At the end of each installment of the Harry Potter series, Professor Dumbledore and Harry engage in a philosophical discussion that serves two important functions: first, to underscore the lessons that Harry has learned during his most recent encounter with Lord Voldemort; and second, to illustrate the power relationship that exists between the experienced adult, Dumbledore, and the talented neophyte, Harry. Many literary critics have observed that these key moments represent highly conventional, didactic summations which do little more than reinforce the moral sentiments of the stories.
However, I would argue that these discussions become a flashpoint for Rowling's critique of the concept of "childhood innocence" - the idea that children must be protected from certain realities regarding the human condition, until such time as the adults in their lives deem them mature enough to handle "the truth." With each successive text in the Harry Potter series, the power relationship between Dumbledore and Harry shifts by increments, until the dénouement of The Order of the Phoenix, when Dumbledore admits that his desire to keep secret the unpleasant nature of Harry's prophecy was an impulse that he deeply regrets.
In my paper, I outline the manner in which Rowling moves from what I term a "conventional" examination of the concept of childhood innocence in the first two installments of the Harry Potter series to a more critical assessment in both The Prisoner of Azkaban and The Goblet of Fire, culminating in the openly "insurgent" moment in The Order of the Phoenix, when Harry receives a full disclosure of his destiny, as recorded in Sibyll Trelawney's prophecy. This narrative progression, which compels both child and adult readers to consider the fallibility of Enlightenment-era ideals of childhood, places Rowling squarely within a tradition begun in the 19th century by Charles Dickens and Mark Twain, and continued in the modern era by Judy Blume and Lois Lowry.