[Accygirl]

Of course she did... I was quite a fan of the Disney Princesses to the point that we had to take turns playing Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming. In fact, she would have NEVER let me read Deathly Hallows when I was seven because the deaths in the book would have given me nightmares, and she believed in protecting her daughter from evil until she was ready.

The point that I was making was the fact that J.K. Rowlings wasn’t writing Harry Potter for the young elementary set. The books, especially the latter books, were meant for tweens/ teens. When I was ten, I could have handled Harry’s death.

I understand that seven year olds parents might let them read Deathly Hallows (and I think that it’s wrong on their parts), but I don’t think that Rowlings should have to change her vision just because some parents are willing to subject their seven year olds to the harsh realities of life.

[Corin Stormhands]

Of course she did...

Well, somewhere along the line, she failed to teach you the meaning of sarcasm.

When I was ten, I could have handled Harry’s death.

Surely not all children are as special as you.

Look, you continue to miss my point. I don't know if you're just that obtuse or if you're just stubborn. I really don't care. I'm tired of arguing with you.

I really think you're not reading what I'm saying, or what anyone else is saying for that matter. If you were, you'd have realized way up thread that the author's name is J.K. Rowling, not Rowlings as you have typed repeatedly.

Unless, of course, you've read an entirely different set of books.

Which would explain a helluva lot.

[Sloth]

but I don’t think that Rowlings should have to change her vision just because some parents are willing to subject their seven year olds to the harsh realities of life.

I think you are having difficulty understanding the difference between your vision and that of "Rowlings", whoever that is.