What do we lose?

[davewitley]

I'm not sure if people are saying that the problem is that we've 
changed, or the books have.

The plot is bound to advance through the series.  No doubt JKR could 
have written a picaresque series, in which the random delights of 
geographical exploration - with, perhaps, a little romance - would 
sustain it to the end alone.  A sort of magical "Humphrey Clinker".  
But, really, did we ever think that was what she was writing?  I 
would have supposed the point Alan Jacobs makes, that everything is 
converging on the climactic confrontation with Voldemort, is pretty 
well what was to be expected once we realised that she wasn't just 
updating "Billy Bunter".  The delight has to drain away before the 
end (but not necessarily *at* the end): it's what was always 
promised.

We, too, may grow old and world-weary.  We may start quoting TS 
Eliot, a sure sign that second teenagerhood has been entered and 
that second childhood is not far away.  But I think it's a bit rich 
to blame JKR for this natural state of affairs.

The real loss, IMO, is not interest in Harry Potter, but *shared* 
interest in *something*.  What's to discuss?  With whom?

David