I'm going to go see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 tonight with Deb. While I'm not quite as wild about Harry as Deb and Jenny, I like the books and enjoy the movies.

Yesterday, I started looking up reviews. One, from Entertainment Weekly, gave the movie an A-. The rest were so-so at best. I found several more good reviews this morning. What didn't the not-so-great reviews have in common? They all complained that you'd have to be knowledgeable in the Potter-verse to understand what was going on.

Why, in the name of all that's magical, would anyone walk into the 7th movie in a series and expect to know what's going on? We're not talking Jackass XXXIV and a Half here. These movies, like the books, have been building throughout the series. Harry, Ron and Hermoine have grown up, and the problems they're dealing with have grown as well. Of course you need to be familiar with the earlier works in order to "get" this one.

I'm working on the first books in what I hope will be two series. Cozy mysteries tend, as a rule, to have very shallow character arcs for the protagonist. The prevailing wisdom is that if a reader likes the protagonist in the first book, don't shake things up too much or you'll risk losing that reader. There could be a bigger change between book one and book twenty, but it has to be gradual.

What do you think about that? Should a series keep the main character basically the same throughout? How much change is enough? Too much? And should the reader be able to start anywhere in a series and still "get it?"