> When you're a child, it helps to have your
>literature contain obviously identifiable good guys
>and bad guys. It makes it easier to figure out
>motivation, and predict plot development. It leads
>to developing skills that allow you to appreciate
>"less obvious" books later in life.

Ok, I have to take exception to this. Not necessarily to the idea that children's books need to be "less obvious" than adult books (although I have half a mind to take exception to that anyway) but to the idea that Harry Potter books *are* less obvious in respect to identifiable good guys and bad guys than adult books.

If anybody hasn't yet read the books and doesn't want spoilers, stop here.

I was *convinced* throughout the first book that Snape was the bad guy. As it turns out, he was not only *not* the bad guy, he was in fact a *good* guy. And in each of the books to date, Rowling makes a good case for Snape being "the bad guy" in at least some respect, and it always turns out that, although he does have an irrational distates for Harry, he is, in fact, A GOOD GUY.

Unless I (and many other adults I know who read the books) am dumber than the average 10 year old (and I'll kindly ask everyone to refrain from the obvious joke here) the Harry Potter books, at least on that level, are *not* less complex than more adult books.

-- Dave