations" are you talking about? If you're going to make such allegations, you need to be more specific. If it's Harry's survival that you're referring to, the fact that Harry didn't die has a complex explanation to it. I only understood it fully the 2nd time I read the book (which I don't think you must've done, going by this post of yours), and there's nothing silly about it. Going by the rules of magic that Rowling established in her previous books, the explanation given by Dumbledore in King's Cross was quite logical.
You say "easy reading" like it's a bad thing. When most people read books (especially fiction), it's because they want entertainment and relaxation, and not something that requires presence of mind to read or something where every line has some greater, deeper meaning to it. The beauty of Harry Potter lies in its simplicity, in the end it is about good, evil, love, friendship and bravery. Rowling has created such a wide array of interesting characters over the course of the books, from Harry to Dumbledore to Voldemort to even Umbridge. They have become a pop symbol BECAUSE they're so good. And in some years, they too will be known as classics. Which is exactly what happened with Oliver Twist and Moby Dick.
And when I ask you to adjust your tastes, all I mean is that don't look at everything with such a critical eye. You seem to be judging the entire series on little mistakes here and there instead of looking at the series as a whole. Dickens and Melville wrote standalone novels. Rowling wrote a 7-book novel over the course of 10 years, so a few mistakes here and there can be forgiven. Again, Harry Potter is a children's story, it is not meant to be taken so seriously, and that is one of the reasons for its success.
And if you "simply stated Harry Potter because the movie release was a king of trigger" then at least have some solid grounds for making such harsh criticisms. Just throwing words around is easy and anyone can do it.
You say "easy reading" like it's a bad thing. When most people read books (especially fiction), it's because they want entertainment and relaxation, and not something that requires presence of mind to read or something where every line has some greater, deeper meaning to it. The beauty of Harry Potter lies in its simplicity, in the end it is about good, evil, love, friendship and bravery. Rowling has created such a wide array of interesting characters over the course of the books, from Harry to Dumbledore to Voldemort to even Umbridge. They have become a pop symbol BECAUSE they're so good. And in some years, they too will be known as classics. Which is exactly what happened with Oliver Twist and Moby Dick.
And when I ask you to adjust your tastes, all I mean is that don't look at everything with such a critical eye. You seem to be judging the entire series on little mistakes here and there instead of looking at the series as a whole. Dickens and Melville wrote standalone novels. Rowling wrote a 7-book novel over the course of 10 years, so a few mistakes here and there can be forgiven. Again, Harry Potter is a children's story, it is not meant to be taken so seriously, and that is one of the reasons for its success.
And if you "simply stated Harry Potter because the movie release was a king of trigger" then at least have some solid grounds for making such harsh criticisms. Just throwing words around is easy and anyone can do it.