>If anyone's interested in reading fantasy while waiting for the next HP
>tome, which promises to be the largest yet, I can supply you with a list of
>books worthy of your consideration.  There was fantasy in the same vein
>before HP, ahem.  I'm not just talking about my book, but also about Diana
>Wynne Jones and Diane Duane and those "Worst Witch" books. . . .
>
They're okay, but Joanne Rowlings has a more upbeat writing style than the
"Worst Witch" books. "Worst Witch" is actually more fun
in the TV series
than in the books, believe it or not. The actresses give it a liveliness
that the writing doesn't

>Also, technique noted . . . with that "Sit down and I'll tell you what I
>should've told you" bit, she's using a really hackneyed way of going back
>to "backfill"

I doubt it's "backfill." It's more likely the answer to one of
the questions
posed by earlier books. There are a number of questions, the answers to at
least some we know for sure that Dumbeldore knows. The reason this is such a
good teaser is that we can guess at the most likely things Dumbeldore will
reveal, but we don't know for sure which one, and we don't know what
difference knowing it will make to Harry and what Harry does. Knowing Joanne
Rowling, it could even be something we don't know about yet - a brand new
question

> and fix some things she must've painted herself into a corner
>with in the early books (when she had no idea she'd become a trademark
>herself)

I *very* much doubt that. She planned out all 7 books before she wrote the
first one. There's been no evidence of being painted into corners yet. Of
course she had no idea she would be this big - she expected to remain
invisible - but that doesn't affect the stories

>and/or that she has thought of to add to earlier explanations.

You haven't read any of it, have you?

>If I thought I could get away with that in a series, I'd eat my Stetson, if
I
>had one.

Joanne Rowlings couldn't get away with it, either. If she did what you're
accusing her of, she wouldn't be as popular as she is. The reason her books
are having the effect they are, is that they're not full of cheap tricks
like so many children's books are.

> But now that I know that some people react positively to it, I'll
>take it off my list of things never to do in novels.  
>


A better use of your time would be reading the books before accusing the
author of imagined shortcomings. At least then you could tie your
accusations to the writing

Laurie


--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha