Most Christians aren't overly concerned, but there's this minority that seems to get really scared of quest/heroic fantasy, and I wonder why?

J.R.R. Tolkein had an excellent comment about people who were up in arms about 'escapist' literature. Basically, it said that only one class of people tended to see escape as a bad thing--jailers.

What's funny is that the pastors of the church I went to in MD and the church I'm thinking of attending here are both rabid fantasy fans. Both love the HP series, and the pastor of the church here is a Buffy fan. The fact that the good guys are flawed and that the bad guys might be deserving of pity is considered a strength of the series.

My theory is that the people who are anti-Potter for religious reasons are either afraid of anything that could get the children's imaginations going in unsanctioned directions, or because various authority figures are telling them that the books are EEEEEVIL. In both cases, I'd suspect that the underlying motive for fearing the books is that they don't want their children to think outside a severely defined box.

HP6 spoilers and HP7 speculation. Is it totally wrong of me to want to see someone Harry knows (Sirius perhaps) brought back as an Inferi?

J.R.R. Tolkein had an excellent comment about people who were up in arms about 'escapist' literature. Basically, it said that only one class of people tended to see escape as a bad thing--jailers.

As a long-time defender of escapism, I love this!

I'm about halfway through HBP, so not a lot to say yet on a lot of subjects. But interesting that Voldemort is a half-blood who's attracted the loyalty of the faction that's so rampantly insistent on pure blood, and -- at least in the legends of the family he may not know about -- a direct descendant of Slytherin himself.

always struck me how like D&D adventures these stories are.

Yes. But it also struck me how BtVS was like a superhero RPG.

Is it totally wrong of me

Yes. But in a good way.

But it also struck me how BtVS was like a superhero RPG

Yep.

I have an unfortunate S7 vibe about the Half-Blood Prince storyarc hopes. I'm concerned it'll be another case of the fan base coming up with a more compelling and shades-of-grey story than the writer(s). OTOH, JKR has another 2 years of writing to work on the next installment, and the ME writers had about 10 minutes per episode.

tuna salad:

One final oh! And!:

I loved that Slughorn mistakenly called Ron "Rupert."

Anne, I had the thought Thank God Sirius didn't leave a body behind

I think Slughorn is the more socially-acceptable manifestation of the Slytherin impulses, which, along with the Real World point of similarities, is enough of a point for me.

I also think it's interesting that the Pure-Blood lines corrupt so easily, not morally, but mentally and power-wise. It's the infusion of muggle blood that allows the power to re-assert itself. Not only in Voldemort's case, but that's the one that comes to mind.

I also think it's interesting that the Pure-Blood lines

Another case is Tonks. Her mother was a pure-blood, her dad was muggle-born, and she has a very rare and valuable ability.

I think that the point of introducing Slughorn and his Slug Club is to show that membership of Slytherin House doesn't automatically indicate that a kid is going to grow up to have an evil cackle and need a copy of the Evil Overlord's handbook. Slughorn's very Slytherin in that he's motivated by his fondness for power and influence, but he's not a villain. I REALLY appreciated that - we had some suggestion from the Sorting Hat in one of the earlier books that indicated that the Houses needed to work together, but I hadn't really hoped she'd give us a tangible character of an acceptable Slytherin. (And a fat character who seems comparatively positive too - THAT was another welcome change.) And of course we heard that Lily would have made a good Slytherin, in Slughorn's opinion.

All good points.

Naturally, my 3D-space book came in the mail today. I'm sure that reading the story on the computer was the key to receiving the actual book.

Fay said:

Wow, that's a difficult comment to address. I find it quite difficult not to be offended by it too, which isn't very constructive of me, and I'll try not to let that colour my response.

Er, I really didn't mean to offend anyone. The comment was meant to be light-hearted, but I see it's not been taken that way. I retract it.

Agree that Snape has been an interesting foil to the tendency to make assumptions about people based on like or dislike of them, but I also think Harry has legitimate reasons to dislike Snape. There is, for instance, Snape's irrational dislike of Harry, which has been present from the beginning.

Fay also said:

But why do you think this is clumsy and heavy-handed? It seems that your reading experience was not "Oh, please, like I'm going to fall for that!"

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If you're saying that I wasn't fooled by Snape's explanations of how he was working for Voldemort despite appearances, then I have to say I was, because that appears to be the case. It may be disproved in the next book, but he's aided Voldemort's plans in at least one way already. If you're saying I wasn't fooled into believing that Snape was working for Dumbledore, then no, I wasn't going to fall for that. As I say, I'm not sure what you mean.

Seems like my comments have been perceived as acrimonious. Sorry about that. Best to all.

I think Harry certainly has legit reasons to hate Snape -- it's the ungrounded leap from hating someone to feeling they're evil that may be the lesson here.