> Ok, I have to take exception to this. . . . but to the idea that Harry Potter books *are* less obvious in respect to identifiable good guys and bad guys than adult books.

> 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.

I should have expanded my point. She hates Snape, even though he is, in fact, a good guy. She hates him for the way he treats Harry and all the Gryffindors, and helps the Slytherins. She also thinks if he feels a certain way (ie., Pro-Harry - which he obviously does), he should ACT that way. She’s a kid, and can’t understand yet that people can be one way in reality, and act another way.

> 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.

That’s why I make a case for what “appears” to be obvious. (And my apologies for not clarifying this in my previous post). Any book that begins to teach a child to see that people are multi-faceted is a valuable one. They are complex books, but the way Rowling structures the plot development is certainly for children. We don’t see the sympathetic part of Snape until the end of each of the novels, and even then, he retains his aura of nastiness that makes him appear to be unlikable. (Alan Rickman plays this duality to perfection in the movies).

It's a hard lesson to learn that people can be acting one way and thinking another. That's one of the absolute strengths in these novels.

te "and yes, I know I spelled McGonagall wrong in my last post. Turn me to stone." ach