Here’s the hidden ball trick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_ball_trick

I don’t know the hidden ball trick.

You don’t set up rules with the intent that people will find a way to get around them. You set them up to level the playing field. Here are three real examples of varying degrees of dirtiness to illustrate my point. Two involve baseball, so I hope you’re a little familiar with the game.

1.The hidden ball trick in baseball. It’s sneaky, funny, and hard to pull off, but it doesn’t break the rules or violate the intent of the rules. It’s not cheating.

2.In the 80’s, a journeyman minor league catcher peeled a potato so that it was roughly the shape of a baseball and hid it in his pocket. When the opponent had a reach third base, he pulled out the potato and threw it into left field like he had made an errant pick-off attempt. The runner, thinking the ball was now in the outfield, then trotted home where he was tagged out with the real ball. This is sneaky and hilarious, and it doesn’t really violate the rules or the intent of the rules. Still, I’d have to lean towards cheating on this one, although it’s borderline.

3.The next one is from stock car racing. Here, the bodies of all the cars are identical so that no team can have an aerodynamic advantage over another team. However, a few teams discovered that their cars were actually more streamlined after the front (I think) fenders of their cars were knocked off, and they actually began rigging their fenders so they would fall off at the slightest nudge early in the race. Was it against the rules? No. Was it dirty yes. Did it violate the intent of the rules? Considering the ruled were put in place to make sure nobody had an aerodynamic advantage over anyone else, yes. Could you still argue that this is not technically cheating? Absolutely. But in my opinion it is. And this is is the example that most closely mirrors what Harry did.

It’s not like they were doing a task that was done by wizards for centuries – the others just didn’t consider that approach. They were allowed to use any spell and that is the one he chose. Considering he had virtually no experience, compared to his fellow competitors, it wasn’t even unreasonable.

And honestly, why would anyone else have considered his approach? He happens to be an exceptionally skilled flier – only one other competitor compares. I just don’t see the problem here – he banked on his skills, just like the others all banked on theirs. The point wasn’t to limit what they could use – it was to make them really think about what they could do to get the egg. What they did after they started, was up to them, as long as they stayed in bounds – no holds barred, as it were. Unless he had run away from the field to get his broom, or had a friend get it, it couldn’t be cheating. As it was, it was clever…

I don’t think that it was a very creative solution. It’s Rawling trying to write something creative and failing. Harry’s solution is the type of exploit that people wouldn’t have done before because people would have assumed it was illegal or known that is was not something the rules intended to allow. It’s not an inspired moment of genius. If no wizard ever thought of that before, they’re all morons. I’m not mad that he did it. I’m saying treat it for what it is. A not very clever exploitation of a loophole that went against the spirit of the competition that shouldn’t be celebrated. Either that, or write of a solution that actually is clever.

The spirit of the competition is to make the kids think creatively. They were specifically allowed to make use of any spell they had learned – something that of course put Potter at a distinct disadvantage.

As for that theme throughout the series, I see what you’re saying to a certain degree, though I don’t agree to the extent you seem to take it. However, I am glad you will allow/encourage your kids to read it. I hope that you will take the opportunity to read it again and discuss the things that bothered you about it with them. That, to me, is the greatest value of any books – the discussions they can foster.

If you challenge someone to a fist fight and are allowed to only bring your fists into the room, I don’t see how you’d be able to magically summon morphine. Are your fists magical?

No shit. And I already explained why I think that’s unfair and against the spirit of the competition. If one of the baddies had done it, it would have been portrayed as a one of the lowest dirty tricks imaginable.

I’ll be happy if my sons read Harry Potter when they’re older, but it still bothers me that the entire series is tinged with unfairness in favor of the good guys that the author seems oblivious to. It’s like watching a sporting event where a home team gets all the calls to go their way. In the case of Harry Potter, I think some people don’t see it because they’re fans of the home team.

My eldest was three when the first book was published (four when it became available in the states). The books were a great addition to our library for my son’s sixth birthday (thanks Uncle Scott!) after he was introduced to the series by the movie!

It took us a few years to read the three books (as bedtime reading) – and my son got the habit of reading them again for himself prior to the latest movie release, or in preparation for the next in the series.

We both found a lot to like, with a lot of great lessons – good & bad are relative; rules are not immutable; you need to take responsibility for your actions, and your inactions.

He is still reading the books (now 14)

Neither of us liked Narnia. My wife loved those stories as a kid. I never did. I tried again as an adult but the smell of christian allegory was too strong for me.