Genre WAS: That Bloody Man Again

[pippin_999]

Nora:
> When I think of fantasy, there are some hallmarks of the modern
genre  that I think Rowling's work is distinctively missing, or
doesn't engage  with on as deep of a level as it could have.  And the
first and foremost of those is the magic.
> 
> Particularly as we go on in the series, there are times when I
shake my  head and think "That's a really neat and inventive piece of 
magic, but how is it supposed to really work?"  You'll note that
Rowling's standard explanation is "It's magic--it does that.", which
I hateto  say it, but is a rather ad hoc sort of answer.  Typically in
fantasy,  the foundations of how and why the magic works are utterly
essential to  the unique cosmology which each author is constructing,
and it often  has really deep thematic resonance.
> 

Pippin:
What if the deep thematic resonance is that the way the magic works
doesn't matter? 

What really matters is friendship and bravery, with a little assist
from books and cleverness. Magic can't change your life. Love can.

No, Rowling isn't the first person to ever say these things; she
didn't claim that she was. 

I do see her subverting the idea of heroes and villains, very
much. There are, in her world, some uniquely good individuals,
and some uniquely bad ones, but most people are not so easily
categorized. They are the sum of their choices, good and bad.
'The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters' is 
being expanded into 'the world isn't divided into good guys 
and bad guys'. There are no Orcs, no  clones, no sentient beings 
who are  nonetheless vermin to be exterminated.

Pippin