What baffles me is why the NY Times, which is the harshest critic in the world, praised Deathly Hallows and you didn't? No less than Stephen King gives credible credence to Rowling's writing and yet, you claim to be better than King as a critic? I really wonder why you haven't come up with your own chef-d'oevre yet? Only then will the whole world know you if you're just one plain arrogant critic or not!

Sadly, when one gets their facts all wrong, it's hard for readers of your critique to respect you. You simply point an accusing finger at your opponents, and oh-so-conveniently turn away from your own faults. Might I add that I /do/ agree with many aspects of your article, much as I dislike your tone and arrogance, but I can hardly say that I liked your barely credible review. Please, next time, try and and get something right before your let your spindly fingers touch the keyboard.

Sorry, but I agree with Stuart. It's harder to stand up and say something's wrong, than to run with the crowd pretending to be on holiday! Cheers!

OK... so let's look at the meat of your critique and not at you.

"...if readers are expecting an emotional wallap, I fear they may be disappointed." An opinion easy to disagree with. Rowling had to tie up the loose ends and reveal the secret agendas, etc. She did so with a narrative that true to the series and to epic, good vs. evil, literature. There was plenty of emotion for those who are fans. For those who are not, it falls flat. It would not matter how she tied up the loose ends or resolved the ultimate conflict.

"...softly boiled eggs." Why not just boiled eggs, or soft boiled eggs. Adverbs exist for reason. In non-fiction, they should be avoided as much as possible and used only as an occasional seasoning. But, in action/adventure and children's fiction, adverbs can give us flavor and nuance not acheived otherwise. This is not "high" literature or art. These books are fun adventure. Rowling may use adverbs more than you or I would prefer, but she has kept the style consistent throughout.

You criticize the opening two chapters. The first chapter is dark and sinister and builds the suspense and draws the picture of the true evilness [Nazi-esque obsession] of the Voldemort and the Deatheaters. The second chapter brings us back to the mundane with Harry cutting himself. While you feel that this breaks the "air of foreboding" established in the opening, it is in keeping with other books in the series in contrasting light and dark, good and evil. Look at the opening chapters of Goblet of Fire for example. The pacing of the books is consistent. There is a constant rythym of mundane, action, suspense, mundane, etc. We are constantly going back and forth in this series. That, to me, makes the series more "believable" to the average reader and the young reader in particular. It also contrasts with the more common shoot-em-up, action-in-every-scene movie and video game mentality

To continue my thoughts on your review:

In your paragraph on the virtues of the book, you touch on Dumbledore's past. Surely you recognize what a departure from classic literature and epic good vs. evil this was. The mentor of the hero is rarely depicted as a "real" human with complexity and depth. Normally, the mentor is the most rigid of stereotypes, all good, no evil, all-knowing, etc. But, here we have our mentor strip of his omniscience with a peak at his own troubled, human past. Rowling has hinted all along that Dumbledore is fallible and human and, in interviews, has gone so far to say that he is "not" a Christ-figure.

Rowling's stereotypes or classic characters do indeed have a depth that is lacking in many such stories. Her characters are neither all good nor all evil [with the exception of Voldemort] and they make mistakes and use dialogue that is appropriate to their ages and their characters. So, your criticism of some of the prose as cliched may be correct... with the stress on "some." But the dialogue, however it sounds to your ear, always seems to be appropriate to the character. And some characters would have been at home in "Allo, Allo."

Rowling is a story teller. But, I believe that she also is a good plotter and extremely good at characterization. Her overall plot with her many sub-plots are intertwined and consistent.

As far as your complaint that she isn't "original"... well... of course not. The basic plot, the classic themes, and the use of established metaphors, plot devices and myths are all well-used and comfortable to us the readers. It is her use of these things, the slight changes she willingly makes in them, and the details that keep us coming back for more. Good vs. Evil... Good has to win! This is, at least nominally, children's literature, not Gothic horror or suspense. The bad guys cannot win, and the hero cannot die or stay dead.

The