Disapointed in Potter?

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 127768


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 <ewe2 at 4...> wrote:
> Where are the theories of yesteryear? Where are the cluehunters for
> the basis of the connection of Harry's eyes and wandless magic? 

Valky:
WE're around still *giggle*.. but the thing about discussing/debating
hypotheses is that canon is required, and volumetrically canon is a
glass of water while the annals of ethics, psychoanalysis, and
political correction are a 500 gallon tank, relatively inexhaustible
in comparison. So in simpler terms we don't have quite so much gas to
blow.. *more giggles*


ewe:
> I don't doubt next book will be even harder to bear for 
> some of you, but I just don't care about that. I _want_ my 
> preconceptions to be challenged. I _want_ the Rowling ship to 
> successfully navigate the shoals of jagged plot reefs and _surprise_ 
> me. God knows we need that in fiction. Otherwise it's a load of 
> boring old farts disecting themes.

Valky:
Here here!! *stops giggling and raises her glass*
Thankyou to potioncat for making her honest opinion known, it's not
that I can't or don't want to appreciate the discussion topics that
have dominated boards lately, but that it's not the *only* discussion
worth having. Really it isn't.